Transcript Presentation CO2

Launching of the second European Climate
Change Programme (ECCP II)
Stakeholder Conference Brussels
24th October 2005
Lars Strömberg
Vattenfall AB
Stockholm/Berlin
© Vattenfall AB
Who’s got the problem ?
© Vattenfall AB
2
CO2 free power plant
ECCP I - experiences
© Vattenfall AB
3
Cost and Potential of options to reduce CO2 emissions
Principal example
Cost for carbon dioxide
avoidance
Solar
[EUR/ton CO2]
Wind
100
Hydro
Biofuel
Late change coal
Reforestation
CO2 sequestration
Oil to gas
50
Coal to coal
Coal to gas
Potential
[Percent]
0
0
20
40
60
80
The picture will look different when different time
perspectives are adopted
2000-07-16
© Vattenfall AB
Lars Strömberg Vattenfall AB
4
100
Reductions of CO2 – What ECCP 1 gave
• The ECCP 1 work identified a number of measures
which could to be taken.
• Without agreement among all, it was concluded that
almost 30 % reduction could be reached at a cost
below 50 €/ton CO2
–
–
–
–
–
© Vattenfall AB
Change from coal to gas
Introduce more efficient coal power technology
Wind power
Biofuels, especially in the heat sector
More CHP
5
Cost and Potential of options to reduce CO2 emissions until 2010
Derived from ECCP Energy Supply Preliminary report.
Cost for carbon dioxide
avoidance
Solar
[EUR/ton CO2]
100
Wind
Coal to Coal
CHP
Biomass heat
CO2 sequestration
Coal to gas
50
Biomass heat
Potential
[Percent]
0
0
20
40
60
Methane mines
© Vattenfall AB
6
80
100
Reductions of CO2 – What we have learned (2)
• Now, after 4 years we have learned a few things:
– We will remain to be dependant on fossil fuels for a long time
– Change from coal to gas has not happened
• Due to high gas prices and lack of long time confidence
– Building new efficient coal - yes
• Several large plants have been built and at least seven large units
under way.
– Wind power has severe limitations
• Cost lies about 70 – 90 €/MWh
• When capacity (MWs) exceeds about 10 % in an area, the system
cannot take any more, need for extra transmission and reserve
power
• 39 000 MW wind leads to that conventional power can only be
reduced 2 500 MW according to one study
© Vattenfall AB
7
Reductions of CO2 – What we have learned (3)
– Biofuels are used, especially in the heat sector.
• All district heat and CHP is using biofuel in Sweden
today (140 TWh fuel)
• To maintain competitiveness for bio fuels, it is
necessary to keep CO2 tax in parallel with the trading
system, at a level of 75 €/ton of CO2
• Biofuel usage has reached its limit in Sweden. 45 %
of the fuel is imported from Russia, Baltic states and
Canada !
– CHP is built wherever possible
• Few opportunities left
© Vattenfall AB
8
Reductions of CO2 – What we have learned (3)
• Carbon Capture and Storage CCS has gained much recognition
and development is going fast.
– Many countries have recognized CCS as a powerful tool and have
introduced it in their plans to fulfill their environmental goals
• The USA, UK, Australia, France, Germany among many others
– CCS does cost 20 – 25 €/ton CO2
• ECCP 1 assumed 50 €/ton of CO2
– Storage capacity exceeds the remaining fossil fuel reserves
– Storage in geological formations is available all over the world, all over
Europe, off-shore and on-shore
– CCS will not be available in a large scale until 2015 –2020
• ECCP 1 assumed before 2010
– CCS can probably reach half of the mitigation necessary to reach our
long term goals of 60 – 80 % of reduction until 2050
© Vattenfall AB
9
Emission Trading
Emission Trading
sets the commercial
framework for new
technology in Europe
© Vattenfall AB
10
European CO2 trading system Sept. 2005
© Vattenfall AB
11
Allocations in the European trading system
In total 12 000 units is included in the trading system. In the National allocation plans 2 100 Mton/year or 6300
Mtons for three years have been distributed. This is the roof set for emissions.
The deficit is calculated to 180 Mton for 3 years. The power industry has a deficit of 360 Mton. Other sectors have
an overallocation.
Other
Cement, Lime, Glass
Oil and Gas
Metals
Pulp and Paper
Public Power and Heat
Total
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Mio. t CO2
© Vattenfall AB
12
250
300
350
400
Marginal cost vs. Reduction of CO2 emissions in EUR/ton CO2
Marginal
vs. reduction
CO2 emissions
Euro/ton
Source:
ECOFYScost
Economic
evaluationof
of sectorial
reduction in
objectives
for CO2
climate change
source: ECOFYS Economic Evaluation of sectorial Emission Reduction Objectives for Climate Change
Marginal cost for reduction in Euro/ton
CO2
300
250
The price in Sept 2005 is about 24 €/ton CO2 ???
200
150
100
50
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Emission reduction in mio ton CO2
© Vattenfall AB
13
1400
1600
Capture and storage of CO2
Capture and storage
© Vattenfall AB
14
The CO2 free Power Plant principle
• The principle of capture and storage
of the CO2 under ground
The CO2 can be captured either
from the flue gases, or is the
carbon captured from the fuel
before the combustion process.
The CO2 is cleaned and
compressed. Then it is pumped
as a liquid down into a porous
rock formation for permanent
storage.
© Vattenfall AB
15
CO2 free power plant
Storage and transport
© Vattenfall AB
16
Storage of CO2 in a Saline Aquifer under the North Sea
CO2-injection into
the saline aquifer
Utsira.
(Source:STATOIL)
The Sleipner field. Oil and gas production facilities. (Source: STATOIL )
© Vattenfall AB
17
Storage Capacity, saline aquifers
There exists more
storage capacity
within Eorope (and
in the world) than
the remaining fossil
fuels
Source:
Franz May,
Peter Gerling,
Paul Krull
Bundesanstalt für
Geowissenschaften und
Rohstoffe, Hannover
© Vattenfall AB
18
CO2 Transport and storage Schweinrich structure
 Two pipeline transport routes are
possible
 Both routes can be designed to
follow existing pipeline corridors
>90%
 Structure can contain 1,4 billion ton
of CO2, equivalent to about
emissions from 6000 MW their
whole lifetime
Berlin
© Vattenfall AB
19
Reservoir simulation – 40 year model
 Due to buoyancy, the CO2
strive against the top of the
formation
 The CO2 spreads in the
whole reservoir
 Conclusion: It is possible to
inject 400 Mt CO2
Injection at flanks
© Vattenfall AB
20
Geological structure modelling. Schweinrich
© Vattenfall AB
10 years
200 years
500 years
2000 years
5000 years
10000 years
21
CO2 free power plant
Capture
© Vattenfall AB
22
Post-combustion capture
This technology is already commercially available in
large scale (500 MW). It is at present the most expensive
© Vattenfall AB
23
Pre-combustion capture
This technology needs development. Might be
competitive. The gasifier exists in demo plants.
The turbine is in the lab stage.
Produces Hydrogen as an intermediary product
© Vattenfall AB
24
O2/CO2 combustion is the preferred option at present
At present the most competitive and
preferred technology for coal.
It needs development, pilot and demo
plants to get design data
© Vattenfall AB
25
© Vattenfall AB
G
HG
PF
G
HG 20
0
IE
PF 4 n
A
o
G
HG 20
ca
04
IE
pt
PF
A
ur
p
o
e
G
st
HG 20
c
20
om
n
b.
M PF
its
20 o c
a
ui
20
p
20
po ture
0
s
4
M
PF tco
its
m
u
n
i2
b
M
its
00 o ca .
ui
4
O p tur
20
2/
e
2
C
0
IE
M
O
PF
A
its
2
G
u
PF
no
HG i 2
0
c
IE
2
a
IG
0
A
O p tur
CC
G
2/
e
H
C
IE
2
G
A
IG 0 03 O2
G
CC
PF
no
H
IE G I
20
ca
G
A
pt
03
C
G
pr u re
HG C 2
e
IG 0 20 - co
CC
no mb
.
c
20
20 a ptu
EN
re
p
CA rec
o
P
PF mb
IE
.
O
A
O
xy Lig
xy
G
ni
fu
HG
fu
te
e
el
IE
20
A
wi l W
FG
G
0
th
HG 4
D
NG out
IE
20
A
W
C
F
G
0
C
G
HG 4
D
NG n o
IE
ca
20
A
pt
G
2 0 CC
ur
HG
NG p o
e
st
2
C
c
0
M
o
2
C
m
its
0
b.
ui
NG n o
c
20
C
a
pt
M 04 N C p
ur
its
o
e
G
st
ui
co
20 CC
no mb
04
ca .
O
2/
pt
C
ur
O
e
2
NG
CC
IE
A
IE
A
COE [EUR/MWhe]
Total generation cost of electricity with CO2 penalty
70
Hard Coal
Lignite
26
Natural gas
60
50
40
CO2 penalty 30EUR/T
CO2 penalty 20EUR/T
30
CO2 penalty 10EUR/T
COE
20
10
0
Generation cost with and without CO2 capture
60
Hard Coal
Lignite
Natural gas
50
COE [EUR/MWh]
40
COE penalty
30
COE origninal
20
10
0
IEA GHG
PF 2004
postcomb.
© Vattenfall AB
IEA GHG Mitsui 2004 Mitsui 2020 IEA GHG
IEA GHG
PF 2020 O2/CO2 PF O2/CO2 PF IGCC 2003 IGCC 2020
postcomb.
pre-comb. pre-comb.
Oxyfuel
WFGD
27
Oxyfuel
without
WFGD
IEA GHG
IEA GHG Mitsui 2004
2004 NGCC 2020 NGCC O2/CO2
postcomb. postcomb.
NGCC
Electricity generation costs
60,0
Electricity production cost EUR/MWh
50,0
Fuel and
consumables
Fixed O&M +
additional op costs
Running O&M
40,0
30,0
Capital costs
EUR/MWh
20,0
10,0
0,0
PF
© Vattenfall AB
CC
PF oxyfuel
28
CC CO2 capt.
Generation costs incl. CO2 costs (20 €/ton)
60,0
Electricity Production cost EUR/MWh
50,0
40,0
CO2 penalty
Fuel and
consumables
Fixed O&M +
additional op costs
Running O&M
30,0
20,0
Capital costs
EUR/MWh
10,0
0,0
PF
© Vattenfall AB
CC
PF oxyfuel
29
CC CO2 capt.
Avoidance costs of CO2
60,0
Avoidance costs
50,0
40,0
Avoidance cost €/ton CO2
CO2 penalty
Fuel and consumables
Fixed O&M + additional op costs
Running O&M
Capital costs EUR/MWh
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
PF with CO2 capture
© Vattenfall AB
Gas CC with CO2 capt
30
Cost and Potential of options to reduce CO2 emissions
Principal example
Cost for carbon dioxide
avoidance
New Picture 2005 including recent knowledge
Solar
[EUR/ton CO2]
Wind
100
Biofuel El
Hydro
Savings
New efficient coal
Biofuel Heat
Oil to gas
CO2 Capture and Storage
50
Coal to gas
Potential
[Percent]
0
0
20
40
60
2000-07-16
© Vattenfall AB
Lars Strömberg Vattenfall AB
31
80
100
Conclusions from analysis - Reduction of CO2
• Carbon capture and storage from Coal fired Power plants can
be done at a cost close to 20 €/ton CO2
– Capture at about 15 €/ton of CO2
– Storage at lower than 2 €/ton CO2
– Transport depending on distance and volume, but 5 €/ton of CO2 for
large plants on shore
• More than enough storage capacity on shore and off shore is at
hand in saline aquifers
• Technology choice is not yet made. Oxyfuel is preferred
technology in Vattenfall at present
• The commercial choice stands between Gasfired CC without
CCS, taking the penalty of CO2 emission, and Coal fired
plants with CCS
Lars Strömberg
AB
© VattenfallVattenfall
AB
Corporate Strategies
2003 07 05
32
Taking responsibilty
• Lord Oxburgh, former chairman of Shell Transport and Trading:
"CCS is absolutely essential if the world is serious about
limiting greenhouse gas emissions“
• The new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) concludes:
“CCS could achieve more than half of the emissions
reductions necessary to mitigate climate change up to 2100”
Vattenfall agrees with this. We also believe CCS is needed to
fulfill our climate goals
© Vattenfall AB
33
CO2 free power plant
Back up
© Vattenfall AB
34
The Climate Change
• The Climate Change problem is for real
• EU ministers have agreed on, that we have to reduce
the emissions to maintain a reasonable CO2
concentration in atmosphere
– 15 – 30 % until 2030
– 60 – 80 % until 2050
• A radical solution is necessary. We cannot wait
© Vattenfall AB
35
CO2 storage cost
Storage at Schweinrich of 10 Mton CO2 per year over 40 years:
Fictive cost calculations using tool developed in EU-funded GESTCO project:
© Vattenfall AB
36
CO2 transport cost:
Transport to Schweinrich from Schwarze Pumpe power plant:
 Distance 320 km
 10 Mton CO2 per year over 40 years:
7,00
Opex
6,00
€ per ton CO2
5,00
4,00
3,00
Capex
2,00
1,00
0,00
€/ton
Left: 25 years, 7,5%
© Vattenfall AB
€/ton
Right: 10 years, 10%
37
CO2 free power plant
Pilot Plant
© Vattenfall AB
38
Construction area
© Vattenfall AB
39
Boxberg IV
Why Oxy-fuel technology ?
We work with all three (four)
technologies, but:
•
•
•
© Vattenfall AB
Oxyfuel technology is the
technology giving lowest costs
at present
It is suitable for coal and have
relatively little development
work left
We can build on our good
experience with present PF
technology
40
CO2 free power plant
Analysis of some
technology options
© Vattenfall AB
41
CO2 Free Power Plant: Technology
Choice
The ultimate technology choice is not clear yet. Several technologies will
probably be applied to different commercial situations.
•
Post combustion capture.
– At present the most expensive option but commercially available in large size.
– Can be applied to existing plants.
– Needs no demo. Optimization of existing options needed.
•
Pre combustion capture.
– The most complicated technology. IGCC demos have not been successful
– Produces hydrogen as integrated intermediate fuel for the power process, from coal
or gas.
– Development need for the gas turbine run on hydrogen – Lab tests + pilot + demo
•
CO2/O2 (oxy-fuel) capture
– The most preferred option at present
– Technology straight forward and builds on the modern supercritical coal fired boilers
– Tests in technical scale positive. Needs pilot plant and demo plant
•
Chemical Looping technology is the most interesting long term option.
– Lab experiments very encouraging.
© Vattenfall AB
42
Options for reduction of CO2
• Specific data for the plants
Specific Investment
costs €/kWe
PF
CC
PF
oxyfuel
CC with
capture
1000
550
1425
938
140
100
720
405
180
95
36,5
49
Additional investment
mio €
Power output MW
900
500
Energy penalty MW
Efficiency %
Lars Strömberg
AB
© VattenfallVattenfall
AB
Corporate Strategies
45
60
2003 07 05
43
Options for reduction of CO2
• Common data used for the four plants:
Coal Price
50 $/ton ~ 5,7 €/MWh
Gas price
13 €/MWh
Depreciation time
25 years
Interest rate
© Vattenfall AB
10%
44
The Problem
• Fossil fuels are needed
– Analysis show that fossil fuels will remain as major energy source
in 2030 ( 85 %)
• The top priority is to introduce renewable energy sources in
the energy system
– All analysis show that renewable energy sources will play a large
role, but not large enough and soon enough
• In several countries nuclear power is decommissioned
• No renewable energy source not known today can play a
significant role in 25 years from now, i.e. 2030
•
© Vattenfall AB
Emissions from fossil fuels must be reduced
45
Schwarze Pumpe power plant
© Vattenfall AB
46