Restoring the Carbon Balance- Session 2: The Technologiesfiles.constantcontact.com/ce6a496a001/e9999e36-55c... · Restoring the Carbon Balance Series December 15 - Webinar 1: The

Restoring the Carbon Balance- Session 2: The TechnologiesFebruary 1, 2017 1

# #carbonbalance, 2016

Edward Saltzberg, Ph.D.Managing Director

Security & Sustainability Forum

Joel Makower

Chairman GreenBiz Group Inc.

1

http://asulightworks.com/

Restoring the Carbon Balance Series

December 15 - Webinar 1: The Imperative

February 1 - Webinar 2: The Technologies

Spring 2017 - Webinar 3: Policies, Financing, Regulations (Registration

opens soon)

Register at www.ssfonline.org

1. Follow “Restoring the Carbon Balance” at

www.lightspeedsolutions.org

Register, Watch Recordings, Access Collateral Material

2. Participate in the RCB Discussions

Join: Restoring the Carbon Balance LinkedIn Group

http://www.ssfonline.org/

http://www.lightspeedsolutions.org/

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/6957500


Summary of Webinar 1: The Imperative

Panelists: Jeffrey Sachs, John Shepherd, Kevin Anderson, Klaus Lackner

Important Points:

Maintaining a maximum warming of two degrees Celsius will require adhering to an atmospheric carbon budget – one that will likely be exceeded within 25 years.

We’re injecting almost 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually – this will take a long time to recover. If we continue on a business as usual trajectory, we can expect four degrees of warming by the end of the century

As long as you dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, you should have an obligation to take it back out. The faster you can conceptually make that transition, the faster things can be worked out.

To significantly bend this curve downward, we will need negative emissions technologies.

Agenda

Introduction: Joel Makower

Presentations:

Klaus Lackner, Arizona State University

Eric Larson, Princeton

Susan Hovorka, University of Texas

Discussion Moderated by Joel Makower

Audience Q&A: Use the box in the go to Webinar window

Summary

Download Today’s Slides From the Window

(Please Take the Brief Exit Survey)

Moderator

Joel Makower, chairman and executive editor of GreenBiz Group Inc., creator of GreenBiz.com as well as research reports and events on the corporate sustainability strategy and trends, will moderate the session. Joel hosts the annual GreenBiz Forums and VERGE conferences around the world, and is author of the annual State of Green Business report.

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001axdv1SuQ73QQ-N5Xl9M6cD28yDB5dyeQjOJmHzVr61kAjJZjBwsyRwDUYF9fxdFq-kTFrBtF62gWcN2IvsOQPDFqHJflQDSG_S6PB1aPgJa2cznYgXp47Ihv4riBksGULFgFKshS2ny939VHstog-5ASFZdeqkBRknM8kMEzE6xiRf10sFH11SXsxonl5k7KPGf1zb76Pj4=&c=IPVxewdQ_yWPxwikYFaoG2qXOU-0CT485WFoLTJcfn7zdn7et82cFQ==&ch=bubsriTSTZK7Du8VYrpT3z2B6GY47uIGOL-9g6CpySdMt7i0VWTszg==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001axdv1SuQ73QQ-N5Xl9M6cD28yDB5dyeQjOJmHzVr61kAjJZjBwsyR2nnzGTh7FBJP14h4tiUKS2BN3RIAt7YrZnSza94j9jp3wylHoeEloQxgDhm_1YPrRaBqbcgRtrnLVcWC_lonvqu3r232EM6FZF1_PI6juUR5MSP3deIqV6A3oRlTwnO4w==&c=IPVxewdQ_yWPxwikYFaoG2qXOU-0CT485WFoLTJcfn7zdn7et82cFQ==&ch=bubsriTSTZK7Du8VYrpT3z2B6GY47uIGOL-9g6CpySdMt7i0VWTszg==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001axdv1SuQ73QQ-N5Xl9M6cD28yDB5dyeQjOJmHzVr61kAjJZjBwsyR2nnzGTh7FBJZIxGlLVj1PRBX9_tUCOm1sUKkp6vGcL8xArZ6TGonWyFu5uaB3vWXRha6oYRU0LxotQ7xfDq2-XQVoBCGKaN4TCpJxl4ma5BBjRimotIxx4=&c=IPVxewdQ_yWPxwikYFaoG2qXOU-0CT485WFoLTJcfn7zdn7et82cFQ==&ch=bubsriTSTZK7Du8VYrpT3z2B6GY47uIGOL-9g6CpySdMt7i0VWTszg==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001axdv1SuQ73QQ-N5Xl9M6cD28yDB5dyeQjOJmHzVr61kAjJZjBwsyR2nnzGTh7FBJ8du-AVAv3cKvzCAMWv_h341aVm7V3gl0Ml0s-SpvY1-dy4IIVb3P0JDbhayNUdUlDeE1DDD8u9_9_UtuNVMiGrvvt6R-XfkhPjKO-R1viLPP8-515B6lVoGIFRIO37SeOZFKFkyrA_mZfwJg-ssKTw==&c=IPVxewdQ_yWPxwikYFaoG2qXOU-0CT485WFoLTJcfn7zdn7et82cFQ==&ch=bubsriTSTZK7Du8VYrpT3z2B6GY47uIGOL-9g6CpySdMt7i0VWTszg==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001axdv1SuQ73QQ-N5Xl9M6cD28yDB5dyeQjOJmHzVr61kAjJZjBwsyR2nnzGTh7FBJSHa1YMkavFnIa8uCPfmJ-H2z9N_vqMYZdjJ56VYWvqi92GGa-k74uoCur3CoPeolBePOZ0CB2FajGY5B6QPdi7ipFBb0pfGSHfrvnFgvjt1ojlZTMURscw==&c=IPVxewdQ_yWPxwikYFaoG2qXOU-0CT485WFoLTJcfn7zdn7et82cFQ==&ch=bubsriTSTZK7Du8VYrpT3z2B6GY47uIGOL-9g6CpySdMt7i0VWTszg==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001axdv1SuQ73QQ-N5Xl9M6cD28yDB5dyeQjOJmHzVr61kAjJZjBwsyR2nnzGTh7FBJAC-TTY-4EadLO4_bwsTFPVGiZUqrVAT4rCcUQF6SkwQxfdP10OinJpM_7gX1-LZEx8SEFbj5SxVwyjO85eJ9upq6WjSawshrsYS_BJ9z41pfUjS4mOEd4ez4WVDjL5r57TC5Fg0rnGA=&c=IPVxewdQ_yWPxwikYFaoG2qXOU-0CT485WFoLTJcfn7zdn7et82cFQ==&ch=bubsriTSTZK7Du8VYrpT3z2B6GY47uIGOL-9g6CpySdMt7i0VWTszg==

www.GreenBiz.com

Panelists

Klaus Lackner, Director of Arizona State

University’s Center for Negative Climate Emissions

and Professor at the School of Sustainable

Engineering

Eric Larson, senior research engineer at Princeton

University’s Andlinger Center for Energy and the

Environment and a senior scientist with Climate

Central.

Susan Hovorka, Senior Research Scientist at the

Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of

Geosciences, at The University of Texas at Austin

Technologies for

Carbon Disposal

Klaus S. Lackner

Arizona State University

February 2017

8

Excess CO2 piles up like garbage

• Half of it remains in the air for centuries

• The ocean acidifies

• Hydrosphere/Biosphere/Atmosphere– Excess carbon stays for tens of thousands of years

Carbon Waste Management:

Collection & DisposalSupported by emission reductions,

carbon recycling, and carbon reuse9

Picking up after point sources(Power plants, steel and cement plants, refineries)

• Smart first step, but limited in scope

– Necessarily incomplete

– What about …

• homes using gas?

• cars using fuel?

• trucks, ships, and planes?

• residual emissions from point sources?

• accidental losses from storage?

• past emissions?

Necessary but insufficient10

Point source capture

• Technically feasible

– Flue gas scrubbing and innovative designs

– Demonstrated in retrofits and new plants

• Economic viability of retrofits is challenging

– Good argument for more renewable energy

– But some plants will be hard to replace

• Peak power generators covering intermittency of renewable

• Steel production

• Cement production

Point source capture is feasible and affordable,

but not always competitive11

Cleaning up everything else

• Distributed capture

– Recovering mobilized carbon

• Atmosphere, ocean, biosphere

– Biological and chemical approaches

• Initially cost and state-of-the-art favor bio-mass

• Expect technology to get cheaper

• Technology is easier to scale up

– “Trees on steroids”

12

Air capture is sorbent based

• Sorbents bind CO2 without spending energy

– Concentration ratio is 1 : 2500

• Sorbents postpone work to the regeneration step

• Only do work on CO2

• All air capture sorbents are chemical sorbents

– At 400 ppm only chemical bonds are strong enough

– Minimum free energy of binding: ΔG > 22 kJ/mol

• Regeneration options vary with sorbent

– Thermal, vacuum or reaction-based recovery

– Humidity swing takes advantage of H2O – CO2 – sorbent reactions

Thermodynamics works out, passive or near

passive filtration reduces air handling cost13

Wind energy – Air capture

artist’s rendering

Air collector reduces net CO2

emissions much more than

equally sized windmill

Extracting 20 J/m3 seems

feasible

Wind energy

~20 J/m3

CO2 combustion

equivalent in air

10,000 J/m3

Passive

contacting of air

is inexpensive

Wikipedia picture

Image courtesy Stonehaven production14

Regenerator: Flue Gas Scrubbing – Air Capture

artist’s rendering

Sorbent regeneration

slightly more difficult for

air capture than for flue

gas scrubbers

Stock picture

Image courtesy Stonehaven production

Dominant costs

are similar for air

capture and flue

gas scrubbing

15

Mass-produced factory-built one-ton-per-day units100 million units would cancelcurrent world emissions

Production capacity needed:10 million per year

Cost target:

25¢ per

gallon of

gasoline

($30/ton CO2)

Low cost comes with experience

price dropped fortyfold

price dropped hundredfold

cost of lighting fell7000 fold in the 20th

century

Wikipedia pictures

Ingredient costs are already small – small units: low startup cost

$600

$500

$400

$300

$200

$100

$0

APS (low tech, first-of-a-kind)

GRT (first-of-a-kind)

Practical interest

Per ton CO2

Raw material and energy limit (frictionless cost)

The

Power

of the

Learning

Curve

17

Negative emissions need storage

• 100 ppm reduction

– 1500 Gt of CO2

– More than all 20th century emissions

– 50 years of current emissions

• Sequestration (when not if)

– Need to build a proven reserve

– Large demand will support high price

– Negative emissions support renewable energy

18

Storage is a bigger challenge

than capture

• But quite advanced and demonstrated

– Geological sequestration removes the objection that

there is no option

– Mineral sequestration offers a large,

long-term storage reservoir

– Exotic options can be added

• Non-oxidized forms of carbon

– In agriculture, in infrastructure

• Ocean and other natural sinks

Issues: Capacity, Permanence,Physical and Environmental Safety,Public Acceptance 19

Mineral sequestrationrocks provide the base to neutralize carbonic acid

Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 3CO2(g) 3MgCO3 + 2SiO2 +2H2O(l) +63kJ/mol CO

•Safe and permanent storage option

•High storage capacity

•Permanence on a geological time scale

•Closure of the natural carbon cycle

Mining for base

Using mined base

Neutralizing base below ground

20

Solar FuelsThe new “biomass”

More efficient energyMore efficient CO2 capture

Reduce – Reuse – Recycle

21

A Balanced Carbon Budget

• Negative emissions take CO2 back from the environment

– Paying back old carbon debts

– Large-scale air capture with sequestration

• Remaining fossil carbon extraction is balanced by sequestration

– Old carbon debt makes fossil fuels expensive

– Waste disposal paradigm

• A circular carbon economy produces carbon-based synthetic

fuels and infrastructure materials from CO2

– Tying together intermittent renewable energy, fuels and material resources

Air capture is the common

technology gap of all three

components of this vision

Value in keeping carbon out of the environment22

Negative Emissions via Bioenergy

with CO2 Capture and Storage (BECCS)

Eric D. Larson

Senior Research Engineer

Energy Systems Analysis Group

Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment

School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University

www.princeton.edu/~energy

Senior Scientist

Climate Central, Inc.

www.climatecentral.org

Security and Sustainability Forum webinar:

Restoring the Carbon Balance- Session 2: The Technologies

1 February 2017

http://www.princeton.edu/~energy

http://www.climatecentral.org/

1. What are BECCS technologies?

2. What do integrated assessment models like about BECCS technologies?

3. Can the world produce enough biomass sustainably for BECCS in a 2oC scenario?

4. What are key challenges to BECCS deployment?

5. What is needed going forward?

24

Questions I will address

What are BECCS technologies?

BECCS Carbon Flowsb

iom

ass

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coalve

hic

le t

ailp

ipe

CO2

storage

fue

l

Coal/biomass conversion to fuels and electricity with CCS

flu

e ga

ses

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomassem

issi

on

s

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coal

veh

icle

tai

lpip

e

CO2

storage

fue

l


flu

e ga

ses

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coalve

hic

le t

ailp

ipe

CO2

storage

fue

l


flu

e g

ase

s

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coal

veh

icle

tai

lpip

eCO2

storagefu

el


flu

e g

ase

s

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

Production Facility

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coal

veh

icle

tai

lpip

e

CO2

storage

fue

l


flu

e g

ase

s

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

fuel

co

mb

ust

ion

26Adapted from Larson, et al, “Co-Production of Synfuels and Electricity from Coal + Biomass with Zero Net Carbon Emissions: An Illinois Case

Study,” Energy and Environmental Science, 3(1): 28-42, 2010.

soil / roots

Electricity

BECCS Carbon Flowsb

iom

ass

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coalve

hic

le t

ailp

ipe

CO2

storage

fue

l


flu

e ga

ses

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomassem

issi

on

s

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coal

veh

icle

tai

lpip

e

CO2

storage

fue

l


flu

e ga

ses

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coalve

hic

le t

ailp

ipe

CO2

storage

fue

l


flu

e g

ase

s

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coal

veh

icle

tai

lpip

eCO2

storagefu

el


flu

e g

ase

s

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

Production Facility

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coal

veh

icle

tai

lpip

e

CO2

storage

fue

l


flu

e g

ase

s

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

fuel

co

mb

ust

ion



soil / roots

Electricity

BECCS Carbon Flowsb

iom

ass

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coalve

hic

le t

ailp

ipe

CO2

storage

fue

l


flu

e ga

ses

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomassem

issi

on

s

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coal

veh

icle

tai

lpip

e

CO2

storage

fue

l


flu

e ga

ses

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coalve

hic

le t

ailp

ipe

CO2

storage

fue

l


flu

e g

ase

s

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coal

veh

icle

tai

lpip

eCO2

storagefu

el


flu

e g

ase

s

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

Production Facility

bio

mas

s u

pst

ream

em

issi

on

s

coal

up

stre

am e

mis

sio

ns

char

coal

veh

icle

tai

lpip

e

CO2

storage

fue

l


flu

e g

ase

s

ph

oto

syn

the

sis

biomass

fuel

co

mb

ust

ion



soil / roots

Electricity

29

Transportation Fuels

Electricity

CO2

RemovalGas Turbine

Combined Cycle

CO2

Gasifier& Filter

Prep and Feed

biomass

TarCracker

steam

dry ash

O2

Air SepPlant

air

electricity

Water-GasShift

CO2

RemovalRefine

F-TSynthesis

CO2

Synthetic Diesel & Gasoline

unconverted syngas+ C1 - C4 FT gases

H2 Prod

purge

Powerisland

power

ATRO2 steam

FB Gasifier& Cyclone

Chopping & Lock hopper

biomass

TarCracking

steam

dry ash

Filter

O2

Air SepPlant

air

CO2

BECCS Production Facility Designs (illustrative)

What do integrated assessment models like about BECCS technologies?

31

1. Negative emissions are deployed starting in 2030 for many 2oC scenarios.

2. By 2100, many scenarios call for 15 GtCO2/yr (or more) of negative emissions.

[Intended Nationally Determined Contributions]

* Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters, “The Trouble with Negative Emissions”, Science, 14 Oct 2016

(for 2oC)

BECCS negative emissions in IPCC scenarios

Negative

Emissions

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Leve

lized

Co

st o

f El

ectr

icit

y (2

01

2$

/ M

Wh

e)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Price ($ / tonne CO2eq)

Existing coal fired plant without CCS

Electricity Generating Cost with CO2 Emissions Price

LCOEs for fossil fuel plants are based on capital cost estimates in the Baseline Power Studies of the National Energy Technology

Laboratory (US Dept. of Energy). BECCS estimate by ESAG, Princeton University.

• Levelized fuel prices for U.S. context: $3, $6, and

$5 per GJHHV for coal, natural gas, and biomass.

• $15/tCO2 cost for storage in deep saline aquifer.

• 85% plant capacity factors.

Natural gas combined cycle without CCS

32

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Leve

lized

Co

st o

f El

ectr

icit

y (2

01

2$

/ M

Wh

e)


CCS retrofit to existing coal plant










33

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Leve

lized

Co

st o

f El

ectr

icit

y (2

01

2$

/ M

Wh

e)




Natural gas combined cycle with CCS









34

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Leve

lized

Co

st o

f El

ectr

icit

y (2

01

2$

/ M

Wh

e)


BECCS



Natural gas combined cycle with CCS









35

Can the world produce enough biomass sustainably for BECCS in a 2oC scenario?

Biomass is a complicated energy source

37

• Land use competition – fuel vs. food vs. forests.

• Water availability and quality.

• Soil productivity impacts.

• Biodiversity and other ecosystem impacts.

• Difficult GHG emissions accounting and monitoring –

indirect land-use change, N2O, etc.

Sustainable biomass potential

1. Sustainably removable crop residues.

2. Sustainably harvested wood and forest residues.

3. Municipal and industrial wastes.

4. Double crops and mixed cropping systems.

5. Perennial non-food plants grown on degraded lands

abandoned from agricultural use.

* Turkenburg, W., et al.,“Renewable Energy,” Chap. 11 of Global Energy Assessment: Towards a Sustainable Future, Johansson, Patwardhan,

Nakicenovic, Gomez-Echeverri, (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Region-by-region inventory:*

88 EJ/y ≈ 9.5 GtCO2e /yr

Not estimated here

Next slide

38

39

Perennial grasses can store C in roots/soils helps restore soil productivity while

removing CO2 from atmosphere and providing aboveground biomass for energy.

* Campbell, et al., “The Global Potential of Bioenergy on Abandoned Agriculture Lands,” Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008.

** Tilman, et al., Carbon-Negative Biofuels from Low-Input High-Diversity Grassland Biomass,” Science, 2006.

450 Million Ha Abandoned Agricultural Land Globally

Average production of 4.3 dry t/ha/y biomass* + 0.3 tCsoil /t biomass**

3.5 GtCO2e /yr bioenergy + 2.1 GtCO2e /yr soil carbon ≈ 5.6 GtCO2e /yr

Sustainable biomass potential

1. Sustainably removable crop residues.

2. Sustainably harvested wood and forest residues.

3. Municipal and industrial wastes.

4. Double crops and mixed cropping systems.

5. Perennial non-food plants grown on degraded lands

abandoned from agricultural use.

Region-by-region inventory:*

88 EJ/y ≈ 9.5 GtCO2e /yr

Not estimated here

5.6 GtCO2e /yr

Sustainable BECCS negative emissions potential:

> 15 GtCO2e/yr40

What are key challenges to BECCS deployment?

42

Ed Rubin (Carnegie Mellon University) at Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, Regina, Saskatchewan, 16 June 2015.

Getting over the “Mountain of Death”

many BECCS technologies are poised to climb the mountain

“Learning by doing”

(First of a Kind)

(Nth of a Kind)

http://ieefa.org/kemper-power-plant-a-debacle-that-should-never-have-been-built/

$6.7

Jul-16

Kemper Co. (Mississippi) coal plant with CCS

construction approved

Plant starts

Dec-16

???

7+ years from concept to start-up

Estimated and Actual Capital Expended

Above-ground challenges for BECCS are compounded by below-ground challenges of commercially deploying CO2 storage in saline formations. 43

• Aggressive technology R&D – emphasis on the “D” – Who will pay for the mountain(s) of death?

• New institutional partnerships– Public–Private partnerships to support R&D and initial commercial

deployment, e.g., Mission Innovation / Breakthrough Energy Coalition

– International knowledge and technology sharing (above- and below-ground) to help reduce costs.

• New regulatory frameworks– To ensure sustainable biomass supplies and accurate carbon accounting.

– To ensure safe, long-term CO2 storage.

• Carbon mitigation policy– Strong enough to induce and sustain commercial deployment, e.g., policy

equivalent to an emissions price greater than $100/tCO2 by 2030.

44

What is needed going forward?

Geologic Storage of Carbon DioxideUsing Geoscience to Predict the Future:

How to assure what goes down stays down

Susan HovorkaGulf Coast Carbon Center

Bureau of Economic GeologyJackson School of Geosciences

The University of Texas at Austin

Presented February 1, 2017, To Restoring the Climate Balance Webinar

What is Geologic Sequestration?To reduce CO2 emissions

to air from point sources..

Carbon extracted

from a coal or other

fossil fuel…

is currently burned and

emitted to air

CO2 is captured as concentrated

high pressure fluid by one of several

methods..

CO2 is shipped as supercritical

fluid via pipeline to a selected,

permitted injection site

CO2 injected at pressure into

pore space at depths

below and isolated (sequestered)

from potable water.

CO2 stored in pore space

over geologically

significant time frames.

46

Geologic Sequestration with BiofuelTo reduce CO2 emissions

to air from point sources..

is currently burned and

emitted to air

CO2 is captured as concentrated

high pressure fluid by one of several

methods..

CO2 is shipped as supercritical

fluid via pipeline to a selected,

permitted injection site

CO2 injected at pressure into

pore space at depths

below and isolated (sequestered)

from potable water.

CO2 stored in pore space

over geologically

significant time frames.

CO2 from

biofuel or DAC

47

Capture Land surface

> 800 m

Injection Zone

CO2

Confining system

limits CO2 rise

Injection zone

Brine displaced

Pore-scale trapping

Storage Mechanism

48

G. Laske and G. Masters, A Global Digital Map of Sediment Thickness, EOS Trans. AGU, 78, F483, 1997 GIS by Ruth Costly, BEG

Where can this storage occur: Thickness of Sedimentary Cover

Prospect under studyProspect No prospect

49

Predicting the future: Will what goes down stay down?

• Analog studies

– Hydrocarbon migration and trapping

– Injected CO2 for EOR

• Reservoir characterization and fluid flow modeling

– Research projects to test value of models

• Monitoring to provide assurance of correctness of models

50

Capillary trappingAn important mechanism for retention

Pore-scale trappingCO2 migrates into pores

10 to 60% or immiscible wetting fluid retained51

GCCC Field Tests to Validate Numerical Models

CranfieldSECARB

Phase II&III

Denbury

Frio Test Texas American

Resources

SACROCSouthwest

Partnership

KinderMorgan

NM Tech –U Utah

Air ProductsDenbury -Hastings

NRG-ParrishHillcorp – West Ranch

52

First test: Post injection CO2 Saturation Observed with Cross-well Seismic Tomography vs. Modeled

Tom Daley and Christine Doughty LBNL53

Measurement at a Well:Saturation logging (RST ) Observation well to measure

changes in CO2 saturation – match to model

Shinichi Sakurai, Jeff Kane, Christine Doughty

LithologyV/V0 1

5010

5020

5030

5040

5050

5000

DEPTHFEET

RST gas sat.V/V1 0

Model gas sat.V/V1 0

RST gas sat.V/V1 0

V/V1 0

RST gas sat.V/V1 0

V/V1 0

RST gas sat.V/V1 0

V/V1 0

RST gas sat.V/V1 0

V/V1 0

RST gas sat.V/V1 0

Log porosityV/V0.4 0

Model porosityV/V0.4 0

Model permmD10000 1

Day 4 Day 10 Day 29 Day 69 Day 142 Day 474

Model gas sat. Model gas sat. Model gas sat. Model gas sat.

Post injection

54

Risk assessment drives monitoring

Seepage through the caprock

Spilling of CO2 (spill-point) out of

reservoir

Leakage along faults

Leakage along the well-bores

TNO -K12 B – CO2 CARE

55

Risk to Humans, Ecosystem, Water, Ocean from Storage Failure is Low

– Available past practices = low rate of failure and low consequences

• 80MMT stored at SACROC field, Scurry County TX– No detection of CO2 in groundwater

• 20 MMT stored at Sleipner field North Sea– No detection of loss by British Geologic survey

– Controlled release experiments

• What would happen if CO2 leaked to air, water, soil, ocean

– Small but detectible impacts. No massive damage.

56

CO2 Controlled Release Experiments

http://www.stemm-ccs.eu/

http://www.pml.ac.uk/News/CCS_controlled_leak_results

Ginninderra http://www.ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/1_Comb_Mon_EnvRes/3_GinnCRFSEC.pdf

ZERT experiment: https://water.usgs.gov/nrp/proj.bib/Publications/2010/spangler_dobeck_etal_2010.pdf

Brackenridge and SECARB experimentsChangbing Yang -- BEG

57

Global Research Community

– IEA GHG R&D Program: http://ieaghg.org/

– Global CCS Institute https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/

– US DOE National Energy Technology Lab https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage

– Other major participants globally

58

Gulf Coast Carbon Centerwww.gulfcoastcarbon.org

LBNLLLNLORNLNETLSNLMississippi State UU of MississippiSECARBUT-PGE UT Chem-ECFSES- BES

UT- CIEEPUT- DoGSUT- LBJ schoolBEG- CEEJSG – EERUniv. EdinburghUniv. DurhamRITECO2-CRC

www.gulfcoastcarbon.orgwww.storeco2now.org

59

http://www.nrgenergy.com/

http://www.gulfcoastcarbon.org/

Discussion

Klaus Lackner

[email protected]

Eric Larson

[email protected]

Susan Hovorka

[email protected]

Joel Makower

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




Thank you for attending! A recording of thiswebinar and the slide presentation will be availablesoon in the SSF Archives at www.ssfonline.org.

(and please take the brief exit survey)

http://www.ssfonline.org

Restoring the Carbon Balance Series

December 15 - Webinar 1: The Imperative

February 1 - Webinar 2: The Technologies

Spring 2017 - Webinar 3: Policies, Financing, Regulations (Registration

opens soon)

Register at www.ssfonline.org

1. Follow “Restoring the Carbon Balance” at

www.lightspeedsolutions.org

Register, Watch Recordings, Access Collateral Material

2. Participate in the RCB Discussions

Join: Restoring the Carbon Balance LinkedIn Group

http://www.ssfonline.org/

http://www.lightspeedsolutions.org/

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/6957500


Restoring the Carbon Balance- Session 2: The Technologiesfiles.constantcontact.com/ce6a496a001/e9999e36-55c... · Restoring the Carbon Balance Series December 15 - Webinar 1: The

Documents