Power Systems Modeling: Common Methodologies to Address Fuel, CO 2 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Chris Nichols Office of Strategic Energy Analysis and Planning US DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory

Power Systems Modeling: Common Methodologies to Address Fuel, CO2 and Water Needs

Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.

Peter Kobos (Sandia National Lab), Chuck Zelek & Tim Grant (NETL) Presented at the 37th IAEE International Conference New York City, NY June 17th, 2014

2

• This paper compares select scenarios and results from

models which have differing scopes but have the capability of analyzing the impacts of some or all portions of the CO2 capture, transport and storage process

– found even though the models used different methodologies and scopes there were still key conclusions that the models shared

Overview

3

• Proximity of a CO2 sink to a source was not the primary

motivator for the optimal storage site, but quality and size of the storage formation was more important

– Even at mileage differences of around 125 miles, reservoirs with the more favorable geology were preferred

• At the national level, around 5 reservoirs served most
• f the CO2 storage needs of the entire nation

– Large pipeline networks constructed by the models to move CO2 to the best storage sites

• Importance of small, less favorable reservoirs should

not be discounted

– provide an important “surge volume” since remaining CO2 is stored in these formations when the larger, more favorable ones are full

Key takeaways

4

• Models used:

– NETL:

• CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model (SSCM) for storage site cost

analysis;

• Capture Transport Utilization and Storage (CTUS) model for

characterization of capture, transport, EOR utilization of CO2

• MARKet ALlocation (MARKAL) modeling platform

– Sandia:

• Water, Energy and Carbon Sequestration Model

(WECSsimTM)

• Ran a regional case with SSCM and WECSsim and a

national case with MARKAL+CTUS and WECSsim

– Compared results across the modeling platforms

Methodology

5

Regional results from SSCM

• Mt. Simon formations are more

favorable for CO2 storage than the Rose Run formation Two hypothetical plant sites were selected. Total CCS costs were cheaper for the Mt. Simon formations in every case until the plant was moved east

• f Rose Run.

6

• WECSsim regional results compared storage options for

captured CO2 from the A B Brown power plant in Indiana at the Mt. Simon (61 miles away) and St. Peter (140 miles) formations

Regional results from WECSim

Inject CO2 and Extract & Treat H2O (Mt. Simon [St. Peter]) Inject CO2 only (Mt. Simon [St. Peter]) CCS Cost ($/tonne) 59.5 [62.5]

58 [57.5]

Avoided Cost, saline extract & treat ($/tonne avoided) 78.5 [82.4]

76.5 [75.9]

Added Energy Cost for CCS (cents/kWh) 5.97 [5.87]

6.21 [6.15]

Added Energy Cost for water related (cents/kWh) 0.54 [0.81]

0 [0]

Marginal Cost of CO2 transport (cents/kWh) 0.02 [0.04]

X [1.87]

Total CCS cost is cheaper for the more distant formation

7

National-level: MARKAL+CTUS results

Using CCS deployments from a MARKAL run, the CTUS model was used to forecast the transportation and storage of the CO2 captured. A nation-wide CO2 pipeline network was constructed to move CO2 to the best formations

8

National-level: WECSsim results

A similar distribution of sources sending their CO2 to the best storage sites, but with a large number of smaller, closer sites being utilized as the big

• nes fill up

9

• Closer is not necessarily better when it comes to CO2

storage sites

– Costs of storage outweigh transport for most power plant to reservoir configurations

• Pareto Principle applies for utilization of storage

formations

– Well under 20% of storage formations will likely store over 80% of CO2 captured

• Still important to characterize and understand storage

in the smaller, less favorable formations

– Since extra CO2 can’t be vented when large reservoirs fill up, there must be places to put it

Conclusions

10

• This was a joint intra- and inter-lab effort:

– Christopher J. Nichols, National Energy Technology Laboratory (SEAP) – Peter H. Kobos, Sandia National Laboratories – Chuck Zelek & Tim Grant, National Energy Technology Laboratory (OPPA)

Acknowledgements