Van partile energiesystemen naar gentegreerde energie systemen - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Van partiële energiesystemen naar geïntegreerde energie systemen

Workshop Groningen, 13 september 2013

Acknowledgment

2 / 57

This project is supported by the European Commission through the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).

ENSEA – International North Sea cooperation on Energy System Integration

ENSEA = Interregional cooperation Planning Netwerken Environmental Targets Human Capital Education Research Governance Investments

Programma

4 / 57

• 1. Introductie ENSEA

Koos Lok

• 2. Inleiding op ENSEA-thema’s:
• Offshore oil & gas infrastructure North Sea

Koos Lok

• Power-to-Gas

Catrinus Jepma

• Bio-Energy

Luc Rabou Pauze

• 3. Uitleg break-out sessies

Catrinus Jepma

• 4. Break-out sessies in twee groepen
• 5. Samenvatting en vervolgstappen

Catrinus Jepma

• 6. Afsluiting

Borrel

Introductie ENSEA

5 / 57

Wat is de doelstelling van de workshop vandaag?

• Formuleren wat er in Nederland, in het bijzonder Noord-Nederland,

rondom de Noordzee gebeurt en staat te gebeuren.

• Bespreken samenhang en inzet triple-helix.
• Van partiële energiesystemen naar geïntegreerde energiesystemen.
• Waar moet Nederland zich komende jaren op inzetten? Wat is een

geschikte rol voor Nederland?

• Discussies over concrete thema’s: Offshore infrastructurele
• ntwikkelingen, Power-to-Gas en Bio-Energy.

Introductie ENSEA

6 / 57

Wat is het ENSEA project?

• ENSEA richt zich op versterking van samenwerkingsverbanden in de

triple-helix.

• Samenhang creëren in netwerken, kennis en projecten op en rondom

de Noordzee.

• Inventariseren en identificeren van ontbrekende elementen aan

bijvoorbeeld de kenniskant, samenwerking private sector en de governance structuren.

Introductie ENSEA

7 / 57

Concreet, waar praten wij over:

• Afspraken in de private sector.
• Kennisontwikkeling systeemintegratie.
• Netwerken en governance versterken (OSPAR 2018).
• Afstemming E&P belangen; verlengd onderhoud pijpleidingen.
• Power-to-Gas pilot op boorplatform in de Noordzee.
• Business case: transport elektriciteit door pijpleidingen d.m.v.

waterstof.

• Offshore pilot projects; schowcase.

Exploring the potential for optimal (re-)use

• f existing Oil & Gas infrastructure in the

North Sea

ENSEA Regional Workshop for the Northern Netherlands, September 13 2013 Koos Lok (Energy Valley) & Janneke Pors (IMSA Amsterdam)

Contents

1. Objectives of study 2. Working hypothesis of study 3. Current and future North Sea energy developments 4. First exploration of some North Sea energy developments : a) Decommissioning, b) Underground Gas Storage, c) Carbon Capture and Storage, d) Electricity grid, e) Ecological reuse 5. Intended follow-up of study

9 / 57

• 1. Objectives of study

Overall objective

• Explorative, science-based essay for EU policy-makers and a broad group of

North Sea (energy) stakeholders which aims to open a discussion on system integration of energy infrastructure in the North Sea region in general and re- use of Oil & Gas infrastructure in specific. Research objectives

• Examine the role and potential of the North Sea to contribute to the transition

towards a renewable energy system in North-Western Europe?

• Describe the main current and future offshore energy developments in the

North Sea region and their objectives and functions

• Explore the potential to re-use existing oil & gas infrastructure and maximize

integration with (new) (renewable) energy infrastructure systems.

• Identify the main boundary conditions for feasibility of potential re-use and/or

system integration options

• Sketch the main pathways to stimulate and accelerate potential re-use and/or

system integration options

10 / 57

• 2a. Working hypothesis: Drivers

11 / 57

Fossil energy

North Sea infrastructure Renewable energy Significant role for gas in all energy scenarios Declining gas production & increasing import dependency CO2-reduction targets fossil energy Declining O & G production North Sea New energy business developments in North Sea region Need for optimal use

• f existing

infrastructure Growing share of renewable energy Intermittency issue of renewable energy Need for optimal use

• f renewable,

affordable energy Need for flexible, reliable, affordable, low-carbon energy Need for new business model for O&G Diversification of gas carriers Decommissioning

• bligations

Need for efficient investments in new infrastructure

• 3. North Sea energy developments

12 / 57

NORTH SEA UGS UGS P2G CCS Wind P2G Piping DCM O&G UGS DCM CCS CCS Wind P2G Grid Pipelines

• 4a. Decommissioning (DCM)
• Decommissioning of offshore installations in the

North Sea is planned for years to come because of economic depreciation and depletion of oil & gas fields.

• O&G production until ca. 2040 and possibly

later as oil prices rise and combinations with CCS increase the life time and productivity of fields.

• 500-600 offshore installations (60-70 fields)

need to be abandoned and decommissioned

• ver the coming 20-40 years.
• OSPAR 98/3 demands full removal to shore

and disassembly, unless disused O&G installations could have ‘another legitimate purpose in the maritime area authorised or regulated by the competent authority’.

• There are no international guidelines on the

decommissioning of disused pipelines. The regulatory regime is currently left to individual states.

13 / 57

• 4a. Decommissioning: Dutch example

14 / 57

Source: EBN

So whether we like it or not …

• 4a. Decommissioning: Costs
• The technical costs of removing O&G

installations in the North Sea are estimated at € 53 billion in the next 30 to 40 years.

• Some estimate costs at €100 billion.
• Costs are largely covered by governments

(50-80%) as a result of tax deduction & co-

• wnership.
• These costs include the costs of removal of

jackets and topsides, plugging of wells and cleaning of seabed.

• The costs of pipeline decommissioning are

not included and are currently estimated at

• ver £2bn (only UKCS) with the assumption

that trunk lines are left in place and other pipelines are trenched and buried.

15 / 57

• 4a. Decommissioning: Who pays the costs?

16 / 57

Who pays for decommissioning costs? e.g. cost estimate of jacket decommissioning: £ 10 billion

• 4b. Underground Gas Storage (UGS)
• The need for underground gas storage is driven by:
• a. need for growing flexibility caused by the intermittency
• f renewable energy sources.
• b. need for supply security in case of an outage in a

major supply source (Oxford, 2013).

• Additional gas storage capacity demand in northwest

Europe is estimated at 13-20 billion m3 2030, depending

• n gas scenario (De Joode, 2010).
• If approx. half of the currently known plans is met, this

would be sufficient in meeting future demand. Realisation of many UGS plans, however, is currently uncertain.

• Offshore storage is mainly suitable for large-scale,

seasonal storage and/or strategic storage.

• Of offshore locations partly depleted gas fields are the

most favourable locations, as they have proven to trap gas and provide the possibility to use O&G infrastructure and ‘native gas’ as cushion gas.

17 / 57

• 4b. UGS: Role and benefits

18 / 57

Role of gas storage

Strategic storage Seasonal storage Export & trade Integration of intermittent renewable energy Natural gas

Benefits of gas storage

Security of supply Flexibility of supply Cheap supply Optimal use of renewable energy Hydrogen / Methane New business model gas sector

• 4b. UGS: ‘Rough’ project
• The Rough gas field in the Southern North Sea was the world's first
• ffshore gas storage reservoir and is operational since 1985.
• The storage facility is built by British Gas and currently operated by

Centrica Storage.

• Rough is the largest gas storage facility in UK able to meet 10% of the

UK's winter peak day demand and representing around 75% of UK’s current storage capacity.

• Excess summer supplies are injected into the reservoir, to be produced

during the winter to meet the peak demand.

19 / 25

Figure: Rough facility

Field characteristics Capacity 10% UK peak use Storage capacity 2.8 BCM Delivery capacity 1.5 BCM Field depth 2743 m Distance to shore 25 km

• 4c. Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS)

20 / 25

• 4c. CCS: Sleipner project
• The Sleipner field is the world’s first offshore CCS project. The facility is operational

since 1996 and will last until the accompanying gas field is depleted

• The natural gas of Statoil’s Sleipner field contains around 9% CO2, which is

removed and then injected into a geological layer below the Sleipner platform in the central North Sea, 250 km from land.

• The CO2 is stored in a sandstone formation 1000 m below the sea floor, the Utsira

formation, and will stay there for thousands of years.

• One million tonnes per year is stored, roughly 3% of the Norwegian CO2 emissions

in 1990. Until now eight million tonnes of CO2 have been stored.

• The CCS technology was designed to fit on an offshore platform.

21 / 57

• 4d. Electricity grid
• …..

22 / 57

• 4e. Ecological reuse of platforms: LINSI

23 / 57

Ecological reuse of disused installations seems to be a promising option. The Living North Sea Initiative aims to contribute to improvement of the quality status of the North Sea ecosystem:

• 1. By facilitating ecological reuse of redundant offshore

structures (protecting biodiversity hotspots);

• 2. By realising decommissioning cost-savings that will

partly be transferred to a North Sea Fund. A different approach to decommissioning could reduce decommissioning costs with GBP 4-10 billion (primarily in the UK and Norway).

• 3. By creating a North Sea Fund that could invest in more

sustainable use of the North Sea, in long-term monitoring programmes, in active creation and maintenance of artificial reefs, etc.

• 4. By facilitating a stakeholder dialogue in which there is

room for e.g. improved marine spatial planning, enlarged ecosystem protection zone and active measures to restore certain habitats.

• 5. Intended follow-up of ENSEA study

24 / 57

The ENSEA North Sea study aims to start an discussion about system integration of energy infrastructure in the North Sea region in general and re- use of Oil & Gas infrastructure in specific:

• 1. Analyse potential of North Sea to contribute to a

renewable energy transition in northwest Europe.

• 2. Explore options for reuse of existing energy

infrastructure and for system integration of energy infrastructures.

• 3. Design pathways to develop criteria and to
• ptimise conditions for infrastructure reuse and

system integration.

• 4. Build a powerful North Sea coalition.
• 5. Develop pilots projects to show potential.
• 6. Realise decommissioning cost-savings that will

partly be transferred to a Infrastructure Fund which could be used for adaptation of existing infrastructure or creation of new energy infrastructure.

ENSEA Regional Workshop for the Northern Netherlands, September 13 2013 Catrinus Jepma (Energy Valley)

Power-to-Gas on and around the North Sea

Power-to-Gas

26 / 57

Comparison of the interconnection options with methanation

27 / 57

28 / 57

Comparison of the efficiency chains for energy storage with PtG

29 / 57

PtG-efficiency chain utilising HT-electrolysis

30 / 57

Outlook

Stelling

31 / 57

Rond de Noordzee zijn wij noch:

• technisch,
• juridisch,
• economisch,
• rganisatorisch,
• p maatschappelijke acceptatie,

voldoende voorbereid op energie systeemintegratie.

Biomass contribution to a sustainable energy future

Luc Rabou (ECN) Groningen, 13 September 2013

Regions

[km2] [x 106 p] [toe/p/y] UK 240000 62.7 3.4 Scotland 77000 5.3 3.9 [km2] [x 106 p] [toe/p/y] Norway 365000 4.9 6.8 Rogaland 8600 0.46 [km2] [x 106 p] [toe/p/y] NL 34000 16.7 5.2 EV 9700 2.4 [km2] [x 106 p] [toe/p/y] Germany 348000 81.8 4.1 Ndr Sachsen 47600 7.9

Contents

• What is the problem?
• What is the solution?
• What has biomass to offer?

34 / 57

A rude analysis in 15 minutes

What is the problem?

There is no problem everyone agrees on

35 / 57

• We emit too much CO2
• We use too much energy
• We are too many

What is the solution?

There is no solution acceptable to everyone

36 / 57

• We emit too much CO2

=> reduce use of fossil fuels

• We use too much energy

=> save energy

• We are too many

=> reduce population (I told you this would be rude)

A healthy UK solution

37 / 57

For a more balanced and inspiring view, read

http://zerocarbonbritain.com

Biomass functions

38 / 57

We need/want/use biomass a.o. for

• Food
• Timber & paper
• Clothing
• Protection of land & life
• Leisure
• Energy

Is there enough?

Focus on energy

39 / 57

1 toe (ton oil equivalent)

• 42 GJ
• 11.6 MWh
• 1300 m3 Groningen natural gas

1 EJ =1000 PJ 1 PJ = 1000 TJ 1 TJ = 1000 GJ 1 GJ = 1000 MJ Some typical terms:

Energy use -- biomass production

40 / 57

Country Land surface area Population Primary energy consumption Specific primary energy consumption [km2] [x 106 p] [PJ/y] [GWh/km2/y] [MWh/p/y] Germany 348000 81.8 14100 11 48 Ndr Sachsen 47600 7.9 (~8) United Kingdom 240000 62.7 8900 10 39 Scotland 77000 5.3 850 3 45 Netherlands 34000 16.7 3650 30 60 EV region 9700 2.4 (~15) Norway 365000 4.9 1400 1 79 Rogaland 8600 0.46 (~3) World 149000000 7200 532000 1 20

Expected biomass production capacity: 0.5 – 5 GWh/km2/y (waste land) 5 – 10 GWh/km2/y (prime agricultural land)

Biomass supply & demand 2050

41 / 57 Biomass Assessment (2008)

Report 500 102 012

• V. Domburg, A. Faaij, P. Verweij e.a.

Energy demand 600 – 1000 EJ/y Biomass supply 100 – 500 EJ/y Biomass demand 50 – 250 EJ/y Demand limited by price

• f competing options

Biomass versatility

42 / 57

• Produce power
• prevent CO2 release from fossil fuel
• remove CO2 from atmosphere (CCS or biochar)
• Provide heat
• Provide biofuel for transport
• Replace oil & gas in C-chemistry
• Become H-carrier via P2G and/or 2nd generation biofuel

Biomass can/does

Uncertainties in power production

43 / 57

• Price of bio-energy vs other renewables
• what will be the ultimate cost per kWh
• when will that be available
• Central vs distributed energy generation
• cost of infrastructure & transport
• efficiency & cost advantages (scale effects)
• heat demand

If you do want to use biomass for power production

Biopower scenarios

44 / 57

Centralized Distributed

Higher cost Lower cost Lower cost than non-intermittent Bioenergy via co-firing In the transition towards sustainable energy biomass is used for co-firing Bioenergy as the back-up Beats alternative non- intermittent solutions on price Bioenergy is omni-present Bioenergy continues to play a key role for energy supply

• n a district scale

Bioenergy as the back-up Beats alternative local non- intermittent solutions on price

Price bioenergy versus (non-) intermittent alternatives Optimal energy-system design Northern Europe

Bioenergy is king Bioenergy continues to play a key role for energy supply as the sustainable source Bioenergy as a back-up In regions where no other non-intermittent sources are economically available

Cost competition

45 / 57

Wind & solar power are intermittent, but have low marginal production costs => fossil fuel base load can’t compete, let alone biomass Reliable power supply requires back-up capacity (for seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years)

Biomass for back-up power?

46 / 57

• Biomass is not an easy fuel you can switch on/off

=> not attractive for short back-up periods => winter back-up fits CHP

• Biomass derived fuels may fill short & long gaps

=> gas, oil or pellets

• Biomass plants may switch between products and power

(or even between power consumption and production)

Open questions

47 / 57

• How much (surplus) intermittent capacity is affordable?
• Is regulating demand an economically and socially

acceptable solution?

• What is the optimal load for non-intermittent solutions to

reach lowest system cost?

• Who will provide/pay for storage and back-up capacity?
• How to make optimal use of existing infrastructure in the

period of transition?

Can it happen?

48 / 57

Some renewables may become cheap, but a reliable energy supply will be expensive Public support is mandatory => community action & local involvement

Stelling

49 / 57

De rol van biomassa als flexibele back-up voor fluctuerende bronnen als wind en zon moet worden vervuld door gas, hydro en batterijen. Biomassa kan beter ingezet worden voor toepassingen binnen:

• groene chemie,
• gebruik voor mobiliteit

Pauze

50 / 57

Uitleg Break-out sessies

51 / 57

Verdeling in twee groepen:

• Offshore infrastructure; Green Decommssioning

en Power-to-Gas.

• Bio-Energy

Uitleg Break-out sessies

52 / 57

• Waarom break-out sessies? In kaart brengen van sterktes en zwaktes

(Noord) Nederland t.a.v. de thema’s.

• Ideale uitkomsten: Concrete formuleringen van sterktes en zwaktes.
• Verwerking van de uitkomsten: Worden interregionaal verbonden om

internationaal discussie op gang te brengen. Bepalen wie welke rol kan spelen binnen systeemintegratie rondom de Noordzee. In samenhang met de andere workshops worden contouren bepaald voor de te ondernemen acties; Joint Action Plans.

• Invulling van de sessies: Discussie over één stelling gericht op vier

aspecten; netwerken, uitvoering/toepassing, ‘human capital’ en belang/maatschappelijke acceptatie.

Uitleg Break-out sessies

53 / 57

• Green Decommissioning en Power-to-Gas
• Stelling: Rond de Noordzee zijn wij noch technisch, juridisch,

economisch, organisatorisch, op maatschappelijke acceptatie voldoende voorbereid op energie systeemintegratie.

• Samenwerking en organisatie binnen triple-helix ontbreekt.
• Er bestaan geen adequate (reken)modellen op basis van

systeemintegratie.

• Er is een gebrek aan ‘human capital’ voor uitvoering van de thema’s.
• Belang van de Noordzee als hot-spot voor de duurzame

energietransitie vanuit geïntegreerd systeem denken is niet goed bekend.

Uitleg Break-out sessies

54 / 57

• Bio-Energy
• Stelling: De rol van biomassa als flexibele back-up voor fluctuerende

bronnen als wind en zon moet worden vervuld door gas, hydro en

• batterijen. Biomassa kan beter ingezet worden voor groene chemie,

mobiliteit etc.

• Geen sterke netwerken op thema biomassa.
• Geen overeenstemming op de toepassing van biomassa in een

geïntegreerd energiesysteem.

• Er is een gebrek aan ‘human capital’, o.a. op kennisniveau.
• Is de PR op het thema biomassa wel sterk genoeg? Invloed op het

landschap, concurrentie met voedsel etc. Is sociale acceptatie over zijn hoogtepunt?

Samenvatting en vervolgstappen

55 / 57

• Uitkomsten van de break-out sessies
• Uitkomsten in relatie tot het ‘Joint Action Plan’.

Afsluiting

56 / 57