Sustainability Assessment of the Large Implementation of Carbon Capture and Storage in OECD Europe Academic research paper on "Economics and business"

CrossMark

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 7421 - 7428

GHGT-12

Sustainability assessment of the large implementation of Carbon Capture and Storage in OECD Europe

Andrea Ramireza* , Wouter Schakela, Tuva Grytli, Richard Woodb,

aCopernicus Institute, Utrecht University, 3584 CD, Utrecth, the Netherlands bIndustrial Ecology Program, NTNU, Norway

Abstract

This paper shows the results of a sustainability assessment of deploying carbon capture and storage in European coal power plants in 2030, versus a scenario without CCS. The assessment examines potential impacts in five categories: impacts on human health, impacts on the natural environment, impacts on exhaustive resources, impacts on prosperity and impacts on social well-being. The analysis is undertaken in a prospective framework for the year 2030 under the economic scenarios which are based on the Blue map scenario of the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives.

© 2014TheAuthors. PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Thisis an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of GHGT-12

Keywords: CCS; sustainability; LCA; comparative assessment

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 30 253 7639. E-mail address: c.a.ramirez@uu.nl

1876-6102 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of GHGT-12

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.778

1. Introduction

This paper shows the results of a sustainability assessment of deploying carbon capture and storage in European coal power plants in 2030, versus a scenario without CCS. This work was part of the FP7 European research project Prosuite (Prospective Sustainability assessment of Technologies). The added value of the work is two-fold. First, the assessment uses a coherent methodology which evaluates five major impact categories (see Figure 1). Secondly, the impact categories are assessed for the whole life cycle of the coal power plants, therefore explicitly tackling cause-effect chains.

2. Methodology

Figure 1 shows an overview of the pathways and impacts categories used in this study. Negative impacts on human health can occur through different pathways, which are represented through three indicators: Occupational Health, Environmental Human Health and Consumer Health. The impact on occupational health was evaluated by combining data from the World Health Organization on occupational health problems per sector and Region with data from an economic input-output model (THEMIS) on employees per sector. The assessment method for Environmental Human Health is based on LCA methodology. The impact on consumer health was not assessed due to lack of data.

Impact on human health

Occupational health

Environmental human health

Consumer health

Autonomy

Impact on social well-being

Equality

Safety, security and tranquility

Sustainability assessment

Impact on prosperity

Participation and influence

Labour productivity

Capital productivity

Resource productivity

Novelty

Marine environment

Impact on natural environment

Fresh water environment

Terrestrial environment

Impact on exhaustible resources

Mineral depletion

Fossil depletion

Figure 1. The Prosuite framework for sustainability assessment. Overview of categories

The impact on Prosperity was assessed in two steps. Firstly a micro assessment was conducted to gain insights into all the expenditures related to the technology (CAPEX, OPEX, OELEX). For this, a factorial approach was used in which cost components were estimated using factors and percentages based on purchased equipment costs.

Secondly, a macroeconomic assessment was done to gain insight into how these expenditures influence macro level impacts (Labour, Capital and Resource Productivity and Gross Domestic Product). The assessment was conducted using the THEMIS model. An important step in the macro assessment is a market analysis to estimate the potential market volume. In this paper results of the IEA blue map scenario (with a tax of 110 Euro per tonne CO2) were used to establish the potential penetration of coal with CCS in Europe.

The potential impact on Social well-being is based on 4 categories and 11 indicators (Figure 2). Six indicators are quantitative and were assessed using different methodologies. For instance, for Child Labour Themis model was linked to information provided in databases of the International Labour Organization. The remaining five are qualitative indicators which were mapped using expert elicitation. In the methodology, the quantitative indicators can be aggregated in order to come to one overall quantitative score. Identified concerns regarding the qualitative indicators are "flagged" and provided together with the final results.

Figure 2 Indicators and categories used to assess social well-being. a: Qualitative indicators

The impact on Natural Environment aims to provide insights into change to and loss of species richness. The impact on Exhaustible Resources concerns the removal of resources from the earth and focuses only on abiotic resources. The assessment of these categories was made using LCA methodologies and included the new methods developed in the European project LC-IMPACT. Finally, in order to be able to compare the results among the different categories, results were normalized using a set of comprehensive factors developed in Prosuite.

3. Data input and assumptions

The analysis is undertaken in a prospective framework for the year 2030 under economic scenarios which are based on the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives [1]. A key component of the scenario is the inclusion of a cost of carbon, which in this study is taken from the BlueMap scenario of the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives [1]. With the cost of carbon, coal fired power without carbon capture and storage is more expensive than coal fired

power with carbon capture and storage and viceversa. This is a result of the BLUE Map scenario assumption of a 110 $/t CO2 tax, which is substantially higher than current and expected CO2 prices in the EU.

For the assessments the functional unit is one kWh electricity (kWhe) delivered to the grid. The reference case assumes all electricity from coal is produced without CCS, and the prospective case assumes all electricity from coal is produced with CCS (as per Blue Map). In reality, there will be a whole mix of technologies that would substitute the production of electricity if CCS is not available, but the selected approach allows isolating the CCS effect directly. The cost data for each type of power plant (e.g, SPCP, IGCC) was gathered from [2]. The total costs were used as an allocation key between components, and hence sectors in the input-output model THEMIS [3] which has been used for the assessment of prosperity and (some of) the social indicators.

For each scenario, extraction of raw materials, resources, transport and infrastructure have been considered. Upstream processes included coal mining and transport by ship. Power production and CO2 capture were assumed to take place in a power plant in North-Western Europe, and accounted for all direct and indirect emissions from the power plant. Downstream processes included CO2 transport via pipeline and offshore storage. The direct emissions of CO2, SO2, NO, NO2, HCl, HF, particle matter (PM), Hg, Se, NH3 and MEA have been taken into account. Heavy metals are assumed to be present in the bottom ash. Emissions of N2O and Br are currently not considered, due to lack of data.

The properties of coal that has been used are assumed to match the properties of Illinois#6 coal and the coal production chain is assumed to be represented by the average Dutch coal import statistics as presented in [4]. A share of 84 % of this coal mix is produced from open cast mining and 16 % is produced from underground mining [5]. All country depending coal production and local transportation data are included [5]. Transoceanic transport is assumed to occur using transoceanic freight ships [5]. On average, transoceanic transport of 11.6 tkm/kg coal is required. The general parameters of the power plant (efficiency, emissions) are taken from [6]. The captured CO2 stream is dehydrated and compressed to 15.3 MPa using an integrally geared compressor resulting in a supercritical CO2 stream containing over 99% CO2. The required energy for this compression is generated by the power plant itself. This is already accounted for in the presented efficiency drop of the cases including CCS. It is assumed a CO2 transport of 100 km by pipeline to the CO2 storage sit (inlet pressure of 15.3 MPa and capacity factor of 85%). For this configuration, there is no need for no booster stations and a pipeline made from typical steel with a diameter of 0.41 m is used [7]. Offshore storage is assumed and LCI data for offshore well exploration and production has been obtained from the Ecoinvent database [5]. Possible leakage of CO2 from the storage location has not been taken into account.

4. Results

This section presents the key findings of the suty. Detailed results , but also extra information on the methodology and input data are reported in [8]. Table 1 shows the normalized results of the endpoints for the reference and prospective scenarios. Desirable (positive) changes are represented by a decrease in the impact of a technology on human health, natural environment and exhaustible resources and an increase in the impact on prosperity and social well-being. The results indicate that for four out of five end-points there is an improvement when CCS is deployed.

Impact on human health - Results for this indicator show that the deployment of CCS has a positive impact on human health although results also show a negative impact on the subcategories environmental human health and occupational health. The positive result is due to the large positive impact induced by reducing climate change. The results also indicate that occupational health has a very minor contribution to the final results. Results are shown in Figure 3.

Table 1. Normalized end point results

Endpoint Reference Prospective Difference (Pro- Impact

scenario scenario Ref)

(no CCS)

Human Health 2.53E+04 1.32E+04 -1.21E+04 Positive

Natural Environment 3.95E+04 1.23E+04 -2.73E+04 Positive

Exhaustible Resources 1.31E+07 1.83E+07 5.22E+06 Negative

Prosperity 1.25E+10 1.25E+10 1.26E+03 Positive

Social well-being -2.52E+09 -2.52E+09 6.27E+02 Positive

Figure 3. The impact on human health (DALY) technology wide for the reference scenarios (PC (Ref) and IGCC) and the prospective scenarios (PC CCS and IGCC CCS)

Impact on natural environment - The implementation of CCS results on a negative impact on natural environment indicators with the exception of climate change. The beneficial impact of significantly reducing the climate change indicator dominates the impact on the total natural environment leading to a decrease in impact on natural environment when applying CCS. See Figure 4 for the mid term indicators and figure 5 for end-point indicators.

Impact on exhaustible resources - in the prospective scenario, coal consumption increases significantly when applying CCS, as a consequence of the energy penalty. The effect of metal depletion appears negligible compared to the large amount of fossil depletion.

Impact on prosperity - At the system level, the implementation of CCS in the overall economy is marginal. This is not surprising, as coal based electricity makes up a very small part of the economy in the background system. At the technology level, there is a marked increase in economic activity as a result of implementing CCS. The producer price per functional unit increases by 81%, and this is reflected in a substantial increase in working hours per functional unit. This implies that implementing CCS can generate significant employment opportunities both in the EU and outside. Table 2 presents a summary of the results obtained from the Themis modelling.

■ C02 transport and storage

■ Indirect emissions and processes Direct emissions at power plant

■ Coal mining and transport_

Climate change Terrestrial Terrestial Agricultural Urban land Natural land acidification ecotoxicitv land occupation occupation transformation

Figure 4. Selection of results on potential impacts ofpower plants with and without CCS into the environment

.a 2 £

IC02 ti ans pert and storage.

■ Indirect emissions and processes Direct emissionsat powerplanl I Coal mining and transport

PC (Re()

Figure 5. The impact on natural environment (species.yr) technology wide

Table 2. Results outputs from Themis

Referenc e System Prospectiv e System Absolute difference (Prospectiv e to Reference) Normalisatio n EU 2010 Normalisatio n Global

Production Volume (Monetary) 4.26E+07 3.54E+07 3.10E+13 1.30E+14

Production Volume - functional units 3.87E+08 3.87E+08

Total Cost (€ per FU) 0.11 0.09 -0.02

Direct Capital Requirements (€ per FU) 2.12E+12 9.03E+12

Direct Compensation of Employees (€ per FU) 0.01 0.02 0.01 7.97E+12 3.07E+13

Total Compensation of Employees (€ per FU) 0.03 0.05 0.02 7.97E+12 3.07E+13

Import Dependency - FU - % 5% 6% 0.01 4% 0

Total Compensation of Employees - Full Scale 5.51E+13 5.51E+13 6.00E+06 7.97E+12 3.07E+13

Total Capital Compensation - Full Scale 1.72E+13 1.72E+13 1.22E+06 2.12E+12 9.03E+12

Import Dependency - Full scale - € 1.60E+12 1.60E+12 1.24E+06 1.10E+12 0.00E+00

BW linkages - Full Scale 2.04 2.84 0.80 2.14 2.11

FW linkages - Full Scale 2.73 2.64 -0.10 2.29 2.46

Structural index - Full scale 467.81 467.81 -6.40E-06 96.45 195.71

Capital Productivity - €/€ 6.74 6.74 -1.16E-06 1.68 7.06

Labour Productivity - €/€ 2.10 2.10 -4.40E-07 0.49 2.08

Labour Productivity - €/hours 1.54E+07 1.54E+07 -2.21E+02 2.44 10.29

Resource Productivity 7.97E+05 7.97E+05 -5.37E-01 1.95E+05 8.23E+05

Domestic GDP - Full scale - € 2.14E+13 2.14E+13 1.28E+07 1.51E+13

Global GDP - Full scale - € 1.16E+14 1.16E+14 1.16E+07 6.37E+13

Impact on social well-being - Applying CCS results in an increase in total employment and knowledge intensive jobs, and a decrease in income and global inequality. However, increases in child and forced labor are also observed (see table 2). In total, the social well-being appears to increase when CCS is included. The qualitative indicators reveal that issues such as trust in risk information, long term control functions, stakeholder involvement can become bottlenecks for the deployment of the technology and need to be carefully addressed as part of project development and implementation.

Table 3. Summary of the values found for the social indicators

Indicator Absolute difference (prospective to reference) Observed Trend Desired Trend

Total employment 5.115+E05 hours Increase Increase

Knowledge intensive jobs 9.224E+04 hours Increase Increase

Child labour 4.018E+03 hours Increase Decrease

Forced labour 3.845E+02 hours Increase Decrease

Income inequality 1.014E-08 Decrease Decrease

Global inequality -1.277E+07 Euro1 Decrease Decrease

5. Limitations

Environmental, economic and social assessments have many inherent uncertainties. These tend to be further enhanced by the nature of the assessment carried out in this research, i.e., life cycle assessment combined with prospective analysis. The uncertainties that appear at the moment more easily identifiable are those which are related to the technology/process itself. For instance, uncertainties in power plant efficiency, coal origin and coal characteristics showed to contribute mostly to the uncertainty of the result on the environmental endpoints (impact on human health, impact on natural environment and impact on exhaustible resources). The social assessment is, of the three assessments, the one which was most troublesome for the authors. The fact that only part of the indicators could actually be quantified and further aggregated in the final results is an example of the complexity associated with this assessment. Social indicators are time, region and circumstance specific and are therefore, by definition, difficult or even impossible to predict. In the current assessment a number of economic indicators (e.g., child labour, forced labour) have been used. Those numbers are not only uncertain with regard to the model used (as discussed above) but also regarding the methodology used to allocated, for instance, numbers of (current) child labour to an economic sector in the input/output model.

Acknowledgements

This research has been carried out as part of the FP7 PROSUITE project. PROSUITE (2009-2013) is a European project on sustainability assessment methodology of prospective technologies. The project was funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme.

References

[1] IEA, 2010. Energy Technology Perspective, Scenarios and Strategies to 2050. International Energy Agency, Paris.

[2] NETL, 2012b. Greenhouse Gas Reductions in the Power Industry Using Domestic Coal and Biomass Volume 2: Pulverized Coal Plants. D0E/NETL-2012/1547

[3] Wood, R., Hertwich, E., Sanders, M., Moles, C., 2012. Recommended economic indicators for SAT and model & methodology for scenarios. Deliverable 2.1 prepared within the EC 7th framework project PROSUITE

[4] Smekels, Plom A., 2013 Note on monetary evaluation of CCS emissions for CATO, ECN Petten

[5] Ecoinvent, 2010. Ecoinvent database v2.2 SimaPro, Ecoinvent Center.

[6] Schakel W., Meerman H., Talai A., Ramirez A., Faaij A., 2014, Comparative life cycle assessment of biomass co-firing plants with carbon capture and storage. Applied Energy 131, 441-467

[7] Knoope, M.M.J., Ramirez, A., Faaij, A.P.C., 2013. Improved cost models for optimizing CO2 pipeline configurations for point-to-point pipelines and simple networks. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 22, 25-46.

[8] Ramirez A., Schakel W., Gruty T., Wood R., 2014. Final Deliverable W6 D6.4: Coal power plants with carbon capture and storage - An explorative sustainability assessment. Prosuite