Thanks, Mark.
To quote the FOA:
A market-based solution to improve the economics of CO2 capture includes the
utilization of captured CO2 for EOR to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions from
coal-based power generation sources while improving energy security. A National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) study[1] estimates that the utilization of
approximately 20 billion tonnes of CO2 captured from coal-fired power plants,
natural sources, and industrial sources in EOR applications could produce up to
67 billion barrels of domestic oil from economically recoverable resources.
So let's see if I understand this. If 0.42 tonnes of CO2 are released to the
atmosphere per barrel of oil, the 67 Bbls of oil produced from 20 Gt CO2
injected will unsequester 28 GT CO2. Considering that power plant CO2 would
only make up 18 GT of the injected CO2 (see fine print) means that 1.6 GT CO2
would be unsequestered for every tonne of anthro CO2 injected. The current
CO2-EOR industry average is more like 3 GT CO2 out per GT injected and it is
unclear what the economic motivation would be to lower this ratio given the
high
cost of CCS CO2 relative to conventional geologic CO2 sources for EOR.
Then there is this interesting analogy offered to put things in perspective:
However, large numbers such as billions of tons of CO2 demand and storage
capacity are different [sic] to grasp and thus often of limited value. An
alternative way to illustrate the CO2 demand and storage capacity offered by
“Next Generation” CO2-EOR is to use the metric of the number of one-GW size
power plants that could rely on CO2-EOR for purchasing and storing their
captured CO2:
After subtracting out the 2.3 billion metric tons of CO2 supply currently
available, CO2-EOR still offers sufficient technical storage capacity for all
of
the anthropogenic CO2 captured from 228 one-GW size coal-fired power plants for
30 years of operation. [1]
What is not stated is that the equivalent CO2 emissions of 365 one-GW
coal-fired
power plants x 30 years will be unsequestered and released to the atmosphere
via
the oil produced and combusted. This does not square with the FOA's stated
intent: ...to provide solutions for addressing the CO2 emission and global
climate change concerns ...
In any case, a cost of concentrated CO2 of $61/tonne is the stated goal, a
real
challenge for retrofit CCS at conventional power plants, and a miracle for CDR
(Socolow et al., House et al.). Those offering to mitigate CO2 by (cheaper)
means other than making conc CO2 (for EOR) need not apply (FOA, pg. 7), and can
continue to wait for meaningful policy and public funding in support of ideas
that might actually help save the world rather that perpetuate BAU.
-Greg
[1]Dipietro, Philip, Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2
Emissions with “Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions
with “Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)”, Report #
DOE/NETL-2011/1504, June 2011.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/NextGen_CO2_EOR_06142011.pdf
From: markcap...@podenergy.org markcap...@podenergy.org
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 19, 2013 7:07:03 AM
Subject: [geo] CDR money in DE-FOA-785?
The U.S. Department of Energy seaks proposals for capturing coal exhause CO2,
due May 2nd. They expect the captured CO2 will be used for Enhansed Oil
Recovery.
If you have a capture-CO2-from-air (CDR) system that could be located close to
an oil well and might therefore be less expensive than capture-from-exhaust,
you
might propose. DOE is likely to consider such a proposal non-responsive.
Bench- and Pilot-Scale Applications for Research and Development of
Post-Combustion and Pre-Combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies for
Coal-Fired Power Plants
Funding Opportunity Number: DE-FOA-785
Response Due Date: 5/2/2013 11:59:00 PM ET
Use the following link to view this opportunity:
https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect?doc=DE-FOA-785agency=DOE
If you wish to continue to be notified about this opportunity, please be sure
to
Register. If someone else in your company has already registered your company's
interest, add yourself to the Response Team by clicking Join.
This message is sent to you as a courtesy because you listed DOE in your
FedConnect user profile. If you wish to be removed from future emails about
this
agency, please update your user profile at
https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect
Mark E. Capron, PE
Oxnard, California
www.PODenergy.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this
