高温热液系统地热结合直接和生物质二氧化碳去除技术经济分析

IF 3.5 2区 工程技术 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS Geothermics Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1016/j.geothermics.2024.103159
{"title":"高温热液系统地热结合直接和生物质二氧化碳去除技术经济分析","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.geothermics.2024.103159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Limiting global temperature rise to between 1.5 and 2 °C will likely require widespread deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to offset sectors with hard-to-abate emissions. As financial resources for decarbonization are finite, strategic deployment of CDR technologies is essential for maximizing atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> reductions. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), using either direct air capture (DACCS) or bioenergy (BECCS) technologies has a particular synergy with geothermal electricity generation. This is because expensive geothermal infrastructure can be leveraged to transport dissolved CO<sub>2</sub> for storage in subsurface reservoirs.</p><p>Here, we present a techno-economic comparison of renewable electricity generation coupled with either BECCS or DACCS at high-temperature, low-gas hydrothermal systems. We use a systems model that quantifies energy, carbon and financial flows through a generic hybrid power plant. At a CO<sub>2</sub> market price of $100/tonne, the geothermal-BECCS system has a lower median cost of electricity generation ($88/MWh) than geothermal-DACCS ($181/MWh) and conventional geothermal ($89/MWh).</p><p>Geothermal-BECCS also had the lowest costs of overall emissions abatement, $122/tCO<sub>2</sub>, accounting for carbon removal and assuming displacement of fossil-fuel generation. Abatement costs are even lower, $45/tCO<sub>2</sub>, for BECCS retrofit of existing geothermal plants, owing to discounted costs of pre-existing injection wells, steam fields, and plant equipment.</p><p>For a case study based on a geothermal field in New Zealand's Taupō Volcanic Zone (TVZ), we determined that achieving CDR rates of 1 MtCO<sub>2</sub>/year via new geothermal-BECCS builds would require 62 standard geothermal wells and 790 kt/year of feedstock and result in 511 MWe in installed capacity. In contrast, geothermal-DACCS would need 49 wells and no external fuel source to achieve 1 MtCO<sub>2</sub>/year scale but result in only 190 MWe in installed capacity. Both pathways are calculated to require similar upfront investment costs at $2.2 billion and $2.3 billion for geothermal-BECCS and geothermal-DACCS respectively.</p><p>Although geothermal-DACCS removes CO<sub>2</sub> at high rates, its high parasitic load increases the overall decarbonization cost ($187/tCO<sub>2</sub>). In contrast, when biomass hybridization is considered, geothermal-BECCS has a lower cost of emissions abatement and produces 20 % more electricity than the benchmark geothermal plant. We conclude that this increase in electricity production makes geothermal-BECCS the more cost-effective geothermal-based CDR configuration. Finally, we argue that revenues from net-negative CO<sub>2</sub> emissions and increased power production make geothermal-CDR a cost-competitive decarbonization technology.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55095,"journal":{"name":"Geothermics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375650524002451/pdfft?md5=52e38e8ef821c197e1544f6c5b391d02&pid=1-s2.0-S0375650524002451-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Techno-economic analysis of geothermal combined with direct and biomass-based carbon dioxide removal for high-temperature hydrothermal systems\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.geothermics.2024.103159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Limiting global temperature rise to between 1.5 and 2 °C will likely require widespread deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to offset sectors with hard-to-abate emissions. As financial resources for decarbonization are finite, strategic deployment of CDR technologies is essential for maximizing atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> reductions. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), using either direct air capture (DACCS) or bioenergy (BECCS) technologies has a particular synergy with geothermal electricity generation. This is because expensive geothermal infrastructure can be leveraged to transport dissolved CO<sub>2</sub> for storage in subsurface reservoirs.</p><p>Here, we present a techno-economic comparison of renewable electricity generation coupled with either BECCS or DACCS at high-temperature, low-gas hydrothermal systems. We use a systems model that quantifies energy, carbon and financial flows through a generic hybrid power plant. At a CO<sub>2</sub> market price of $100/tonne, the geothermal-BECCS system has a lower median cost of electricity generation ($88/MWh) than geothermal-DACCS ($181/MWh) and conventional geothermal ($89/MWh).</p><p>Geothermal-BECCS also had the lowest costs of overall emissions abatement, $122/tCO<sub>2</sub>, accounting for carbon removal and assuming displacement of fossil-fuel generation. Abatement costs are even lower, $45/tCO<sub>2</sub>, for BECCS retrofit of existing geothermal plants, owing to discounted costs of pre-existing injection wells, steam fields, and plant equipment.</p><p>For a case study based on a geothermal field in New Zealand's Taupō Volcanic Zone (TVZ), we determined that achieving CDR rates of 1 MtCO<sub>2</sub>/year via new geothermal-BECCS builds would require 62 standard geothermal wells and 790 kt/year of feedstock and result in 511 MWe in installed capacity. In contrast, geothermal-DACCS would need 49 wells and no external fuel source to achieve 1 MtCO<sub>2</sub>/year scale but result in only 190 MWe in installed capacity. Both pathways are calculated to require similar upfront investment costs at $2.2 billion and $2.3 billion for geothermal-BECCS and geothermal-DACCS respectively.</p><p>Although geothermal-DACCS removes CO<sub>2</sub> at high rates, its high parasitic load increases the overall decarbonization cost ($187/tCO<sub>2</sub>). In contrast, when biomass hybridization is considered, geothermal-BECCS has a lower cost of emissions abatement and produces 20 % more electricity than the benchmark geothermal plant. We conclude that this increase in electricity production makes geothermal-BECCS the more cost-effective geothermal-based CDR configuration. Finally, we argue that revenues from net-negative CO<sub>2</sub> emissions and increased power production make geothermal-CDR a cost-competitive decarbonization technology.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geothermics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375650524002451/pdfft?md5=52e38e8ef821c197e1544f6c5b391d02&pid=1-s2.0-S0375650524002451-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geothermics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375650524002451\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geothermics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375650524002451","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

要将全球气温升幅限制在 1.5 ℃ 至 2 ℃ 之间,可能需要广泛部署二氧化碳清除(CDR)技术,以抵消排放难以减少的部门。由于用于脱碳的资金有限,因此战略性地部署 CDR 技术对于最大限度地减少大气中的二氧化碳排放至关重要。使用直接空气捕集(DACCS)或生物能源(BECCS)技术的碳捕集与封存(CCS)与地热发电具有特殊的协同作用。在此,我们对高温、低气体热液系统的可再生能源发电与 BECCS 或 DACCS 进行了技术经济比较。我们使用了一个系统模型,该模型量化了通过通用混合发电厂的能量流、碳流和资金流。在二氧化碳市场价格为 100 美元/吨时,地热-BECCS 系统的发电成本中位数(88 美元/兆瓦时)低于地热-DACCS(181 美元/兆瓦时)和传统地热(89 美元/兆瓦时)。对现有地热发电厂进行 BECCS 改造的减排成本甚至更低,为 45 美元/吨 CO2,这是因为已存在的注入井、蒸汽场和发电厂设备的成本已打折扣。在一项基于新西兰陶波火山区 (TVZ) 地热田的案例研究中,我们确定,通过新建地热-BECCS 达到每年 100 万吨 CO2 的 CDR 率需要 62 口标准地热井和 790 kt/ 年的原料,并产生 511 MWe 的装机容量。相比之下,地热-DACCS 将需要 49 口井和无外部燃料源来实现 1 MtCO2/year 的规模,但装机容量仅为 190 MWe。根据计算,地热-BECCS 和地热-DACCS 所需的前期投资成本相似,分别为 22 亿美元和 23 亿美元。虽然地热-DACCS 能以较高的速度去除二氧化碳,但其较高的寄生负载会增加总体脱碳成本(187 美元/吨二氧化碳)。相比之下,如果考虑生物质杂交,地热-BECCS 的减排成本更低,发电量比基准地热发电厂多 20%。我们的结论是,发电量的增加使地热-BECCS 成为更具成本效益的基于地热的 CDR 配置。最后,我们认为二氧化碳净负值排放和发电量增加带来的收益使地热-CDR 成为一种具有成本竞争力的去碳化技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Techno-economic analysis of geothermal combined with direct and biomass-based carbon dioxide removal for high-temperature hydrothermal systems

Limiting global temperature rise to between 1.5 and 2 °C will likely require widespread deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to offset sectors with hard-to-abate emissions. As financial resources for decarbonization are finite, strategic deployment of CDR technologies is essential for maximizing atmospheric CO2 reductions. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), using either direct air capture (DACCS) or bioenergy (BECCS) technologies has a particular synergy with geothermal electricity generation. This is because expensive geothermal infrastructure can be leveraged to transport dissolved CO2 for storage in subsurface reservoirs.

Here, we present a techno-economic comparison of renewable electricity generation coupled with either BECCS or DACCS at high-temperature, low-gas hydrothermal systems. We use a systems model that quantifies energy, carbon and financial flows through a generic hybrid power plant. At a CO2 market price of $100/tonne, the geothermal-BECCS system has a lower median cost of electricity generation ($88/MWh) than geothermal-DACCS ($181/MWh) and conventional geothermal ($89/MWh).

Geothermal-BECCS also had the lowest costs of overall emissions abatement, $122/tCO2, accounting for carbon removal and assuming displacement of fossil-fuel generation. Abatement costs are even lower, $45/tCO2, for BECCS retrofit of existing geothermal plants, owing to discounted costs of pre-existing injection wells, steam fields, and plant equipment.

For a case study based on a geothermal field in New Zealand's Taupō Volcanic Zone (TVZ), we determined that achieving CDR rates of 1 MtCO2/year via new geothermal-BECCS builds would require 62 standard geothermal wells and 790 kt/year of feedstock and result in 511 MWe in installed capacity. In contrast, geothermal-DACCS would need 49 wells and no external fuel source to achieve 1 MtCO2/year scale but result in only 190 MWe in installed capacity. Both pathways are calculated to require similar upfront investment costs at $2.2 billion and $2.3 billion for geothermal-BECCS and geothermal-DACCS respectively.

Although geothermal-DACCS removes CO2 at high rates, its high parasitic load increases the overall decarbonization cost ($187/tCO2). In contrast, when biomass hybridization is considered, geothermal-BECCS has a lower cost of emissions abatement and produces 20 % more electricity than the benchmark geothermal plant. We conclude that this increase in electricity production makes geothermal-BECCS the more cost-effective geothermal-based CDR configuration. Finally, we argue that revenues from net-negative CO2 emissions and increased power production make geothermal-CDR a cost-competitive decarbonization technology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Geothermics
Geothermics 工程技术-地球科学综合
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
237
审稿时长
4.5 months
期刊介绍: Geothermics is an international journal devoted to the research and development of geothermal energy. The International Board of Editors of Geothermics, which comprises specialists in the various aspects of geothermal resources, exploration and development, guarantees the balanced, comprehensive view of scientific and technological developments in this promising energy field. It promulgates the state of the art and science of geothermal energy, its exploration and exploitation through a regular exchange of information from all parts of the world. The journal publishes articles dealing with the theory, exploration techniques and all aspects of the utilization of geothermal resources. Geothermics serves as the scientific house, or exchange medium, through which the growing community of geothermal specialists can provide and receive information.
期刊最新文献
Experimental assessment of inter-well reinjection in standing column wells by analysis of transfer functions obtained from non-stationary deconvolution The certainty matrix for fault data and interpretations Investigation of radiogenic heat production in granites of the Goiás Tin Province, Central Brazil Influence of ground source heat exchanger operation modes on multi-borehole mid-deep ground source heat pump system performance Deep thermal state on the southern margin of the Zhangzhou Basin based on the electrical conductivity model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1