求助PDF
{"title":"在地质碳储存地点制定应急计划的定量风险评估方法","authors":"Nate Mitchell, Greg Lackey, Brandon Schwartz, Brian Strazisar, Robert Dilmore","doi":"10.1002/ghg.2219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Geologic carbon storage (GCS) is an increasingly important technology for reducing carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions to the atmosphere. The leakage risks associated with GCS are an environmental and human health concern, however, and site operators must develop contingency plans that thoroughly consider leakage risks and identify potential mitigation strategies. Here, we use a GCS system model (the National Risk Assessment Partnership's Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model, NRAP-Open-IAM) to evaluate different contingency plans for a hypothetical GCS site. In the scenario considered, an unplugged legacy well is discovered near the site after 5 years of CO<sub>2</sub> injection. Our simulations show that the planned operation has a relatively high chance of causing brine leakage through the legacy well and into the two overlying aquifers, the shallower of which has potable water—an unacceptable outcome. To reduce this risk, we consider five remedial response scenarios that manipulate reservoir pressures through brine extraction, injection rate reduction, and early injection stopping. NRAP-Open-IAM is used to quantify the degree to which each scenario reduces the probability of brine leakage at the site amidst reservoir uncertainty. Evaluation of the different scenarios suggests that reduction of injection rates effectively reduces leakage risks while maintaining a substantial fraction of the initially intended cumulative CO<sub>2</sub> storage. In the event of an emergency, the reservoir pressure management strategies considered here can provide operators more time while they pursue a more permanent solution. The analyses demonstrated here fit into a larger workflow we propose for evaluating the contingency plans of GCS sites. © 2023 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p>","PeriodicalId":12796,"journal":{"name":"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A quantitative risk assessment approach for developing contingency plans at a geologic carbon storage site\",\"authors\":\"Nate Mitchell, Greg Lackey, Brandon Schwartz, Brian Strazisar, Robert Dilmore\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ghg.2219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Geologic carbon storage (GCS) is an increasingly important technology for reducing carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions to the atmosphere. The leakage risks associated with GCS are an environmental and human health concern, however, and site operators must develop contingency plans that thoroughly consider leakage risks and identify potential mitigation strategies. Here, we use a GCS system model (the National Risk Assessment Partnership's Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model, NRAP-Open-IAM) to evaluate different contingency plans for a hypothetical GCS site. In the scenario considered, an unplugged legacy well is discovered near the site after 5 years of CO<sub>2</sub> injection. Our simulations show that the planned operation has a relatively high chance of causing brine leakage through the legacy well and into the two overlying aquifers, the shallower of which has potable water—an unacceptable outcome. To reduce this risk, we consider five remedial response scenarios that manipulate reservoir pressures through brine extraction, injection rate reduction, and early injection stopping. NRAP-Open-IAM is used to quantify the degree to which each scenario reduces the probability of brine leakage at the site amidst reservoir uncertainty. Evaluation of the different scenarios suggests that reduction of injection rates effectively reduces leakage risks while maintaining a substantial fraction of the initially intended cumulative CO<sub>2</sub> storage. In the event of an emergency, the reservoir pressure management strategies considered here can provide operators more time while they pursue a more permanent solution. The analyses demonstrated here fit into a larger workflow we propose for evaluating the contingency plans of GCS sites. © 2023 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg.2219\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg.2219","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
引用
批量引用