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
PlanningNetwerken
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
ontwikkelingen, 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 of 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 infrastructureRenewable 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 of existing infrastructure
Growing share of renewable energy
Intermittency issue of renewable energy
Need for optimal use of renewable, affordable energy
Need for flexible, reliable, affordable, low-carbon energy
Need for new business model for O&G
Diversification of gas carriers
Decommissioning obligations
Need for efficient investments in new infrastructure
3. North Sea energy developments
12 / 57
NORTH SEA
UGS
UGS
P2GCCS
Wind
P2G
Piping
DCM
O&G
UGS
DCM
CCS
CCS
WindP2G
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
over 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-
ownership.
• 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
over £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
50-70%
~ 50%
50-70%
~ 80%
4b. Underground Gas Storage (UGS)
• The need for underground gas storage is driven by:
a. need for growing flexibility caused by the intermittency
of 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
on 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
offshore 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
optimise 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,
- organisatorisch,
- op maatschappelijke acceptatie,
voldoende voorbereid op energie systeemintegratie.
Biomass contributionto 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
of 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
Hig
he
rco
st
Lo
we
rco
st
Lo
we
rco
st
tha
nn
on
-in
term
itte
nt
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
on a district scale
Bioenergy as the back-up
Beats alternative local non-
intermittent solutions on
price
Pri
ce
bio
en
erg
yve
rsu
s (
no
n-)
in
term
itte
nt
alt
ern
ati
ve
s
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