Figure 1 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Most of the released CO2 on offshore oil and gas installation originates from the gas turbines that power the installations. For certain offshore installations, CO2 capture and storage (CCS) could be an alternative to decrease the CO2 emissions. When opting for a chemical absorption CO2 capture system, a heat source for the stripper reboiler is nee...
Context in source publication
Similar publications
Post-combustion CO2 capture (PCC) is commonly believed to be one of the major strategic means to reduce the CO2 emission in coal power plant. However, the operation of PCC system will cause substantial increase of operation cost due to the energy consumption for regeneration of the capture solvent. The optimal integration schemes of large-scale PCC...
Citations
... They suggest the dimensions for the system, as well as the design capture efficiency, fixed in 87%. Nord et al [14] also presented a study for a specific oil field in the North Sea. They defined a design capture efficiency of 90%, using MEA absorption process. ...
... Øi et al [13] suggested conditions for an offshore application with 87 % capture efficiency, with 13 m absorber packing height (plus distribution and collecting height) and 15°C minimum approach temperature due to a decrease in equipment cost, size and weight. Nord [14] presents a design with a diameter of 13.6 m and packing height of 18.6 m for the absorber (plus distribution and collecting height). For the stripper, 3 m diameter and 7 m packing height. ...
... Øi et al [13] estimates the heat consumption to be approximately 5.5 MJ/kg CO2 removed. Nord et al [14] evaluated the specific reboiler duty for the process to be 3.6 MJ/kg CO2. Obtained values in this work are of the same order of magnitude. ...
... However, energy efficiency alone can never bring emissions anywhere close to zero. Gas turbines with carbon capture and storage may be possible [4,5], but is unlikely to ever become a practical and economical option for the small gas turbines used on oil and gas platforms. ...
This paper considers the operation of offshore oil and gas platform energy systems with energy supply from wind turbines to reduce local CO2 emissions. A new integrated energy system model for operational planning and simulation has been developed and implemented in an open-source software tool (Oogeso). This model and tool is first presented, and then applied on a relevant North Sea case with different energy supply alternatives to quantify and compare CO2 emission reductions and other key indicators.
... A number of other options were more recently proposed and investigated, involving the power plant [16] as well as the processing plant [17]. A way to decarbonize the offshore operation without deeply modifying the power generation system could be to introduce a carbon capture process [18]. CCS could also allow a concept involving offshore production of clean power from gas and export of the surplus to the mainland to help decarbonise mainland electricity [19]. ...
Electrification of offshore oil and gas installations on the Norwegian continental shelf is one of several options to decrease the CO2 emitted from these installations. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding how the increased electricity consumption will influence the CO2 emissions in the power market, both in the short-run and in the long-run. This paper aims to address the issue and investigate the feasibility of the electrification of a large offshore area in the North Sea in comparison to standard concepts to supply energy offshore. A novel integrated model was developed for the purpose that includes and combines a process model of the offshore power generation units and a model of the European power system. The integration of the two models allows to simultaneously simulate the behavior of the offshore energy conversion systems and the effect of electrification on the onshore power system. The outcomes of the analysis show that the environmental performance of electrification is strongly affected by the selected approach to quantify the CO2 emissions associated with power from shore. Taking standard methods to supply offshore energy as basis for comparison, the marginal effect of electrification would result in increased CO2 emissions (+40%), while the average effect would entail large reductions in CO2 emissions (−48% to −90%), the extent of which depends on the geographical scope selected. An analysis on the economics of electrification indicates that its economic viability would be challenging and would not be favoured by a strong European commitment towards environmental policies since the expected increase of power price will outbalance the gains for the reduced emission costs.
... For example, a reduction of 77% in CO2 emissions resulted in a reduction of exergy efficiency of 2.8 points. Nord et al. [41] investigated three bottoming cycle configurations which could be integrated with conventional offshore power cycles 2 to meet the steam and power requirements of a CO2 capture process. Based on power output and system weight, they concluded that a steam cycle with a back-pressure steam turbine would be the best strategy, as it would be able to provide all necessary steam and power, with margin, for the CO2 capture and compression system. ...
This study investigates the techno-economic potential of offshore power generation from natural gas with carbon capture and storage to reduce the climate impact of mainland electricity and the offshore oil and gas industry. This potential is assessed through techno-economic assessments over two relevant cases (“floating” and “shallow water” cases) including comparison with relevant reference concepts. In the base case evaluation, the offshore power plant concept toward decarbonising mainland electricity results in high costs (178 and 258 $/MWh respectively for the floating and shallow water cases) compared to a reference onshore power plant with carbon capture and storage (around 95 $/MWh). However, a stronger potential is identified for the concept toward decarbonising offshore oil and gas platforms as the concept results in costs more comparable with the reference electrification concept (137 compared to 133 $/MWh in the floating case and 207 compared to 166 $/MWh in the shallow water case). Although the base cases show a limited potential for the offshore concept, the results show that with technological improvements (advanced capture technology, reuse of infrastructure…) and more suited case characteristics (development based on associated gas…), the offshore concept offers a significant potential for cost-efficiently decarbonising the offshore oil and gas industry, while a more moderate potential is foreseen for the decarbonisation of mainland electricity.
This paper contributes to the development of improved guidelines for cost evaluation of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from industrial applications building on previous work in the field. It discusses key challenges and factors that have a large impact on the results of cost evaluations, but are often overlooked or insufficiently addressed. These include cost metrics (especially in the context of industrial plants with multiple output products), energy supply aspects, retrofitting costs, CO2 transport and storage, maturity of the capture technology. Where possible examples are given to demonstrate their quantitative impact and show how costs may vary widely on a case-by-case basis.
Recommendations are given to consider different possible heat and power supply strategies, as well as future energy and carbon price scenarios, to better understand cost performances under various framework conditions. Since retrofitting CCS is very relevant for industrial facilities, further considerations are made on how to better account for the key elements that constitute retrofitting costs. Furthermore, instead of using a fixed unit cost for CO2 transport and storage, cost estimates should at least consider the flowrate, transport mode, transport distance and type of storage, to make more realistic cost estimates. Recommendations are also given on factors to consider when assessing the technological maturity level of CCS in various industrial applications, which is important when assessing cost contingencies and cost uncertainties.
Lastly, we urge techno-economic analysis practitioners to clearly report all major assumptions and methods, as well as ideally examine the impact of these on their estimates.
