California CO2 Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (C2SAFE): Final Technical Report
- Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA (United States)
- Clean Energy Systems, Inc., Rancho Cordova, CA (United States)
- Frontier Energy, Oakland, CA (United States)
- California State Univ. Bakersfield, Bakersfield, CA (United States)
- Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
- Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
- Southern California Gas Co., Los Angeles, CA (United States)
The California CO2 Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (C2SAFE) project conducted a preliminary study into the feasibility of a commercial-scale carbon dioxide (CO2) storage complex located in California’s Southern San Joaquin Valley (SSJV). The work represents the first phase of a multi-phased development approach outlined by the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Carbon Storage Assurance and Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) program meant to develop carbon storage sites capable of permanently storing 50 million metric tonnes of CO2, or greater, injected over a typical facility life of 20 to 30 years. This report represents the culmination of work performed under C2SAFE and outlines a phased implementation plan for large-scale, industrial carbon capture and permanent storage in California’s SSJV. The report is meant to be a standalone document and as such provides high-level summaries of all tasks of the project, but is also meant to complement the other three topical reports issued by the project – reports referenced herein. The study considered multiple scenarios including an east-side storage facility, a west-side storage facility, and potential multi-site storage facilities. The east-side storage facility is to be located at Clean Energy Systems, Inc.’s Kimberlina Power Plant, or nearby, and the west-side facility will be located at the California Resources Corporation’s (CRC’s) Elk Hills oil field. The majority of carbon emissions are planned to be captured from existing sources and transported to the selected and verified storage site(s). Capture from the single closest source to the eastern storage facility and the sources within the Elk Hills field would meet the CarbonSAFE storage goal of 50 million tonnes. The study has shown there is sufficient storage capacity to meet this requirement and more; thus, capture from any of the numerous additional large nearby sources would substantially leverage the CarbonSAFE investment. A comparison of preliminary CO2 capture, transportation, and storage costs to economic value and incentives in the state shows current market conditions make it economically feasible to develop large-scale industrial storage sites in California’s SSJV. The business case for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in California’s SSJV appears economically viable today for large CO2 point sources involved in the production of transportation fuels, such as oilfield cogeneration units and steam boilers. The overall levelized CCS cost is estimated at roughly 125 per tonne of CO2, which includes CO2 amine-solvent post-combustion capture, transportation, and storage. The levelized CO2 capture cost is based on today’s technology, with no future cost reduction factored in for technology improvement. The sum of the value of incentives and revenue from California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits (discounted roughly 20% from their current transaction value), sale of California cap-and-trade emission allowances, and Section 45Q tax credits—either for saline storage or the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) credit plus CO2 sales revenue—is about 165/tonne-CO2. The economic viability of CCS for Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants in the SSJV is more site-specific. A plant providing power solely to the electric grid, if it added CCS, should be eligible for Section 45Q tax credits and could sell its excess cap-and-trade emission allowances, but it would not generate LCFS credits. Using the cost and incentive values detailed in this report, it would not be economical for such a plant to add CCS today, barring other considerations. An NGCC plant within an oilfield (e.g., CRC Elk Hills and NRG Sunrise) that provides power to the oilfield as well as to the grid should receive “partial credit” in terms of generating LCFS credits if it added CCS (pro-rated for the fraction of power going to the oilfield). Such a plant should also be eligible for Section 45Q tax credits and garner revenue from selling its excess cap-and-trade emission allowances. Using the cost and incentive values described in this report, the economic viability of adding CCS today would depend on the relative fractions of electricity supplied to the oilfield and the grid. As the value of cap-and-trade emission allowances grows over time (either by market forces or the escalating floor price), the relative fraction of power needing to remain in the oilfield to achieve “breakeven” would diminish. At some point, even plants providing all their power to the grid would be candidates for economical CCS application. The C2SAFE team has proposed to expand upon the knowledge gained during this study by conducting a detailed feasibility assessment under a follow-on phase of the program, Phase II – Feasibility. This would include detailed data collection at the two sites, analysis, reporting, stakeholder outreach, and risk mitigation activities to support the development of a commercial carbon storage complex in the SSJV.
- Research Organization:
- Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE Office of Fossil Energy (FE), Clean Coal and Carbon Management
- DOE Contract Number:
- FE0029489
- OSTI ID:
- 1452864
- Report Number(s):
- DOE-EPRI-29489
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Integrated Mid-Continent Stacked Carbon Storage Hub Project Phase II (Final Summary Report)
Integrated Commercial Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Prefeasibility Study at Rock Springs Uplift, Wyoming (Final Report)