Today the development of subsea fields or satellites and the remoteness of thelocation not only require subsea processing but have also has implications forthe provision of power. The norm for offshore power generation is the use offossil fuel. However, the uncertainty surrounding a global climate policy at atime when the projection is for an exponential increase in offshore powerdemand is a cause for pause to look at renewable power solutions. Types ofrenewable power solutions that have application to the offshore oil and gasindustry include: solar, wind, and ocean energy (various).
This paper provides a rank/value for offshore power generated with bothrenewable- and conventional- energy sources relative to four (4) projectscenarios: Status Quo, Supply-to-the-Rescue, The Green Agenda, and DoubleJeopardy. The work to select a power solution began by identifying a key focusquestion about the future that the scenarios would address: How will the demandfor offshore (subsea) power and the potential externalities that may resultshape the power generation options over the next decade? The paper also pointsto resources that can shed light on the latest technological advances andfuture trends for renewable energy sources. The hope of the author is that thepaper will prove to be a useful reference for R&D specialists and projectengineers who are often asked to respond to the question: Renewables - Ready orNot?
Kheshgi, Haroon S. (ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company) | Thomann, Hans (ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company) | Bhore, Nazeer A. (Exxon Mobil Corporation) | Hirsch, Robert B. (ExxonMobil Gas and Power Marketing Company) | Parker, Michael E. (ExxonMobil Production Company) | Teletzke, Gary (ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company)
Focus on carbon capture and storage (CCS) has grown over the past decade with recognition of CCS's potential to make deep CO2-emission reductions and that fossil fuels will continue to be needed to supply much of the world's energy demands for decades to come. How CCS will compare with other options in the future depends critically on the cost of CCS (the focus of this paper) and resolution of barriers to CCS deployment and costs and barriers for other emission-reduction options.
This paper provides a comparison of the cost of electricity of five power-generation options--coal-and-gas-combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) with and without CCS and nuclear--and shows regions of carbon price and fuel prices where each can be economically viable.
Current cost estimates for coal CCS for nth-of-a-kind power-generation plant are in the USD 60 to 100/t of CO2 avoided, which is higher than some of the earlier CCS estimates, and higher than the generally accepted range of expected carbon prices in the next 2 decades. The high cost of coal CCS suggests that
Although coal or gas CCS is unlikely to be economical in power generation over the next 2 decades, subsidized demonstrations of CCS are likely to occur. In addition, components of CCS technologies will continue to be economically practiced in early-use segments [e.g., natural-gas processing and enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) operations]. In the natural-gas-processing industry, CO2 separation cost is a fraction of the cost of CO2 capture in power generation because of its higher gas pressure, and the CO2 separation is typically necessary to monetize the natural-gas resource.
In contrast, CCS for most refinery and industrial emissions is expected to be significantly more costly than in power generation because the CO2 streams are typically smaller scale and more distributed than those from large power plants.
Realistic cost estimates for CCS and for other greenhouse-gas (GHG) mitigation options are an important input for focusing research, development, and demonstration addressing barriers to applications that show the greatest promise and for development of sound policy.