Upload
meryl-arnold
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
What is “Environmental Protection”
◊ Achieving a “sustainable” balance• Environment, Economics and Security
◊ Environment – Don’t destroy our own home
◊ Economics - Support human desire to improve themselves
◊ Security – Ensure the same for future generations
What is an “Affordable Cost”
◊ No limit to avoid a “terminal” condition
◊ True costs of environmental change are hard to quantify. Less environmental change will likely have less cost
◊ Positive economics to ensure value added
◊ Buy down risk where impacts are uncertain
Indicators
◊ Social - Conspicuous Consumption• “Perrier Water” at $3/L vs. $.03/L from tap
◊ Climate – Energy Use• Global Energy output = 550 EJ (1996)• Water vapour impacts vs. “Measurable GHG’s”
◊ Toxicity – Cost• “High Tech” = High Cost = High Emissions Somewhere
◊ Economic – Positive Economics• Best “environmental” projects make $• Best “economic” projects minimize environmental impacts
Social Indicator = Conspicuous Consumption
◊ Easiest way to achieve “Environmental Protection at an Affordable Cost” is to Reduce Conspicuous Consumption
• “Perrier Water” at $3/l (mostly cost to transport glass and water) vs. >$0.03/l from the tap
• Only eating “perfect tomatoes”• New vs. Used (Social life vs. Design Life)• Buy vs. Rent or Lease (Status symbol vs. utility)
◊ Social Issues require education and new role models.
Climate Indicator = Energy Use
◊ “Measured” Global Energy Output= 550 EJ (‘96)• Energy to heat atmosphere 1 degree C = 450 EJ
◊ Adding energy makes things more energetic!
◊ Water vapour impacts vs. “Measurable GHG’s”• “Weather” driven by humidity more than temperature
» Rainfall on U.S. Eastern Seaboard has a 7 day cycle
» Humidity measurement key to weather prediction (1917)
» Need predict humidity changes to predict weather (future)
• “Heat Pipe Effect” moves energy to Arctic air masses» Temperature increase greater at higher latitudes
» Rapid increase in glacier melting
Toxicity Indicator = Cost
◊ Why High Tech materials are expensive:• Large resource input (energy, people)• High purity requires high processing cost
» “Pure water” vs. “Clean Water”
• Scarce components = large volumes of reject• Specialized processing (acids, heavy metals, solvents)• All lead to more emissions of toxic or potentially toxic
materials
◊ High cost means high emissions somewhere
Economic Indicator = Positive Economics
◊ Economics are a reality• Environmentalists and engineers need to get paid• “Ethical funds” and stocks have to show a return• Financial results are society’s “scorecard”
◊ Best “environmental” projects make $ for someone
◊ Best “economic”projects minimize environmental impacts
◊ “Affordable” = “Profitable”
◊ More profitable = Quicker and more widespread implementation
Priority #1 - Reduce
◊ Reduce Net Energy Use• Make complete use of energy generated• Don’t dump energy to atmosphere if someone can use it
◊ Simplicity of Design• Less hardware -->Less cost--> Less energy/emissions to
make
◊ Biochemical to Replace “Pots & Kettles”• Low energy routes to the same products
◊ Influence Public• Help them select products based on good life cycle
impacts?• Weed out false/misleading information.
Priority #2 - Reuse
◊ Close materials loops• Find uses for all concentrated streams• Use processes and site plants to generate “locally useful
byproducts”
◊ Design Products for Reuse• Standardize materials & packaging to allow refill• Design for secondary uses
◊ Stop calling things “waste” streams• By-products looking for a use.
Priority #3 - Recycle
◊ Don’t use non-recyclable materials• Avoid vinyl-chlorides• Avoid composite materials
◊ Develop small scale, local recycling processes to reduce transportation energy
• Community level composting & fibre recycling
◊ Plan Landfill Sites to Allow for Mining• Segregate metals, asphalt, biomass, other hydrocarbons
Picking “Robust Solutions”
◊ Best projects for Environmental Protection:• Don’t stimulate more conspicuous consumption• Net energy demand reductions on Life Cycle Basis• Don’t create other problems (toxics)• Positive economics to motivate use• Go in the right order:
› First Reduce› Second Reuse› Third Recycle
New Paradigms for Robust Projects
◊ Mostly from Energy and Petrochemicals Industries• Hydrocarbon Vent Remediation• Oilfield Water Management• Cogeneration• Use of Pure Byproduct Streams• Energy Recovery
THC Emissions by Industry Sector
Gas Production29%
Heavy Oil Production
23%Accidents and
Equipment Failures4%
Product Transmission
13%
Conventional Oil Production
25%
Other1%
Gas Processing5%
Total 1995 = 2276 kt
Ref: CAPP Pub #1999-0009
VOC Emissions by Industry Sector
Gas Production16%
Heavy Oil Production
7%Accidents and
Equipment Failures2%
Product Transmission
4%
Conventional Oil Production
66%
Other1%
Gas Processing4%
Total 1995 = 681 kt
Ref: CAPP Pub #1999-0009
CH4 Emissions by Industry Sector
Gas Production35%
Heavy Oil Production
29%
Accidents and Equipment Failures
5%
Product Transmission
16%
Conventional Oil Production
8%
Other1% Gas Processing
6%
Total 1995 = 1594 kt
Ref: CAPP Pub #1999-0009
Hydrocarbon Vents – Heavy Oil
Heavy Oil Venting WellTest Case - High Volume
Casing Vent - #1
Catalytic Heater
Tank Vent - #2
Tank at 65 - 85 deg C
Secondary Catalytic Heater(If Required)
Water and Oil Production in Western Canada
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
An
nu
al P
rod
uct
ion
- M
illio
ns
of
bb
ls
Water Production
Oil Production
Oilfield Water Management DHOWS
Hydrocyclone(s)
Concentrate Pump (P2)
Emulsion Pump (P1)
Back Pressure Valve
Producing Zone(s)
Disposal Zone(s)
C-FER/NPEL
•Minimizes Energy Use•Reduces Brine Flow by Aquifers•Prolongs Well Life•Reduces Surface Facilities•Reduces Operating Costs•Reduces Surface Spills
Oilfield Water Management – Same Well Source/Injector/Recycle
Lake orRiver Source
Cap rockOil Leg
Water LegCap rock
Underlying Aquifer
DHOWS
Move toward“Ideal”
Pump
Cogeneration – Compressor Sites
Canadian Sales Pipeline Fuel Use* = 0.24 tcf/yr (4.4% of sales)Similar Volume for U.S. Portions of Pipelines
•#1 Only Requires Power Deregulation•#2 Adapt Geothermal Technology•Distributed generation – “free” fuel•TransCanada Power – 40 MW plants
#1#2
* Source NRCan Energy Outlook
Gas Transportation Energy Distribution
Ont32%
Man15%
Sask7%
Que10%
B.C.14%
Alberta22%
Ref: CAPP Pub #1999-0009
Cogeneration – Gas Plants
Gas Production Fuel Use* = 0.43 tcf/yr (7.8% of sales)H2S Converted to Sulphur* = 0.19 tcf/yr (exothermic)Compression, Dehydration, Liquids and Sulphur Removal
•#1 Potential of over 1,000 MW from major sour gas plants. (RTM/CAPP ‘91)•#2 Potential of 80 MW from fractionation plants. (RTM/CAPP ’91)•#3 Adapt Geothermal Technology
* Source CAPP 1996 Statistics
#1#2
SweeteningFractionation
#3
Cogeneration – Major Sites
•Initially only requires deregulation•Secondary opportunities for other sources.
•E.g. Steam vents in Cold Lake,•E.g. Thermomechanical Pulp Mills
PetrochemicalRefinery
Oil SandsHeavy Oil
PetrochemicalRefinery
Oil SandsHeavy Oil
Add Cogen
Total Planned in Alta/Sask Alone > 1,000 MW
Use of By-Product Streams – CO/CO2
e.g. Syncrude/Suncor 1996 = 12 Mt/yr
CO/CO2
• Potential Products• Ethanol (on-site fuel)• Acetone
Bioreactors Compression& Pipelines
Fischer-Tropsch
CH4
• Potential Uses• Oil Recovery• Other Users
• Potential Products• On-site Fuels• Diluent for Blending
CO2CO/CO2Biomass& Bugs
Use of By-Product Streams - Shingles
•Value of asphalt in landfill streams = $40/t•Cost to dump in landfill = $40-$100/t•Replace buying raw asphalt & gravel•Needs standards for use in Roads•Better filler for Potholes?
Estimated Size of Stream in Alberta = 120 t/d
Shingle Manufacture
Re-roofing
Landfills Roads/Highways
Remove Nails& Wood
Asphalt
Energy Recovery – Water Users
•Large users might be economic•High volume water users•Also require heat or power
Hydraulic Power Recovery
Municipal Pump Stations End-user Pressure Reduction
Power or heat generation
Energy Recovery – Gas Users
•Large users might be economic•High volume gas users•Also require power or cooling
•Utility Pressure Letdown Stations
Pneumatic Power Recovery
Compressor Stations End-user Pressure Reduction
Power or cooling
◊ Environmental ProtectionCan meet objectives of Environment, Economics and
Security of Supply
◊ Solutions possible with focused changes:Social Education & Motivation
Technical Economics & Regulation
Potential Opportunity with R&D
◊ Key to Affordable Solutions:What if…….Why not………..
Summary
Acknowledgments
◊ Clients - NRCan & PERD, Oil & Gas Producers
◊ Alliance Partners - C-FER Technologies Inc., KR Croasdale & Associates, R&D 2000, Scott-Can Industries, Colin Gosselin
◊ Contact Networks - CSChE, PTAC, ACR, CIM, SPE, CAPP, individual colleagues
◊ New Paradigm Affiliates - KeyTech Energy Inc., Blackline Oil Corp. & Avatar Systems Inc.
◊ Family and Friends
Contact Information
Advanced Technology Centre
9650-20 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T6N 1G1
tel: 780.450.3613
fax: 780.462.7297
email: [email protected]
web: www.newparadigm.ab.ca