IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i19p6122-d643381.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sensitivity of Reservoir and Operational Parameters on the Energy Extraction Performance of Combined CO 2 -EGR–CPG Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Justin Ezekiel

    (Geothermal Energy and Geofluids Group, Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Diya Kumbhat

    (Geothermal Energy and Geofluids Group, Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Anozie Ebigbo

    (Geothermal Energy and Geofluids Group, Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
    Hydromechanics Group, Helmut Schmidt University, Holstenhofweg 85, 22043 Hamburg, Germany)

  • Benjamin M. Adams

    (Geothermal Energy and Geofluids Group, Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Martin O. Saar

    (Geothermal Energy and Geofluids Group, Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
    Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota, 116 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55405, USA)

Abstract

There is a potential for synergy effects in utilizing CO 2 for both enhanced gas recovery (EGR) and geothermal energy extraction (CO 2 -plume geothermal, CPG) from natural gas reservoirs. In this study, we carried out reservoir simulations using TOUGH2 to evaluate the sensitivity of natural gas recovery, pressure buildup, and geothermal power generation performance of the combined CO 2 -EGR–CPG system to key reservoir and operational parameters. The reservoir parameters included horizontal permeability, permeability anisotropy, reservoir temperature, and pore-size-distribution index; while the operational parameters included wellbore diameter and ambient surface temperature. Using an example of a natural gas reservoir model, we also investigated the effects of different strategies of transitioning from the CO 2 -EGR stage to the CPG stage on the energy-recovery performance metrics and on the two-phase fluid-flow regime in the production well. The simulation results showed that overlapping the CO 2 -EGR and CPG stages, and having a relatively brief period of CO 2 injection, but no production (which we called the CO 2 -plume establishment stage) achieved the best overall energy (natural gas and geothermal) recovery performance. Permeability anisotropy and reservoir temperature were the parameters that the natural gas recovery performance of the combined system was most sensitive to. The geothermal power generation performance was most sensitive to the reservoir temperature and the production wellbore diameter. The results of this study pave the way for future CPG-based geothermal power-generation optimization studies. For a CO 2 -EGR–CPG project, the results can be a guide in terms of the required accuracy of the reservoir parameters during exploration and data acquisition.

Suggested Citation

  • Justin Ezekiel & Diya Kumbhat & Anozie Ebigbo & Benjamin M. Adams & Martin O. Saar, 2021. "Sensitivity of Reservoir and Operational Parameters on the Energy Extraction Performance of Combined CO 2 -EGR–CPG Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-21, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:19:p:6122-:d:643381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/19/6122/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/19/6122/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adams, Benjamin M. & Kuehn, Thomas H. & Bielicki, Jeffrey M. & Randolph, Jimmy B. & Saar, Martin O., 2014. "On the importance of the thermosiphon effect in CPG (CO2 plume geothermal) power systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 409-418.
    2. Zhang, Liang & Li, Xin & Zhang, Yin & Cui, Guodong & Tan, Chunyang & Ren, Shaoran, 2017. "CO2 injection for geothermal development associated with EGR and geological storage in depleted high-temperature gas reservoirs," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 139-148.
    3. Adams, Benjamin M. & Vogler, Daniel & Kuehn, Thomas H. & Bielicki, Jeffrey M. & Garapati, Nagasree & Saar, Martin O., 2021. "Heat depletion in sedimentary basins and its effect on the design and electric power output of CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 1393-1403.
    4. Ezekiel, Justin & Ebigbo, Anozie & Adams, Benjamin M. & Saar, Martin O., 2020. "Combining natural gas recovery and CO2-based geothermal energy extraction for electric power generation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    5. Kevin McDonnell & Levente Molnár & Mary Harty & Fionnuala Murphy, 2020. "Feasibility Study of Carbon Dioxide Plume Geothermal Systems in Germany−Utilising Carbon Dioxide for Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, May.
    6. Adams, Benjamin M. & Kuehn, Thomas H. & Bielicki, Jeffrey M. & Randolph, Jimmy B. & Saar, Martin O., 2015. "A comparison of electric power output of CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) and brine geothermal systems for varying reservoir conditions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 365-377.
    7. Wang, Chang-Long & Cheng, Wen-Long & Nian, Yong-Le & Yang, Lei & Han, Bing-Bing & Liu, Ming-Hou, 2018. "Simulation of heat extraction from CO2-based enhanced geothermal systems considering CO2 sequestration," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 157-167.
    8. Oldenburg, C.M & Stevens, S.H & Benson, S.M, 2004. "Economic feasibility of carbon sequestration with enhanced gas recovery (CSEGR)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1413-1422.
    9. Procesi, M. & Cantucci, B. & Buttinelli, M. & Armezzani, G. & Quattrocchi, F. & Boschi, E., 2013. "Strategic use of the underground in an energy mix plan: Synergies among CO2, CH4 geological storage and geothermal energy. Latium Region case study (Central Italy)," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 104-131.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohamed Ezzat & Benjamin M. Adams & Martin O. Saar & Daniel Vogler, 2021. "Numerical Modeling of the Effects of Pore Characteristics on the Electric Breakdown of Rock for Plasma Pulse Geo Drilling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Singh, Mrityunjay & Mahmoodpour, Saeed & Ershadnia, Reza & Soltanian, Mohamad Reza & Sass, Ingo, 2023. "Comparative study on heat extraction from Soultz-sous-Forêts geothermal field using supercritical carbon dioxide and water as the working fluid," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    3. Mehreen Saleem Gul & Hassam Nasarullah Chaudhry, 2022. "Energy Efficiency, Low Carbon Resources and Renewable Technology," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-3, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Norouzi, Amir Mohammad & Pouranian, Fatemeh & Rabbani, Arash & Fowler, Neil & Gluyas, Jon & Niasar, Vahid & Ezekiel, Justin & Babaei, Masoud, 2023. "CO2-plume geothermal: Power net generation from 3D fluvial aquifers," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    2. Ezekiel, Justin & Ebigbo, Anozie & Adams, Benjamin M. & Saar, Martin O., 2020. "Combining natural gas recovery and CO2-based geothermal energy extraction for electric power generation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    3. Cui, Guodong & Ren, Shaoran & Rui, Zhenhua & Ezekiel, Justin & Zhang, Liang & Wang, Hongsheng, 2018. "The influence of complicated fluid-rock interactions on the geothermal exploitation in the CO2 plume geothermal system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 227(C), pages 49-63.
    4. Adams, Benjamin M. & Vogler, Daniel & Kuehn, Thomas H. & Bielicki, Jeffrey M. & Garapati, Nagasree & Saar, Martin O., 2021. "Heat depletion in sedimentary basins and its effect on the design and electric power output of CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 1393-1403.
    5. Cui, Guodong & Pei, Shufeng & Rui, Zhenhua & Dou, Bin & Ning, Fulong & Wang, Jiaqiang, 2021. "Whole process analysis of geothermal exploitation and power generation from a depleted high-temperature gas reservoir by recycling CO2," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    6. Adams, Benjamin M. & Kuehn, Thomas H. & Bielicki, Jeffrey M. & Randolph, Jimmy B. & Saar, Martin O., 2015. "A comparison of electric power output of CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) and brine geothermal systems for varying reservoir conditions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 365-377.
    7. Cui, Guodong & Zhang, Liang & Ren, Bo & Enechukwu, Chioma & Liu, Yanmin & Ren, Shaoran, 2016. "Geothermal exploitation from depleted high temperature gas reservoirs via recycling supercritical CO2: Heat mining rate and salt precipitation effects," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 837-852.
    8. Malek, Adam E. & Adams, Benjamin M. & Rossi, Edoardo & Schiegg, Hans O. & Saar, Martin O., 2022. "Techno-economic analysis of Advanced Geothermal Systems (AGS)," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 927-943.
    9. Chen, Bailian & Pawar, Rajesh J., 2019. "Characterization of CO2 storage and enhanced oil recovery in residual oil zones," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 291-304.
    10. Schifflechner, Christopher & Dawo, Fabian & Eyerer, Sebastian & Wieland, Christoph & Spliethoff, Hartmut, 2020. "Thermodynamic comparison of direct supercritical CO2 and indirect brine-ORC concepts for geothermal combined heat and power generation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1292-1302.
    11. Esteves, Ana Filipa & Santos, Francisca Maria & Magalhães Pires, José Carlos, 2019. "Carbon dioxide as geothermal working fluid: An overview," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Daniilidis, Alexandros & Saeid, Sanaz & Doonechaly, Nima Gholizadeh, 2021. "The fault plane as the main fluid pathway: Geothermal field development options under subsurface and operational uncertainty," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 927-946.
    13. Mohamed Ezzat & Benjamin M. Adams & Martin O. Saar & Daniel Vogler, 2021. "Numerical Modeling of the Effects of Pore Characteristics on the Electric Breakdown of Rock for Plasma Pulse Geo Drilling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Lucija Jukić & Domagoj Vulin & Valentina Kružić & Maja Arnaut, 2021. "Carbon-Negative Scenarios in High CO 2 Gas Condensate Reservoirs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-11, September.
    15. Hu, Xincheng & Banks, Jonathan & Wu, Linping & Liu, Wei Victor, 2020. "Numerical modeling of a coaxial borehole heat exchanger to exploit geothermal energy from abandoned petroleum wells in Hinton, Alberta," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 1110-1123.
    16. Budzianowski, Wojciech Marcin, 2011. "Can ‘negative net CO2 emissions’ from decarbonised biogas-to-electricity contribute to solving Poland’s carbon capture and sequestration dilemmas?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 6318-6325.
    17. Abdirizak Omar & Mouadh Addassi & Volker Vahrenkamp & Hussein Hoteit, 2021. "Co-Optimization of CO 2 Storage and Enhanced Gas Recovery Using Carbonated Water and Supercritical CO 2," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-21, November.
    18. Zhang, Liang & Ezekiel, Justin & Li, Dexiang & Pei, Jingjing & Ren, Shaoran, 2014. "Potential assessment of CO2 injection for heat mining and geological storage in geothermal reservoirs of China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 237-246.
    19. An, Qiyi & Zhang, Qingsong & Li, Xianghui & Yu, Hao & Yin, Zhanchao & Zhang, Xiao, 2022. "Accounting for dynamic alteration effect of SC-CO2 to assess role of pore structure on rock strength: A comparative study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    20. Shi, Yu & Song, Xianzhi & Wang, Gaosheng & McLennan, John & Forbes, Bryan & Li, Xiaojiang & Li, Jiacheng, 2019. "Study on wellbore fluid flow and heat transfer of a multilateral-well CO2 enhanced geothermal system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 14-27.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:19:p:6122-:d:643381. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.