Techno-economic Prioritization of Emission Reduction Methods in Iranian Gas Transmission Facilities

Document Type : Review Paper

Authors
Kazem Kashefi 1
Seyed Shayan Seif 2
Mohammad Sadegh Yousefzadegan 2
Fatemeh Goodarzvand-Chegini 3
Saeed Pakseresht 4
Hamid Bonyad 5
1 Idea Center, Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI), Tehran, Iran
2 Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research, Tehran Branch, University of Tehran , Tehran, Iran
3 Optimization & Development of Energy Technologies Division, Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI), Tehran, Iran
4 Research and Technology Department, National Iranian Gas Company, Tehran, Iran
5 Research and Technology Management of National Iranian Gas Company, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
In this article, 23 methods for emission reduction in gas transmission facilities including compression stations, transmission pipelines and valve stations have been assessed based on operability, technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Emission reduction potential, payback period, capital and operating costs have been considered as the main criteria, based on which all methods have been categorized in three levels. Weight factors were considered for each criterion to quantify the ultimate analysis and prioritization based on total score. Net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and added value were also considered to precise the economic calculations. The results showed that Direct Inspection and Maintenance (DI&M) for valve stations possessed the highest priority, followed by DI&M for launcher-receivers and pipelines. The use of Absorbed Natural Gas (ANG) technique for turbine starter exhaust acquired the lowest score among other methods.

Keywords

Subjects

  1. United Nations, “Prototype Global Sustainable Development Report (Online unedited edition)”, New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, 2014.
  2. James, Paul, with Magee, Liam, Scerri, Andy, Steger, Manfred B., “Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability”, London: Routledge, 2015.
  3. Circles of Sustainability Urban Profile Process and Scerri, Andy, James, Paul, “Accounting for Sustainability: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Developing ‘Indicators’ of Sustainability”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology 13 (1): 41–53. DOI: 1080/13645570902864145, 2010.
  4. Ruddiman, W.F., “The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago”, Climate Change 61 (3): 261–293, 2003.
  5. IPCC, “Glossary J-P. In (book section): Annex I. In: Climate Change 2007: Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. Eds.)”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Retrieved 2010-04-23, 2007.
  6. Timilsina, G.R., Shrestha, R.M., “General Equilibrium Effects of a Supply Side GHG Mitigation Pption under the Clean Development Mechanism”, Journal of Environmental Management, 80, 327–41, 2006.
  7. Dagoumas, A.S., Papagiannis, G.K., Dokopoulos, P.S., “An Economic Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol Application”, Energy Policy, 34, 26–39, 2006.
  8. OECD, “Environment Directorate, Environment Policy Committee, Working Party on Global and Structural Policies, Environmental Benefits of Foreign Direct Investment: a Literature Review”, OECD, Paris, 2002.
  9. Fecher, R.S., Winkler, H., Mwakasonda, S., “Energy and the World Summit on Sustainable Development: What Next?”, Energy Policy, 33: 99–112, 2005.
  10. “Using Pipeline Pump-Down Techniques to Lower Gas Line Pressure before Maintenance”, USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.
  11. Hadick, C., Scherello, A., “Avoiding Climate-damaging Methane Emissions During Pipeline Repairs Open Grid Europe”, 2011.
  12. “Composite Wrap for Non-Leaking Pipeline Defects”, USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2007.
  13. “Smart Solutions for Subsea Pipeline Blockages”, vol. 2014, USA: Offshore Technology, 2012.
  14. “Replacing Wet Seals with Dry Seals in Centrifugal Compressors”, USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.
  15. Smith, R., “Routing Centrifugal Compressor Seal Oil De-gassing Emissions to Fuel Gas as an Alternative to Installing Dry Seals”, Global Methane Initiative All-Partnership Meeting BP, 2011.
  16. Robinson, D., “US EPA’s Natural Gas STAR International: An Overview of Emission Reduction Best Practices 1st Asia Pacific Global Methane Initiative Oil & Gas Sector Workshop”, 2011.
  17. “Reducing Emissions When Taking Compressors Off-line”, USA: Duke Energy Gas Transmission, 2004.
  18. “Yale closures”, vol. 2014. USA: CVI solutions.
  19. Law, C.Y., Brown, M., Lam, Y.V., Judd. R., Briggs, I., “Alternatives to Venting of Natural Gas”, International Gas Union Research Conference United Kingdom: GL Noble Denton, 2011.
  20. “Direct Inspection and Maintenance at Compressor Stations” USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2004.
  21. “Install Flares”, vol. PRO Fact, Sheet No. 904, USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.
  22. “Install Electronic Flare Ignition Devices”, vol. PRO Fact, Sheet No. 903, USA: Environment Protection Agency, 2006.
  23. “Install Automated Air/Fuel Ratio Controls”, vol. PRO Fact, Sheet No. 104, USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.
  24. “Reduce Natural Gas Venting with Fewer Compressor Engine Startups & Improved Engine Ignition”, vol. PRO Fact, Sheet No. 102. USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.
  25. “Replace Gas Starters with Air or Nitrogen”, vol. PRO Fact, Sheet No. 101, USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.
  26. گلشن، ح.، بهبهانی، ر.، «افزایش راندمان و بهره‌وری شبکۀ انتقال گاز»، دانشگاه صنعت نفت، 1391.
  27. بهبهانی، ر.، گلشن، ح.، «بررسی توابع هدف اقتصادی، تست و راه‌اندازی موتور بهینه‌ساز و آزمایش بر روی ایستگاه نمونه»، پروژۀ پژوهشی شرکت ملی گاز ایران، 1391.
  28. “Options for Reducing Methane Emissions from Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry”, USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.
  29. “Convert Pneumatics to Mechanical Controls”, , Sheet No. 301, USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.
  30. “Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls to Instrument Air”, USA: Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.

  • Receive Date 06 February 2018
  • Revise Date 13 April 2018
  • Accept Date 19 June 2018