A Perspective on Biofuels Use and CCS for GHG Mitigation in the Marine Sector.

Application potential of solar-assisted post-combustion carbon capture and storage (CCS) in China: A life cycle approach

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has emerged as a potential strategy for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It involves the capture of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from large point source emitters, such as coal-fired power plants. The CO2 is transported to a storage location, where it is isolated from the atmosphere in stable underground reservoirs. CCS technology has been particularly intriguing to countries that utilize fossil fuels for energy production and are seeking ways to reduce their GHG emissions. While there has been an increase in technological development and research in CCS, some members of the public, industry, and policymakers regard the technology as controversial. Some proponents see CCS as a climate change mitigation technology that will be essential to reducing CO2 emissions. Others view CCS as an environmentally risky, complex, and expensive technology that is resource-intensive, promotes the continued extraction of fossil fuels, and competes with renewable energy investments. Effective communication about CCS begins with understanding the perceptions of the general public and individuals living in the communities where CCS projects are sited or proposed. Most people may never live near a CCS site, but may be concerned about risks, such as the cost of development, environmental impacts, and competition with renewable energy sources. Those who live near proposed or operational projects are likely to have a strong impact on the development and deployment of CCS. Individuals in locally affected communities may be more concerned about disruptions to sense of place, impact on jobs or economy, or effect on local health and environment. Effective communication about the risks and benefits of CCS has been recognized as a critical factor in the deployment of this technology.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects in Canada

Rapid industrialization and urbanization in the 20th century have led to increasing volumes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere[...]

Will blue hydrogen lock us into fossil fuels forever?

Limits to Paris compatibility of CO2 capture and utilization

Thailand’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aims to reduce 20 to 25% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with respect to the projected reference level of NDC in 2030, respectively, in its unconditional and conditional scenarios. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C would require net zero carbon dioxide emissions globally by around 2050. Thailand’s current energy system is highly fossil fuel dependent and requires enormous transformations to achieve more stringent GHG emission reduction targets beyond its NDC. This paper seeks to estimate the level and the intensities of Thailand’s energy system and their economy-wide effects post-2030 under the business as usual and 16 GHG emission reduction scenarios ranging from 30 to 100% by 2050. A computable general equilibrium analysis using the AIM/Hub model is employed to estimate the macroeconomic impacts of meeting the unconditional and conditional emission reductions of Thailand’s NDC in 2030 along with varying GHG emission reductions in 2050. Results show that renewables – constituting solar, wind, biomass and hydro and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies account for more than 95% in the power generation mix by 2050, if 100% GHG emission reduction from the 2010 level is to be achieved. Electricity generation based on biomass both with and without CCS will occupy a major share in the investments by 2050 in all the conditional and unconditional NDC scenarios. A rapid increase in carbon sequestration occurs from 2040 onwards through the deployment of CCS and bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) technologies in all the conditional and unconditional NDC scenarios. Carbon prices lie in the range of 3.4–266.2 US$/tCO2eq during 2025–2050 to achieve 100% GHG emission reductions in 2050. Imposition of early stringent mitigation target lowers the carbon prices in the conditional scenarios towards 2050 when compared to the unconditional scenarios. The rapid uptake of CCS, energy efficiency improvements and electrification of the end-use technologies are identified to be the key measures to transform the energy system of Thailand. Key policy insights By 2050, the Thai economy would face a higher fall in both the GDP and household consumption in the unconditional scenarios than those in the conditional scenarios at all levels of GHG emission reduction. Results indicate that early mitigation efforts can be less costly than the delayed ones in the long-term. The cumulative investment needed to achieve decarbonization in Thailand is estimated to exceed 355 billion US$2005 over the period 2010–2050 in the 100% GHG reduction scenarios. The transmission and distribution investments in the power sector need to increase by 30–35% to attain 100% GHG emission reductions during 2010–2050. The trade deficit improves by up to 23–29% in the various GHG mitigation scenarios in 2050.

Chapter 12 - Who is taking climate change seriously? Evidence based on a comparative analysis of the carbon capture and storage national legal framework in Brazil, Canada, the European Union, and the United States

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is often identified as an important technology for mitigating global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. For example, the IEA currently suggests that 160GW of CCS may need to be installed globally by 2030 as part of action to limit greenhouse gas concentrations to 550ppm-CO2eq, with a further 190GW CCS capacity required if a 450ppm-CO2eq target is to be achieved. Since global rollout of proven CCS technologies is not expected to commence until 2020 at the earliest this represents a very challenging build rate. In these circumstances retrofitting CO2 capture to existing plants, probably particularly post-combustion capture on pulverized coal-fired plants, could play an important role in the deployment of CCS as a global strategy for implementing CO2 emissions reductions. Retrofitting obviously reduces the construction activity required for CCS deployment, since fewer additional new power plants are required. Retrofitting CCS to an existing fleet is also an effective way to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from this sector of the electricity generation mix; it is obviously not possible to effect an absolute reduction in coal power sector CO2 emissions simply by adding new plants with CCS to the existing fleet. Although it has been proposed that plants constructed now and in the future can be ‘capture ready’, much of the existing fleet will not have been designed to be suitable for retrofit of CO2 capture. Some particular challenges that may be faced by utilities and investors considering a retrofit project are discussed. Since it is expected that post-combustion capture retrofits to pulverized coal plants will be the most widely applied option for retrofit to the existing fleet (probably regardless of whether base plants were designed to be capture ready or not), a review of the technical and potential economic performance of this option is presented. Power cycle performance penalties when capture is retrofitted need to be addressed, but satisfactory options appear to exist. It also seems likely that the economic performance of post-combustion capture retrofit could be competitive when compared to other options requiring more significant capital expenditure. Further work is, however, required both to develop a generally accepted methodology for assessing retrofit economics (including consideration of the implications of lost output after retrofit under different electricity selling price assumptions) and to apply general technical principles to case studies where site-specific constraints are considered in detail. The overall conclusion from the screening-level analysis reported in this paper is that, depending on project-specific and market-specific conditions, retrofit could be an attractive option, especially for fast track initial demonstration and deployment of CCS. Any unnecessary regulatory or funding barriers to retrofit of existing plants and to their effective operation with CCS should, therefore, be avoided.

What can we expect from Europe's carbon capture and storage demonstrations?

Net-zero emissions chemical industry in a world of limited resources

The Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Facilities Database maintained by the Global CCS Institute contains a comprehensive list of CCS facilities around the world, covering large-scale, pilot and demonstration scale facilities and test centres. This report presents a complete overview of the status of global CCS facilities. The review spans the full life cycle of the facilities, from early development to in completion, and covers a wide range of industries and sectors. Globally, as of September 2018, there are 23 large-scale CCS facilities in operation and under construction, capturing ~ 40 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of CO2. There are over 28 key demonstration-scale CCS facilities in operation and under construction. These demonstration-scale CCS facilities have a cumulative CO2 capture capacity of over 3 Mtpa. Early CCS facilities in the 1970s and 1980s involved processes in which CO2 was already routinely separated in a high purity form, such as in natural gas processing and fertiliser production for CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The technology and techniques derived from these early operations have significantly advanced the deployment of CCS. Nowadays, the portfolio of CCS facilities covers a diverse range of sectors, including power generation, iron and steel manufacturing, cement production, chemical and hydrogen production, and bioenergy. Consistent learning from the existing portfolio of large-scale and demonstration-scale facilities, when combined with rising global R&D efforts and commitments to emission reductions, can lower costs further and drive global CCS deployment using next generation and transformational technologies. Since 1972, more than 230 million tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 has been captured and injected into deep storage complexes. Over half of that CO2 is concentrated in the United States and mostly in CO2-EOR operations. It is critical to maintain the momentum by growing the pipeline of facilities in development. That pipeline currently includes six large-scale facilities in advanced development and 14 in early development. However, the current pipeline of large-scale CCS deployment does not go anywhere near the envisaged role of CCS to meet the Paris Agreement climate goals. To avoid dangerous climate change, CCS must be deployed across a broad range of industrial processes, particularly in regions that are heavily reliant on fossil fuels, where CCS can deliver on emission reductions and meanwhile meet economic development and energy security goals.

In a carbon constrained world, at least four classes of greenhouse gas mitigation options are available: Energy efficiency, fuel switching, introduction of carbon dioxide capture and storage along with renewable generating technologies, and reductions in emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. The role of energy technologies is considered crucial in climate change mitigation. In particular, carbon capture and storage (CCS) promises to allow for low-emissions fossil-fuel based power generation. The technology is under development; a number of technological, economic, environmental and safety issues remain to be solved. With regard to its sustainability impact, CCS raises a number of questions: On the one hand, CCS may prolong the prevailing coal-to-electricity regime and countervail efforts in other mitigation categories. On the other hand, given the indisputable need to continue using fossil fuels for some time, it may serve as a bridging technology towards a sustainable energy future. In this paper, we discuss the relevant issues for the case of Germany. We provide a survey of the current state of the art of CCS and activities, and perform an energy-environment-economic analysis using a general equilibrium model for Germany. The model analyzes the impact of introducing carbon constraints with respect to the deployment of CCS, to the resulting greenhouse gas emissions, to the energy and technology mix and with respect to interaction of different mitigation efforts. The results show the relative importance of the components in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in Germany. For example, under the assumption of a CO2 policy, both energy efficiency and CCS will contribute to climate gas mitigation. A given climate target can be achieved at lower marginal costs when the option of CCS is included. We conclude that, given an appropriate legal and policy framework, CCS, energy efficiency and some other mitigation efforts are complementary measures and should form part of a broad mix of measures required for a successful CO2 mitigation strategy.

Better information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation potential in the agricultural sector is necessary to manage these emissions and identify responses that are consistent with the food security and economic development priorities of countries. Critical activity data (what crops or livestock are managed in what way) are poor or lacking for many agricultural systems, especially in developing countries. In addition, the currently available methods for quantifying emissions and mitigation are often too expensive or complex or not sufficiently user friendly for widespread use.The purpose of this focus issue is to capture the state of the art in quantifying greenhouse gases from agricultural systems, with the goal of better understanding our current capabilities and near-term potential for improvement, with particular attention to quantification issues relevant to smallholders in developing countries. This work is timely in light of international discussions and negotiations around how agriculture should be included in efforts to reduce and adapt to climate change impacts, and considering that significant climate financing to developing countries in post-2012 agreements may be linked to their increased ability to identify and report GHG emissions (Murphy et al 2010, CCAFS 2011, FAO 2011).

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 to other options in the future depends critically on the cost of CCS (the focus of this paper) and resolution of barriers to CCS deployment, as well as 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 60-100 $/ton of CO2 avoided – higher than some of the earlier CCS estimates, and higher than the generally accepted range of expected carbon prices in the next two decades. The high cost of coal CCS suggests that:Gas based power generation is much more economical than coal CCS at carbon prices below 60-100 $/ton CO2.Even after carbon prices reach 60-100 $/ton CO2, gas CCS produces lower cost electricity than coal CCS as long as natural gas prices remain below 9 $/MBTU.Nuclear has a lower cost of electricity than coal CCS. Although Coal or Gas CCS is unlikely to be economical in power generation over the next two 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 such as natural gas processing and Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) operations. In this paper, we share ExxonMobil’s experience at LaBarge in using CO2 from a natural gas facility for EOR use – the single largest CO2 capture site for sub-surface injection in the world today. In the natural gas processing industry, CO2 separation cost is a fraction of the cost of CO2 capture in power generation due to 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 power generation because the CO2 streams are typically smaller scale and more distributed than those from large power plants. Realistic estimates of cost for CCS, as well as for other greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation options, are an important input for focusing research, development and demonstration (RD&D) addressing barriers to applications that show the greatest promise, and development of sound policy.