An integrated approach to CCS: A Canadian environmental superpower opportunity

The last decade has seen a signifi cant increase in the research and development of CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) technology. CCS is now considered to be one of the key options for climate change mitigation. This perspective provides a brief summary of the state of the art regarding CCS development and discusses the implications for the further development of CCS, particularly with respect to climate change policy. The aim is to provide general perspectives on CCS, although examples used to illustrate the prospects for CCS are mainly taken from Europe. The rationale for developing CCS should be the over-abundance of fossil fuel reserves (and resources) in a climate change context. However, CCS will only be implemented if society is willing to attach a suffi ciently high price to CO 2 emissions. Although arguments have been put forward both in favor and against CCS, the author of this perspective argues that the most important outcome from the successful commercialization of CCS will be that fossil-fuel-dependent economies will fi nd it easier to comply with stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. In contrast, failure to implement CCS will require that the global community agrees almost immediately to start phasing out the use of fossil fuels; such an agreement seems more unrealistic than reaching a global agreement on stringent GHG reductions. Thus, in the near term, it is crucial to initiate demonstration projects, such as those supported by the EU. If this is not done, there is a risk that the introduction of CCS will be signifi cantly delayed. Among the stakeholders in CCS technologies (R&D actors in industry and academia), the year 2020 is typically considered to be the year in which CCS will be commercially available. Considering the lead times for CCS development and the slow pace of implementation of climate policy (post-Copenhagen), the target year of 2020 seems rather optimistic.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion is the most significant greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. Use of coal alone accounts for 43% of global CO2 emission in 2010. As the most abundant, the most reliable and cheap energy source, coal will continue to play a significant role in the world’s economy and improving people’s standard of living in particular in the developing countries. With the strong demand for coal, there is no doubt that the CO2 emissions will continue to rise. On May 9, 2013, the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 ppm for the first time since measurements began in 1958. The rate of increase is ca 2.1 ppm per year during the last 10 years. Without significant reduction of CO2 emissions, it is unlikely to limit the long-term concentration of greenhouse gasses to 450 ppm CO2 by 2050. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a process CO2 is separated from large point sources, including fossil fuel power plants, and transported to a disposal site, normally an underground geological formation, for permanent storage. It is generally agreed that CCS is the only technology available to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions while still using fossil fuels and much of today’s energy infrastructure. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), CCS will account for 19% of total emissions reduction if the global CO2 emissions are halved by 2050. However, looking back, there has been great uncertainty surrounding the commercial implementation of CCS technologies. Despite the fact that all the necessary components of CCS process are commercially available, the question about the large scale CO2 storage remains. The progress towards the commercial deployment of CCS technologies is slow. A number of factors contribute to a slow progress of CCS development. Firstly, the CCS projects are very costly. Most studies estimate that CCS will add more than 50% to the cost of electricity from coal. The costs for the first commercial CCS plants will be much higher than the following projects. No one wants to take the risk to be the first one. Secondly, CCS depends on the political polices to drive it. There is no a legally binding agreement on the emissions reduction applied to all countries and there is no market for CCS. Last but not the least, CCS depends on the government support. In an unfavourably financial environment, the R & D spending is expected to decline. Recently Australian government has announced a budget cut of $500 million over three years to its national CCS flagship program, almost one third of the total funding from the federal government. The Australia’s opposition party has even pledged to abolish the carbon tax if elected in September 2013. So, what is the future for CCS? It is a difficult question to answer. A critical issue is who is going to pay for the development of CCS. It should be pointed out that the majority of the upcoming projects use captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. The reason for that is EOR can facilitate the development of CCS by improving the financial viability of the CCS, building the infrastructure required for CCS, and developing capability along the supply chain. An increase in EOR projects reflexes the importance of CO2 utilisation. Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) is gaining increased attention in particular in USA and China. It is unlikely for the developing counties to deploy the CCS technologies with financial support from the government alone. In these countries the priorities are to sustain the economic growth and improve people’s living standard. To move CCS forward, it is important to realise the challenges facing the CCS development and make appropriate adjustment based on the political and economic realities. Considering that the funding on the development of CCS is limited, the international R & D program needs to be well coordinated and have the right focus and the right scale to avoid unproductive overlap between demonstration projects and ensure that limited resources are spent wisely to achieve the highest benefits. As a researcher working on CO2 capture, I am glad to

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.

The highly urbanized area around Los Angeles is dotted with oil fields and refineries. Oil wells perch in yards, parking lots, even schools. The Wilmington oil field, which stretches beneath much of the land between Los Angeles and its port, as well as for miles off the coast, supplies numerous local refineries that in recent years have shut down repeatedly during power outages. Restarting the facilities often causes clouds of odorous and potentially hazardous gas to be released. After a 3 October 2007 shutdown, for example, a ConocoPhillips refinery released a cloud of “yellow, metallic dust” containing what company representatives called “a mixture of iron, copper, nickel, aluminum, carbon, and other elements,” according to the local DailyBreeze.com news service.

Limits to Paris compatibility of CO2 capture and utilization

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

Carbon capture and geological storage (CCS) is a core element in the global strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This paper characterizes and contrasts the emission quantification methods associated with CCS projects from the perspective of voluntary emission reduction initiatives and recent regulatory reporting requirements under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). From the regulatory perspective, the U.S. EPA is addressing the mandatory GHG reporting for CO2 injection and potential geological storage, providing a different approach for facilities that supply CO2 to the market, those that inject CO2 for purposes of enhanced oil and gas recovery, and those that are engaging in long-term geological storage. Information gathered under the GHGRP will enable EPA to track the amount of CO2 supplied to the market, injected, and/or stored by U.S. facilities. In addition, where the CO2 injection facilities are also associated with other oil and gas operations, the GHGRP requires quantifying and reporting GHG emissions from those operations where the facilities meet specified regulatory thresholds. This information will be a key element in providing baseline data and activity information for the development of future emission standards and control techniques for GHG emission mitigation in the U.S. In addition to reporting initiatives, industry is providing guidance to support voluntary GHG reduction initiatives. The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) have collaborated on a guideline document to promote the credible, consistent, and transparent quantification of GHG emission reductions from CCS projects (IPIECA/API, 2007). This document emphasizes that the entire range of activities associated with CCS - capture, transport, injection and storage - must be considered in quantifying emissions and emission reductions from CCS operations. This paper will examine common aspects and notable differences between the mandatory reporting programs and voluntary GHG emission reduction activities. It will specifically emphasize collateral characteristics such as the scope of emission sources, accuracy of quantification methods, reporting and monitoring requirements. Introduction to CCS CCS applies established technologies to capture, transport and store CO2 emissions from large point sources. Wide deployment of CCS techniques is viewed as essential for addressing climate change, while also providing energy security, creating jobs, and economic prosperity. The International Energy Agency (IEA) states that CCS could reduce global CO2 emissions by 19%, and that without CCS, overall costs to reduce emissions to 2005 levels by 2050 would increase by 70% (IEA, 2009). CCS refers to the chain of processes that are designed to collect or capture a CO2 gas stream, transport the CO2 to a storage location, and inject the CO2 into a geological formation1 for long-term isolation from the atmosphere (See Figure 1). CCS involves avoiding the release of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by injecting CO2 and ultimately storing it in a geological formation. The assessment of GHG emission reductions from CCS projects should address all of these elements.

Accelerating Carbon Capture and Sequestration Projects: Analysis and Comparison of Policy Approaches

Summary 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—gas combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and supercritical coal 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 Gas-based power generation is significantly more economical than coal CCS at carbon prices less than USD 60 to 100/t CO2.Even after carbon prices reach USD 60 to 100/t CO2, gas CCS produces lower-cost electricity than coal CCS, as long as natural-gas prices remain less than USD 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 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.

Reduced-order modelling of flexible CCS and assessment using short-term resource scheduling approach

Global decarbonisation scenarios include Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a key technology to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power and industrial sectors. However, few large scale CCS plants are operating worldwide. This mismatch between expectations and reality is caused by a series of barriers which are preventing this technology from being adopted more widely. The goal of this paper is to identify and review the barriers to CCS development, with a focus on recent cost estimates, and to assess the potential of CCS to enable access to fossil fuels without causing dangerous levels of climate change.The result of the review shows that no CCS barriers are exclusively technical, with CCS cost being the most significant hurdle in the short to medium term. In the long term, CCS is found to be very cost effective when compared with other mitigation options. Cost estimates exhibit a high range, which depends on process type, separation technology, CO2 transport technique and storage site.CCS potential has been quantified by comparing the amount of fossil fuels that could be used globally with and without CCS. In modelled energy system transition pathways that limit global warming to less than 2 °C, scenarios without CCS result in 26% of fossil fuel reserves being consumed by 2050, against 37% being consumed when CCS is available. However, by 2100, the scenarios without CCS have only consumed slightly more fossil fuel reserves (33%), whereas scenarios with CCS available end up consuming 65% of reserves. It was also shown that the residual emissions from CCS facilities is the key factor limiting long term uptake, rather than cost. Overall, the results show that worldwide CCS adoption will be critical if fossil fuel reserves are to continue to be substantively accessed whilst still meeting climate targets.

The last decade has seen a significant increase in the research and development of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology. CCS is now considered to be one of the key options for climate change mitigation. This perspective provides a brief summary of the state of the art regarding CCS development and discusses the implications for the further development of CCS, particularly with respect to climate change policy. The aim is to provide general perspectives on CCS, although examples used to illustrate the prospects for CCS are mainly taken from Europe.The rationale for developing CCS should be the over‐abundance of fossil fuel reserves (and resources) in a climate change context. However, CCS will only be implemented if society is willing to attach a sufficiently high price to CO2 emissions. Although arguments have been put forward both in favor and against CCS, the author of this perspective argues that the most important outcome from the successful commercialization of CCS will be that fossil‐fuel‐dependent economies will find it easier to comply with stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. In contrast, failure to implement CCS will require that the global community agrees almost immediately to start phasing out the use of fossil fuels; such an agreement seems more unrealistic than reaching a global agreement on stringent GHG reductions. Thus, in the near term, it is crucial to initiate demonstration projects, such as those supported by the EU. If this is not done, there is a risk that the introduction of CCS will be significantly delayed. Among the stakeholders in CCS technologies (R&D actors in industry and academia), the year 2020 is typically considered to be the year in which CCS will be commercially available. Considering the lead times for CCS development and the slow pace of implementation of climate policy (post‐Copenhagen), the target year of 2020 seems rather optimistic. © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) refers to a set of technologies that can greatly reduce carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) emissions from new and existing coal- and gas-fired power plants, industrial processes, and other stationary sources of CO{sub 2}. In its application to electricity generation, CCS could play an important role in achieving national and global greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. However, widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will occur only if the technology is commercially available and a supportive national policy framework is in place. In keeping with that objective, on February 3, 2010, President Obama established an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage composed of 14 Executive Departments and Federal Agencies. The Task Force, co-chaired by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was charged with proposing a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within ten years, with a goal of bringing five to ten commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. Composed of more than 100 Federal employees, the Task Force examined challenges facing early CCS projects as well as factors that could inhibit widespread commercial deployment of CCS. In developing the findings and recommendations outlined in this report, the Task Force relied on published literature and individual input from more than 100 experts and stakeholders, as well as public comments submitted to the Task Force. The Task Force also held a large public meeting and several targeted stakeholder briefings. While CCS can be applied to a variety of stationary sources of CO{sub 2}, its application to coal-fired power plant emissions offers the greatest potential for GHG reductions. Coal has served as an important domestic source of reliable, affordable energy for decades, and the coal industry has provided stable and quality high-paying jobs for American workers. At the same time, coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and coal combustion accounts for 40 percent of global carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) emissions from the consumption of energy. EPA and Energy Information Administration (EIA) assessments of recent climate and energy legislative proposals show that, if available on a cost-effective basis, CCS can over time play a large role in reducing the overall cost of meeting domestic emissions reduction targets. By playing a leadership role in efforts to develop and deploy CCS technologies to reduce GHG emissions, the United States can preserve the option of using an affordable, abundant, and domestic energy resource, help improve national security, help to maximize production from existing oil fields through enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and assist in the creation of new technologies for export. While there are no insurmountable technological, legal, institutional, regulatory or other barriers that prevent CCS from playing a role in reducing GHG emissions, early CCS projects face economic challenges related to climate policy uncertainty, first-of-a-kind technology risks, and the current high cost of CCS relative to other technologies. Administration analyses of proposed climate change legislation suggest that CCS technologies will not be widely deployed in the next two decades absent financial incentives that supplement projected carbon prices. In addition to the challenges associated with cost, these projects will need to meet regulatory requirements that are currently under development. Long-standing regulatory programs are being adapted to meet the circumstances of CCS, but limited experience and institutional capacity at the Federal and State level may hinder implementation of CCS-specific requirements. Key legal issues, such as long-term liability and property rights, also need resolution. A climate policy designed to reduce our Nation's GHG emissions is the most important step for commercial deployment of low-carbon technologies such as CCS, because it will create a stable, long-term framework for private investments. A concerted effort to properly address financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional, and social barriers will enable CCS to be a viable climate change mitigation option that can over time play an important role in reducing the overall cost of meeting domestic and global emissions reduction targets. Federal and State agencies can use existing authorities and programs to begin addressing these barriers while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the environment and public health and safety.

Being home to the largest oil and gas operators, its advanced subsurface technologies, extensive expertise, skilled labor, and abundant resources, the Middle East is a prime region for large-scale deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. Driven by the obligations of reducing carbon emissions and maintaining economic competitiveness in a carbon-constrained world; this study examines the regulatory foundations, and the market dynamics shaping CCS initiatives in the region. This study assesses the current deployment of (CCS) technology in the Middle East. It involves an analysis to assess the region's growing commitment to CCS within its broader sustainability and economic diversification strategies. The evaluation of government policies and incentives, such as carbon pricing mechanisms and investment subsidies, helps determine their effectiveness in supporting CCS initiatives and mitigating technological uncertainties. Moreover, the study reviews the adoption of international best practices to ensure safe, long-term CO2 storage and optimize storage capacity. Finally, the study identifies the critical roles of governments, industry stakeholders, and international partners in overcoming regulatory and technical barriers, emphasizing the need for collaborative efforts in advancing CCS deployment in the Middle East. This study is performed using published data for the pilot CCS and Co2 EOR projects in the Middle East highlighting the current regulatory frameworks. The Middle East shows a strong and increasing commitment to CCS, various governments in the region have introduced supportive policies and incentives, such as carbon pricing mechanisms and investment subsidies, to mitigate technological uncertainties and address challenges like water scarcity. Demand forecasts and market assessments indicate substantial potential for CCS, particularly in industrial hubs with high CO2 emissions, driven by regulatory pressures and the strategic importance of CCS for the long-term viability of the oil and gas sector. Successful CCS deployment requires collaboration between stakeholders. Overall, the region's advanced capabilities positioning it uniquely to lead in CCS initiatives in addition CCS is poised to play a pivotal role in the Middle East's energy transition, contributing significantly to carbon mitigation and economic resilience, emphasizing the importance of tailored approaches and collaborative efforts to realize the full potential of CCS in the region. This study offers a fresh perspective by thoroughly analyzing MENA's high potential for large-scale deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies. It highlights the region's proficiency ineffectively implementing CCS technologies and the potential for the Middle East to significantly enhance the global reputation of CCS by fostering public acceptance and reassurance. Through a detailed examination, the study provides novel insights into the potential and strategic importance of CCS in securing the long-term viability of the oil and gas sector while meeting climate targets.

T energy penalty associated with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies is a key barrier to largescale deployment in China, because consuming extra fossil fuels to capture CO2 could be considered as conflicting with domestic priorities favoring energy conservation, diversity, and self-sufficiency. Flexible CO2 capture designs could, however, allow CCS power plants to temporarily reduce the level of CO2 capture, thus, in the short term, the energy penalty could potentially act as a “strategic virtual reserve” that could reduce the risk of fossil fuel supply interruptions and provide extra reserve capacity margin. Furthermore, an upgradable futureproof design for CO2 capture could help avoid “energy penalty lock-in” during a plant’s lifetime as technology learning takes place. In 2011, global emissions of carbon dioxide increased by 1 Gt, of which 720 Mt of the increase was attributable to China. China’s share of global emissions increased to 24%, now far ahead of the United States, the next largest emitter, at 15%. Overall, 45% of global CO2 emissions are produced from coal and fully half of those emissions are from China, the vast majority of which is used in the power sector. Therefore, CCS, as the only technology that can decarbonize fossil fuels, should logically be central to any plausible strategy for significant cuts in emissions. On the other hand, China is the second largest importer of crude oil in the world in 2012. Even more dramatically, China shifted from being a net exporter to a net importer of coal in 2009 and by 2011 became the largest net importer of coal in the world, though there is still debate on whether China will need to increase coal imports in the future. Energy conservation is a top Chinese national development target, but energy demand will inevitably grow substantially in the next two decades given that Chinese per capita energy consumption remains much lower than the OECD average level even though its per capita CO2 emissions are reaching European levels. Despite these pressures, security of primary energy supply has become a major national priority. In 2011, the Chinese government (National Development and Reform Commission and Ministry of Finance) launched the emergency coal reserve program that encourages large coal-mining companies, large power generation companies, and major coal transportation terminals to develop a strategic coal reserve. Deploying state-of-the-art CCS technologies in the power generation sector would avoid roughly 85% of CO2 emissions with an energy penalty of 20−30%. An aggressive strategy to capture CO2 at, say, 40% of Chinese coal-fired power plants would then lead to a rise of approximately 10% in national coal consumption, equivalent to 1.5 times net coal imports in 2010. In other words, significant extra fossil fuel consumption and power plant infrastructure would be required if CCS technologies were widely deployed. This explains why even though CCS is widely recognized as a key technology to decarbonize the Chinese fossil fuel dominated energy system, there is very limited financial support for demonstrating and deploying CCS projects at large-scale. CCS is therefore not currently a high priority on the list of possible climate technology options also compatible with energy supply security and energy efficiency priorities. The extra energy infrastructure requirement for CCS to meet peak electricity demand could be minimized through flexibility in operating CCS systems (e.g., by shutting down CO2 capture during supply shocks) while the experience curve could reduce the energy penalty in the long term. To do so will require investing in flexible, future-proof designs for CO2 capture power plants. With a flexible CO2 capture design, CCS power plants could temporarily reduce the level of CO2 capture in order to generate more power to complement intermittent and inflexible technologies in the energy system. Notably, the