Will blue hydrogen lock us into fossil fuels forever?

Carbon capture and utilization: More than hiding CO2 for some time

‘Clean’ hydrogen? – Comparing the emissions and costs of fossil fuel versus renewable electricity based hydrogen

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects in Canada

Simulation-based assessment of the potential of offshore blue hydrogen production with high CO2 capture rates with optimised heat recovery

Limits to Paris compatibility of CO2 capture and utilization

Integrated assessment model simulations are often cited when recommending  carbon capture and storage (CCS) as an important component of decarbonization for the power industry. Here, we use a simplified setting to analyze the economic sensitivity of post-combustion fossil-fuel CCS to a set of parameters including fuel costs, electricity prices, and subsidies. We formulate the model to represent coal and natural gas power plants fitted with CCS. We then ask what level of subsidies are necessary to make CCS profitable for the operator. Our results indicate that: (1) With current US subsidies and under most market conditions, CCS is much more profitable when injected carbon dioxide is used for enhanced oil recovery than for geologic storage. For this reason, CCS is likely to continue to be used for enhanced oil recovery and so will increase system-wide emissions because the combustion of the oil produced emits more carbon dioxide than is injected to produce the oil. (2) CCS subsidies can drop the marginal cost of electricity generation to near zero, making CCS fossil fuel electricity competitive with renewables in the power market, even as these power plants continue to emit a portion of their carbon dioxide. (3) With CCS subsidies, coal-fired power production can become more profitable than natural gas power because coal produces more carbon dioxide and hence harvests more subsidies. To be profitable, natural gas power plants require higher tax subsidies than coal, and their cash flow is more sensitive to changes in the price of power, which disadvantages natural gas plants when coupled to CCS. (4) In the US, subsidies are provided per ton of carbon dioxide stored rather than per ton of carbon dioxide kept out of the atmosphere. Our calculations demonstrate how the effective subsidy per ton of emissions avoided is more than the subsidy paid per ton of carbon dioxide captured unless the grid is completely decarbonized, because of the energy penalty of CCS. (5) The value of natural gas CCS for reducing emissions diminishes as the carbon intensity of the local power grid increases. We recommend that these insights be used in integrated assessment models such that these models more accurately represent the influence of market dynamics and provide better insights for reducing emissions. 

Innovations in energy supply have traditionally been valued because they make more energy available than would otherwise be the case and/or make it available at lower cost. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can also be viewed in this way to some extent, for example, as a means to keep coal as an electricity generation fuel in Europe and the USA. But the underlying driver for CCS is really that less fossil carbon is being emitted to the atmosphere. Since long-term cumulative emissions are the determining factor for climate change, long-term retention of stored CO2 is important. Long-term “leakage” risks also apply, however, to fossil fuels that are displaced in the short term by nonfossil energy sources (i.e., nuclear, renewables) since the fossil fuels may subsequently be used and the CO2 released to the atmosphere. If CCS is to achieve effective reductions in CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, however, it is important that projects are either near carbon-neutral, able to capture around 90% or more of the fossil carbon in the fuel used, or carbon-negative, capturing CO2 from biomass or directly from the air. Another class of CCS project, which involves capturing CO2 from hydrocarbon production (e.g., natural gas purification or oil sands processing) is still carbon-positive since the CO2 from the product fuel is likely to be released to the atmosphere. This class of CCS project should therefore be viewed as a “license to operate” for projects producing fossil fuels but not as an example of the approach that is needed to achieve the large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., 80% or more in developed countries by 2050) now being suggested. Near carbon-neutral and carbon-negative CCS projects will have to produce carbon free energy vectors such as electricity, hydrogen, or heat. These in turn can be used to displace direct fossil use by the transport and building sectors. To make CCS available as a reasonably well-proven option by around 2020, a first tranche of demonstration plants need to be deployed as quickly as possible. A second, larger tranche of reference plants then needs to continue the learning process and demonstrate the technology at scale and ready for multiple repeat orders. After this second tranche, CCS should be ready to contribute to a rapid decarbonization of the electricity supply from coal, natural gas, and biomass power plants in developed countries in the decade 2020–2030.

Hydrogen farm concept: A Perspective for Turkey

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

The transition to sustainable energy is vital for reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change. This study provides a quantitative analysis to forecast the viability timeline of green hydrogen as an alternative to conventional fossil fuels for captive industrial power generation in India, aiming to reduce Scope 1 emissions and support net-zero targets. Green hydrogen, produced via electrolysis using renewable energy, offers a zero-emission substitute to natural gas. However, high production costs, infrastructure limitations, and technological challenges hinder widespread adoption. This research applies Value Web and techno-economic analyses to evaluate current and projected costs of green hydrogen, technological advancements, and infrastructure scalability. Using data from industry reports, policy documents, and academic studies, the paper models cost-reduction scenarios in green hydrogen production and electrolysis efficiency. It determines the Levelised Cost of Green Hydrogen (LCOH) and assesses transport costs to industrial sites. Further, it examines onsite captive power generation to calculate the Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) from green hydrogen, comparing it to grid electricity over time. Sensitivity analyses explore the effects of carbon tax and discount rate changes on green hydrogen’s competitiveness. Findings indicate that green hydrogen could reach cost parity with grid power for industrial use by 2032 without policy incentives. With favourable government policies and sustained technological progress, this parity could be achieved earlier. The study highlights the strategic role of green hydrogen in India’s energy transition, emphasizing the importance of investment in renewable energy infrastructure and supportive policies. It offers valuable insights for policymakers, industry leaders, and researchers into the challenges and opportunities of adopting green hydrogen for industrial power, contributing to national and global climate goals. Major Findings: Green hydrogen for 24x7 captive power generation in India could become viable by 2032, particularly in coastal states, like Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu, that are rich in renewable energy. A carbon tax of $100/ton CO₂ could accelerate adoption by another couple of years, with financing and discount rates playing a crucial role in cost competitiveness. Government incentives like import duty waivers and Production-Linked Incentives (PLI) can further boost market adoption of Green Hydrogen. While Green Hydrogen competes with natural gas, advancements in carbon capture technologies could enable carbon-neutral power generation from natural gas. The choice between Green Hydrogen and carbon capture investments will depend on market dynamics and natural gas availability.

Carbon capture and recycle by integration of CCS and green hydrogen

Optimization of a Natural Gas Power Plant with Membrane and Solid Sorbent Carbon Capture Systems

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

Low-carbon production of iron and steel: Technology options, economic assessment, and policy

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.