CO2 Capture And Storage Deployment Research Articles

Policy implications of Monetized Leakage Risk from Geologic CO2 Storage Reservoirs

Abstract Geological storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) as a part of the CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) process has a large potential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, but its deployment will require accurate assessment of both the possibility and cost of leakage. In this study, we took the Michigan sedimentary basin as an example to investigate the monetized risks associated with leakage, using the Risk Interference of Subsurface CO 2 Storage (RISCS) model. The monetized leakage risks derived from the RISCS model were then used to modify existing cost curves in GCAM (Global Change Assessment Model). With the modified cost curves, the model provided policy-relevant results to help inform the potential role of CCS in future energy systems when carbon mitigation targets and incentives are in place. The results showed that leakage risks from geologic storage reservoirs can reduce the deployment of CCS as much as 60%. The extent of this impact is sensitive to the permeability of potential leakage pathways, the regulations governing leakage interferences with other subsurface activities, and the stringency of climate policies. With low well leakage permeability, the costs of leakage will be manageable, and under more stringent carbon mitigation policies such as a high carbon tax, higher leakage risks can be afforded and incorporating leakage risks will have a smaller impact on CCS deployment. Our results also show that if the leakage risks were accounted for by charging a fixed premium - similar to how the risk of nuclear waste disposal is treated - the projected scale of CCS deployment in the energy mix is less affected.

Multi-period Least Cost Optimisation Model of an Integrated Carbon Dioxide Capture Transportation and Storage Infrastructure in the UK

Abstract The commercial deployment of CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) technology requires whole system optimisation of the CO 2 supply, transport and storage chain under evolving targets or constraints. Most of the earlier attempts to model CCS networks were deterministic steady state models. The very few multi-period spatially explicit CCS models are unable to simultaneously make investment decisions for the three components of the chain for an overall cost optimal solution or they only demonstrate the evolution of the transport network. This work presents a multi-period spatially explicit least cost optimisation model of an integrated CO 2 capture, transportation and storage infrastructure. The model is showcased through a case study focusing on the future UK CCS infrastructure. The solution demonstrates the investment requirement and operational strategy for all components of the chain at each phase and, hence, shows how the system evolves through four time periods up to year 2050. The non- intuitive results of the multi-period model confirm that such a tool is essential for large scale CCS deployment.

Interdependent ranking of sources and sinks in CCS systems using the analytic network process

CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is widely regarded as an important low-carbon technology for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from large industrial point sources. It entails the capture of a relatively pure CO2 from exhaust gases using different techniques, and then storing this captured gas in various geological sinks. Large-scale deployment of CCS requires the comprehensive evaluation of candidate sources and sinks present in a given geographical region. In this study, we propose an analytic network process (ANP) approach to rank simultaneously the potential CO2 sources and sinks in a CCS system. Such ranking can be used to identify sites for CCS demonstration projects. This ANP decision model allows us to incorporate the feedback dependency that exist in the preference ranking of sources and sinks due to the importance of geographic proximity as a decision criterion. A case study is then solved to demonstrate the proposed model.

NER300: Lessons learnt in attempting to secure CCS projects in Europe

CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) has become an integral and priority part of European energy policy over the last years. However, CCS is not a feasible climate change mitigation option yet. In order to bring the technology towards reduced costs and to make CCS an economically viable mitigation option, the European Commission created a comprehensive demonstration programme aimed to encourage development and accelerate commercial CCS deployment. The goal was to have up to 12 CCS demonstration projects by 2015.This is far away from reality today. Despite the tremendous effort, the two major European CCS funds – the European Energy Programme for Recovery and more recently the New Entrants Reserve of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Programme (NER300) – are struggling to secure a single demonstration project to move forward.Originally intended as a CCS instrument, the NER300 first round published on November 2010 has been followed with great expectation by CCS community. However, in December 2012 the Commission announced that not one CCS project was awarded.This paper reviews the NER300 process, analyses the reasons for the programme's lack of success in securing CCS demonstration projects, and distills the lessons learnt.

A cost-optimal scenario of CO2 sequestration in a carbon-constrained world through to 2050

In this paper, a regionally disaggregated global energy system model with a detailed treatment of the whole chain of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is used to derive the cost-optimal global pattern of CO2 sequestration in regional detail over the period 2010-2050 under the target of halving global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2050 compared to the 2005 level. The major conclusions are the following. First, enhanced coalbed methane recovery will become a key early opportunity for CO2 sequestration, so coalrich regions such as the US, China, and India will play a leading role in global CO2 sequestration. Enhanced oil recovery will also have a participation in global CO2 sequestration from the initial stage of CCS deployment, which may be applied mainly in China, southeastern Asia, and West Africa in 2030 and mainly in the Middle East in 2050. Second, CO2 sequestration will be carried out in an increasing number of world regions over time. In particular, CCS will be deployed extensively in today’s developing countries. Third, an increasing amount of the captured CO2 will be stored in aquifers in many parts of the world due to their abundant and widespread availability and their low cost. It is shown that the share of aquifers in global CO2 sequestration reaches 82.0% in 2050.

Why we need the ‘and’ in ‘CO2 utilization and storage’

Why we need the ‘and’ in ‘CO 2 utilization and storage’ Curtis M. Oldenburg, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA While research is still needed to answer scientific and technical questions about CO 2 Capture and Storage (CCS), it is largely economic and political forces rather than technical issues that have prevented widespread deployment of CCS over the last decade. Meanwhile, the energy-climate crisis continues as fossil-fuel use grows, causing atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 to increase, along with global atmospheric temperatures and the associated measurable and costly impacts on Earth’s climate. Given the current economic and political state of affairs, it is natural to look for ways other than storage (seques- tration) by which mankind can decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With CO 2 accounting for approximately 70% of the GHG radiative forcing from among the other main GHGs (CH 4 , N 2 O, CF 4 , C 2 F 6 , SF 6 , and HFC-23, 134a, and 152a), and with abundant fossil-fuel-combustion point sources of CO 2 available, it makes sense to focus on reducing net emissions of CO 2 by any and all means. With direct injection into the ground for permanent sequestration currently considered expensive and lacking popular support, many people concerned about energy and climate have turned to studying utilization of CO 2 – so-called CO 2 Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS). In fact, the annual CCS confer- ence held for several years now in Pittsburgh changed its name this year to the 11th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture Utilization & Sequestration. Currently, CO 2 is used beneficially for a large number of purposes in the chemical, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, agricultural, healthcare, environ- mental, energy resource extraction, pulp and paper, electronic, metals, and fire safety industries . 1,2 In the area of energy resource extraction, the oil industry injects millions of tonnes of CO 2 per year for enhanced oil recovery (CO 2 - EOR). While much of the current utilization demand makes use of CO 2 as is, vast amounts of CO 2 are also converted into a variety of useful products such as urea (fertilizer), formic acid (preservative for animal feed), and syngas (fuel). Although there exist many potential large-scale uses for CO 2 , the current demand is dwarfed by the potential supply from anthropogenic sources (mostly fossil fuel combustion), and projections of increased fossil-fuel use make it difficult to envision utilization ever solving the energy-climate crisis. For example, Song 3 estimated the total potential US demand for CO 2 in the chemical and materials industries at approximately 6 MtCO 2 /yr, approximately the output of a 750 MW coal- fired power plant. CO 2 -EOR within the USA currently uses a lot more CO 2 than do the chemical and material industries, approximately 48 Mt CO 2 /yr, 3 or the output of six 1-GW coal-fired power plants. Urea production in the USA is the largest single use at 120 Mt CO 2 /yr. 2 Meanwhile, the current US power plant CO 2 emissions are estimated to be about 3 Gt CO 2 /yr, or about 15 times larger than the current US utilization rate of approximately 200 Mt CO 2 /yr. Moreover, it deserves mention here that the vast majority of CO 2 used for EOR comes from natural CO 2 reservoirs rather than anthropogenic sources. While we can envision policies arising from concern for climate that will motivate greater utilization of anthropogenic CO 2 , this greater utilization rate will occur in a future with potentially much larger rates of CO 2 emissions, assuming that global projections of increased de- mand for energy and its modes of generation are correct. Despite the raw numbers and what they reveal about the imbalance between today’s CO 2 utilization and anthropo- genic emissions, increasing CO 2 utilization is still a worthy goal. The fact is we need to start reducing CO 2 emis- sions in every way we can. The problem of global anthropogenic GHG emissions of approximately 30 Gt CO 2 /yr is so large that it demands solutions from every corner of Earth. For example, off-setting electricity production from coal by greater use of nuclear and renewable energy sources is an effective CO 2 emissions mitigation strategy, but utilization can potentially reduce CO 2 emissions even more than these fuel-substitution approaches. 4 And there is hope for large increases in utilization. First, increased application of CO 2 -EOR, along with a large-scale switchover to anthropogenic

Prospects for CO2 capture in European industry

PurposeThe aim of this study is to assess the role of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technologies in the reduction of CO2 emissions from European industries.Design/methodology/approachA database covering all industrial installations included in the EU ETS has been created. Potential capture sources have been identified and the potential for CO2 capture has been estimated based on branch‐ and plant‐specific conditions. Emphasis is placed here on three branches of industry with promising prospects for CCS: mineral oil refineries, iron and steel, and cement manufacturers.FindingsA relatively small number (∼270) of large installations (>500,000 tCO2/year) dominates emissions from the three branches investigated in this study. Together these installations emit 432 MtCO2/year, 8 percent of EU's total greenhouse gas emissions. If the full potential of emerging CO2 capture technologies was realized, some 270‐330 MtCO2 emissions could be avoided annually. Further, several regions have been singled out as particularly suitable to facilitate integrated CO2 transport networks. The most promising prospects for an early deployment of CCS are found in the regions bordering the North Sea.Research limitations/implicationsReplacement/retrofitting of the existing plant stock will involve large investments and deployment will take time. It is thus important to consider how the current industry structure influences the potential to reduce CO2 in the short‐ medium and long term. It is concluded that the age structure of the existing industry plant stock and its implications for the timing and deployment rate of CO2 capture and other mitigation measures are important and should therefore be further investigated.Practical implicationsCCS has been recognized as a key option for reducing CO2 emissions within the EU. This assessment shows that considerable emission reductions could be achieved by targeting large point sources in some of the most emission‐intensive industries. Yet, a number of challenges need to be resolved in all parts of the CCS chain. Efforts need to be intensified from all stakeholders to gain more experience with the technological, economical and social aspects of CCS.Originality/valueThis study provides a first estimate of the potential role for CO2 capture technologies in lowering CO2 emissions from European heavy industry. By considering wider system aspects as well as plant‐specific conditions the assessment made in this study gives a realistic overview of the prospects and practical limitations of CCS in EU industry.

The influence of international climate policies on the deployment of CO2 capture and storage at the national level

Abstract The deployment of large scale CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) may depend largely on the emissions price resulting from a greenhouse gas emission trading system. However, it is unknown whether such a trading system leads to a sufficient high CO2 price and stable investment environment for CCS deployment. To gain more knowledge, we soft-linked WorldScan, an applied general equilibrium model for global policy analysis, with MARKAL-NL-UU, a techno-economic energy bottom-up model of the Dutch power generation sector and CO2 intensive industry. Results from WorldScan show that CO2 prices in 2020 could vary between 20 € /t CO2 in a Grand Coalition scenario, in which all countries accept greenhouse gas targets from 2020, to 47 € /t CO2 in an Impasse scenario, in which EU-27 continues its one-sided emission trading system without the possibility to use the Clean Development Mechanism. Results from MARKAL-NL-UU show that an emission trading system in combination with uncertainty does not advance the application of CCS in an early stage, the rates at which different CO2 abatement technologies (including CCS) develop are less crucial for introduction of CCS than the CO2 price development, and the combination of biomass (co-)firing and CCS seems an important option to realise deep CO2 emission reductions.

Barriers and incentives of CCS deployment in China: Results from semi-structured interviews

From March to July of 2008, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 experts from the Chinese government, scientific institutes and industrial sectors. This paper summarizes the experts’ opinions and draws conclusions about four crucial aspects that influence CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) deployment in China: technology research and experience accumulation, finance support, market development and policy and system. According to interviews result, technological improvement is necessary to cut down on CO 2 capture cost and decrease technological uncertainty. Then, to make some rational policies and systems, with elements such as a carbon tax and clean electricity pricing, to drive power plants to adopt CO 2 capture technology. Furthermore, financial incentive in both the long term and the short term, such as subsidies and CDM, will be important for CCS incentives, encouraging enterprises’ enthusiasm for CCS and their capacity to enact it. Lastly, CCS deployment should be conducted under a market-oriented framework in the long term, so a business model and niche market deployment should be considered in advance. Among these aspects, policy and system is more complex than other three aspects, to resolve this obstacle, the innovation on electricity market and government decision model for climate change is crucial.

An integrated approach to CCS: A Canadian environmental superpower opportunity

Abstract The wide-scale public and governmental pressure to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses in developed nations has the potential to threaten the future growth and profitability of energy intensive industries. Because of this new paradigm, a group of 20 major oil & gas, power, fertilizer and chemical producers in Canada joined forces in 2005 to form the Integrated CO 2 Network (I CO 2 N) group of companies. This group recognized that developing CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) within a vision of a long -term, large-scale integrated system would ensure that the technology is developed as quickly and cost -effectively as possible, and would encourage continued economi c growth decoupled from increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Decisions about a phased and integrated CCS system requires a long -term focus on Canada’s energy and environmental policy objectives (2020 and beyond). This paper outlines the efforts to date by I CO 2 N to move CCS for ward in Canada—through its work on the economics of deploying CCS technology in Canada, what deployment of an integrated CO 2 capture, transportation and storage network can look like and the evaluation of public private partnerships to share in the risks of early CCS adoption. Analysis is presented that quantifies the overall potential of the technology and explores the benefits and costs associated with CCS, including the associated benefits of the development of an EOR industry through the deployment o f an integrated CCS system. It also puts forward 5 key elements of deployment that are necessary to enable the widespread deployment of CCS at lowest possible cost. The I CO 2 N group of companies includes the following nineteen companies: Suncor, TransAlt a, Sherrit, Agrium, Air Products, Shell, Husky, ConocoPhillips, Syncrude, Imperial Oil, Nexen, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Keyera, EPC OR, Total, Chevron, StatoilHydro, Opti, Devon, and BP.

Effective EU and Member State policies for stimulating CCS

Although CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) is widely recognised as an option to mitigate climate change, consistent and effective EU policies to advance CCS are still absent. This paper discusses policy instruments for advancing large-scale deployment of CCS in the European Union, and evaluates them in a multi-criteria analysis. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) is a cost-effective instrument for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but it is questionable whether its currently limited time horizon and short-trading periods will lead to substantial CCS diffusion. Complementary policies at the EU and the Member State level may repair this and provide sufficient incentives for CCS. Potential policies include financial instruments such as investment subsidies, a feed-in scheme, or a CO 2 price guarantee, as well as a CCS mandate or a low-carbon portfolio. These policy options differ with respect to their environmental effectiveness, possible interaction with the EU-ETS, costs and financial risk involved, and their competition with other mitigation options. Interactions between Member State policies and the EU-ETS are smaller in scope than those of EU-wide policies, but they are more likely to lead to displacement of financial resources from other low-carbon technologies. In addition, national policies may pose a significant part of the financial risk of CCS operations with Member States, reducing the operator's incentive to innovate. Overall, structural policies at the EU level, such as a mandate or a low-carbon portfolio standard would be more conducive for realising large-scale deployment of CCS across the EU as well as more acceptable to environmental organisations.

Preparing for global rollout: A ‘developed country first’ demonstration programme for rapid CCS deployment

Carbon dioxide (CO 2) and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use in many developed and developing countries are expected to be the major source of anthropogenic emissions for the foreseeable future. As a result, the potential to use CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) for significant reductions in CO 2 emissions from the use of coal (and other fossil fuels) at large point sources could become very important in determining the feasibility of climate change mitigation. Large-scale deployment of CCS in the EU from 2020 has been suggested, but this paper illustrates how time is very short if two complete learning cycles are to be achieved before a possible rollout in the early/mid 2020s. It also highlights some key differences between CO 2 capture technologies that suggest that learning can be achieved more quickly with post-combustion capture than with other options. This might allow rollout to be accelerated by perhaps 5 years for post-combustion capture.

CO2 Capture and Storage with Leakage in an Energy-Climate Model

Geological CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is among the main near-term contenders for addressing the problem of global climate change. Even in a baseline scenario, with no comprehensive international climate policy, a moderate level of CCS technology is expected to be deployed, given the economic benefits associated with enhanced oil and gas recovery. With stringent climate change control, CCS technologies will probably be installed on an industrial scale. Geologically stored CO2, however, may leak back to the atmosphere, which could render CCS ineffective as climate change reduction option. This article presents a long-term energy scenario study for Europe, in which we assess the significance for climate policy making of leakage of CO2 artificially stored in underground geological formations. A detailed sensitivity analysis is performed for the CO2 leakage rate with the bottom-up energy systems model MARKAL, enriched for this purpose with a large set of CO2 capture technologies (in the power sector, industry, and for the production of hydrogen) and storage options (among which enhanced oil and gas recovery, enhanced coal bed methane recovery, depleted fossil fuel fields, and aquifers). Through a series of model runs, we confirm that a leakage rate of 0.1%/year seems acceptable for CCS to constitute a meaningful climate change mitigation option, whereas one of 1%/year is not. CCS is essentially no option to achieve CO2 emission reductions when the leakage rate is as high as 1%/year, so more reductions need to be achieved through the use of renewables or nuclear power, or in sectors like industry and transport. We calculate that under strict climate control policy, the cumulative captured and geologically stored CO2 by 2100 in the electricity sector, when the leakage rate is 0.1%/year, amounts to about 45,000 MtCO2. Only a little over 10,000 MtCO2 cumulative power-generation-related emissions are captured and stored underground by the end of the century when the leakage rate is 1%/year. Overall marginal CO2 abatement costs increase from a few €/tCO2 today to well over 150 €/tCO2 in 2100, under an atmospheric CO2 concentration constraint of 550 ppmv. Carbon costs in 2100 turn out to be about 40 €/tCO2 higher when the annual leakage rate is 1%/year in comparison to when there is no CO2 leakage. Irrespective of whether CCS deployment is affected by gradual CO2 seepage, the annual welfare loss in Europe induced by the implementation of policies preventing “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (under our assumption, implying a climate stabilisation target of 550 ppmv CO2 concentration) remains below 0.5% of GDP during the entire century.

The low cost of geological assessment for underground CO2 storage: Policy and economic implications

The costs for carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) in geologic formations is estimated to be $6–75/t CO2. In the absence of a mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or some other significant incentive for CCS deployment, this cost effectively limits CCS technology deployment to small niche markets and stymies the potential for further technological development through learning by doing until these disincentives for the free venting of CO2 are in place. By far, the largest current fraction of these costs is capture (including compression and dehydration), commonly estimated at $25–60/t CO2 for power plant applications, followed by CO2 transport and storage, estimated at $0–15/t CO2. Of the storage costs, only a small fraction of the cost will go to accurate geological characterization. These one time costs are probably on the order of $0.1/t CO2 or less as these costs are spread out over the many millions of tons likely to be injected into a field over many decades. Geologic assessments include information central to capacity prediction, risk estimation for the target intervals and development facilities engineering. Since assessment costs are roughly two orders of magnitude smaller than capture costs, and assessment products carry other tangible societal benefits, such as improved accuracy in fossil fuel and ground water reserves estimates, government or joint private–public funding of major assessment initiatives should underpin early policy choices regarding CO2 storage deployment and should serve as a point of entry for policy makers and regulators. Early assessment is also likely to improve the knowledge base upon which the first commercial CCS deployments will rest.