Carbon Capture and Storage

transcript

Carbon capture and storage: white knight or white elephant?

Emissions exceeding IPCC projections

Source: Global Carbon project

Why CCS won’t save the climate and some better solutions

Targets on the table are inadequate

Source: ClimateActionTracker.org

Finland:69.1 Mt

Pop 5.2 mSweden: 67 Mt

Pop 9m

Greece: 139.2 Mt

Pop 11m

Ireland: 69.9 Mt

Pop: 4m

Hungary: 80.5 Mt

Pop 10m

Our emissions are disproportionately

2005 emissions

Victoria: 121 Mt

Pop 5.2m

Can CCS deliver?

1. CCS cannot deliver in time or at scale

• UN Development program: “CCS will arrive on the battlefield far too late to help the world avoid dangerous climate change”

• IPCC: Not likely to deliver at scale until second half of 21st century.

• World Coal Institute: only 9 CCS plants operating globally in 2020

• Even if it works will only capture a fraction of emissions from electricity generation. In Australia at best leads to 9% emissions reduction in 2030 and 2.4% reduction in cumulative emissions over period to 2030 (modelling by Hugh Saddler)

2. CCS wastes energy and water

Plants with carbon capture will use 10-40% more energy than those without.

• This means more coal mining, transportation and burning

3. CCS wastes energy and water

• Because of energy penalty, CCS uses 1/3 more water than conventional coal-fired power

Melbourne’s annual water use:

400 GL

Water use of 5 power stations in Latrobe Valley: 100 GL

4. CCS creates a long-term, potentially dangerous liability

• Longest running storage project at Sleipner is 14 years old

• Will it stay there forever? Potential for slow or sudden leakage? Failure of wells?

Question: in the event of an accident who wears the legal liability?

Answer:

We do!Why CCS won’t save the climate and some better solutions

5. CCS is expensive and undermines funding for sustainable solutions

• IPCC estimate of $15-$75 per tonne

• More expensive than energy efficiency, gas, and most renewable energy technologies

• Yet its dominating government climate change expenditure

“The 2009-10 Budget further strengthens Australia’s domestic and international climate change response…

The Rudd Government will invest:-$2.4 billion in low emissions coal technologies, including new funding of $2 billion in industrial-scale

CCS projects under the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships program;

-$1.6 billion in solar technologies, including new funding of $1.365 billion in a Solar Flagships program – helping position Australia as a world leader in this vital energy technology for the future”

Excerpt from Federal Budget 09-10 press release

6. CCS trial projects over-promise and under-deliver

• In 2007 11 CCS projects were scrapped globally.

• In Australia ZeroGen delayed and Shell/BP project scrapped

• Victorian trials are ridiculously small and expensive

7. CCS is unnecessary: halving Victoria’s emissions by 2020

Turning it Around: climate solutions for Victoria, The Nous Group

Reflections on 50% cuts scenario

•Minimises total emissions starting immediately

•Leadership scenario - need leaders to break impasses

•Many measures need state leadership

•Will give Victoria first-mover advantage in some sectors

•No regrets approach would see us adopting measures with speedy payback times

Conclusions on CCS

• CCS about ‘keeping the dream alive’

• Will deliver too little, too late at too great a cost.

• The public is footing the bill and the liability

• We can do better.

Sweden: 67 MtPop 9m

4 Victorian power stations: 58 Mt per

Thank you

www.environmentvictoria.org.au

Carbon Capture and Storage

Education