CCS –a technologyin limbo?€¦ · generally well understood and, in some cases, technologically...

2. August 2017

Mitg

lied

der H

elm

holtz

-Gem

eins

chaf

t

CCS – a technology in limbo?

Prof. Jürgen-Friedrich Hake

2. August 2017 Folie 2

0

10

20

30

40

2014 2020 2030 2040 2050

GtCO2

Efficiency 40%

Renewables 35%

Fuel switching 5%

Nuclear 6%

CCS 14%

CCS plays a leading role in the energy transformation

Pushing energy technology to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 could meet the mid-point of the range of ambitions expressed in Paris

Technology area contribution to global cumulative CO2 reductions

Efficiency 40%

Renewables35%Fuel switching5%Nuclear 6%

CCS 14%

Efficiency 34%

Renewables 15%

Fuel switching 18%

Nuclear 1%

CCS 32%

Global CO2 reductions by technology area

2 degrees Scenario – 2DS

Reference Technology Scenario – RTS

Beyond 2 degrees Scenario – B2DS

0 200 400Gt CO2 cumulative reductions in 2060


Assesment of Energy Technologies and Energy Systems

Institute for Energy and Climate Research - System Analysis and Technology Evaluation


Exploring the idea of CCS

“This is not the place to think of each consumer filling his own little balloons with CO2 to be processed by his municipality. The problem has to be tackled upstream.”

“[…] one of the numerous (a dozen) processes of stripping CO2 from other gases […] which are currently used in industry could be employed.”

“CO2 can be easily compressed […]. It can be transported in pipelines that are essentially the same as those for methane.”

“[CO2 disposal] could be done in the form of a permanent underground storage, e.g. by using exhausted gas fields.”

Cesare Marchetti publishes „On Geoengineering and the CO2 Problem“ (1976)

Source: Marchetti, C. (1976): On Geoengineering and the CO2 Problem


IPCC - Recognition of CCS as a climate change mitigation option

IPCC - Special Report on CCS (2005)Technical findings: For geological storage, 99% of the CO2 is very likely to be retained over 100 years, and 99% of the CO2 is likely to be retained over 1,000 years. Policy findings: CCS is an important option available to reduce the impacts of climate

change. There is a need to increase public awareness of CCS. There is a need for the development of suitable regulatory frameworks.

CCS as a climate change mitigation option was recognised on manyoccasions by scientific & political organizations at national & international level in subsequent years; e. g. IPCC mitigation report (2014): particular relevance for CCS.

Source: After IPCC SR on CCS


Carbon Capture and Storage fulfills: primarily climate policy objectives

- reduces carbon emissions from power plants & industries;- has a potential for “negative emissions” (bio-energy with CCS).

carbon capture and utilisation (turning waste CO2 emissions into products such as chemicals & fuels) – but is this a long term storage ?

Carbon Capture and Storage requires: policy support to drive action; financial and policy incentives; societal and political acceptance; (high) carbon prices and/or other mitigation incentives/regulations; requires (inter)national regulation regarding the technology deployment; requires international scientific, technological & political cooperation.

Deployment of CCS – why is there a need for policy and regulation?


Incentivizing the worldwide deployment of CCS G8

• 2005: Gleneagles Plan of Action – enhancing international cooperation on CCS• 2008: Target of launching 10 large-scale CCS demonstration projects globally by 2010• 2009 + 2010 Summits: Confirming the objectives• 2014 Rome (G 7): promote use of CCS• 2015 G7 Energy Ministers: encourages CCS & collaboration for large scale demonstration projects

G20 • 2015: Energy Sustainable Working Group, Turkey: CCS on the agenda

MEF• 2009 Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate: Technology Action Plan for CCS

CSLF • CCS demonstration project recognition• Early opportunity workshops for stakeholders• CCS Roadmap 2010• IEA/CSLF Report to the Muskoka G8 Leaders’ Summit• CSLF 5th Ministerial meeting 2013: next 7 years critically important for creating positive conditions for CCS• 6th meeting 2015 Saudi Arabia: CCS on the agenda

GCCSI• Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute: Database of status CCS-Projects, reports …

European Zero Emission Technology and Innovation Platform• CCS technologies in the light of the 2030 targets

Other organizations supporting the advancement of CCS: Clean Energy Ministerial (emerged from MEF 2009 and was transferred to CSLF); Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), UNFCCC (in subsidiary body); European Commission supports R&D & demonstration of CCS since 20 years; Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM); Bilateral agreements.Inclusion of CCS into the clean development mechanism project activities (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol; Paris-agreement : CCS is not mentioned explicitly.


International networks and organizations

IPCC

UNFCCC

G8/7

CEM**

CSLF

GCCSI

IEAGHG

1990~2000 2005 2010

2005: Specialreport on CCS

2005: „welcomes“ IPCC Special Report

2006: Workshops CCS & CDM

2010: CCS eligible in CDM

2005: Gleneagles Plan of Action

2003: Inaugural meeting

2008: GCCSI announcement

1st GHGT conference 2007: Capture-ready report

2010/2013: CCS Roadmap

2006-07 Early opportunitiesworkshops

2008: 20 large-scaledemoprojects by 2010

Sources: de Coninck, Bäckstrand 2011, Schenk 2013, Organization`s documents

1992: UNFCCC launched

2009: 1st CEM2010: CCUSestablished

2014: CCUS recommen-dations

2016: last update on global status of CCS

GHGT- every 2 years

2009: EnergyMinisters pro CCS

2014: CCS part ofmitigation (bio)

2016: 6th Forum, SA

2016: Paris Agreement: 10 countries CCS commitment*

2017 CEM 8

2016

**clean energy ministerial

G 7: importance of renewables & other low-carbon technologies

*e.g. Canada, China, Norway, Saudi-Arabia, Iran


Source: IEA, 20 Years of Carbon Capture and Storage, 2017

But : ups and downs of CCS


High expectations confronted with realityOperating CCS projects with dedicated Geological Storage

Source: www.globalccsinstitute.com, database.


Successful use of CO2: Operating CCS projects for enhanced oil recovery (I)

Source: www.globalccsinstitute.com, database


Operating CCS projects - enhanced oil recovery (II)

Sources: www.globalccsinstitute.com, database; newspapers

Petra Novaproject at the WA

Parish power plant in Texas: world's largest

post-combustion CCS facility

opened; $1 billion investment; $190

million from DOE.


Source: DOE, A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S., 2015

The US has an established CO2 pipeline system for EOR

50 CO2 pipelines and with a combined length over 4,500 miles, 80 percent of CO2 traveling through U.S. pipelines is from natural (geologic) sources


Large-scale CCS projects with different perspectives:

USA

- The Kemper County Energy Facility in Mississippi (CO2 capture capacity ofapproximately 3 Mtpa); expected to be operational in 2017: but delays and overruns,Kemper now costs three times its original $2.2 billion price tag, leading many to writeoff the whole concept.

- The Illinois Industrial CCS-project has begun operations in the 2017. It is the world’sfirst large-scale bioenergy CCS project, as well as the first CCS project in the US toinject CO2 into a deep saline formation at a scale of 1 Mtpa. The project is currentlypermitted to operate for five years and has the potential to store up to 5.5 million tonsof carbon dioxide.

Australia

The Gorgon Carbon Dioxide Injection Project (CO2 capture capacity of between 3.4-4.0 Mtpa) in Australia is expected to begin operations in 2017 (?). This injectionproject will be the largest in the world to inject CO2 into a deep saline formation and isan integral component of the Gorgon LNG Project. from natural gas processing plantwith dedicated deep saline geological storage.

China

- The Yanchang Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration Projectprogressed into the execute (or construction) stage in late March 2017. Around 0.4Mt/pa of CO2 would be captured from gasification facilities at chemical plants inShaanxi Province. This is the first large-scale CCS facility in China to enter theconstruction stage (though China has a large number of operational CCS facilities atpilot and demonstration scale) > EOR


CCS power projects in Europe – on hold or cancelled

Source: https://sequestration.mit.edu/; own additions

UK government canceled £1bn CCS competition in 2015; investment halted

The projects were not chosen for the (now cancelled) UK competition; future is uncertain; holds true for most projects due to problem of financeand lacking competitiveness.

project on hold

project on hold

financing gap; nobusiness case?ROAD power stationwill be closed


Ongoing R & D:Pilot and demonstration projects (lesser scale)

Source: www.globalccsinstitute.com, database


But: private & public investment in large scale CCS projects shrinking

Source: Tristan Stanley: CSLF Policy meeting, IEA Update, 07 October 2016


But: CCS R&D spending still existing

Source: IEA, Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2015, Paris 2015, p. 33


A gap between expectations/aspirations and reality

“This roadmap includes an ambitious CCS growth path in order to achievethis GHG mitigation potential, envisioning 100 projects globally by 2020and over 3000 projects by 2050.”

IEA (2009) Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage 2009. Paris, International EnergyAgency, p. 4.

“By 2020, investment worth USD 27 billion will be needed to fund about 60early large-scale (industrial and fuel transformation sector) projects”.

IEA/UNIDO (2011) Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage in Industrial Applications.Paris, p. 5.

But reality has not met expectations – announcements, but a lack ofimplementation


By the end of 2017 (?) all CCS facilities will capture annually around 40

million tons/yr. what is needed to reach the IEA’s numbers within

the context of the 2 C target energy strategy: 2 billion tons stored per year in 2030* about 7 billion tons in 2050*

The gap in figures

*IEA Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage 2013


Reasons why CCS failed to come up to expectations Even if the application of CCS is essential part of climate protection strategies + risk presented by pipeline transport is roughly comparable to that of natural gas transport + safety and reliability of on- and off-shore storage has been demonstrated on at least a research

scale There is still a need to demonstrate CCS feasibility by means of large coal/gas power plants, with

sufficient load flexibility and commercial availability. The electricity generation costs will rise considerably and the CO2 avoidance costs (electricity

sector and industry) are far higher than the current CO2 allowance prices in the EU. Investment incentives will only be present with a significantly higher long-term allowance price

(emission trading), a carbon tax or with public financial subsidies. Due to higher fuel requirements and transport, CO2 reduction is frequently implemented at the

expense of other environmental impacts. There is hardly acceptance among the public (at least in many European countries) for CO2

storage on land or below the ocean floor, and the perception of CCS as a “risk technology” hastaken root in large parts the population.

Many countries have no CO2 reduction policy, which is a necessary prerequisite for implementingCCS.

Anti-coal policies (“coal phase out”), in particular in Europe (and other countries?), CO2 utilization (Carbon Capture & Use, CCU) does yet not offer sufficient potential as a

replacement for CO2 storage, although it may become significant as part of supply chains of rawmaterials for industry.

CCS for industries is in the phase of development with uncertain perspectives.


CCS risks and challenges

Source: Tomski, P.: Carbon Capture & Storage, Global CCS Institute, October 2015


Example – the case of Germany: No CCS despite a CCS Act

Envisaged CCS power plant (cancelled)

Potential pipelines (cancelled)

Potential strorage areas

Local/political resistance successful

Source image: http://www.eurosolar.de/de/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=289; [01. 07. 2009]

Demo plant Jänschwalde by Vattefall, part of the EU EEPR funding, cancelled in 2013

Other strorage areas -Local/political resistance successful


The German CCS Act makes CCS highly unlikely

Legal situation: EU Directive on Carbon Capture and Storage was implemented into

German law (2012). A controversial political process with different and unusual lines of

conflict - between, but also within parties both at the federal and state level, between federal States (Länder) and the federal government, between NGOs and scientific advisory boards: > majority anti-CCS, CCS act excessively restrictive.

Political/economic situation: Local- and NGO-opposition, the anti-storage attitude of most Federal

State governments and State parties coal phase out policy gaining strength Low carbon prices (EU ETS), low electricity prices makes it very unlikely that a CO2 onshore storage project could be

realized No relevant debate about process-related CCS from industry or

biomass-CCS Not a single CCS-demonstration project is realized in Germany


General attitudes to CCS / pipelines / storage in Germany

General attitude negativeMean1

3.93.33.63.8

CO2 transport via pipelineCO2 onshore storageCO2 offshore storageCCS in general

1 Scale from 1 (= very negative) to 7 (= very positive).

Data sources: IEK-STE, representative for Germany 2015 (n=1000)


International collaborationon CCS R&D and demonstration

CSLF, IEAGHG R&D Programme, IEA Clean Coal Centre

• Knowledge-sharing (R&D, pilot and demonstration projects)• Networking • Identification of international best practice• Concept definition (e.g. „capture-ready“), development of guidelines

for regulatory purposes


1. National & international activities continueCountries with fundamental interests in CCS:USA, Canada, China, Saudi Arabia, Australia … (United Kingdom ?)

IEA CCS Roadmap 2013 stresses:• Coal is still the source of electricity worldwide, coal generation capacity will increase.• Natural gas electricity generation, a “partner” of renewables, is a CO2-source. • Carbon capture and storage (CCS) will be a critical component in a portfolio of low-carbon

energy technologies if governments undertake ambitious measures to combat climate change.

• The individual component technologies required for capture, transport and storage are generally well understood and, in some cases, technologically mature.

• Governments and industry must ensure that the incentive and regulatory frameworks are in place to deliver upwards of 30 operating CCS projects by 2020 across a range of processes and industrial sectors.

• CCS is not only about electricity generation. Almost half (45%) of the CO2 captured between 2015 and 2050 has to come from industrial applications.

• Given their rapid growth in energy demand, the largest deployment of CCS will need to occur in non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

• This decade is critical for moving deployment of CCS beyond the demonstration phase.


2. Industrial applications and CCS are an issue

• Energy‐intensive industries account for a significant part of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

• CCS is the only option to decarbonize many industrial sectors.

• CCS in industrial applications requires more attention from policy makers.

• Demonstration of CCS in industrial applications is not happening fast enough.

• Policies must consider the global competitiveness of industrial sectors.


IEA CCS 2014 - key actions for CCS success

• Introduce financial support mechanisms for demonstration and earlydeployment of CCS to drive private financing of projects.

• Implement policies that encourage storage exploration, characterization anddevelopment for CCS projects.

• Develop national laws and regulations as well as provisions for multilateralfinance that effectively require new-build, base-load, fossil-fuel powergeneration capacity to be CCS-ready.

• Prove capture systems at pilot scale in industrial applications where CO2capture has not yet been demonstrated.

• Significantly increase efforts to improve understanding among the public andstakeholders of CCS technology and the importance of its deployment.

• Reduce the cost of electricity from power plants equipped with capture throughcontinued technology development and use of highest possible efficiency powergeneration cycles.

• • Encourage efficient development of CO2 transport infrastructure by anticipatinglocations of future demand centres and future volumes of CO2.


Summary on international cooperation in the field of CCS The key actors of international cooperation are governments, industry and academia

that cooperate in the framework of international organizations, scientificorganizations, and R&D networks.

CCS was recognized as a climate change mitigation option after the release of theIPCC SR on CCS and is still recognized as an important option by the IPCC.

The international organizations address the deployment of CCS by means of goal-setting, roadmapping activities, and inclusion of CCS in the existing mechanisms ofinternational climate change mitigation.

Wordwide international research and development cooperation, e. g. betweenIEAGHG and CSLF.

The international R&D networks focus on knowledge sharing and contribute totechnical concepts‘ definition for regulatory purposes.

But - limited outreach ? - Public/political resistance against CCS, in particular storagewidespread, in particular in Europe; CCS: high costs and other challenges, e. g. coalphase out policies.

But - better prospects for CCS ahead? > More coal use (globally) > more natural gas > more industrial emissions > stricter CO2-targets (< 2 degree C)


Summary: Critical conditions for a future for CCS

Source: Coninck, H. D. & Benson, S. M.: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Issues and Prospects. In: Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 1/39 2014, 243-270 (262)


Selected References IPCC:

IPCC, Carbon Capture and Storage, SR 2005, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf.IPCC, Fifth Assessment Report Report, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, http://mitigation2014.org/.

Roadmaps:IEA (2009) Technology Roadmap. Carbon capture and Storage. http://www.iea.org/papers/2009/CCS_Roadmap.pdf.CSLF (2013) Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum Technology roadmap. http://www.cslforum.org/publications/index.html?cid=nav_publications.EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2013) Comunication on the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe. Brussels, EU-Commission, 27.3.2013, COM(2013) 180 final.IEA (2013) Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage 2013, Paris, International Energy Agency.IEA/UNIDO (2011) Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage in Industrial Applications. Paris.

Policy & regulation, acceptance:IEA (2012): Carbon capture and storage - Legal and Regulatory Review, Edition 3. OECD/IEA, Paris.IEA (2012) Policy Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage. Paris, OECD/IEAKHESHGI, H., DE CONINCK, H. & KESSELS, J. (2012) Carbon dioxide capture and storage: Seven years after the IPCC special report. Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global Change, 17:6, 563-567.KUCKSHINRICHS, W.; HAKE, J.-F. (Eds.) Cabon Capture, Storage and Use - Technical, Economic, Environmental and Societal Perspectives. Springer InternationalPublishing, Cham, 2014.L׳ORANGE SEIGO, S., DOHLE, S. & SIEGRIST, M. (2014) Public perception of CCS: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38:0, 848-863.DIXON, T., McCOY, S. T. & HAVERCROFT, I. (2015) Legal and Regulatory Developments on CCS. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40, 431-448.VAN EGMOND, S. & HEKKERT, M. P. (2015) Analysis of a prominent carbon storage project failure – The role of the national government as initiator and decision makerin the Barendrecht case. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 34, 1-11.ASHWORTH, P.,, et. al. (2015): Developments in public communications on CCS. Intern. Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40, 449-458.

CCS and “negative emissions”:KRIEGLER, E., et. al. (2013): Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Climatic Change, 1-13.

CCS and use:STYRING, P., et. al. (2011): Carbon Capture and Utilisation in the green economy, The Centre for Low Carbon Futures 2011, York, UK.Mac Dowell, N., et. al., The role of CO2 capture and utilization in mitigating climate change. Nature climate change, 7, April 2017, pp. 243-249.

CCS global status :IEA/CSLF (2010) IEA/CSLF report to the Muskoka 2010 G8 summit - Carbon capture and storage - Progress and next steps. OECD/IEA, CSLF, prepared with the co-operation of the Global CCS Institute, http://www.iea.org/papers/2010/ccs_g8.pdf.IEA (2014) CCS 2014: What lies in store for CCS? Paris, OECD/IEA.D’Aprile, A. (2016): Advances and slowdowns in Carbon Capture and Storage technology development, ICCG Reflection No. 48, International Center for ClimateGovernance, Venice, Italy.GCCSI (2016) The global status of CCS: 2016 summary report, Canberra, Global CCS Institute.

International cooperation in the field of CCS:DE CONINCK, H. & BÄCKSTRAND, K. (2011) An International Relations perspective on the global politics of carbon dioxide capture and storage. Global EnvironmentalChange, 21:2, 368-378.DE CONINCK, et. al., T. (2008): International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change. Energy Policy, 36, 335-356.SCHENK, O. (2013) Interest Mediation and Policy Formulation in the European Union. Influence of Transnational Technology-Oriented Agreements on European Policy inthe Field of Carbon Capture and Storage. Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich.Hake, J.-Fr., Schenk, O. (2014) International Cooperation in Support of CCS, in: KUCKSHINRICHS, W.; HAKE, J.-F. (Eds.) Cabon Capture, Storage and Use, pp. 311-327.


Thank you for the attention!

Questions?

[email protected]

Institute for Energy and Climate ResearchSystem Analysis and Technology Evaluation

Date post:	17-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doquynh
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

CCS –a technologyin limbo?€¦ · generally well understood and, in some cases, technologically...

Documents