Elizabeth BurtonLawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory and

WESTCARB

eburton@lbl.gov

(925)899-6397

Recent Developments and Opportunities for CCS

A Look at California

GCCSI Annual Meeting

Seoul, S. Korea

October 8-10,2013

2

Why Look at California?

7th largest global economy

17-18th largest carbon emitter globally

In top 5 globally for carbon efficiency:

lowest carbon emissions per capita

highest economic output per ton of

emissions

Climate and CO2 emissions reductions

policies in place

Studies of energy future show clear

need for CCS to meet goals

3

Substantial CCUS/ CO2-

EOR opportunity

Type of Oil

Reservoir

# Potential

Fields

Estimated Capacity

(MMT CO2)

Miscible 121 3,186

Immiscible 18 178

CO2 must come from captured

anthropogenic sources

Price point estimated $40/tonne

4

BUT—CCS Projects Are Not

Happening---

WHY NOT?

5

California’s Climate Policies

2005 Governor’s Executive Order, S-3-05,

established target GHG reduction levels

2020: roll back to 1990 levels (~436 million

metric tons) (became law as Assembly Bill

32—Global Warming Solutions Act)

2050: 80% below 1990 levels—not ―law‖

Many policies enacted to meet 2020 goals

include CCS only nominally:

Emissions Performance Standards (EPS)

Renewable portfolio standards (33%) (RPS)

Low carbon fuel standard (LCFS)

Cap-and-trade

6

Should CCS ―wait‖ until after 2020?

~ 12MMT CO2/yr

7

CCS Must Adapt to Changes in Point

SourcesToday:

In-state: natural gas baseload

power, refineries and cement

plants

Imported power from coal plants

Tomorrow:

Divesture of all coal-fired

power contracts by 2030

Retirement of all natural gas

plants with once-through

cooling by 2020

More rapid response fossil

power, not baseload

Geographic shifts in

demand inland

Sea level rise impacts on

coastal infrastructure?

8

Tehachapi Wind Generation, April 2009

Source:

RPS means large fractions of intermittent energy

sources: fossil fuels must provide load balancing

Source: NERC Report - Accommodating High Levels of Variable Generation –

March 2009

10-second samplingSolar PV output

on partly

cloudy dayCourtesy of M. Brown, CIEE

9

Meeting 2050 goals requires CCS on electricity

to create net negative emissions

Scenarios from California’s Energy Future: The View to 2050

10

So what has happened?

Projects—

two cancelled, one remains

Policy—

Interest in reports

Attempts at legislation

R&D funding declining

Inclusion of CCS very limited

in 2020 planning documents

Hydrogen Energy California

(HECA)

11

What must happen?

Write CCS methodologies for compliance

Eliminate short-term (2020) focus

Fully integrate CCS in future energy policy and infrastructure planning

Define regulatory agency roles and jurisdictions

Include CCS in carbon reduction technologies that qualify for incentives, loading orders, subsidies, etc. to ―force‖ a business case

External

Advocacy

and

Technical

Input

12

Conclusions

California is a good test case for studying challenges to CCS deployment

California needs expertise and advocacy NOW to assure CCS for 2050

Thank you

감사합니다

Contact information:

eburton@lbl.gov