Lost in the mix: will the technologies of carbon dioxide capture and storage provide us with a breathing space as we strive to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewables?

This paper explores concepts of carbon lock-in arising from the technologies of CO₂ capture and storage (CCS). We examine the argument that CCS reduces carbon lock-in and the calls for a CCS ‘mandate’ and emission performance standards. We analyse the pros- and cons- of a low-carbon fossil fuel lock-in, arguing that lock-in per se is not the problem; it is rather the depth of lock-in which creates problems because deeper lock-in reduces flexibility and increases the ‘error cost’ (i.e. the cost of a decision which turns out to be based on incorrect understanding) and should be avoided. A set of technical and institutional indicators for measuring the flexibility of different technologies is then presented and applied to three technologies: a landfill gas power generator, a conventional nuclear power plant and a CCS plant under development in California. We conclude that these indicators are a useful way forward in assessing individual projects and that public authorities and other stakeholders might wish to employ some version of these indicators in their deliberations on the role of CCS.     

The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey

Abstract

A series of meetings of two ‘Citizen Panels’ were held to explore public perceptions of off-shore carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture and storage (CCS). In addition, a face-to-face survey of 212 randomly selected individuals was conducted. We found that, on first hearing about CCS in the absence of any information on its purpose, the majority of people either do not have an opinion at all or have a somewhat negative perspective. However, when (even limited) information is provided on the role of CO₂ storage in reducing CO₂ emissions to the atmosphere, opinion shifts towards expressing slight support for the concept.

Support depends, however, upon concern about human-caused climate change, plus recognition of the need for major reductions in CO₂ emissions. It also depends upon CCS being seen as just one part of a wider strategy for achieving significant cuts in CO₂ emissions. A portfolio including renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency, and lifestyle change to reduce demand was generally favoured. CCS can be part of such a portfolio, but wind, wave, tidal, solar and energy efficiency were preferred. It was felt that uncertainties concerning the potential risks of CCS had to be better addressed and reduced; in particular the risks of accidents and leakage (including the potential environmental, ecosystem and human health impacts which might result from leakage).     

Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming

Each year, irrigated Saharan- and Australian-desert forests could sequester amounts of atmospheric CO₂ at least equal to that from burning fossil fuels. Without any rain, to capture CO₂ produced from gasoline requires adding about $1 to the per-gallon pump-price to cover irrigation costs, using reverse osmosis (RO), desalinated, sea water. Such mature technology is economically competitive with the currently favored, untested, power-plant Carbon Capture (and deep underground, or under-ocean) Sequestration (CCS). Afforestation sequesters CO₂, mostly as easily stored wood, both from distributed sources (automotive, aviation, etc., that CCS cannot address) and from power plants. Climatological feasibility and sustainability of such irrigated forests, and their potential global impacts are explored using a general circulation model (GCM). Biogeophysical feedback is shown to stimulate considerable rainfall over these forests, reducing desalination and irrigation costs; economic value of marketed, renewable, forest biomass, further reduces costs; and separately, energy conservation also reduces the size of the required forests and therefore their total capital and operating costs. The few negative climate impacts outside of the forests are discussed, with caveats. If confirmed with other GCMs, such irrigated, subtropical afforestation probably provides the best, near-term route to complete control of green-house-gas-induced, global warming.     

Designing policy for deployment of CCS in industry

Attaining deep greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in industry in order to support a stringent climate change control target will be difficult without recourse to CO₂ capture and storage (CCS). Using the insights from a long-term bottom-up energy systems model, and undertaking a sectoral assessment, we investigated the importance of CCS in the industrial sector. Under climate policy aimed at limiting atmospheric concentration of GHGs to 650 ppm CO₂e, costs could increase fivefold when CCS is excluded from the portfolio of mitigation option measures in the industry sector as compared to when CCS is excluded in the power sector. This effect is driven largely by the lack of alternatives for deep emission reductions in industry. Our main policy conclusion is that a broader recognition of CCS in industrial applications in both current policy discussions and research, development, and demonstration funding programmes is justified. In recognition of the heterogeneity of the many types of industrial production processes, the size and location of industrial CO₂ sources, the specific need for CCS-retrofitting, and the exposure of most industrial sectors to international trade, policies aimed at supporting CCS must distinguish between the different challenges faced by the power and industrial sectors.     

Governance of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): accounting,rewarding, and the Paris agreement

Studies show that the ‘well below 2°C’ target from the Paris Agreement will be hard to meet without large negative emissions from mid-century onwards, which means removing CO₂ from the atmosphere and storing the carbon dioxide in biomass, soil, suitable geological formations, deep ocean sediments, or chemically bound to certain minerals. Biomass energy combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is the negative emission technology (NET) given most attention in a number of integrated assessment model studies and in the latest IPCC reports. However, less attention has been given to governance aspects of NETs. This study aims to identify pragmatic ways forward for BECCS, through synthesizing the literature relevant to accounting and rewarding BECCS, and its relation to the Paris Agreement. BECCS is divided into its two elements: biomass and CCS. Calculating net negative emissions requires accounting for sustainability and resource use related to biomass energy production, processing and use, and interactions with the global carbon cycle. Accounting for the CCS element of BECCS foremost relates to the carbon dioxide capture rate and safe underground storage. Rewarding BECCS as a NET depends on the efficiency of biomass production, transport and processing for energy use, global carbon cycle feedbacks, and safe storage of carbon dioxide, which together determine net carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. Sustainable biomass production is essential, especially with regard to trade-offs with competing land use. Negative emissions have an added value compared to avoided emissions, which should be reflected in the price of negative emission ‘credits’, but must be discounted due to global carbon cycle feedbacks. BECCS development will depend on linkages to carbon trading mechanisms and biomass trading.

Key policy insights

• A standardized framework for sustainable biomass should be adopted.

• Countries should agree on a standardized framework for accounting and rewarding BECCS and other negative emission technologies.

• Early government support is indispensable to enable BECCS development, scale-up and business engagement.

• BECCS projects should be designed to maximize learning across various applications and across other NETs.

• BECCS development should be aligned with modalities of the Paris Agreement and market mechanisms.

     

Implications of Japan’s long term climate mitigation target and the relevance of uncertain nuclear policy

Achieving long-term climate mitigation goals in Japan faces several challenges, starting with the uncertain nuclear power policy after the 2011 earthquake, the uncertain availability and progress of energy technologies, as well as energy security concerns in light of a high dependency on fuel imports. The combined weight of these challenges needs to be clarified in terms of the energy system and macroeconomic impacts. We applied a general equilibrium energy economic model to assess these impacts on an 80% emission reduction target by 2050 considering several alternative scenarios for nuclear power deployment, technology availability, end use energy efficiency, and the price of fossil fuels. We found that achieving the mitigation target was feasible for all scenarios, with considerable reductions in total energy consumption (39%–50%), higher shares of low-carbon sources (43%–72% compared to 15%), and larger shares of electricity in the final energy supply (51%–58% compared to 42%). The economic impacts of limiting nuclear power by 2050 (3.5% GDP loss) were small compared to the lack of carbon capture and storage (CCS) (6.4% GDP loss). Mitigation scenarios led to an improvement in energy security indicators (trade dependency and diversity of primary energy sources) even in the absence of nuclear power. Moreover, preliminary analysis indicates that expanding the range of renewable energy resources can lower the macroeconomic impacts of the long term target considerably, and thus further in depth analysis is needed on this aspect.

Key policy insights

• For Japan, an emissions reduction target of 80% by 2050 is feasible without nuclear power or CCS.

• The macroeconomic impact of such a 2050 target was largest without CCS, and smallest without nuclear power.

• Energy security indicators improved in mitigation scenarios compared to the baseline.

     

Carbon capture and storage policy in the United States: A new coalition endeavors to change existing policy

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered by some to be a promising technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and advocates are seeking policies to facilitate its deployment. Unlike many countries, which approach the development of policies for geologic storage (GS) of carbon dioxide (CO₂) with nearly a blank slate, the U.S. already has a mature policy regime devoted to the injection of CO₂ into deep geologic formations. However, the existing governance of CO₂ injection is designed to manage enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and policy changes would be needed to manage the risks and benefits of CO₂ injection for the purpose of avoiding GHG emissions. We review GS policy developments at both the U.S. federal and state levels, including original research on state GS policy development. By applying advocacy coalition framework theory, we identify two competing coalitions defined by their beliefs about the primary purpose of CO₂ injection: energy supply or greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. The established energy coalition is the beneficiary of the current policy regime. Their vision of GS policy is protective: to minimize harm to fossil energy industries if climate policy were to be enacted. In contrast, the newly formed climate coalition seeks to change existing GS policy to support their proactive vision: to maximize GHG reductions using CCS when climate policy is enacted. We explore where and at what scale legislation emerges and examine which institutions gain prominence as drivers of policy change. Through a detailed textual analysis of the content of state GS legislation, we find that the energy coalition has had greater success than the climate coalition in shaping state laws to align with its policy preferences. It has enshrined its view of the purpose of CO₂ injection in state legislation, delegated authority for GS to state agencies aligned with the existing policy regime, and protected the EOR status quo, while creating new opportunities for EOR operators to profit from the storage of CO₂ The climate coalition's objective of proactively putting GS policy in place has been furthered, and important progress has been made on commonly held concerns, such as the resolution of property rights issues, but the net result is policy change that does not significantly revise the existing policy regime.     

Halving global GHG emissions by 2050 without depending on nuclear and CCS

In this paper, we assessed the technological feasibility and economic viability of the mid-term (until 2050) GHG emission reduction target required for stabilization of radiative forcing at 2.6 W/m2. Given the apparent uncertainty surrounding the future deployment of nuclear and CCS technologies, we intensively investigated emission reduction scenarios without nuclear and CCS. The analysis using AIM/Enduse[Global] shows the emission reduction target is technologically feasible, but the cost for achieving the target becomes very high if nuclear and CCS options are limited. The main reason for the cost rise is that additional investment for expensive technologies is required in order to compensate for emission increases in the steel, cement and power generation sectors in the absence of CCS. On the other hand, if material efficiency improvement measures, such as material substitution, efficient use of materials and recycling, are taken, the cost of achieving the emission reduction target is significantly reduced. The result indicates the potentially important role of material efficiency improvement in curbing the cost of significant GHG emission reductions without depending on nuclear and CCS.     

Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) can be a valuable CO₂ mitigation option, but what role CCS will play in the future is uncertain. In this paper we analyze the results of different integrated assessment models (IAMs) taking part in the 27th round of the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) with respect to the role of CCS in long term mitigation scenarios. Specifically we look into the use of CCS as a function of time, mitigation targets, availability of renewables and its use with different fuels. Furthermore, we explore the possibility to relate model results to general and CCS specific model assumptions. The results show a wide range of cumulative capture in the 2010–2100 period (600–3050 GtCO₂), but the fact that no model projects less than 600 GtCO₂ indicates that CCS is considered to be important by all these models. Interestingly, CCS storage rates are often projected to be still increasing in the second half of this century. Depending on the scenario, at least six out of eight, up to all models show higher storage rates in 2100 than in 2050. CCS shares in cumulative primary energy use are in most models increasing with the stringency of the target or under conservative availability of renewables. The strong variations of CCS deployment projection rates could not be related to the reported differences in the assumptions of the models by means of a cross-model comparison in this sample.     

The promise of carbon capture and storage: evaluating the capture-readiness of new EU fossil fuel power plants

To what degree are recently built and planned power plants in the EU ‘capture-ready’ for carbon capture and storage (CCS)? Survey results show that most recently built fossil fuel power plants have not been designed as capture-ready. For 20 planned coal-fired plants, 13 were said to be capture-ready (65%). For 31 planned gas-fired power plants, only 2 were indicated to be capture-ready (6%). Recently built or planned power plants are expected to cover a large share of fossil fuel capacity by 2030 and thereby have a large impact on the possibility to implement CCS after 2020. It is estimated that around 15–30% of fossil fuel capacity by 2030 can be capture-ready or have CO₂ capture implemented from the start. If CCS is implemented at these plants, 14–28% of baseline CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel power generation in 2030 could be mitigated, equivalent to 220–410 MtCO₂. A key reason indicated by utilities for building a capture-ready plant is (expected) national or EU policies. In addition, financial incentives and expected high CO₂ prices are important. The implementation of a long-term regulatory framework for CCS with clear definitions of ‘capture- readiness’ and policy requirements will be important challenges.     

Initial public reactions to carbon capture and storage (CCS): differentiating general and local views

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered a potential climate change mitigation option, but public opposition may hamper its implementation. A quasi-experimental approach is used to examine whether ‘not in my back yard’ (NIMBY) sentiments can be anticipated at the initial stage when CO₂ storage locations have been selected and communicated to the public. Furthermore, the psychological structure of initial reactions to CO₂ storage plans is studied to ascertain the differences between people living in the direct vicinity of a proposed CO₂ storage location (i.e. onsite residents) and people who do not (i.e. offsite residents). The results indicate that initial reactions to local CCS plans are not necessarily dominated by NIMBY sentiments. For onsite residents as well as offsite residents, trust in government affects their judgements of the risks and benefits associated with CCS, which in turn affects their inclination to protest against CCS plans. Onsite residents’ inclination to protest is affected by their perceptions of local safety risks, but this is less of a concern for offsite residents. The inclination to protest against CCS is unrelated to concern about climate change.     

Cost and Co<Subscript>2</Subscript>-Emission Reduction of Biomass Cascading: Methodological Aspects and Case Study of SRF Poplar

This study presents and applies a coherent methodological framework to compare biomass cascading chains, i.e. the subsequent use of biomass for materials, recycling and energy recovery, considering land use, CO₂ emission reduction and economic performance. Example cascading chains of short rotation poplar wood are compared with each other on the basis of literature data. Results for these chains vary strongly, namely, from CO₂ mitigation benefits of 200 /Mg CO₂ to CO₂ mitigation costs of 2200 /Mg CO₂, and from net CO₂ emission reductions per hectare of biomass production of 28 Mg CO₂/(ha yr) to net CO₂ emissions of 8 Mg CO₂/(ha yr). Using a present-value approach to determine CO₂ emissions and costs affects the performance of long-term cascading chains significantly, i.e. cost and CO₂ emission reduction are decreased. In general, cascading has the potential to improve both CO₂ emission reduction per hectare and CO₂ mitigation costs of biomass usage. However, this strongly depends on the biomass applications combined in the cascading chain. Parameters that significantly influence the results are market prices and gross energy requirements of substituted materials and energy carriers, and the efficiency of biomass production. The method presented in this study is suitable to quantify land use, CO₂ emission reduction and economic performance of biomass cascading systems, and highlights the possible impact of time on the attractiveness of specific cascading chains.     

Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO 2 : an editorial comment

Leakage is one of the main concerns of all parties involved with the development of Carbon Capture and Storage. From an economic point of view, van der Zwaan and Gerlagh (2009) suggest that CCS remains a valuable option even with CO₂ leakage rate as high as of a few % per year. But what is valuable is, ultimately, determined by social preferences and parameters that are beyond economic modeling. Examining the point of view of four stakeholder groups: industry, policy-makers, environmental NGOs and the general public, we conclude that there is a social agreement today: zero is the only acceptable carbon leakage rate.     

The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE

This study investigates the use of bioenergy for achieving stringent climate stabilization targets and it analyzes the economic drivers behind the choice of bioenergy technologies. We apply the integrated assessment framework REMIND-MAgPIE to show that bioenergy, particularly if combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a crucial mitigation option with high deployment levels and high technology value. If CCS is available, bioenergy is exclusively used with CCS. We find that the ability of bioenergy to provide negative emissions gives rise to a strong nexus between biomass prices and carbon prices. Ambitious climate policy could result in bioenergy prices of 70 $/GJ (or even 430 $/GJ if bioenergy potential is limited to 100 EJ/year), which indicates a strong demand for bioenergy. For low stabilization scenarios with BECCS availability, we find that the carbon value of biomass tends to exceed its pure energy value. Therefore, the driving factor behind investments into bioenergy conversion capacities for electricity and hydrogen production are the revenues generated from negative emissions, rather than from energy production. However, in REMIND modern bioenergy is predominantly used to produce low-carbon fuels, since the transport sector has significantly fewer low-carbon alternatives to biofuels than the power sector. Since negative emissions increase the amount of permissible emissions from fossil fuels, given a climate target, bioenergy acts as a complement to fossils rather than a substitute. This makes the short-term and long-term deployment of fossil fuels dependent on the long-term availability of BECCS.     

The effect of health benefits on climate change mitigation policies

This paper studies the interplay between climate, health, and the economy in a stylized world with eleven heterogeneous regions, with special emphasis on USA, Europe, China, India, and Africa. We introduce health impacts into a simple economic integrated assessment model where both the local cooling effect of SO ₂ and the global warming effect of CO ₂ are endogenous, and investigate how these factors affect the equilibrium path. Regions do not respond in the same way to climate change. In particular, emission abatement rates and health costs depend on the economic and geographical characteristics of each region. Two policy scenarios are considered, Nash and Optimal, for which we present both global and regional results. Results for Africa and China are highlighted.     

Carbon dioxide capture and storage: a status report

Abstract

Fossil fuel combustion is the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a result of combustion, essentially all of the fuel carbon is emitted to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO₂), along with small amounts of methane and, in some cases, nitrous oxide. It has been axiomatic that reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions requires reducing fossil-fuel use. However, that relationship may no longer be as highly coupled in the future. There is an emerging understanding that CO₂ capture and storage (CCS) technology offers a way of using fossil fuels while reducing CO₂ emissions by 85% or more. While CCS is not the ‘silver bullet’ that in and of itself will solve the climate change problem, it is a powerful addition to the portfolio of technologies that will be needed to address climate change. The goal of this Commentary is to describe CCS technology in simple terms: how it might be used, how it might fit into longer term mitigation strategies, and finally, the policy issues that its emergence creates. All of these topics are discussed in much greater detail in the recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (SRCCS) (IPCC, 2005).     

The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC 1992) calls for stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. We use three global energy system models to investigate the technological and economic attainability of meeting CO₂ concentration targets below current levels. Our scenario studies reveal that while energy portfolios from a broad range of energy technologies are needed to attain low concentrations, negative emission technologies—e.g., biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)—significantly enhances the possibility to meet low concentration targets (at around 350 ppm CO₂).     

Policy incentives for carbon capture and storage technologies in Europe: A qualitative multi-criteria analysis

In this paper, we compare different policy incentives for overcoming investment uncertainties that are typical for low-carbon technologies prior to their commercialisation, some of which may be attributable to market failures. The paper focuses on the particular case of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies and conducts a qualitative multi-criteria analysis of different public policy support schemes for CCS demonstration to evaluate their suitability. The assessed schemes include mandatory CCS, emission performance standards and several different financial incentives (in addition to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme). Based on the available literature and on experience in the UK and Germany with promotion instruments for low-carbon technologies, the results of our analysis suggest that two alternative schemes, a CCS bonus incentive or a carbon dioxide (CO₂) price guarantee, perform best in comparison with the other assessed instruments. While they reduce the uncertainty of CCS investments in the face of low European Union Allowance prices, they also avoid significant adverse impacts on operational and investment decisions in electricity markets.     

Interactive effects of elevated [CO2] and temperature on growth and development of a short- and long-season peanut cultivar

Temperature and CO₂ are two of the main environmental factors associated with climate change. It is generally expected that elevated [CO₂] will increase crop production. However, other environmental factors such as temperature along with management practices could further modify a crop’s response to CO₂. The goal of this study was to determine the interactive effects of elevated [CO₂] and above-optimum temperature on growth, development and yield of two peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivars, e.g., Pronto and Georgia Green. One of the objectives was to determine if there was any variation in response between these two cultivars with respect to possible adaptation to climate change. Peanut plants were grown in controlled environment chambers in the University of Georgia Envirotron under conditions of non-limiting water and nutrient supply. Plants were exposed to day/night air temperatures of 33/21°C (T _A), 35.5/23.5°C (T _A + 2.5°C), and 38/26°C (T _A + 5°C) along with CO₂ treatments of 400 and 700 μmol CO₂ mol^???1 air. The selected range of temperatures was based on the temperatures that are common for southwest Georgia during the summer months. The results showed that LAI of both cultivars responded positively, e.g., 28.3% for Pronto and 49.3% for Georgia Green to elevated [CO₂]. Overall, elevated [CO₂] alone resulted in a significant increase in total biomass at final harvest across all temperatures (P?< 0.0001), but decreased final seed yield (P?< 0.0005), except for Georgia Green at (T _A + 5°C). The higher temperatures compared to T _A reduced the relative response of total biomass to CO₂ for both cultivars. It can be concluded that final seed yield response to CO₂ depends on the sensitivity of individual cultivars to temperature, especially during the reproductive development stage.