Interpretation of IPCC AR6 report on carbon capture,utilization and storage (CCUS) technology development北大核心CSCD

近年来,碳捕集利用与封存(CCUS)作为减缓气候变化的关键技术之一,得到国际社会广泛关注。政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)第六次评估报告(AR6)第三工作组报告对CCUS进行了重新定位,并围绕减排潜力、减排成本、综合效益及应用前景等方面,对CCUS相关技术进行了系统全面评估。结论显示,CCUS技术是全球气候目标实现不可或缺的减排技术组合,到21世纪中叶有潜力实现累积千亿吨级减排效应,但当前CCUS技术成熟度整体处于示范阶段,成本较高,减排潜力有待进一步释放。综合考虑CCUS可以有效降低巨额资产搁浅风险、具有良好社会环境效益等因素,我国应结合自身“富煤、贫油、少气”的资源禀赋和基本国情,将CCUS作为战略性技术,统筹政策顶层设计、加速技术体系构建、探索市场激励机制、加强国际科技合作,促进CCUS技术发展。     

中国碳捕集、利用与封存立法和监管体系研究

碳捕集、利用与封存技术（CCUS）被认为是进行温室气体深度减排最重要的技术路径之一。为了促进CCUS技术的发展与应用,欧盟、英国、美国等国家和地区一直积极倡导CCUS实施的制度化和规范化。通过对与CCUS相关的国际公约、重点国家和地区的政策、法规进行系统的梳理,以及对中国的法律制度体系和CCUS政策法规现状的整理,中国CCUS立法和监管体系建立的关键在于解决CO₂的定性、地表权和地下权的确定、保障健康、安全和环境、知识产权的转移和保护、项目审批制度以及激励政策体系的建立等,应有针对性地构建CCUS政策法规体系,逐步完善CCUS政策法规环境,从而推动CCUS在中国的健康发展。     

碳中和目标下中国燃煤电厂CCUS集群部署优化研究

燃煤电厂作为中国最大的CO₂排放源,是中国实现碳中和目标的关键点。CO₂捕集、利用与封存（CCUS）技术是目前煤电行业实现深度减排的唯一途径,碳约束情景下,CCUS技术将在实现煤电碳达峰、碳中和目标中发挥不可或缺的作用。研究中首先使用综合环境控制模型（IECM）对燃煤电厂捕集技术环节的成本构成和经济性进行核算,得到中国燃煤电厂逐厂CO₂捕集成本和捕集量;其次,基于地质利用封存潜力及分布特征,构建CCUS源汇匹配优化模型,得到碳中和目标下的煤电CCUS项目分阶段布局方案;最后,以优化基础设施建设并通过规模经济降低成本为前提,使用聚类分析方法对煤电CCUS项目集群进行识别,进一步构建改进成本最小生成树模型,得到CCUS项目集群最低成本CO₂输送管道网络的路线优化策略。研究表明：碳中和目标约束下,需要对总装机容量约为355 GW的300个燃煤电厂进行CCUS技术改造,2030—2060年间可实现累积减排190.11 亿t CO₂。煤电CCUS项目集群主要分布在华中、华北和西北地区,通过建立CCUS枢纽以实现CO₂运输基础设施共享,在松辽盆地、渤海湾盆地、苏北盆地和鄂尔多斯盆地优先开展CCUS早期集成示范项目,能显著降低运输成本,推动CCUS技术大规模、商业化发展。     

“一带一路”沿线国家适应气候变化的技术需求评估

“一带一路”沿线国家受气候变化影响严重,亟需从其他国家转移适当的适应气候变化技术。技术需求评估是有效开展技术转移的必要前提。本研究利用“一带一路”沿线国家完成提交给《联合国气候变化框架公约》的技术需求评估（TNA）报告,在合作专利分类（CPC）框架下建立适应优先技术需求数据库,并根据技术需求的提及次数、技术需求的国家数目、技术需求的GDP覆盖范围以及技术惠及人口4个指标,分别从技术和地区两个角度对“一带一路”沿线国家的适应技术需求开展评估。结果发现：一方面,农林牧副渔生产中的适应技术（Y02A-40),集水、节水与高效利用水的技术（Y02A-20),沿海地区与江河流域的适应技术（Y02A-10）与对适应气候变化有间接贡献的技术（Y02A-90）这4方面的适应技术是“一带一路”沿线国家普遍关切的技术需求。另一方面,不同地区的“一带一路”沿线国家因其特有的地理区位和社会经济情况不同而产生特殊的适应技术需求。大洋洲、拉丁美洲与加勒比地区以及亚洲地区部分国家由于国内基础设施受气候变化影响十分严重,提出了保护和改造基础设施建设的技术（Y02A-30）需求;受气候变化影响,高温和降水加剧了疾病在空气和水体的传播,因此亚洲地区,大洋洲、拉丁美洲与加勒比地区特别提出了应对极端天气、保护人类健康的技术（Y02A-50）需求。为促进“一带一路”沿线国家开展有效技术转移,提高应对气候变化能力,应加大对气候适应技术研发投入,以技术接受国的技术需求为基础,并高效利用现有的“一带一路”技术转移中心网络,开展技术转移活动。     

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 role of climate finance beyond renewables: demand-side management and carbon capture,usage and storage

Mobilizing climate finance for climate change mitigation is a crucial part of meeting the ‘well-below’ 2°C goal of the Paris Agreement. Climate finance refers to investments specifically in climate change mitigation and adaptation activities, which involve public finance and the leveraging of private finance. A large proportion of climate finance is Official Development Assistance (ODA) from OECD countries to ODA-eligible countries. The evidence shows that the largest proportion of climate finance for climate change mitigation has been channelled to the development of renewable energy, with a much smaller proportion flowing to other crucial forms of clean energy-related measures, such as demand-side management (DSM) (particularly sustainable cooling) and carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS). This forms the rationale and aim of this synthesis paper: to review the role of climate finance to develop clean energy beyond renewables. In doing so, the paper draws on practical policy and programme experiences of some donor countries, such as the UK, and Development Finance Institutions (DFIs). This paper argues that a greater amount of climate finance from OECD countries to ODA-eligible fossil fuel-intensive emerging economies and developing countries is required for sustainable cooling and CCUS, particularly in the form of technical assistance and clean energy innovation.

Key policy insights

• Demand-side management (DSM) and carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) are underfunded in climate finance compared with the promotion of renewables.

• Climate finance for sustainable cooling, in particular, represents just 0.04% of total ODA, despite cooling projected to represent 13% of global emissions by 2030.

• Public investment in CCUS is limited at US $28 billion since 2007, despite the costs of meeting the Paris Agreement estimated to be 40-128% more expensive without CCUS.

• Additional climate finance for these sectors should not come at the expense of funding for renewables but should be complementary to it.

     

An International Relations perspective on the global politics of carbon dioxide capture and storage

With the publication of the IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS), CCS has emerged as a focal issue in international climate diplomacy and energy collaboration. This paper has two goals. The first goal is to map CCS activities in and among various types of intergovernmental organisations; the second goal is to apply International Relations (IR) theories to explain the growing diversity, overlap and fragmentation of international organisations dealing with CCS. Which international organisations embrace CCS, and which refrain from discussing it at all? What role do these institutions play in bringing CCS forward? Why is international collaboration on CCS so fragmented and weak? We utilise realism, liberal institutionalism and constructivism to provide three different interpretations of the complex global landscape of CCS governance in the context of the similarly complicated architecture of global climate policy. A realist account of CCS's fragmented international politics is power driven. International fossil fuel and energy organisations, dominated by major emitter states, take an active role in CCS. An interest-based approach, such as liberal institutionalism, claims that CCS is part of a “regime complex” rather than an integrated, hierarchical, comprehensive and international regime. Such a regime complex is exemplified by the plethora of international organisations with a role in CCS. Finally, constructivism moves beyond material and interest-based interpretations of the evolution of the institutionally fragmented architecture of global CCS governance. The 2005 IPCC Special Report on CCS demonstrates the pivotal role that ideas, norms and scientific knowledge have played in transforming the preferences of the international climate-change policy community.     

Toward policy integration: Assessing carbon capture and storage policies in Japan and Norway

The objective of this paper is to develop independent and systematic criteria for assessing CCS policy in terms of its level of policy integration. We believe that we should assess CCS policy in terms of the distance to an ideal integrated CCS policy in order to keep track of its trajectory toward sustainable development. After reviewing the existing literature of environmental policy integration, an assessment framework for integrated CCS policy is developed based on Arild Underdal's notion of ‘integrated policy’ then, its usefulness is demonstrated by applying it to CCS policies in Japan and Norway. In the final part, we summarize the findings of the cases and conclude with some observations regarding explanatory factors of the difference in terms of the achieved level of policy integration between Japan and Norway's CCS policies, and some policy implications derived from the analysis based on the framework.     

Carbon capture and storage, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and the escape from the fossil-fuel lock-in

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is increasingly depicted as an important element of the carbon dioxide mitigation portfolio. However, critics have warned that CCS might lead to “reinforced fossil fuel lock-in”, by perpetuating a fossil fuel based energy provision system. Due to large-scale investments in CCS infrastructure, the fossil fuel based ‘regime’ would be perpetuated to at least the end of this century.In this paper we investigate if and how CCS could help to avoid reinforcing fossil fuel lock-in. First we develop a set of criteria to estimate the degree of technological lock-in. We apply these criteria to assess the lock-in reinforcement effect of adding CCS to the fossil fuel socio-technical regime (FFR).In principle, carbon dioxide could be captured from any carbon dioxide point source. In the practice of present technological innovations, business strategies, and policy developments, CCS is most often coupled to coal power plants. However, there are many point sources of carbon dioxide that are not directly related to coal or even fossil fuels. For instance, many forms of bio-energy or biomass-based processes generate significant streams of carbon dioxide emissions. Capturing this carbon dioxide which was originally sequestered in biomass could lead to negative carbon dioxide emissions.We use the functional approach of technical innovations systems (TIS) to estimate in more detail the strengths of the “niches” CCS and Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS). We also assess the orientation of the CCS niche towards the FFR and the risk of crowding out BECCS. Next we develop pathways for developing fossil energy carbon capture and storage, BECCS, and combinations of them, using transition pathways concepts. The outcome is that a large-scale BECCS development could be feasible under certain conditions, thus largely avoiding the risk of reinforced fossil fuel lock-in.     

中国燃煤电厂碳捕集与生物质掺烧碳捕集改造的经济性

碳捕集与封存（CCS）技术作为解决全球气候变化问题的重要手段之一,能够有效减少CO₂排放。中国作为碳排放大国,当前电力的主要来源仍是煤电,碳捕集（CC）改造在燃煤电厂中有很大的应用潜力。经济性对CC改造的部署至关重要。为此,本文计算了中国各省典型电厂CC改造前后的平准化度电成本,比较了不同省份的CO₂捕集成本与CO₂避免成本,分析了不同掺烧率下生物质掺烧结合碳捕集(bioenergy with carbon capture,BECC)改造的经济性。研究发现,CC改造会导致不同地区的燃煤电厂度电成本增加57.51%~93.38%。煤价较低的华北和西北地区（青海除外）CC改造经济性较好,BECC改造则更适合华中地区。建议在推进燃煤电厂CC和BECC改造时要充分考虑区域资源特点,完善碳市场建设,形成合理碳价以促进CC和BECC部署。