THE IMPORTACE OF CO2 CAPTURE AND STORAGE - A GEOPOLITICAL DISCUSSION

Abstract

The CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology is since more than ten years considered one of the key options for the future climate change mitigation. This paper discusses the implications for the further development of CCS, particularly with respect to climate change policy in an international geopolitics context. he rationale for developing CCS should be the over-abundance of fossil fuel reserves (and resources) in a climate change context. From a geopolitical point, it can be argued that the most important outcome from the successful commercialisation of CCS will be that fossil fuel-dependent economies with large fossil fuel resources will find it easier to comply with stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets (i.e. to attach a price to CO2 emissions). This should be of great importance since, from a geopolitical view, the curbing on GHG emissions cannot be isolated from security of supply and economic competition between regions. Thus, successful application of CCS may moderate geopolitical risks related to regional differences in the possibilities and thereby willingness to comply with large emission cuts. In Europe, application of CCS will enhance security of supply by fuel diversification from continued use of coal, especially domestic lignite. Introduction of CCS will also make possible negative emissions when using biomass as a fuel, i.e. in so called Biomass Energy CCS (BECCS). Yet, the development of BECCS relies on the successful development of fossil fuelled CCS since BECCS in itself is unlikely to be sufficient for establishing a cost efficient CCS infrastructure for transport and storage and because BECCS does not solve the problem with the abundant resources of fossil fuels. esults from research and development of capture, transport and storage of CO2 indicate that the barriers for commercialization of CCS should not be technical. Instead, the main barriers for implementation of CCS seem to be how to reach public acceptance, to reduce cost and to establish a high enough price on CO2 emissions. Failure to implement CCS will require that the global community, including Europe, agrees to almost immediately to start phasing out the use of fossil fuels, an agreement which seems rather unlikely, especially considering the abundant coal reserves in developing economies such as China and India.

Keywords

Dates

  • Submission Date2012-06-08
  • Revision Date2012-06-20
  • Acceptance Date2012-07-16

DOI Reference

10.2298/TSCI120608135J

References

  1. IPCC, 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. IPCC, Cambridge.
  2. Fee E, et al. (2010) Scientific Perspectives after Copenhagen - Information Reference Document, Brussels, Belgium: European Union.
  3. OECD/IEA, 2005, Projected costs of generating electricity, IEA, Paris. ISBN: 92-64-00826-8.
  4. Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions. 2011 report, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, 2011; European Union, 2011, JRC Technical Note number JRC65918, ISBN 978-90-78645-68-9.
  5. IPCC, 2005, IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H., Loos, M., Meyer, L. (Eds.) Cambridge University Press, UK. (available at www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml).
  6. Möllersten, K., Yan, J., Moreira, J.R., "Potential market niches for biomass energy with CO2 capture and storage—Opportunities for energy supply with negative CO2 emissions", Biomass Bioenergy 25, 2003, pp273 - 285.
  7. Rhodes, J.S., Keith, D.W., Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage, Biomass and Bioenergy, Biomass Bioenergy 29, 2005, pp440 - 450.
  8. Luckow, P., et al., Large-scale utilization of biomass energy and carbon dioxide capture and storage in the transport and electricity sectors under stringent CO2 concentration limit scenarios, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 4, 2010, pp 865-877.
  9. Gough, C., Upham, P., Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): a review, Working Paper 147, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, December 2010.
  10. Robinson, A.L., Rhodes, J.S., Keith, D.W., Assessment of Potential Carbon Dioxide Reductions Due to Biomass-Coal Cofiring in the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 2003, pp5081-5089.
  11. Hansson, J., et al., Co-firing biomass with coal for electricity generation - An assessment of the potential in EU27, Energy Policy 37, 2009, pp1444-1455.
  12. Svensson, R., et al. (2004). Transportation systems for CO2 - Application to carbon capture and storage, Energy Convers. Manage., 45(15-16), 2343-2353.
  13. McCoy, S., Rubin, E.S., "An engineering economic model of pipeline transport of CO2 with application carbon capture and storage", Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2, 2008, pp219-229.
  14. van den Broek, et al., Designing a cost-effective CO2 storage infrastructure using a GIS based linear optimization energy model, Environmental Modelling & Software 25, 2010, pp1754-1768.
  15. IEA, 2005, Building cost curves for CO2 storage: European sector, Report 2005/2, February 2005.
  16. IEA, 2005, Building cost curves for CO2 storage: North America, Report 2005/3, February 2005.
  17. Kjärstad, J., Johnsson, F., Ramp-up of large-scale CCS infrastructure in Europe, Energy Procedia 1, 2009, pp4201-4208.
  18. Dütschke, E., What drives local public acceptance - comparing two cases from Germany, Energy Procedia, in press 2010 (in Greenhouse Gas Control Technol., Proc. Int. Conf. 10th).
  19. Wassermann, S., Schulz, M., Scheer, D., Linking Public Acceptance with Expert Knowledge on CO2 Storage: Outcomes of a Delphi Approach, Energy Procedia, in press 2010 (in Greenhouse Gas Control Technol., Proc. Int. Conf. 10th).
  20. European Commission, 2007, Limiting Global Climate Change to 2° Celsius - the Way Ahead for 2020 and beyond, COM(2007)2 final.
  21. European Commission, 2009, Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen, COM(2009) 39 final
  22. Odenberger, M., Johnsson, F., Pathways for the European electricity supply system to 2050—The role of CCS to meet stringent CO2 reduction targets Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 4, 2010, pp327-340.
  23. European Commission, 2011, A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050, COM(2011) 112 final.
  24. EC, 2007, European Commission, European Energy and Transport - Trends to 2030, 2007 update.
  25. Capros, P., et al. (2008) Model‐based Analysis of the 2008 EU Policy Package on Climate Change and Renewables, Primes Model - E3MLab/NTUA, Report to the European Commission - DG ENV.
  26. European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), 2011, The costs of CO2 capture - Post-demonstration CCS in the EU, Summary report.
  27. OECD/IEA, 2011, "World Energy Outlook", IEA, Paris. ISBN: 978-92-64-12413-4.
  28. Odenberger, M., Johnsson, F., CCS in the European Electricity Supply System - assessment of national conditions to meet common EU targets, Energy Procedia 4, 2011, pp 5869-5876.
  29. Odenberger, M., Johnsson, F.,Pathways for the North European electricity supply, Energy Policy 37, 2009, pp1660-1677.
  30. IEA, 2008, Energy Technology Perspectives - Scenarios and Strategies to 2050, The International Energy Agency.
  31. Strömberg, L., et al. CCS in the European Electricity Supply System - assessment of national conditions to meet common EU targets, Energy Procedia 4, 2011, pp 5869-5876.
  32. Hotta, A. et al., Development and demonstration of oxy-fuel CFB Technology, 21st Int Conf Fluidized Bed Combustion, Naples, Italy, 2012, Vol 1, pp 333-340.
  33. Dooley, J. Dahowski, R.T., Davidson, C.L., Comparing Existing Pipeline Networks with the Potential Scale of Future U.S. CO2 Pipeline Networks, Energy Procedia 1, 2009, pp1595-1602.
  34. How to efficiently implement CCS in Poland? Polish CCS strategy, ed. A. Hink, Report, DemosEUROPA, Centre for European Strategy, Warsaw, 2011.
  35. Reiner, D.M., et al., American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes towards energy policy and global warming, Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 2006, pp2093-2098.
  36. de Best-Waldhober, M., Daamena, D., Development of CCS awareness and knowledge of the general public between 2004 and 2008, Energy Procedia, in press 2010 (in Greenhouse Gas Control Technol., Proc. Int. Conf., 10th).
  37. Ashworth, P, et al., From research to action: Now we have to move on CCS communication, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 4, 2010, pp 426-433.
  38. WRI, 2010, CCS and Community Engagement - Guidelines for Community Engagement in Carbon Capture, Transport and Storage Projects, World Resource Institute, ISBN 978-1-56973-756-9.
  39. Kjärstad, J., Johnsson, F., Fossil Fuels: Climate Change and Security of Supply, The Dubrovnik Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, 2011 (submitted for journal publication).
  40. Dadhich, P., et al., 2005. Cost and economic potential. In IPCC 2005.
  41. Correlje, A., van der Linde, Energy supply and geopolitics: A European perspective, Energy Policy 34, 2006, pp532-543.
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages655 -668