Carbon Capture and Storage Potentials and Barriers to
Carbon Capture and Storage Potentials and Barriers to Deployment
PRESENTATION STRUCTURE (1) Overview - What is Carbon Capture and Storage? - Do we need it? (2) Potentials, risks and barriers: Global (3) Case study: Malaysia (4) Conclusions
Key questions n What is the current status of CCS technology? n What is the global potential of CCS as a climate change mitigation tool? n What are the barriers to CCS? n How do potentials for and barriers to CCS differ in different countries?
Overview What is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)? Transport Storage Source: IPCC 2005 Capture
Overview Why do we need CCS? n Climate change is real n Fossil fuels likely to be main source of fuel in the near future n Large GHG mitigation potential n All options are needed n BUT need to be one in a portfolio of options
Overview CCS has large mitigation potential 650 ppm 490 -540 ppm Source: IPCC (2007)
CCS: CO 2 Capture Options for capture n Power plants ¨ n Post-combustion, Pre-combustion, Oxyfuel Industrial ¨ ammonia, gas refineries Source: Total
CCS: CO 2 Transport CO 2 Pipeline Transport Experience n n n Mainly for EOR- pure CO 2 Long distances, large volumes- cheap and fast Low population density areas CO 2 Transport from Capture n Different impurities and gas composition- capture process dependent Different pipeline designs necessary ¨ Has to be dry to avoid corrosion ¨ n Undersea pipelines for CO 2
CCS: CO 2 Storage Main geological storage formations Source: IPCC (2005)
CCS: CO 2 Storage Trapping mechanisms n Physical trapping under impermeable layer n Solubility trapping n Mineral trapping ¨ CO 2 trapped as supercritical fluid in tiny pore spaces Long term (thousands of years) Source: CO 2 CRC
CCS: CO 2 Storage Estimated global capacity Source: IPCC (2005) Global capacity estimate: 200 Gt. CO 2 to 2000 Gt. CO 2
CCS Technology: Current projects CCS projects Source: IPCC (2005)
Risks and barriers: Global CCS cost factors n Mainly from capture processes Fuel prices ¨ Commodity prices (e. g. steel) ¨ n New built or retrofit? n Distance and mass flow rate n Scale
Risks and barriers: Global Source: Mc. Kinsey (2009)
Risks and barriers: Global CCS involves risks and obstacles Liability Monitoring Verification Legislations OBSTACLES CCS Technology maturity/cost Environment and ecosystems Public acceptance RISKS Climate risks Human health and safety
Risks and barriers: Global International legislations and regulations n United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) n London Convention 1972 & London Protocol 1996 -Amended n OSPAR -Amended n United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Annex I countries implement projects in non-Annex I countries ¨ No methodology yet ¨ ¨ - Watch this space
Case Study: Malaysia
Case study: Malaysia Development and economic context n 25 million people n Economic development a priority n Party to Kyoto Protocol but no binding targets n High GDP growth rate and CO 2 emission ¨ 26 th of the global highest emitters list (UNDP HDR 2007) ¨ 221% increase in CO 2 emission between Source: Gan and Li 1990 and 2005 (2008)
Case study: Malaysia Energy diversification, increase coal use n n Energy policy: ¨ Fuel diversification ¨ Huge potential in renewable energy but actual share has decreased ¨ Target of coal already reached Interest in CDM ¨ 37 projects ≈ 2, 830, 000 CERs ≈ 2. 83 Mt. CO 2 e/year Potential >17, 800, 000 CERs/year ≈ 1. 14 - 3. 8 billion RMY (230 -760 million € ) ¨
Case study: Malaysia Low-cost CCS is possible in developing countries 1) Cheap CO 2 (pre-separated) Identify sources IEA 2006 database 2) Pipeline transport <50 km Estimate distances 3) And/or generating revenue from EOR opportunities?
Case study: Malaysia Peninsular Malaysia Large stationary CO 2 sources 3 power plants 2 ethylene 1 ammonia East Malaysia 20 power plants (4 large coal) 7 cement 3 refineries 1 ammonia, ethylene, iron and steel 3 power plants
Case study: Malaysia Offshore oil and gas fields Source: Steinshouer et al. (1999)
Case study: Malaysia CO 2 source and sinks
Case study: Malaysia Incompatible source-sinks 120 -150 km 345 km 30 -90 km
Case study: Malaysia Potentials n Oil and gas producing fields= possible storage -Storage potential (Malay Basin ≈4321 Mt CO 2 ; Greater Sarawak Basin ≈ 6679 Mt CO 2) n Some coal beds= possible ECBM n Increasing CO 2 emission n Enhanced oil/gas recovery n Storage in Indonesia’s Central Sumatran Basin
Case study: Malaysia Risks and Barriers n n n n n Offshore setting COST Source-sink mismatch Marine geologic storage No depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs Unknown storage potential Legislative barriers No GHG reduction requirement Different national priorities Lack of public awareness
Conclusion The take home message: n Possibly large storage potential, technically feasible n Technical improvements needed n BUT there will always be costs associated with CCS Appropriate price for CO 2 avoided ¨ Legislative requirement ¨ n Lack of regulatory certainty n Taking enabling steps ¨ Local legislations, geological site characterisation, longterm planning
Conclusion The take home message: CCS needs to happen in BOTH developed and developing countries We need an economic incentive for CCS in developing countries MORE RESEARCH
- Slides: 28