IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

CCS in different regions

Monica Garcia, Tim Dixon, Keith Burnard, Jasmin KemperIEAGHG

What We Are:

Part of the IEA ETN since 1991

33 Members from 15 countries plus OPEC, EU and CIAB

Greenhouse Gas R&D TCP

Independent Technical Organisation• We don’t define policy • We are not advocates

Members set strategic direction and technical programme

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG)

• A collaborative international research programme founded in 1991

• Aim: To provide information on the role that technology can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from use of fossil fuels.

• Focus is on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)

• Producing information that is:Objective, trustworthy, independentPolicy relevant but NOT policy prescriptiveReviewed by external Expert Reviewers

IEAGHG • Flagship activities:

• Technical Studies >300 reports published on all aspects of CCS

• International Research Networks

• GHGT conferences• PCC conferences

• Risk Assessment/Management• Monitoring • Modelling• Environmental Research• Social Research• Oxy-combustion • Solid Looping

IEAGHG• Other activities include:

• International CCS Summer Schools: 2017 – July, Regina, Canada

• Peer reviews, eg US DOE, US EPA; CO2CRC

• Active in international regulatory developments – UNFCCC, London Convention, ISO TC265

• Collaborations with IEA, CSLF, CCSA, EU ZEP and others

Regular briefing on CCS status:ROAD permit assessment;Offshore workshop

IEAGHG Technical reports to CSLF Technical Group

CCS Side Events at COP20, COP21, COP-22

Input to WPFF

ISO Technical Committee on CCS, TC-2654 draft standards, 2 technical reports –IEAGHG input

IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report

Sources of emissionsEnergy production remains the primary driver of GHG emissions

35%24% 21% 14% 6.4%

2010 GHG emissions

Energy Sector

Agriculture, forests and

other land usesIndustry Transport

Building Sector

AR5 WGIII SPM

IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report

Mitigation Measures

More efficient use of energy

Greater use of low-carbon and no-carbon energy• Many of these technologies exist today

Improved carbon sinks• Reduced deforestation and improved forest management

and planting of new forests • Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage

Lifestyle and behavioural changesAR5 WGIII SPM

PARIS AGREEMENT

PARIS AGREEMENT (2015): WHY

CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE “COMMON RESPONSABILITIES” “NEED OF EFFECTIVE AND PROGRESSIVE RESPONSE TO (…)

CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE BASIS OF THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE”

“SPECIFIC NEEDS” “LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES”

Image from NASA

Article 2“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”

PARIS AGREEMENT: OBJECTIVE

ADAPTATION FAIRNESS ECONOMICAL DEVELOPMENT

While the Paris Agreement lays out essential goals, the ability to achieve them will depend on the rules, guidelines and processes adopted by each party

PARIS AGREEMENT: HOW

THIS IS THE CHALLENGE:

IMPLEMENTATION

We know enough about climate

changeNo specific goals Triumph of

diplomacy

It is possible to push countries to cut down in much

less time

"Society” will not do anything if the government does

not FORCE

HIGHLY CRITIZED

CCS AND PARIS AGREEMENT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE NOT SPECIFIC PATHWAY TO

FULFIL THE PARIS AGREEMENT OBJECTIVES, THIS IS A NEW FRAMEWORK THAT PROVES THE NEED OF CCSCCS IS THE ONLY TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE

EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUELS (POWER GENERATION & INDUSTRILAL PROCESSES). ONLY TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE FOR INDUSTRYNOT ONLY CCS, BUT BIO-CCS: MOST ADVANCED ONE

TO DELIVER NEGATIVE EMISSIONS2C ACHIEVEMENT (OVERALL “WELL BELLOW”: $3.5

TRILLIONS CHEAPER THAN WITHOUT CCS

© OECD/IEA 2016

IEA ETP: CCS plays a key role in 2°C

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2013 2020 2030 2040 2050

GtCO

2

Renewables 32%

CCS 12%

Power generation efficiencyand fuel switching 1%

End-use fuel switching 10%

End-use efficiency 38%

Nuclear 7%

6DS

2DS

Global CO2 reductions by technology area, 2013-2050

© OECD/IEA 2016

IEA: 94Gt CO2 captured and stored in 2DS

From 50Mt in 2020 to 6Gt in 2050 A total of 94Gt captured and stored through 2050

52Gt 56% power 29Gt 31% process industries 13Gt 14% gas processing and biofuel production

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

MtC

O2

Other

Gas processing

Biofuels

Chemicals

Cement

Iron and steel

Biomass power

Gas-fired power

Coal-fired power

CCS deployment by sector in the 2DS

COP-21 – Paris Agreement

• Article 3 and Article 4 – ‘Mitigation’ • via (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)

• Global peak of emissions asap, rapid reductions thereafter to achieve balance between emissions and sinks in second half of century

• Developed countries to lead, Developing countries to enhance efforts over time. Reflecting common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances

• NDCs to be updated very 5 years to represent a progression (from 2020) (current INDCs cover from 2020 to 2025 or 2030)

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)

Climate Action Tracker http://climateactiontracker.org/global/173/CAT-Emissions-Gaps.html

• 187 INDCs submitted• 94% global emissions• New trajectory to ~ 2.7C • ~ 3.6C from existing policies

• CCS in 10 INDCs Bahrain MalawiCanada NorwayChina Saudi ArabiaEgypt South AfricaIran UAE

(and EU and USA)

Global CCS Update

Very Active region

Active region

R&D/Pilots

Active region

Developing Interest

Commercial-scale Application of CCS (to date)

1996

Sleipner 1Mt/y CO2

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Weyburn2.5 Mt/y CO2

Snohvit 0.7Mt/y CO2

2010 2012 2014 20162018

In-Salah1.2 Mt/y CO2

160km sub sea pipeline350km overland

pipeline

2014 Worlds first integrated coal fired power plant with CCS• SaskPower’s Boundary

Dam Coal PS, Saskatchewan, Canada

• 110MWe Retrofit • Shell/Cansolv Post combustion

capture technology.• EOR, and storage at Aquistore• Started operation October

2014• 2016 - International CCS

Knowledge Centre

2015

Quest, Shell CanadaH2 Refining1mt CO2 pa to DSF storage

Lula, Petrobras, BrazilOffshore gas separation and CO2-EOR

2017 Power Sector

Kemper County, USAPetra Nova, NRG Parish, USA

Refit of existing coal fired unit Operational in January 2017 MHI amine based PCC

technology 250 MW slip stream 90% capture CO2 for EOR

• Novel IGCC Technology• 524 MW lignite fired – new build• 65% of total emissions captured• Due on stream later 2017

Other New Developments • Norway

• Developing 3 industry CCS projects• Offshore Assessments

• Gulf States• Uthmaniyah CO2-EOR Demonstration Project, Saudi

Aramcoo Source Gas processing – 0.8Mt/y

• The Abu Dhabi CCS Projecto CO2 capture capacity of 0.8 Mtpa,o the world’s first iron and steel project

Precombustion CO2 capture

© OECD/IEA 2016

IEA: 20 Years of Carbon Capture and Storage

New IEA CCS publication, released on 15 November at GHGT-13 and COP-22.

Three sections:

1. Two decades of progress

2. Towards well below 2°C: An increased role for CCS

3. The next 20 years: Picking up the pace

http://www.iea.org/topics/ccs/

© OECD/IEA 2016

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE

Source: PTRC, Boundary Dam (IEAGHG Summer School 20

What the society thinks it is vs what it actually is $

Regions and CO2 availability

Source: Patricio et al. (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2016.10.002

Europe: 1913 MtCO2emitted in 2012 at aEuropean level by 2215stationary industrialsources

60% of the total amountof CO2 was from power.

The majority of theemissions occurred inGermany (454.6 MtCO2),United Kingdom (221.2MtCO2), Poland (192.3MtCO2) and Italy (154.1MtCO2)

Effects of Plant Location on Costs of CO2 Capture(August 2017)

IEAGHG Project Manager: Keith Burnard

Background IEAGHG publishes economic reports based on a

generic European location (The Netherlands)

• There is a greater potential for CCS in regions where coal consumption is higher

Ambient conditions

Fuel price

Selected Locations• Eastern Europe (Poland)• United States (Wisconsin and Wyoming)• Canada• South Africa• Middle East (Egypt)• India• China• Japan• South-East Asia (Indonesia)• South America (Brazil and Chile)

This study is focused in two evaluations: efficiency and economy.

Economic results (CAPEX+ OPEX) are shown in this presentation

Considerations in the studyLocation Material

Factors Labour Factors

(productivity)

Labour Factors (costs)

Contingency

The NL 1.00 1.00 1.00 10% Eastern Europe 0.92 1.28 0.40 10% USA (mid-west) 0.94 0.95 0.92 10% Canada 1.07 1.12 0.96 10% South Africa 1.03 2.24 0.70 10% Australia 1.00 1.23 1.38 10% India 0.93 2.42 0.26 15% China 0.77 2.29 0.16 15% Japan 0.91 0.98 0.68 10% South-East Asia 0.92 1.78 0.24 15% South America 0.97 1.54 0.28 20% Middle East 0.91 1.84 0.24 20%

Total Plant Cost

Operation CostsNGCC

PC• Feedstock prices, coal

and natural gas are highly dependent on location (and transportation costs if those are not locally available)

• Operation labour cost/productivity have a high impact

Conclusions• Some practice are giving costs of CCS

based on specific regions. That must be adapted to the new cases

• Availability of water and labour costs highly impacts on the cost (OPEX)

• Capital costs varies from region to region (CAPEX)

• Future study: Carbon Capture+ Storage

CCS Deployment in the Context of Regional Developments in Meeting Long-Term Climate

Change Objectives(August 2017)

IEAGHG Project Manager: Jasmin Kemper

Objectives- Characterise key countries where CCS is essential to reach mitigation efforts (circumstances and priorities)- Identify hoy international frameworks (as UNFCCC) can support CCS

• CCS has an important role in the climate change mitigation but it changes from country to country. Factors identified:

• 1. Energy Use• 2. GHG emissions• 3. CCS potential • 4. Other factors

Significant drivers to implement CCSCCS would mean a significant cut in CO2 emissions, overall for countries depending on fosil fuels (coal)

North America: Wide experience at commercial scaleEurope: Energy systems varied (case of Poland and Germany)Storage capacity varied (case of Norway)OEACD Asia-Pacific: Australia, Japan, Korea have significant potential Non-OECD Asia: China, India and others are big emmiters. Potential to apply in industry Affrica and Middle East: South Africa and Botswana are big emittersStorage capacity has high potential South America: Significant potential in Brazil, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago

Findings

• CCS projects are technically feasible at large scale and have costs that are comparable with other mitigation technologies

Specific barriers

• Policy barriers (perception of CCS). Concerns:

• - Increase of fossil fuels• - EOR: new emissions• - No investing in renewable energies• - Bio-CCS• - Increasing CO2 emissions

Specific barriers

• Economic Barriers• From Demonstration to FOAK to SOAK

Source: IEA

Specific barriers

• Technical Barriers• - Project and Process Integration• - CO2 stream composition• - CO2 flow Assusange• - Injection and storage

Specific Barriers

• Legal and regulatory Barriers• - Licencing, rights, responsibility,

property, ….• Institutional and public acceptance

barriers• - Not in my Backyard!

Specific Barriers• Technical • Economic• Institutional and regulatory• Concern on effectiveness of CCS

Findings

Developed countries will need to develop and deploy CCS using their own finance and technology

Countries developing currently will require financial and technological assistance from developed countries to deploy such large-scale, capital intensive, mitigation technologies

THIS STUDY HAS IDENTIFIED SPECIFICMECHANISMS

Conclusions• - This study has analysed the CCS

potential • - CCS is feasible at large scale and

comparable with other mitigation options• - Much work needed to define the

modalities to make CCS happen• - We are responsible of providing the

correct concept on CCS

Comment on IEAGHG view

• As IEAGHG reports are an unbiased source ofinformation, IEAGHG itself cannot take on the task ofproviding strong messages or developing policyrecommendations

Papers will be on http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18766102

www.ghgt.info

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA, OCTOBER 21-26, 2018

www.ghgt.info

Call for abstracts opens 1st September 2017

Deadline 31st December 2017

Registration opens early March 2018

Technical programme announced 1st May 2018