Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Carbon capture and storage deployment rates: needs and feasibility

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) may become a key technology to limit human-induced global warming, but many uncertainties prevail, including the necessary technological development, costs, legal ramifications, and siting. As such, an important question is the scale of carbon dioxide abatement we require from CCS to meet future climate targets, and whether they appear reasonable. For a number of energy technology and efficiency improvement scenarios, we use a simple climate model to assess the necessary contribution from CCS to ‘fill the gap’ between scenarios’ carbon dioxide emissions levels and the levels needed to meet alternative climate targets. The need for CCS depends on early or delayed action to curb emissions and the characteristics of the assumed energy scenario. To meet a 2.5°C target a large contribution and fast deployment rates for CCS are required. The required deployment rates are much faster than those seen in the deployment of renewable energy technologies as well as nuclear power the last decades, and may not be feasible. This indicates that more contributions are needed from other low-carbon energy technologies and improved energy efficiency, or substitution of coal for gas in the first half of the century. In addition the limited availability of coal and gas by end of the century and resulting limited scope for CCS implies that meeting the 2.5°C target would require significant contributions from one or more of the following options: CCS linked to oil use, biomass energy based CCS (BECCS), and CCS linked to industrial processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Conversion rates for fossil fuel combustion to CO2 are taken from the IGSM_REF scenario, and are as follows: 0.0258 (coal), 0.0176 (oil), and 0.0136 GtC/EJ (gas).

  2. It should be noted, of course, that CO2 can be achieved via substitution from coal to oil and gas—however this is not explored in this study. Sensitivity analysis (see below) suggests this substitution is likely to have only minimal abatement potential over the long-run.

  3. With the exception of the 3°C target and High Ren/Bio/Nuc/Eff scenario, where a higher maximum annual number of new CCS-equipped power plants is required for early action, and the 3[degree] target and the High Ren/Bio/Eff scenario, where a higher average annual number of new CCS-equipped power plants is required for early action." NB: Replace the [degree] with the correct symbol.

References

  • Al-Juaied M, Whitmore A (2009) Realistic costs of carbon capture. Discussion Paper 2009-08. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University

  • Boden T, Marland G, Andres RJ (2009) National CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning. Cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751–2006. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosetti V, Carraro C, Tavoni M (2009) Climate change mitigation strategies in fast-growing countries: the benefits of early action. Energ Econ 31(suppl 2):S144–S151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvin K, Edmonds J, Bond-Lamberty B, Clarke L, Kim SH, Kyle P, Smith SJ, Thomson A, Wise M (2009) 2.6: Limiting climate change to 450 ppm CO2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energ Econ 31(suppl 2):S107–S120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke L et al (CCSP) (2007) Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Sub-report 2.1A of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington, 7 DC., USA

  • den Elzen M, Fuglestvedt J, Höhne N, Trudinger C, Lowe J, Matthews, Romstad B, de Campos CP, Andronova N (2005) Analysing countries’ contribution to climate change: scientific and policy-related choices. Environ Sci Pol 8(6):614–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission and Joint Research Centre (JRC)/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), 2009 Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR). Release version 4.0, version. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu

  • Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Dorland RV (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In Solomon S et al (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York

  • Fuglestvedt J, Berntsen T, Myhre G, Rypdal K, Skeie RB (2008) Climate forcing from the transport sectors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(2):454–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen T (1999) A simple model for scenario studies of changes in global climate: Version 1.0. Working Paper 1999:02 CICERO, Oslo, Norway

  • Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen TK, Isaksen ISA, Mao HT, Liang XZ, Wang WC (1999) Climatic forcing of nitrogen oxides through changes in tropospheric ozone and methane; global 3D model studies. Atmos Environ 33(6):961–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory K, Rogner HH (1998) Energy resources and conversion technologies for the 21st century. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 3(2–4):171–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubler A (2010) The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: a case of negative learning by doing. Energ Pol 38:5174–5188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurney A, Ahammad H, Ford M (2009) The economics of greenhouse gas mitigation: insights from illustrative global abatement scenarios modelling. Energ Econ 31(suppl 2):S174–S186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey D, Gregory J, Hoffert M, Jain A, Lal M, Leemans R, Raper S, Wigley T, de Wolde J (1997) An introduction to Simple Climate Models used in the IPCC Second Assessment Report. IPCC Technical Paper II

  • Herzog HJ (2011) Scaling up carbon dioxide capture and storage: from megatons to gigatons. Energ Econ 33(4):597–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsson S, Johnson A (2000) The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research. Energ Pol 28:625–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamasb T (2007) Technical change theory and learning curves: patterns of progress in electricity generation technologies. Energ J 28(3):51–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Joos F, Bruno M, Fink R, Siegenthaler U, Stocker TF, LeQuere C (1996) An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanic and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake. Tellus Ser B Chem Phys Meteorol 48(3):397–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer GJ, Haigh M (2009) No quick switch to low-carbon energy. Nature 462(3):568–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krey V, Riahi K (2009) Implications of delayed participation and technology failure for the feasibility, costs, and likelihood of staying below temperature targets—greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for the 21st century. Energ Econ 31(suppl 2):S94–S106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loulou R, Labriet M, Kanudia A (2009) Deterministic and stochastic analysis of alternative climate targets under differentiated cooperation regimes. Energ Econ 31(suppl 2):S131–S143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masters CD, Attanasi ED, Root DH (1994) World petroleum assessment and analysis. Proceedings of the 14th World Petroleum Congress, Stavanger, Norway, John Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1–13

  • Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare W, Raper SCB, Frieler K, Knutti R, Frame DJ, Allen MR (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 458:1158–1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell C, Connor P (2004) Renewable energy policy in the UK 1990–2003. Energ Pol 32:1935–1947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss et al (2008) Towards new scenarios for analysis of emissions, climate change, impacts, and response strategies. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grübler A, Yong Jung, T, Kram T, Lebre La Rovere E, Michaelis L, Mori S, Morita T, Pepper W, Pitcher H, Price L, Riahi K, Roehrl A, Rogner HH, Sankovski A, Schlesinger M, Shukla P, Smith S, Swart R, van Rooijen S, Victor N, Dadi Z (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Energy Angency (IEA) (2010) World energy outlook 2010. OECD/IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Energy Agency (2008a) CO2 capture and storage. A key carbon abatement technology. OECD/IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Energy Angency (IEA) (2008b) World energy outlook 2008 edition. OECD/IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Energy Angency (IEA) (2006) Energy technology perspectives 2006—Scenarios and strategies to 2050. OECD/IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the cimate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305, 13 August

  • Rai V, Victor DG, Thurber MC (2010) Carbon capture and storage at scale: lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies. Energ Pol 38:4089–4098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rive N, Torvanger A, Berntsen T, Kallbekken S (2007) To what extent can a long-term temperature target guide near-term climate change commitments? Clim Chang 82(3–4):373–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelj J, Nabel J, Chen C, Hare W, Markmann K, Meinshausen M, Schaeffer M, Macey K, Höhne N (2010) Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry. Nature 464:1126–1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger ME, Jiang X, Charlson RJ (1992) Implication of anthropogenic atmospheric sulphate for the sensitivity of the climate system. In: Rosen L, Glasser (eds) Climate change and energy policy: proceedings of the International Conference on Global Climate Change: its mitigation through improved production and use of energy. American Institute of Physics, New York, pp 75–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Skeie RB, Fuglestvedt J, Berntsen T, Lund MT, Myhre G, Rypdal K (2009) Global temperature change from the transport sectors: historical development and future scenarios. Atmos Environ 43:6260–6270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith SJ, Wigley TML (2006) Multi-gas forcing stabilization with the MiniCAM. Energy J (Special Issue No 3):373–391

  • Torvanger A, Fuglestvedt JS, Grimstad A-A, Lindeberg E, Rive N, Rypdal K, Skeie RB, Tollefsen P (2011) Quality of geological CO2 storage to avoid jeopardizing climate targets. Mimeo, CICERO, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2010) Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. Draft Decision-/CP.16, UNFCCC, Bonn

  • United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2009) Copenhagen Accord, Draft Decision-/CP.15. UNFCCC, Bonn

  • U.S. Climate Change Science Program, CCSP (2007) Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. July http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-1/finalreport/sap2-1a-final-all.pdf

  • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2001) U.S. Geological Survey World Petroleum Assessment 2000—Description and Results. U.S.Geological Survey Digital Data Series—DDS-60 http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/WorldEnergy/DDS-60/

  • van Vliet J, den Elzen MGJ, van Vuuren DP (2009) Meeting radiative forcing targets under delayed participation. Energ Econ 31(suppl 2):S152–S162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise MA, Calvin KV, Thomson AM, Clarke LE, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands RD, Smith SJ, Janetos AC, Edmonds JA (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenz House K, Harvey CF, Aziz MJ, Schrag DP (2009) The energy penalty of post-combustion CO2 capture & storage and its implications for retrofitting the U.S. installed base. Energy & Environmental Science http://www.environment.harvard.edu/docs/faculty_pubs/schrag_penalty.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

This publication forms a part of the BIGCO2 project, performed under the strategic Norwegian research program Climit. The authors acknowledge the partners: Statoil, GE Global Research, Statkraft, Aker Clean Carbon, Shell, TOTAL, ConocoPhillips, ALSTOM, the Research Council of Norway (178004/I30 and 176059/I30) and Gassnova (182070) for their support. We thank Petter Tollefsen for good assistance with development of the energy scenarios, Kristine Korneliussen for valuable help with literature references, and Jens Hetland, SINTEF, for assistance in calculation of net capture of CO2 from coal-fired power plants. We also thank two anonymeous referees for providing valuable suggestions that have improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for International Climate and Environmental Research—Oslo (CICERO), PO Box 1129, Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway

    Asbjørn Torvanger, Marianne T. Lund & Nathan Rive

Authors
  1. Asbjørn Torvanger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marianne T. Lund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathan Rive
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asbjørn Torvanger.

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 5
figure 5

Global growth rates of renewable, biomass, nuclear energy use and energy intensity of GDP in the period 2000 to 2100 under the reference case of the Integrated Global System Modeling Framework (IGSM) (confer Fig. 1) and alternative energy scenario cases. Percentage per year. Source: the United States Climate Change Science Program scenarios (CCSP 2007)

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Global primary energy consumption by type in the period 2000 to 2100 under one of the alternative energy scenarios with high rates of renewable, biomass and nuclear energy growth, and energy efficiency improvement relative to the reference case of the Integrated Global System Modeling Framework (IGSM) (see Figs. 1 and 2). EJ per year

Full size image
Table 4 Rates of energy efficiency improvement, and renewable energy, biomass and nuclear growth from earlier studies by is the United States Climate Change Science Program (CCSP 2007) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and International Energy Agency (OECD/IEA). World
Full size table
Table 5 Levels and rates of global CCS required for combinations of an energy scenario and a climate policy target, either 2.5 or 3°C warming (above pre-industrial levels) in 2100. Early action refers to CCS starting in 2015, with global fossil fuel CO2 emissions peaking in 2020. Late action refers to starting in 2020, with global fossil fuel CO2 emissions peaking in 2025 (confer Figs. 2 and 3). The CCS share of global coal and gas emissions are shown in parenthesis. Maximum and average annual rates of added CO2 storage capacity is shown in MtC/yr and number of coal-fired power plants with CCS
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Torvanger, A., Lund, M.T. & Rive, N. Carbon capture and storage deployment rates: needs and feasibility. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 18, 187–205 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9357-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9357-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation