Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 3–4, pp 461–476 | Cite as

Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise

  • Barbara Sophia Koelbl
  • Machteld A. van den Broek
  • André P. C. Faaij
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren


Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) can be a valuable CO2 mitigation option, but what role CCS will play in the future is uncertain. In this paper we analyze the results of different integrated assessment models (IAMs) taking part in the 27th round of the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) with respect to the role of CCS in long term mitigation scenarios. Specifically we look into the use of CCS as a function of time, mitigation targets, availability of renewables and its use with different fuels. Furthermore, we explore the possibility to relate model results to general and CCS specific model assumptions. The results show a wide range of cumulative capture in the 2010–2100 period (600–3050 GtCO2), but the fact that no model projects less than 600 GtCO2 indicates that CCS is considered to be important by all these models. Interestingly, CCS storage rates are often projected to be still increasing in the second half of this century. Depending on the scenario, at least six out of eight, up to all models show higher storage rates in 2100 than in 2050. CCS shares in cumulative primary energy use are in most models increasing with the stringency of the target or under conservative availability of renewables. The strong variations of CCS deployment projection rates could not be related to the reported differences in the assumptions of the models by means of a cross-model comparison in this sample.


Primary Energy Carbon Price Climate Target Storage Rate Stringent Target 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research has been carried out in the context of the CATO-2-program. CATO-2 is the Dutch national research program on CO2 Capture and Storage. The program is financially supported by the Dutch government (Ministry of Economic Affairs) and the CATO-2 consortium parties ( Furthermore, this research was conducted with the support of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (

Supplementary material

10584_2013_1050_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (279 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 278 kb)


  1. Akimoto K, Tomoda T, Fujii Y, Yamaji K (2004) Assessment of global warming mitigation options with integrated assessment model DNE21. Energy Econ. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.021 Google Scholar
  2. Azar C et al (2010) The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9832-7 Google Scholar
  3. Azar C, Lindgren K, Larson E, Möllersten K (2006) Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass—costs and potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-005-3484-7 Google Scholar
  4. Bachu S, et al (2007) CO2 storage capacity estimation: methodology and gaps. I Int J Greenh Gas ControlGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer NA (2006) Carbon capture and sequestration: an option to buy time? University Potsdam, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradshaw J, et al (2007) CO2 storage capacity estimation: issues and development of standards. Int J Greenh Gas ControlGoogle Scholar
  7. de Vries BJM, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Janssen MA (2001) The Targets IMage Energy Regional (TIMER) model. RIVM/PBL, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisher BS et al (2007) Issues related to mitigation in the long term context. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: Mitigation Contribution of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the inter-governmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 169–250Google Scholar
  9. Flannery BP (2011) Comment. Energy EconGoogle Scholar
  10. GCCSI (2013) The global status of CCS—Update January 2013. The global status of CCS—Update January 2013Google Scholar
  11. GEA (2012) Global energy assessment—toward a sustainable future. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Vienna, Austria and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Hourcade J, Jaccard M, Bataille C, Ghersi F (2006) Hybrid modeling: new answers to old challenges introduction to the special issue of the energy journal. Energy JGoogle Scholar
  13. IEA (2012) Energy technology perspectives 2012: Pathways to a clean energy system. OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  14. IEA GHG (2011) Potential for biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage 2011/06Google Scholar
  15. IHS (2011) IHS indexes. In: Accessed 21 November 2011
  16. IPCC (2005) IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Krey V, Luderer G, Clarke LE, Kriegler E (2013) Getting from here to there: energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Change AcceptedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kriegler E, et al (2013) The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0953-7
  19. Kurosawa A (2004) Carbon concentration target and technological choice. Energy Econ doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.022
  20. Löschel A (2002) Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: a survey. Ecol Econ. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00209-4 Google Scholar
  21. Luderer G et al (2013) The role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: results from the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0924-z
  22. Praetorius B, Schumacher K (2009) Greenhouse gas mitigation in a carbon constrained world: the role of carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.018 Google Scholar
  23. Riahi K et al (2004) Technological learning for carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Energy Econ. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.024 Google Scholar
  24. Rose S, et al (2013) Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Clim Change AcceptedGoogle Scholar
  25. Smekens-Ramirez Morales KEL (2004) Response from a MARKAL technology model to the EMF scenario assumptions. Energy Econ. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.032 Google Scholar
  26. EU (2009) DIRECTIVE 2009/31/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. Official Journal of the European Union L 140/114Google Scholar
  27. van Vliet OPR, Broek MAVD, Turkenburg WC, Faaij APC (2011) Combining hybrid cars and synthetic fuels with electricity generation and carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy 39:248–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weyant JP (2004) Introduction and overview. Energy Econ. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.019 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Sophia Koelbl
    • 1
  • Machteld A. van den Broek
    • 1
  • André P. C. Faaij
    • 1
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Copernicus Institute of Sustainable DevelopmentUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyBilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations