Skip to main content

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

Climatic Change volume 123, pages 461–476 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. Globally, only about 17 large-scale integrated projects (i.e. covering the whole chain) under construction or in service have been identified by GCCSI (2013) as of January 2013.

  2. An overview can be found in Morita et al. 2000 as cited in (IPCC 2005).

  3. Precise differences are in Table 2–5 supplementary material.

  4. In some cases there is even an increase in the amount of primary energy used with CCS, although total primary energy used decreases.

  5. According to Bachu et al. (2007), storage capacity in saline aquifers is more difficult to assess because 1) they are less explored than hydrocarbon reservoirs, 2) aquifers are continuous (p. 436), 3) the mechanisms that determine the capacity are very complicated, and require site-specific data (p. 441).

  6. These estimates are acknowledged not to be exhaustive (GEA 2012).

  7. In order to include the carbon price in the primary energy price we assume a carbon content of 95.3, 56.1, 93.5 and 70.8 kgCO2/GJ for biomass, natural gas, coal, and oil respectively (de Vries et al. 2001). Furthermore, we assume a capture rate of 85 %. For Biomass we assume that 5 kgCO2-eq/GJ are indirect emissions of biomass as summarized in van Vliet et al. (2011:256).

  8. LCOE does not include the carbon price.

  9. This was only tested for Europe for nine models in the Benchmark-Tech-550.

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Bachu S, et al (2007) CO2 storage capacity estimation: methodology and gaps. I Int J Greenh Gas Control

  • Bauer NA (2006) Carbon capture and sequestration: an option to buy time? University Potsdam, Dissertation

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw J, et al (2007) CO2 storage capacity estimation: issues and development of standards. Int J Greenh Gas Control

  • de Vries BJM, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Janssen MA (2001) The Targets IMage Energy Regional (TIMER) model. RIVM/PBL, Bilthoven

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 169–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannery BP (2011) Comment. Energy Econ

  • GCCSI (2013) The global status of CCS—Update January 2013. The global status of CCS—Update January 2013

  • 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, USA

  • 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 J

  • IEA (2012) Energy technology perspectives 2012: Pathways to a clean energy system. OECD Publishing

  • IEA GHG (2011) Potential for biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage 2011/06

  • IHS (2011) IHS indexes. In: http://www.ihsindexes.com/. Accessed 21 November 2011

  • 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, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Krey V, Luderer G, Clarke LE, Kriegler E (2013) Getting from here to there: energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Change Accepted

  • 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

  • Kurosawa A (2004) Carbon concentration target and technological choice. Energy Econ doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.022

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Rose S, et al (2013) Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Clim Change Accepted

  • 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 

  • 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 140/114

  • 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 39:248–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weyant JP (2004) Introduction and overview. Energy Econ. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.019

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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 (http://www.co2-cato.nl/). Furthermore, this research was conducted with the support of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (http://www.pbl.nl/en/).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CD, Utrecht, The Netherlands

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

  2. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, PO Box 303, 3720 AH, Bilthoven, The Netherlands

    Detlef P. van Vuuren

Authors
  1. Barbara Sophia Koelbl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Machteld A. van den Broek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. André P. C. Faaij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Detlef P. van Vuuren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Sophia Koelbl.

Additional information

This article is part of the Special Issue on “The EMF27 Study on Global Technology and Climate Policy Strategies” edited by John Weyant, Elmar Kriegler, Geoffrey Blanford, Volker Krey, Jae Edmonds, Keywan Riahi, Richard Richels, and Massimo Tavoni.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 278 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koelbl, B.S., van den Broek, M.A., Faaij, A.P.C. et al. Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise. Climatic Change 123, 461–476 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1050-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1050-7

Keywords

  • Primary Energy
  • Carbon Price
  • Climate Target
  • Storage Rate
  • Stringent Target