Carbon capture and storage deployment rates: needs and feasibility

  • Asbjørn Torvanger
  • Marianne T. Lund
  • Nathan Rive
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Carbon capture and storage Climate policy Deployment rates Energy scenarios Renewable energy Energy efficiency improvements 

References

  1. Al-Juaied M, Whitmore A (2009) Realistic costs of carbon capture. Discussion Paper 2009-08. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 RidgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 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–S151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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–S120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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., USAGoogle Scholar
  6. 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):614–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Fuglestvedt J, Berntsen T, Myhre G, Rypdal K, Skeie RB (2008) Climate forcing from the transport sectors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(2):454–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):961–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gregory K, Rogner HH (1998) Energy resources and conversion technologies for the 21st century. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 3(2–4):171–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grubler A (2010) The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: a case of negative learning by doing. Energ Pol 38:5174–5188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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–S186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 IIGoogle Scholar
  16. Herzog HJ (2011) Scaling up carbon dioxide capture and storage: from megatons to gigatons. Energ Econ 33(4):597–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacobsson S, Johnson A (2000) The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research. Energ Pol 28:625–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jamasb T (2007) Technical change theory and learning curves: patterns of progress in electricity generation technologies. Energ J 28(3):51–71Google Scholar
  19. 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):397–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kramer GJ, Haigh M (2009) No quick switch to low-carbon energy. Nature 462(3):568–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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–S106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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–S143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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, 1–13Google Scholar
  24. 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 458:1158–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitchell C, Connor P (2004) Renewable energy policy in the UK 1990–2003. Energ Pol 32:1935–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moss et al (2008) Towards new scenarios for analysis of emissions, climate change, impacts, and response strategies. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. 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)Google Scholar
  28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Energy Angency (IEA) (2010) World energy outlook 2010. OECD/IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Energy Agency (2008a) CO2 capture and storage. A key carbon abatement technology. OECD/IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Energy Angency (IEA) (2008b) World energy outlook 2008 edition. OECD/IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  31. 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, ParisGoogle Scholar
  32. Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the cimate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305, 13 AugustGoogle Scholar
  33. Rai V, Victor DG, Thurber MC (2010) Carbon capture and storage at scale: lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies. Energ Pol 38:4089–4098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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):373–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 464:1126–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 75–108Google Scholar
  37. 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 43:6260–6270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith SJ, Wigley TML (2006) Multi-gas forcing stabilization with the MiniCAM. Energy J (Special Issue No 3):373–391Google Scholar
  39. 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, OsloGoogle Scholar
  40. 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, BonnGoogle Scholar
  41. United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2009) Copenhagen Accord, Draft Decision-/CP.15. UNFCCC, BonnGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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/
  44. van Vliet J, den Elzen MGJ, van Vuuren DP (2009) Meeting radiative forcing targets under delayed participation. Energ Econ 31(suppl 2):S152–S162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 324:1183–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asbjørn Torvanger
    • 1
  • Marianne T. Lund
    • 1
  • Nathan Rive
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for International Climate and Environmental Research—Oslo (CICERO)OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations