ccs brochure final

Carbon Captureand Storage:a WEC “Interim Balance”

Le Captage etStockage du Carbone:un Bilan Intérimaire du CME

World Energy Council 2007

Promoting the sustainable supply and useof energy for the greatest benefit of all

World Energy Council (WEC) Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems Committee (CFFS)

2007 CCS booklet_covers2.qxp:Layout 1 10/28/07 9:50 PM

1 PrefaceChairman, Barbara N. McKeeThe WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems(CFFS) Committee

4 Carbon Capture and Storage:a WEC “Interim Balance” 2007 Edition

4 1. Needs—World energy demand— Related carbon dioxide emissions— Enabling development while mitigatingclimate change

5 2. Technologies— Carbon capture— Transportation— Storage— RD&D

8 3. Comparative economics— Costs— Competitiveness— Revenues— Externalities— Investments

10 4. Deployment— The drivers— The potential— Coal-based power generation— Natural gas-based power generation— Oil-based power generation— Management issues

13 5. Developing countries and transitionaleconomies— The dilemma— Enhanced recovery of oil and gas— Efficiency first— CCS next steps

17 6. Perspectives— Synthesis— Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change— International Energy Agency— European Commission

18 7. Policies— Climate policies— Energy policies— CCS policies

21 8. Laws and regulations—Adapting national legal and regulatoryframeworks

— Reviewing international treaties andconventions

— Sharing or protecting intellectual property— Securing a level-playing field for CCS

25 Conclusion— Current Status— Potential— Caveats

28 Annexes28 A. Papers presented at CFFS seminars33 B. List of international CCS projects

— Formulation of policies— Data collection and analysis— Collaborative development of technologies— International legal and regulatoryframeworks

— Selected RD&D projects36 C. Abbreviations36 D. Contact editor36 E. Contact WEC

Contents

2007 CCS booklet_covers2.qxp:Layout 1 10/28/07 9:51 PM

Carbon Capture and Storage: a WEC “Interim Balance” World Energy Council 2007

The CommitteeIn 1999 the World Energy Council created theCleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS) Committeeto discuss and promote knowledge worldwideabout the research, development, demonstrationand deployment of cleaner fossil fuels systems tomeet global energy needs. Global energy use isprojected to increase by 53% during 2004 – 2030.Fossil fuels are critical to meeting global economicdevelopment and energy security needs. Theirshare of global energy use is even expected to in-crease from 81% in 2004 to 82% in 2030. Produc-tion and consumption of every form of fossil fuelwill increase to meet needs (IEA 2006).

Use of fossil fuels could have major local, regionaland global environmental impacts, and the environ-mental challenge is great. Cleaner systems miti-gate and even neutralize the adverseconsequences of the use of fossil fuels and permittheir positive qualities to be enjoyed for economicand social development. The technology for thesesystems is advancing rapidly.

The mandateStakeholders need to fully understand the highvalue of clean systems to ensure that cleaner fossilenergy systems will be used and to enable fossilfuel systems to be sustainable. Hence, the aim ofthe Committee is to ensure that a broad range ofstakeholders appreciate the great potential of thesesystems to ensure the sustainable use of fossilfuels. To achieve this mission, the Committee:

� provides a forum for energy experts, decisionmakers and consumers to discuss the role ofcleaner fossil fuel technologies;

� exchanges information, creates networks,elaborates proposals and introduces recom-mendations for the worldwide deployment ofsuch technologies, including to developingcountries;

� addresses barriers and critical issues thatmay hamper the advancement of cleaner fos-sil fuel systems and encourages govern-ments, investors and financial institutions toproactively deploy clean and innovative fossilfuel technologies.

The activitiesThe Committee endeavors to achieve these goalsmainly by presenting seminars and roundtables or-ganized throughout the world in: Ankara, Turkey-1999; Krakow, Poland-1999; Dakar, Senegal-2000;Rio de Janeiro, Brazil-2001; Buenos Aires, Ar-gentina-2001; Washington, DC, United States-2002; Warsaw, Poland-2002; Cairo, Egypt-2002;Kiev, Ukraine-2003; Sydney, Australia-2004; Erice,Italy-2005; Colombo, Sri Lanka-2005; Neptun, Ro-mania-2006; Tallinn, Estonia-2006; Moscow, Rus-sia-2006; and Amman, Jordan-2007. We alsoresearch and publish informational documents.

Focus on carbon capture and storageFrom 2004 to 2007, the Committee focused on car-bon capture and storage.

1

The WECCleaner Fossil FuelsSystems CommitteePreface by the Chairman, Barbara N. McKee:

2007 CCS booklet text pages:WEC booklet 10/28/07 9:56 PM Page 1


The Discussion Session on “Cleaner Fossil Fuels –The Cornerstone for Human Development and En-ergy Security,” held in Sydney, Australia, on 8 Sep-tember 2004 at the occasion of the 19th WorldEnergy Congress placed carbon capture and stor-age in the general context of sustainable develop-ment and mitigation of energy poverty.

The Workshop held in Erice, Sicily, on 24 August2005 focused on “Carbon Capture and Storage – AWay Forward for Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems.” Itwas a unique event because it was organized atthe invitation of the World Federation of Scientists(WFS) and was held in the prestigious InternationalCentre for Scientific Culture in Erice. Prof. RichardWilson, Chairman of WFS-Energy PMP (Perma-nent Monitoring Panel), and I jointly chaired theworkshop.

On 7 September 2005, the CFFS Committee or-ganized a dialogue on “Cleaner Fossil Fuel Sys-tems with Carbon Capture and Storage – Whatʼs InIt for the Developing World?” in Colombo, SriLanka, at the occasion of the Executive Assemblyof the World Energy Council.

“Cleaner Fossil Fuels for Sustainable Develop-ment” was the topic of a workshop organized jointlyby the CFFS Committee and the Craiova PowerEnergy Complex on 13 June 2006, at the occasionof the WEC Regional Forum FOREN06 in Neptun,Romania.

“Focused lectures on global and regional efforts to-ward carbon capture and storage” were given at aworkshop organized by the CFFS Committee inTallinn, Estonia, on 4 September 2006, at the oc-casion of the Executive Assembly of the WEC.

“Cleaner Fossil Fuels for Power Generation” werediscussed at a workshop organized jointly by theCFFS Committee and the All-Russian Thermal En-gineering Institute (VTI) in Moscow, Russia, on 3September 2006.

On 25 April 2007, the CFFS Committee and theArab Union of Electricity Producers, Transmittersand Distributors held a workshop on “Mitigating theGrowing Contributions of West Asia in Global Emis-sions” in Amman, Jordan.

At the occasion of the 20th World Energy Congressin Rome, a forum on “Fossil Fuels Leading theClean Energy Revolution” will be held on 12 No-vember 2007.

For 2008, a workshop in Africa on “FacilitatingCCS Project Preparation and Management” isunder consideration.

OutreachAll the above-mentioned events created a wealth ofinformation that called for its broad dissemination.Hence, this brochure aims at informing a broaderaudience about the Committeeʼs assessment of thepresent status of carbon dioxide capture and stor-

2



age. The assessment is gauged against the dualneed to control climate change and to advance onthe road of economic development to eliminatepoverty. As carbon capture and storage develops,“interim balances” rather than final conclusions arein order. Hence this 2007 Edition is the second in aseries on the subject.

The Committee naturally concentrates on the pa-pers generated under its auspices and listed inAnnex A. Main references appear at the end ofeach chapter. Interested readers may wish to ac-cess papers with the help of the Annex.

AcknowledgmentsI thank the members of the Committee, the au-thors, Barry Worthington, USEA and the editorKlaus Brendow for their valuable contributions tothis document.

Barbara N. McKeeChairman, CFFS Committee, WEC

3



1. NeedsThe development of carbon capture and storage(CCS) technologies is driven by the need to miti-gate climate change resulting from economic de-velopment.1

World energy demand: Fossil fuels have suppliednearly all of the worldʼs commercial energy supplybetween 1900 and 1970, and still provide about85% in 2007. They are predicted to continue tosupply 82% in 2030 and 64% in 2050. In absoluteterms, this expectation implies a significant in-crease in generation and use. Figure 1 demon-strates that under present policies fossil fueldemand will increase by 80% between 1990 and2050 (Fig. 1, first column 2050). However, under al-ternative policies, increased efficiencies, substitu-tion of coal by natural gas, promotion ofnon-carbon emitting sources or new technologiescould constrain fossil fuel demand and related car-bon dioxide emissions. In such a scenario, fossilfuel demand growth during 1990 – 2050 could becurbed (from 80% to 60%) and CO2 emissions re-duced (by 12%) (Fig. 1, last column 2050).

The worldʼs energy system is huge. The introduc-tion of new technology and systems on an annualbasis can only incrementally change the entire sys-tem. Changes in energy sources and utilizationtechnology take 25 to 50 years of penetration tochange the entire system.

This is due to the extraordinary capital needs and

the long lifetime of facilities and equipment, i.e. alow capital turnover. This is in part compensated forby rising efficiencies in energy production, conver-sion and transportation/transmission. However,today, there appears to be no feasible and viablealternative to fossil fuels to meet the twin develop-mental and environmental aspirations of nations, atleast up to 2050. A faster decline of fossil fuel usewould, in fact, absorb resources, which most, if notall, countries are unable to mobilize.

Related CO2 emissions: Over the past 250 years,fossil fuels contributed 75% - 80% to the build-up ofglobal CO2 concentrations. From an average 23.5Gt in the 1990s, annual CO2 emissions from fossilfuel use rose to 26.1 Gt during 2000 – 2005 (IPCC2007). Given that the carbon intensity of energyuse (2.3 tCO2/toe) is projected to fall only slightly,energy-related CO2 emissions would increase to40.4 Gt by 2030 under present policies (includingimplementation of the Kyoto Protocol) or to 34.1 Gtunder alternative, more stringent policies (IEA2006). Thus the Kyoto Protocol is not likely to havea significant impact on energy use and carbondioxide emissions. One reason is that in the 2020s,emissions from developing countries (which are notsubject to Kyoto reduction requirements) will over-take emissions from OECD countries and reach ashare of 60% - 70% in 2050. Thus, it is importantin the post- Kyoto process to find ways and meansto involve these countries in the process of climatecontrol, while safeguarding their progress on theroad to development. Carbon capture and storage

4

Carbon Capture andStorage: A WEC InterimBalance – 2007 Edition

1 IPCC WG I, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers, February 2007, p. 2 and 5: “Theglobal increases of carbon dioxide concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change … The understanding ofanthropogenic warming and cooling… has improved…, leading to a very high confidence [>90 %] that the globally averaged net ef-fect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.”



will be an important option for many developingcountries with fossil fuel sources (see Chapter 5).

Enabling development while mitigating climatechange: Unabated increases in CO2 emissionswould obviously severely undermine any policy tomitigate climate change. This reality illustrates theneed for at least precautionary measures, wherefeasible and cost-effective. In particular, mitigatingimpacts of fossil fuels can be accomplished first byimproving combustion and end-use efficiency andreplacing the direct use of fuels by potentially moreefficient and less polluting electricity, and then bydeploying CCS technologies.

Carbon capture and storage technology systemshave the potential to achieve substantial reductionsin global energy-related CO2 emissions, if de-ployed at a significant scale, in a timely mannerand at competitive costs needed to attract invest-ments. The relevance of CCS in emissions reduc-tion will increase over time, since the growth ratesof global CO2 emissions will likely exceed those ofglobal energy demand due to projected decliningshares of nuclear and hydropower. However, thecurrently high cost of CCS is seen as a serious im-pediment to its deployment and must be reduced.

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: Hisham Al-Khatib;Workshop in Tallinn: Barbara N. McKee; other sources: IEAWorld Energy Outlook 2004 and 2006; IPCC Climate Change2007, Summary report for policy makers

2. TechnologyCarbon capture and storage technology capturescarbon dioxide, then compresses and liquefies it,and finally transports it by pipeline or in tankers tosafe and permanent storage in geologic formations.Some of this technology is proven and has been uti-lized by the oil industry for enhanced oil recovery.However, it has not been adequately demonstratedon large-scale coal-fired power plants as compo-nents of integrated clean energy systems. CCStechnology for utilization at new, large power plantsoffers the greatest potential for CCS. CCS can alsobe used to mitigate CO2 emissions from otherlarge, stationary source industrial applications.

It should be noted that, in addition to geologic stor-age, research is also being conducted on terrestrialstorage, mineral carbonation and options to convertCO2 to beneficial products.

Carbon - Capture: Technology utilized with newlarge coal plants can reduce emissions by 80% –85%. However, capture technologies require addi-tional energy, which reduces overall efficiency. Ear-lier conversion loss estimates of up to 13% havebeen revised (IEA 2004) down to eight percentagepoints in existing coal-fired power plants, and tofour percentage points in future integrated coalgasification combined cycle (IGCC) designs.� Pre-combustion technologies convert coal or

natural gas into hydrogen and/or ultra-cleandiesel fuels while removing the CO2. Inte-

5



grated coal gasification combined cycle(IGCC) technology is a promising approachbecause of the potential coproduction of elec-tricity, fuels and chemicals (Fig. 2).

� Post-combustion technologies capture CO2from flue gases by chemical processes. An-other option is oxyfueling, which modifies thecombustion process by using pure oxygen in-stead of air to obtain highly pure CO2. An at-tractive example is the oxygen-firedsuper-critical steam cycle (SCSC) in pulver-ized coal combustion (PCC).

Transportation: The transportation of CO2 fromthe source point to the storage site is comparativelyinexpensive but substantial infrastructure needs tobe built. The mode of transportation (pipeline,tanker, truck, ship) of the CO2 in gaseous, liquid orsupercritical state depends on the pressures andvolumes to be shipped, and on the distance to thestorage site. A network linking various sourcepoints to a storage site would be an asset in re-gions where storage sites are not proximate to thesources. It remains to be determined how such net-works can be sited, financed and operated. Atpresent, 3,000 km of dedicated, land-based CO2pipelines are in routine operation (IEA 2004).

Storage: Potential underground depositories forCO2 are plentiful. Global capacities in saline forma-tions are estimated at 1,000 to 10,000 GtCO2 andin depleted oil and gas fields at 1,100 GtCO2. This

corresponds to 90 – 480 years of current worldemissions at 23 – 24 GtCO2/year. Moreover, CO2can also be stored in abandoned or unminable coalbeds or glacial clathrates. At present, more than 33million tons of CO2 are being captured and storedin over 70 projects (IEA 2004). Most are experimen-tal, but there are large-scale commercial projects inoperation in In Salah (Algeria), Weyburn (Canada),the North Sea (Sleipner), and forthcoming in theBarents Sea, Gorgon (Australia), Gassi Touil (Alge-ria) and other fields. As noted earlier, CO2 is in-jected commercially into oil reservoirs for enhancedoil recovery (EOR) in many parts of the world.

Storage-related issues include a reliable assess-ment of storage capacity; an increased understand-ing of CO2 trapping, migration and impact onground water; and prevention, monitoring and re-mediation of leaks. Public concern about the risk ofleaks needs to be addressed at an early stage bypointing to the present safe storage of millions oftons of CO2 and the elaboration of designated reg-ulatory regimes. Additionally, issues of short andlong-term liability need to be discussed and settled.

Mineralization/adsorption of CO2 in porous and ther-mally stable structures (silicates, shale, and salt) isstill speculative and at the conceptual stage; how-ever, this storage method may have great promise.

Research, development and demonstration(RD&D): The most pressing aims for RD&D are toreduce the present cost of 50 – 100 US$/tCO2

6 Fig. 2: Coal-based power generation: main technology routes to carbon capture source: adapted from John Topper, Colin Henderson, I EA Clean Coal Centre (2005)

Commercialisation of

Advanced IGCC and PCC

zero emission technologies

(ZETs)Low emissions

of conventional pollutantsTarget for the removal of

CO2: 90 %

IGCC ZETs:Coproduction of power,

hydrogen, fuels, chemicalsEU HypogenUS Futuregen

IGCC+ low efficiency loss

+ good envir. performance

+ more products- perceived higher

costs - more chemical

technology

PCC+ experience with flue

gas scrubbing+ large commercial base and favorable

ordering pattern- efficiency penalty

2000 2015 2025

R&D:hot/cold syngas

cleaning, hydrogen-fired gas turbines,

membraneseparation or reactors,

mercury removalCCS

Super-critical PCC with flue gas scrubbing or oxy-coal combustion

R&D: new solvents, membranes and other absorbents, mercury

removal, CCS

Early full flow demonstration

First commercial

retrofits and new plantsWith integrated CCS systems



(Figure 3) by at least 50%, enhance the integrationof CCS in power plant designs, increase captureefficiency, upsize installations to demonstration andcommercial scales, and achieve technical feasibil-ity, operational reliability, safety, leak prevention,commercial viability and public acceptance. In viewof the increase in emissions, RD&D must be accel-erated. At this stage, different approaches arebeing developed, and prioritizing one approachover another is neither possible nor desirable.Rather, the near-term objective is to achieve a di-versified portfolio of advanced technologies. Thelong-term vision is to operate near-zero emissionmulti-product power/chemical plants.

At present, some 110 RD&D projects are underwayworldwide. They include the U.S. FutureGen andEU-Hypogen projects (both also producing hydro-gen as a chemical feedstock or transportation fuel),the Canada-Clean Power Coalition and programsin Australia, Germany (Cooretec), United Kingdom,Norway, France, Italy, Japan and others (seeAnnex B).

International cooperation aims at information ex-change and coordination through the Carbon Se-questration Leadership Forum, IEA Working Partyon Fossil Fuels, EU Framework Programmes forResearch and Technological Development, Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuel Systems Committee andothers. Industry involvement in these efforts is es-sential. In the United States, industry funds about

one-third of the cost of sixty research projects,which supplements US$200 million expenditure bythe federal government.

The completion of several larger-scale demonstra-tion plants (250 MW or larger) by 2015 is critical inorder for CCS to gain market share and becomewidely deployed in the 2020 – 2030 timeframe.

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: James Ekmann;Jacek Podkanski; David Sevier; Olav Kaarstad; Klaus Lackner;Suzanne Hurter; Workshop in Neptun: Ionel Illie; Henrik Noppe-nau; Robert Gentile; Gurgen Olkhovsky; Workshop in Tallinn: M.Uus; Workshop in Moscow: A. Tumanovsky, A. Silin, J. Topper,R. Gentile, P. Casero, A. Nakanishi; further sources: IEAProspects of carbon capture and storage, Paris 2004, p. 13 –21, 55; John Topper, Colin Henderson – IEA Clean Coal Centre:Advanced technologies towards zero emissions from coal-firedplant and their introduction in EU member States; lecture givenat the International Conference on Policy and strategy of sus-tainable energy development for central and eastern Europeancountries until 2030, Warsaw, 22/23 November 2005; for stor-age risks and remedies, see: Wolfgang Heidug, GeologischeCO2-Speicherung als Beitrag zum Klimaschutz: Potenzial,Sicherheit, Wirtschaftlichkeit, in Erdöl Erdgas Kohle 123Jahrgang, Heft 1 (for English: www.dgmk.de)

The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) has seta goal to develop by 2012 fossil fuel conversionsystems that offer 90% CO2 capture with 99% stor-age at less than a 10% increase in the cost of en-ergy services.

7



3. Comparative EconomicsCosts: Electricity produced by generating plantsequipped with carbon capture and storage technol-ogy is certain to be more expensive than electricityproduced from coal-fired power plants today. Thisreality applies regardless of whether existing or newbuild plants are outfitted with these technologies. Atpresent, IEA (2004) estimates the costs of CCS torange from US$50 to US$100/tCO2. CCS increasescapital cost for power plants by 30% - 100%, andelectricity production cost by 25% – 100%. By 2030,costs might fall to US $25 –$50/tCO2 (Fig. 3). Someexperts expect this to represent an increase to con-sumers of one to two cents (US) per kilowatt hour,which represents a cost increase of approximately10% to 20%. This may be much less in an IGCCplant (EC) (IEA 2009).

Competitiveness: The range of uncertainty regard-ing the cost of deploying CCS technologies makescomparison of competitiveness relative to otherCO2 emission reduction options speculative. Thisreality is a factor not only of the uncertainty of CCScosts, but the uncertainty of costs of other options.

Figure 3, from the IEA, illustrates the costs of CCSdeployment today and in 2030, which assumesdramatic cost reductions. The current range ofcosts as well as the range in 2030 is significant.

Costs of CCS deployment are often compared tocosts of new renewable or nuclear generation.Wide ranges of the expected costs of all these op-

tions have been developed by experts (see Table1). Not surprisingly, at the low end of the range forCCS costs and the middle to high end of the rangefor the alternatives, CCS looks very competitive.However, at the high end of the CCS cost rangeand the low end of the alternative range, CCSlooks very expensive.

Efforts to drive down the costs of all of these tech-nologies are underway, and the success of theseefforts will determine which technologies are mostquickly and widely deployed. The reality is that theworld will need to utilize all available technologiesto their maximum economic potential to reduceemissions and, ultimately, concentrations of CO2 inthe atmosphere to levels scientists predict to besustainable.

CCS competitiveness will be influenced by theproximity of sources to sinks and other local cir-cumstances. Additionally, policy choices that favorone technology over others will have a huge bear-ing on the economics of CCS. Currently CCS isnot afforded the benefits that renewables receiveunder some international agreements.

Perhaps most important, as noted earlier, the mosteconomic and competitive options to improve en-ergy efficiency are to reduce CO2 emissions frompower generation, petroleum production, refining,automobiles and industrial application.

8



Revenues: Most prospective CCS applications, forexample deployment of technologies for utilizationwith a large coal fired power plant, represent coststo the plant owner - both capital costs and operat-ing and maintenance costs. However, some cir-cumstances represent revenue opportunities thatmay reduce net expenditures or perhaps in selectcircumstances cover the total cost of CCS deploy-ment. For example, if the coal plant location is inproximity to oil fields, CO2 could be sold to the oilfield operator for use in enhanced oil recovery.Some estimates of the value of CO2 in this applica-tion are US $55/+ CO2 (IEA), while others rangehigher, US $40-200/+ CO2 (Z. Khatib).

Other industrial uses of CO2 exist and future appli-cations are likely to develop. Future business op-portunities may include managing CCS applicationsfor others, such as hydrogen production, fuelcell/battery applications, emission trading andCO2 storage.

In deploying technologies to reduce sulfur and ni-trogen emissions, researchers and technology de-velopers found ways to make useful products bycapturing these pollutants at coal plants rather thanplacing these wastes in landfills. It is highly likelythat the worldʼs scientists will develop uses for car-bon not currently envisioned, including storage as asolid.

Externalities: Similar to most advanced technolo-gies, CCS will offer society benefits not easily

quantifiable. Perhaps the most significant is thecontribution to the global economy by maintainingthe viability of coal as an option for power genera-tion and industrial applications. Coalʼs viability rep-resents not only a low-cost fuel supply, but also acorresponding number of generally high-incomejobs (although this is not universal). For countrieswith coal resources and those importing from sta-ble suppliers, coal utilization offers energy securityvalue as well. In some circumstances CCS will re-duce atmospheric pollutants such as NOx, SO2and mercury. Resulting improvements are thusachieved in air quality, reduced negative health ef-fects, improved soil fertility, and so on. By preserv-ing the coal option, CCS deployment contributesdirectly to the three primary WEC goals of accessi-bility, affordability and acceptability.

Investments: Investment needs for the first genera-tion of new highly efficient coal-fired power plants ofabout 250 MW with CCS (based on super-criticalsteam cycles or IGCC) are estimated at between US$500 million and $1 billion each. At least ten demon-stration plants will be needed by 2015 to develop thetechnology and bring down costs to achieve a signif-icant market penetration by 2030 (IEA 2004). Equip-ping 250 GW of new IGCC plants in the OECDregion during the next thirty years with CCS wouldincrease investments by 20% - 25% or US $350 -$440 billion. For 500 GW of combined cycle gas tur-bine (CCGT) plants, the incremental cost would beUS $200 - $250 billion. This would increase invest-ments in power generation in the OECD area by20% - 25% (IEA WEIO 2003, p. 417).

9TABLE 1: Comparison of CO2 abatement costs for a range of renewables,fossil fuel and nuclear generation technologies in 2010

Technology Abatement cost relative to coal(US$/tC), low to high

Abatement cost relative tonatural gas (US$/tC), low to high

onshore windoffshore windenergy cropsnuclearwaveCCS retrofit on IGCCCCS on new IGCCCCS retrofit on coalCCS on new coal

-63 to 12511 to 287

108 to 20044 to 80

277 to 59724 to 4554 to 10166 to 12292 to 221

-61 to 291265 to 592240 to 44789 to 164

572 to 1168101 to 188151 to 282195 to 362243 to 566

Source: World Coal Institute, ECOAL, July 2005, p. 6, similar: Euracoal, Coal industry across Europe 2005, p. 7.



To attract private sector investors or government fi-nancing in this demonstration phase, there shouldbe no policy discrimination against fossil fuels andno policy uncertainty regarding investment returns,planning horizons and post-decommissioning liabil-ities. Market drivers and incentives for CCS deploy-ment need to be in place. Today, theseprerequisites are largely not present and there area number of commercial, technical, legal and politi-cal uncertainties related to future deployment ofCCS. While there may already be a number ofdemonstration plants by 2015 or so, the real com-mercial take-off depends on the commercial valueof CCS – and eventually on incentives, if that mar-ket value is too low.

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: Jacek Podkanski;Elena Nekhaev; Michel Lokolo; Workshop in Neptun: MichaelMoore; Zara Khatib; further sources: IEA, Prospects for CO2capture and storage, Paris 2004, p. 20; IEA, World Energy Out-look 2006, p. 75; Euracoal: Coal industry across Europe 2005,p. 6, 7; Barry Worthington: Funding for clean coal technologies(www.usea.org); for costs of storage, see also Wolfgang Heidug,op. cit.; on costs and health benefits: European CommissionStaff working document on Sustainable power generation fromfossil fuels: aiming for near-zero emissions from coal after 2020,SEC(2006) 1722, p. 39-42; IPCC, Special Report on CarbonDioxide Capture and Storage, 2005, p. 358; IEA World EnergyInvestment Outlook 2003, fig. 8.1

4. DEPLOYMENTThe drivers: The deployment of CCS depends ondemonstrating the technology on a large scale, itscompetitiveness with other mitigation options, thepolicy and legal/regulatory framework (see Chap-ters 7 and 8), executive and board level manage-ment support, and adequate time to demonstrateintegrated systems. Applicable in principle to allmajor fossil fuel-consuming sectors and emitters,CCS is most likely to be first deployed in coal- andnatural gas-based power generation with high CO2concentration in the waste or flue gas in developedcountries and in new facilities. Model calculationssuggest that CCS systems will begin to be de-ployed significantly when the price for CO2 reachesapproximately US$25 to 30/tCO2 (IPPC), providedCCS costs have been brought down to at least thislevel. Nonmarket-based policies also could accel-erate CCS deployments as noted in Chapter 2.

The potential: The potential for CCS deploymentcould be significant. For entire energy systems,CCS deployment may be less significant, limited bysystem replacement cycle and possibly competitionbetween mitigation options. The IEA (2004) sug-gests that by 2050, and assuming a carbon penaltyor carbon price of $50/tCO2, CCS could reducetotal global energy-related CO2 emissions by half

10

CCS adds 20 to 25 %

Source: IEA WEIO, op. cit., p. 419

CCS adds 20 to 25 %

Source: IEA EEW IO op cit p 4

%

19Source: IEA EEW IO, op. cit., p. 419



compared to a scenario without such a penalty(Chapter 6). If one looked only at coal-relatedemissions instead of total emissions, the percent-age reduction could be much higher. Unless de-ployment is accelerated, it will take decades toachieve widespread deployment of CCS. Thegood news is that most energy facilities operatingin 2000 will be retired or subject to major modifica-tion by 2050. In the short term, there is the riskthat out of the 1,391 GW new coal plants forecastworldwide by 2020, almost 86% will likely be builtwith conventional technology (Hawkins). Theseunits will likely still be operating in 2050.

Coal-based power generation: Figure 5 illustratesthe combined effect of CCS and efficiency improve-ments on CO2 emissions from global coal-basedpower plants. These generate about 80% of the 18GtCO2 of all energy-related CO2 emissions in 2050.In this scenario, net efficiency gains (22%) and CCSdeployment (30%) would reduce CO2 emissionsfrom coal-based power generation in 2050 fromabout 14.4 GtCO2 to 7.5 GtCO2. However, emis-sions remain significantly above present levels.

There is an additional potential for reducing CO2emissions from further advances in combustion ef-ficiency, faster CCS technology development, ear-lier international deployment, aggressive plantmodernization, improved CCS conversion effi-ciency, faster market penetration, and co-combus-tion of biomass and coal. By contrast, CO2abatement would be less if the relative cost reduc-

tions of coal combustion and CCS fall below expec-tations, which might result from delays in RD&D.Indeed, more may need to be done. Depending onthe international consensus of what is “sustain-able,” the amount of unabated CO2 emissions inthis scenario (7.5 GtCO2) or parts thereof could beconsidered unacceptable from a climate changemitigation policy point of view.

Natural gas-based power generation: Naturalgas has a competitive advantage over coal in re-gard to CO2 emissions. However, reliance on im-ported natural gas increases energy securityconcerns and only partially reduces climate changeconcerns, including the following:� CO2 emissions during combustion are lower

(but there are potential methane emissionsupstream).

� Combustion efficiencies are higher, even tak-ing into account efficiency losses during cap-ture.

� CCS is already used for natural gas produc-tion: CO2 is separated from produced naturalgas streams and reinjected in undergroundformations for permanent storage. Presently asignificant CO2 storage operation takes placein the Norwegian natural gas field Sleipner.

Switching from coal to natural gas fuel, regardlessof size, would continue to contribute to the globalmitigation of energy-related emissions. Local ex-

11

Figure 5 assumes a doubling of global coal demand through 2050. This corresponds to an annual growth rate of 1.4%, comparedwith the historical rate of 2%. Coal use in power generation and related emissions between 2000 and 2050 are estimated to growfaster, by 1.8%/year. Average world combustion efficiency for coal plants is assumed to rise from 32% at present to the presentstate of the art in 2050: 43%. CCS conversion losses are assumed to decline to 4 percentage points, which limits efficiency growthto 39% in 2050 (IEA 2004). The market penetration of CCS by 2050 is estimated at 30% (IEA 2004).



periences in the United Kingdom, where liberaliza-tion of electricity markets has resulted in a consid-erable expansion of natural gas use in powergeneration, show a correspondingly significant re-duction in CO2 emissions. However, in the UnitedStates, climate policy must be linked with increasedaccess to domestic reserves that are currently offlimit to production.

This trend, even if attenuated by rising gas pricesand a growing price competitiveness of coal, will bean important driver for a cleaner fossil energy sys-tem globally, especially before CCS is widely avail-able for deployment. IEA projects that globalnatural gas consumption will increase by 68% dur-ing 2004 - 2030 (coal: 60%) (2006). This translatesinto a projected faster growth of gas-based powergeneration (3.2%/year) compared with coal-basedplants (2.9%/year). However, coal would remainfirst in terms of capacity (33%) compared with gas(31%) and oil (5%). This scenario does not seeCCS playing a notable role before 2030 (IEA). Bycontrast, a US$50/t CO2 penalty or carbon pricewould stimulate CCS penetration and thus coalcombustion. In this case, by 2050, 69% of the ca-pacity of all power plants equipped with CCS wouldbe on coal units, 23% on gas units and 8% on dedi-cated biomass (IEA 2004).

Oil-based power generation: In 2004, oil gener-ated 7% of world electricity generation and is ex-pected to generate 3% in 2030 (IEA 2006). Inabsolute terms, the decline is less impressive –

from 1161 mtoe in 2004 to 940 mtoe in 2030. Thereare, however, many countries where oil use is stillimportant. For example in Mexico oil still accountsfor 40% of fossil fuel power generation, down from90% some time ago. Generally speaking, in mostcountries oil power plants are the oldest and leastefficient. Their main competitor is natural gas.Some natural gas units have dual-fuel capability.Also, some small generators use gasoline, dieselor kerosene. These offer no CCS options and theonly climate mitigation strategy is to not use them.

Management issues: Experience from companiesleading in emission control suggests that CSS mustbe an integrated part of medium- and long-termGHG emission control strategies. Some companiessee CCS as a step on the road toward a hydrogeneconomy. Such an approach requires strong in-volvement at the central management level and theintegration of CCS into corporate business plans.

Cooperation with other stakeholders, through na-tional and international partnerships and conven-tions, is another facet of management involvementto educate the public and clarify issues that are po-tential barriers for widespread CCS deployment.Relations with authorities and policy makers areimportant to carry the message that CCS policiesshould take into account the project-specific natureof CCS installations, be predictable, transparentand cost-effective; promote RD&D; and reduce un-certainties such as the regulation of decommission-ing of installations (post-closure liability).

12



Management should also consider business oppor-tunities associated with its CCS action plans (EOR,emission trading, hydrogen, fuel cells, and storageservices). Results in terms of reduced CO2 emis-sions and reinjections into depositories should berecorded in standardized GHG emission account-ing systems to enhance comparability and credibil-ity. All strategies to reduce greenhouse gasemissions are likely to eventually be subject tothird-party audits.

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: Elena Nekhaev;David D. Hawkins; Arthur Lee; Jacek Podkanski; Workshop inNeptun: Dumitru Manea; further sources: IEA: Prospects forCO2 capture and storage, Paris 2004; IEA: World Energy Out-look 2006, p. 258, 492, 493); IPPC Special Report on carbondioxide capture and storage, p. 11: K. Brendow: SustainableWorld coal mining and use: perspectives to 2030, lecture givenat the International Conference on Policy and strategy of sus-tainable energy development for central and eastern Europeancountries until 2030, Warsaw, 22/23 November 2005; on coalCCS, see: European Commission Staff working document onSustainable power generation from fossil fuels: aiming for near-zero emissions from coal after 2020, SEC(2006) 1722

5. Developing Countries and TransitionEconomiesToday, 1.6 billion of the worldʼs 6.2 billion popula-tion have no access to electricity. No availability ofcommercial energy results in lower life expectancy,lower school enrollment, reduced education oppor-tunities, poorer health - particularly in children, anddirtier drinking water. “Lack of energy in develop-ing countries and regions is a planetary emer-gency” (Wilson).

The dilemma: Enforcing a strong carbon disciplineand developing alternative energy systems presup-poses a broad public awareness of the risk of cli-mate change and support for mitigation policies. Italso requires a capacity at the government and in-dustry levels to comprehend issues, elaborate solu-tions and shoulder a considerable cost. These arehigh hurdles for developing countries (see Box)and transition economies. While developing coun-tries have not committed themselves to CO2 reduc-tion targets, the transitional economies did, buttheir emissions will remain below the agreed upperlimit for a number of years, depending on their rateof economic growth.

For the world as a whole, the problem is com-pounded by the fact that most of the future in-creases in CO2 emissions will come fromdeveloping countries. Their share in global CO2emissions will rise from 39% in 2004 to 52% in2030. As of 2012, their emissions will exceed thoseof the industrialized world.

13



Financing the deployment ofCCS to developing countriesFrom a global perspective of mitigating climatechange, financing the deployment of CCS to de-veloping countries is a priority, due to the grow-ing contributions of these countries to globalCO2 emissions. How can the deployment ofCCS in developing countries be financed?

How much? During 2015-2030, fossil fuel powergeneration capacity in the developing countriesmay increase by 592 GW, according to the IEA(WEO 2006) alternative scenario. These plantswould produce an additional 1.4 Gt of CO2,which corresponds to 56% of the increase ofworld energy-related CO2 emissions (2.48 Gt)!

Assuming that deploying CCS in fossil-fuelpower generation in the developing countrieswill, as of 2015, cost 20 to 30 US$/tCO2, thetotal additional cost of deploying CCS to mitigatethe above mentioned 1.4 Gt CO2 would beUS$28 to $42 billion during 15 years. As a result,world CO2 emissions would rise much less:from 31.6 Gt in 2015 to only 32.7 Gt in 2030, in-stead of 34.1 Gt. There is no other single techno-logical option that would cut the growth of globalemissions by more than half, while enabling de-velopment and energy security.

How? Can the world community afford to injecton average US$2 to $3 billion per year into tech-nology transfer? The consensus of opinion isyes - the more so, if national and regional carbontrading schemes were encouraged and compati-ble, creating a significant carbon price signalworldwide, 1 and if in the extended EU emissiontrading system and in the post-Kyoto process,CCS projects were eligible for CDM and JI proj-ects, which is presently not the case. In thiscase, the above-mentioned public funding needscould be reduced.

For their part, the developing countries “must de-velop legal policies on copyright, intellectual prop-erty and dispute settlement and provide newincentives for private investment” (WEC State-ment 2007: The Energy Industry Unveils Its Blue-print for Tackling Climate Change, London, 2007).

1 Stern Review, The impact of climate change, Executivesummary, London 2007, estimates the cost of “no action” withregard to climate change over the next two centuries at anaverage reduction of global per capita consumption of atleast 5 to 20%, particularly in developing countries. This com-pares with a cost of emission reduction consistent with stabi-lization at 550 ppm of on average 1% of GDP (p. xiii).(http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/8AC/F7/Executive_Summary.pdf)

14



This trend is driven by high economic and popula-tion growth, rising per capita energy consumptionand a high carbon-intensity of the fuel mix. Thisemphasizes the fact that a global carbon constrain-ing policy, without the involvement of developingcountries, will miss the goal of mitigating climatechange. However, developing countries could uti-lize CCS once these technologies are mature andviable. There would be a time lag in adopting CCSin developing countries, but by 2050 almost half ofthe capture activity could be in these countries,particularly China and India (IEA 2004).

Enhanced recovery of oil and gas: The utilizationof CCS to mitigate climate change will be easier foroil and gas producing countries. They can reducepart of their rising CO2 emissions by capturingCO2 and injecting it into some oil and gas fields.This raises both well productivity and profitability,as the value of CO2-EOR can be as high as US$40to 200 t/CO2. Moreover, CO2 injections could liber-ate gas from enhanced gas recovery (EGR) opera-tions for residential use, LNG (liquefied natural gas)or gas-to-liquids production. However, at present,EOR contributes only 4% or 160 million tons of oilequivalent to world oil production, of which 7% or11 million tons of oil equivalent is via CO2 injection(but more in the United States) (Z. Khatib).

The Middle East could see a favorable develop-ment as gas flaring can be significantly reduced.And while unrelated to CCS, it reduces greenhousegas emissions of methane. Moreover, fossil fuel-

based electricity generation during 2004 - 2030 isexpected to increase by 150%, while CO2 emis-sions would rise by only 108%. This difference re-flects the expectation that CO2 injections will play agrowing role. Several feasibility studies on CO2-EOR are underway in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar andLibya, with first demonstration plants expected to-ward 2015. A regional CO2 grid covering Qatar, theUnited Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain ison the drawing boards for operation around 2020.

CO2-EOR or EGR are not primarily driven by con-cerns about climate change but by resource con-straints. This should not demean their role inattenuating the growth of CO2 emissions. More-over, EOR/EGR can help build a CCS capacity interms of skills and infrastructure to ultimately ad-dress the issue of capturing CO2 from fossil fuelplants in large quantities and storing it on a long-term basis. Evolving from EOR/EGR to CCS withlong-term storage requires developing countriesand economies in transition to design an approachbased first on raising the efficiency of power gener-ation and, second, preparing for CCS deployment.It is in the interest of electric utilities and hydrocar-bon producers to take a lead in deploying CCS.

Efficiency first: Raising the combustion and plantefficiency of thermal power generation offersa significant potential for savings of fuel, emissionsand cost. This is true the world over, but particularlywith regard to coal-based power generation in de-veloping countries, where coal is 36%, oil 15% and

15



natural gas 21% of installed generating capacities(2004).

At present, average coal-based power generationefficiency in developing countries is perhaps at best28% (lower rates are quoted), while state-of-the-artgenerating efficiencies are 42% to 45% (Fig. 6).Raising the efficiency in developing countries topresent state of the art during the next two or threedecades would imply a reduction of specific CO2emissions from coal-based power stations by per-haps 40% – 45% (taking into account CCS conver-sion losses). This would be a significant contributionto mitigating climate change and, in fact, the singlemost cost-effective supply-side mitigation option.

CCS next steps: At the same time, and with thestrong support of developed nations and the inter-national CCS community,2 developing countriesand transitional economies could and should pre-pare themselves for the CCS option, by:� Developing a knowledge and technology base

as a foundation for technology transfer;� Joining international CCS networks and part-

nerships;� Promoting a new international clean technol-

ogy fund;� Creating regional alliances and energy re-

search and investment funds;

� Seeking financial assistance for– Energy and CCS RD&D; –– Studying the concept of “applied” CCS

for developing countries;– Bringing down the cost of clean electric-

ity for the poorest of the poor in order tomake “less clean resources,” e.g. animaldung, less attractive;

� Designing power systems and new plants soas to facilitate the later retrofit with CCS (“cap-ture-ready”);

� Mapping underground storage capacities;� Participating in the licensing and manufacture

of low-cost components for CCS equipment;� Considering joint ventures in CCS;� Promoting CDM (clean development mecha-

nisms), IBRD and GEF (Global EnvironmentalFacility) funding for CCS investments andemission trading;

� Protecting intellectual property and trade se-crets, in particular through nondisclosureagreements;

� Undertaking studies of public attitudes towardCCS and addressing concerns referring to dif-ferent technologies of sequestration, alternativeuse of underground storage (storage of naturalgas, etc.), the risk of CO2 leakage from under-ground storage, and the availability of laws andregulations to secure health and safety;

16

2 It will be recalled (see Preface) that the WEC CFFS Committee held workshops in Colombo and Jordan and is considering anevent in Africa.



� Stressing the potential of CCS as an impor-tant option along with others for economic de-velopment and reduced energy poverty. Themessage: what is needed is a “low carbonworld” or even better, a “low emissions world,”and not a “low fossil fuel world.”

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: Barbara McKee;Hisham Al-Khatib; F. Zancan; Hilal Raza; Richard Wilson; ElenaNekhaev; Workshop in Tallinn: Anita Kvesko; K. Brendow; fur-ther sources: WEC: Sustainable global energy development –the case of coal, London 2004, p. 8; IEA, World Energy Outlook2006, p. 81; Zara Khatib: Opportunities for CCS in the MENA re-gion; role of WEC in accelerating its development and imple-mentation; lecture given at the CFFS meeting held in London on12. 12. 2006; Georg Rosenbauer, in WEC: The World EnergyBook, issue 3; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2006, p. 513

6. PerspectivesSynthesis: Projections of present (and alternativescenarios) policies suggest that CCS will play asignificant global, climate-relevant role after 2020.Its market penetration depends on adequate tech-nology demonstration, on the price for carbon (orincentives) exceeding the cost of CCS systems,and on the cost of other mitigation options. Thebenchmark is presently estimated at around US$25to 30/tCO2 (€ /t19 – 23). This implies that presentCCS costs must be brought down by half. Thegreater the difference between CCS cost and car-bon prices, the more significant the role of CCS be-comes. Its maximum effect by 2050 is estimated ataround 50% of world energy-related CO2 emis-

sions (IEA 2004). This is the minimum goal of theEU. More could be attained for coal-based CCS(92% in the European Union) (Fig. 7). A 50% re-duction would stabilize global energy-related CO2emissions and later, concentrations, while allowinga 2° C increase in global temperatures. Howeverimportant such a reduction of CO2 emissions maybe, climate mitigation measures should also coverthe other greenhouse gases, particularly methaneand should be portfolios of various mitigationmeasures, of which CCS would be an important –but not alone sufficient – component.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:Model calculations estimate the economic cumula-tive reduction potential of CCS during 2000 - 2100 atbetween 220 and 2200 GtCO2 compared to cumula-tive emissions of 3000 Gt. The range of reduction(7% to 73%) reflects the differing stringency of theassumed mitigation policies, with 50% being thelong-term goal for 2050. The higher estimate impliesstabilization of CO2 concentrations at around 450ppm. IPCC suggests that CCS systems will begin todeploy significantly when the price for CO2 reachesapproximately US$25 to 30/tCO2. In most of its sce-narios, the role of CCS increases over time.

CCS would be a low-cost reduction option account-ing for 15% - 85% of a least-cost mitigation strat-egy; CCS is expected to reduce the costs ofstabilizing CO2 concentrations by 30% or more(see also Fig. 3 and Table 1).

17

Fig. 7: Explanations and sources: 2020: refers to OECD region = world, IPCC Special Report on carbon dioxide capture and stor-age, 2005, p. 358; 2030 and 2050, low: reduction of global energy-related emissions compared with a base line without CCS (IEAWEO 2006, p. 258 and IEA 2004, p. 101); 2030 and 2050, high: reduction of emissions from EU coal power plants compared with2005 (EC Sustainable power generation from fossil fuels, SEC (2006) 1722, p. 71); 2100: average 2000-2100 reduction of globalenergy-related emissions compared with a baseline without CCS (IPPC 2005, op. cit., p. 350, 354)



International Energy Agency: IEA foresees nonotable contribution of CCS in its reference and al-ternative scenarios for 2030. However, in its morestringent “Beyond the Alternative Policy Scenario”(BAPS), IEA explores the conditions for CCS tobring global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2030(26.1 Gt) down to the 2004 level. In this case, IEAattributes to CCS proper (excluding efficiencygains) a savings potential in power generation of 2GtCO2 or 11% of global emissions from power andheat plants (IEA 2006). However, this excludesgains of 1 Gt due to efficiency improvements inpower plants. For industry, BAPS projects a reduc-tion of 1 Gt due to CCS and efficiency gains. AsCCS would be introduced only in highly efficient fa-cilities, the combined effects of efficiency gains andCCS in power generation and industry could be es-timated at about 4 Gt in 2030, or 10% of global en-ergy-related emissions compared to the alternativeand reference scenarios (IEA 2006).

The reduction in 2030 could be 4.6 Gt or 18% ofthe BAPS scenario in case of a CO2 emissionpenalty or market price of $50/tCO2. With this latterassumption and in comparison with a scenariowithout such penalty, CCS could reduce emissionsin 2050 by about 27 to 33 GtCO2 or 50%, downroughly to the level of 2000, thereby stabilizingemissions and concentrations (at 550 ppm). This isdeemed to be the maximum obtainable from CCSfor global energy-related emissions (IEA 2004).The percent reduction would be higher for coal-based CCS (EC) (Fig. 7).

European Commission: If CCS-supported poli-cies were introduced in the European Union (EU),CCS could be used systematically in new coalplants and retrofits by 2020; by 2030, 25% of coal-fueled power generation capacity could be basedon CCS, with a resulting reduction of CO2 emis-sions from coal plants by 16% in comparison with2005. By 2050, 100% of coal-based capacity wouldbe CCS-supported and CO2 emissions 88% lower.The objective of the EU is to limit global tempera-ture increase to a maximum of 2°C, which implies areduction of global greenhouse gases in 2050 by60 – 80% in developed countries, compared with1990 (EC).

FURTHER READING: IPPC, Special Report, already quoted, p.354 (www.ipcc.ch); World Coal Institute, Newsletter ECOAL, Oc-tober 2005; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2006, p. 258 and Annex,p. 493; IEA: Prospects for carbon capture and storage, Paris2004, p. 101, 108, 120; further sources: EURACOAL: Third CoalDialogue, Brussels, 18 October 2006, paper presented by Ioan-nis Galanis (EC DG for Energy and Transport) on: Communica-tion on sustainable coal: impact assessment and communicationoutline, p. 12 and 71; on EU emission trading:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission.htm

7. PoliciesThe deployment of CCS can be greatly supportedby nondiscriminatory and affirmative policies.

Climate policies: Implementation of CCS will ulti-mately depend on the consensus regarding the ur-gency of climate protection policies. While there is

18



some agreement on the principles of remedial ac-tion (enhanced energy efficiency, promotion of non-carbon energy sources, fuel substitution), viewsdiffer on timeframes, institutional processes andmeans (incentives, penalties).

These uncertainties about the scope, urgency, tim-ing and institutional support of climate control poli-cies are reflected in the recent decrease of theprice for a ton of CO2 at EU emission trading ex-changes (Fig. 8). These uncertainties need to bereduced to encourage investors.At this early stage of CCS development, policiesshould focus on technical progress, rather than onintervention in markets and customer choice.

Present climate policies are inadequately balancedon two accounts. There is first the sharp focus onCO2. In reality, during 1980-1990, carbon dioxidecontributed only 55% to the increase in radiativeforcing. Secondly there is the focus on power gen-eration. However, only 29% of global CO2 emis-sions and 41% of energy-related global CO2emissions stem from power generation (20% fromtransport, 18% from industry, 13% from the resi-dential sector and services, 8% from others). Thisimbalance needs to be replaced by considering allgreenhouse gases and all sectors of energy con-sumption so as to avoid inter-fuel and inter-sectoraldistortions.

Moreover, the focus on emissions at the electricitygeneration stage takes into account only part of

total emissions, omitting emissions prior and sub-sequent to that stage. A full life cycle analysis ofemissions is required to determine the global im-pact of individual energy projects. If life cycle analy-sis is used and other greenhouse gases (GHG) arealso taken into account, electricity generation fromcoal, gas or oil would show similar levels of GHGemissions. The projected increase in annual GHGemissions from coal between 2001 and 2025 of1.1 billion tons of carbon equivalent is less thanthat projected for natural gas (1.3 billion tons) andoil (1.5 billion tons).� The CCS option should be integrated into en-

ergy policies, emission trading schemes, en-ergy balances, scenarios and models in orderto avoid discrimination against clean fossil fueluse. CCS should be part of a portfolio of tech-nology and strategies. It is acknowledged thatthe quantification of its market penetration andemission reduction potential is difficult at thisstage – as is the quantification of the contribu-tion of other mitigation options.

� Institutionalized cooperation between allstakeholders - government, industry and thepublic at large – creates mutual understandingand confidence, hence promotes solutions.

� Developing and transitional economies shouldexploit the enormous potential of improvedcombustion and increased plant efficiency asa first option. Internationally, they should bepart of networks established for developing

19Fig. 8: EU Emission trading of CO2 sources: European Climate Exchange (Amsterdam); EC COM 2007/2 final

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

JO

6 M M J S N

J0

7

D08

D10

D12

/tC

O2

historical and forward

prices

minimum CCS costtarget

price necessary to

limit globaltemperature increase

to 2 ° C in 2020

ditto for 2030



CCS and promote the eligibility of CCS proj-ects as clean development mechanisms(CDMs) and for GEF funding. Nationally, theyshould build human and technical capacity todeal with CCS and consider interim measuressuch as plant designs, which allow the laterretrofit with CCS (see Chapter 5).

Public trust and support must be achieved and re-tained. Public concerns over issues such as leak-ages from CO2 storage must be addressed. Thebenefits of CCS in terms of mitigating climatechange and allowing fossil fuels to facilitate furthereconomic development and reduction of energypoverty must be recognized. A EU inquiry into thepublic acceptance of CCS showed that so far lessthan 10% of the European population had heard ofCCS; of those, only 13% felt positive about it rightaway – this increased to 55% following an explana-tion of the concept (Euracoal, op. cit.).

Energy policies: In a balanced all-energy per-spective, fossil fuels need to be recognized as themajor driver of economic development for decadesto come. The potential of cleaner fossil fuel sys-tems must also be recognized. No source of en-ergy should be idolized or demonized. All will beneeded. CCS should be treated on an equal footingwith other mitigation options (as noted earlier, inCDM, emission trading, GEF funding).

CCS policies: The lag time inherent in deployingnew technologies as components of energy sys-

tems calls for an early definition of the role of CCS.Plans concerning CCS should cover the entire sys-tem, from emissions to sinks and trading. CCS poli-cies should balance public and private interest insafety, health, the considered use of natural re-sources and the profitability of CCS operations.� CCS policies should offer investment certainty

for CCS projects. They should be predictable,transparent and low-cost, enabling marketforces to unfold. Flexibility within a givenframework is essential, as CCS projects aresite-specific.

� CCS technology policy should be open-ended, avoid the early selection of “winners”and be long-term oriented, including towardthe development of the hydrogen economy.

� Policies and regulations should take into ac-count the entire life cycle of CCS investments,including:– Assessment and approval of CCS

projects– Access and property rights (CO2

ownership)– Operation of CCS facilities– Transportation issues, including across

borders– Monitoring and verification of storage– Decommissioning– Sharing of post-decommissioning

liabilities

20



� Best practices should be shared internationally.� The applicability of maritime conventions to

CO2 storage and other legal aspects need tobe reviewed.

� Expenditure in public energy RD&D, whichhad been cut by half in OECD countries overthe last few years, should be reconsidered inthe light of the changes that are taking place.Given the importance of fossil fuels for devel-opment and the environment, RD&D incleaner fossil fuels systems, and in particularin CCS, should be accelerated and interna-tionally coordinated.

� The roles of the Carbon Sequestration Lead-ership Forum (CSLF), the IEA and WEC arerecognized.

� Pilot studies should explore the “capture-ready” design of conventional plants.

� If in the early deployment phase, the carbonvalue and, hence, the commercial value ofCCS projects or components is insufficient, in-centives should be considered (such as earlymover incentives, faster depreciation al-lowances, etc.).

� The fair comparison of CCS technology inGreenhouse Gas Emission inventories re-quires standardized statistics.

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: Steve Tantala; ArthurLee; Jacek Podkanski; David Hawkins; Elena Nekhaev; KlausLackner; Workshop in Neptun: Peter Mak; further sources: IEALegal aspects of storing CO2; Paris 2005; IPPC: Climatechange – the IPCC scientific assessment, 1990, figures 7; IEAWorld Energy Outlook 2004, table 2.3; IEA, World Energy Out-look 2006; Euracoal, op. cit.; EC Limiting global climate changeto 2°, COM (2007) 2 final; Nicholas Stern, The Stern review onthe economics of climate change (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk)

8. LAWS AND REGULATIONSThe timely deployment of CCS technologies world-wide is preconditioned on affirmative national legaland regulatory frameworks, an update of interna-tional conventions and treaties, reliable (private)contractual arrangements and an equal playingfield for CCS.

Solutions, however partial and inconsistent theymay be, are emerging in developed and hydrocar-bon-producing countries. They seek a balanceamong private and societal objectives, marketmechanisms and policy interventions, risk avoid-ance and risk management, and national sover-eignty and international convergence. Emphasis atpresent is on enabling the uptake of CCS projects,particularly those enjoying an enhanced hydrocar-bon recovery bonus.

21



Current discussions:� Recognize the role of CCS and consider

adapting national and international legalframeworks and conventions (removal of tech-nological and cost barriers, pro-active ac-tions);

� Address longer-term concerns (storage, post-operational ownership of sites and CO2 andrelated liability for leakage);

� Address the protection of intellectual property;� Consider equivalence of treatment between

CCS projects and other mitigation options re-garding emission trading, clean developmentmechanisms, joint implementation and GEFfunding;

� Encourage conditions for the (later) deploy-ment of CCS in developing countries; and

� Build social acceptance of CCS.

By 2008, matters should have been greatly clari-fied, since the G8 Summit of Gleneagles in 2005had mandated the IEA and CSLF to submit recom-mendations to the G8 Summit in Japan in 2008.Broadly, this timing and focus of efforts seems to fitthe longer term calendar of launching CCS powerplants with long-term storage. In any case, techni-cal progress in CCS and regulatory advancementneed to be correlated.

Adapting national legal and regulatory frame-works: Some countries likely to use CCS in thenear term have well-established legal and regula-tory regimes for the hydrocarbon and mineral in-dustries, and for environmental protection andwaste disposal. These countries may not have tosubstantially change those regimes to apply toCCS projects. Other countries that do not havesuch legal and regulatory regimes could benefitfrom experience acquired elsewhere.

Any such regimes have two objectives: protectingthe public with regard to health, safety, financialand environmental risks associated with CCS,while enabling the development of CCS as part of aclimate change mitigation portfolio. The issues in-clude the following:� The definition of CO2 as an industrial com-

modity (used for enhanced recovery) or as asubstance to be stored permanently. This de-termines the type and jurisdiction of regula-tions governing CO2 injections;

� Criteria for site selection and use, in particularassessing the risk of leakage and related riskmanagement. Data collection, monitoring andverification must be sufficiently accurate tomeet international inventory standards.

� Licensing of activities and sites;� Ownership of, and access to, CCS injection

sites and storage space; arbitration of conflict-ing rights between the CCS and hydrocarbonand mineral industries;

22



� Legal and financial liabilities during the life-time of the project and after decommissioning;post-closure ownership of the CO2 and stor-age sites and liability; and

� Regulation of CO2 transportation and storageacross international or subnational borders, oroffshore.

Consistent national frameworks are emerging, forexample, in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands,Norway, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates, in addressing the immediately relevant is-sues. The next priority, also from the point of viewof public acceptance, appears to be the monitoringof CO2 streams and the definition of responsibili-ties after closure of a storage site. Models appliedto other materials injected into geological forma-tions may serve as examples. In the long-term,governments may need to assume liability for long-term storage.

Reviewing international treaties and conven-tions: CCS projects are subject to international lawwhen they cross borders or take place in interna-tional waters. International law requires CCS proj-ects to avoid transboundary environmental damageand to protect the marine environment. These obli-gations had been specified in a number of legallybinding global and regional international instru-ments, established before CCS became an envi-ronmental and climate mitigation option:

� The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,1982, which does not specifically regulate orprohibit CCS activities, but calls on States toprotect the marine environment from humanactivity such as dumping;

� The London Convention on the Prevention ofMarine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes andOther Matter, 1972, prohibits the dumping of“waste” into the sea;

� The London Protocol to the above Conven-tion, 1996, allows as of 10 February 2007 theinjection of CO2 streams from CO2 captureprocesses and incidental associated sub-stances in sub-seabed geological formations;

� The Basel Convention on the Control ofTransboundary Movements of HazardousWaste, 1989, which might be applicable ifCO2 contained toxic substances;

� The UN Framework Convention on ClimateChange, 1994, under which CCS could beconsidered as an option to mitigate climatechange;

� The Kyoto Protocol, 2005, excludes CCS fromthe Clean Development Mechanism; and

� Regional treaties and conventions for the pro-tection of the marine environment of theNorth-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention),1992; Baltic Sea, 1992; Black Sea, 1994;wider Caribbean region, 1983; Mediterranean,1976; Gulf, 1978; west and central African re-

23



gion, 1981; South Pacific, 1981, 1986; Ba-mako Convention on the Ban of the Import toAfrica and the Control of TransboundaryMovement and Management of HazardousWaste within Africa, 1991.

At present, the above major conventions are beingreconsidered to distinguish CO2 injections fromdumping. On 2 November 2006, the Parties to theLondon Protocol defined the conditions underwhich CO2 can be stored in sub-seabed geologicalformations (see above). Parties recognized thatocean acidification caused by rising CO2 emissionscalls for a portfolio of mitigation options, includingplacement of CO2 in sub-seabed formations.These amendments may prompt reconsideration ofother treaties.

Sharing or protecting intellectual property (IP):Some CCS investors (such as Statoil for Sleipnerand Snovit) are willing to release their knowledgeto the public domain. However generally, CCS in-vestors cannot be expected to commit themselvesunless their IP rights (particularly patents and tradesecrets) are protected. IP protection aims to:� Secure the property of, and access to, land,

plants, equipment, storage sites and storedCO2 , with capture technology being particu-larly sensitive, and

� Enable the transfer of knowledge and technol-ogy to receiving countries, and related capac-ity building.

The preferred route for dealing with these issues isthrough enforceable, private contracts rather thanthrough laws and regulations, which do not fit spe-cific circumstances. But IP law needs to supportsuch contractual provisions. IP protection of CCSplants and processes can benefit from well-estab-lished protocols in the chemical, engineering andpetroleum industries. By contrast, serviceproviders will need to develop specific means of IPprotection, probably through trade secrets ratherthan patents. In both cases, law must enable theprotection of IP.

The role of governments consists primarily in se-curing a robust national regime of IP protection asa precondition for private investments. This is par-ticularly true for developing and transitioneconomies, where, at present, the absence of strin-gent regulatory frameworks in terms of enforce-ment and sanctions inhibits the deployment of CCS(see Table 2). Continued efforts at international har-monization of patent and other IP protectionregimes (WTO, WIPO) would be beneficial for CCSdeployment, but progress may be faster in terms ofsoft law than of hard law, and at the regional level(Convention on the Grant of European Patents).Public involvement in CCS funding or projects mayreduce risks for investors but also render owner-ship and enforcement more complicated. Pre-dictability of licensing conditions or standardswould be an asset. However, on the whole, “theissue of IP is not expected to compromise or inhibitthe deployment of the CCS industry” (IEA/CSLF).

24 Table 2: Protection of intellectual property rights(Index: 0 = weakest, 10 = strongest performance)

World 5.3North America 6.4Latin America 4.0Africa 4.2Middle East/Northern Africa 5.0Western Europe 7.4CEE and Russia 4.2Australia, New Zealand, Japan 9.7India, China, Philippines 6.0Pakistan, Kenya, Ethiopia 3.7Source: IPRI International Property Rights Index 2007 (http://internationalpropertyrightsindex.org)



Securing a level playing field for CCS: As a late-comer among climate change mitigation options,CCS does not benefit from incentives offered toother low-carbon technologies, such as emissiontrading (EU), the clean development and joint im-plementation mechanisms (Kyoto Protocol) or fund-ing from the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

The resulting competitive bias to the detriment ofCCS projects has been recognized, and effortshave been initiated in the above conventions, withinGEF and the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), on whether and how to apply thementioned instruments to CCS. The difficulty is thatCCS projects, unlike other mitigation options, do notremove all the CO2. Accounting schemes have tobe developed to measure the net emission reduc-tion from a CCS project compared to emissions thatwould occur in the absence of such a project (thebaseline). Emissions resulting from the higher en-ergy use during carbon capture will have to betaken into account. International guidelines shouldensure equivalence of treatment between CCS andother mitigation options, in order to reduce investoruncertainty toward CCS projects.

Alternatively, governments could level the playingfield CCS deployment by other means, such as taxincentives, grants, RD&D funding, sovereign guar-antees or by assuming long-term liability for leak-age after decommissioning. Financing of CCSdeployment is in any case a difficult and as yet un-resolved issue, even anticipating future cost reduc-

tions of CCS technology. Financing is particularlydifficult if emission trading credits are below thehigher cost of advanced technologies and if long-term mitigation policies and incentives remain un-certain.

FURTHER READING: IEA/CSLF Second Workshop on LegalAspects of Carbon Capture and Storage, Paris, 17 October2006; Harry Audus, An Update on CCS: Recent Developments;Lecture Given at the IEA/CSLF Second Workshop, op. cit.;Barry Worthington, Funding for Clean Coal Technologies(www.usea.org)

CONCLUSIONThe CFFS Workshops in Erice, Colombo, Neptun,Tallinn, Moscow and Jordan allow an interim appre-ciation of the prospects of CCS.

Current status: At present, more than 33 milliontons of CO2 are captured every year worldwide.They are stored in at least 70 projects, with Sleipneralone accounting for more than 6 million tons. Thereare 3000 km of land-based dedicated CO2pipelines. In contrast to enhanced oil and gas recov-ery, CCS is not yet a commercial reality in electricitygeneration because of its costs and ongoing strivefor technological maturity. There will be a number ofdemonstration projects by 2015 or earlier, with asyet limited impact on global CO2 emissions.

Potential: By about 2020, CCS can develop into asignificant and competitive option to simultaneouslyslow the growth of CO2 emissions and promote

25



economic development, energy security and airquality in many countries for decades to come.Commercial deployment depends on the commer-cial value of carbon exceeding the cost of CCSsystems, and eventually on incentives, if that condi-tion is not met initially.

On the assumption that CCS would reach its fullpotential in the next 30 to 40 years, CCS could re-duce energy-related global CO2 emissions by up tohalf by 2050 compared to a business-as-usualcase. If coal-based power plants are utilized to-gether with improved combustion and higher plantefficiencies, CCS would have an even greater miti-gation effect. During 2000-2100, CCS could eco-nomically reduce estimated global CO2 emissionsby 220 – 2200 GtCO2, which corresponds to 15% -55% of a worldwide least-cost mitigation effort.Hence, CCS, together with other mitigation options,could serve as a bridge to a future sustainable en-ergy economy and to better air quality.

Caveats: A significant role for CCS depends uponits cost being reduced by half to about US$25 to30/tCO2. But even in this case, CCS – while a low-cost option - is not a universal remedy. It is initiallylimited to new, highly efficient, high-capacity powerand industrial plants in developed countries. CCSprojects are site-specific, driven by local conditionsand opportunities, and are hence unlikely to be pre-cisely replicable. CCS should be seen as an impor-tant part of a portfolio of measures, including

enhanced efficiency of energy production and use,renewables and new nuclear technologies.

CCS deployment would slow the growth of and ulti-mately reduce CO2 emissions. However, the stabi-lization of emissions and concentrations atacceptable levels will require advances in combus-tion efficiency, faster CCS technology development,earlier international deployment, aggressive plantrenewal, improved CCS conversion efficiency,faster market penetration and co-combustion ofbiomass and coal. These measures depend onpolicies whose stringency would still need to be de-termined. In transportation, the (likely) mismatchbetween the location of the emitter and the sinkmay be a limiting factor for small volumes and verylong distances.

The prospects of CCS are also determined by theneed to safely store billions of tons of CO2 for cen-turies. Failure to prevent, control or remedy leak-age (and reassure the general public on this issue)would severely reduce the prospects of CCS. Note,though, that IPCC considers that appropriately se-lected and managed reservoirs are “very likely” (aprobability of 90 to 99%) to retain 99% of the storedCO2 for over one hundred years and are “likely”(probability of 66 to 90%) to retain 99% for overone thousand years.

Action: Successful deployment of CCS dependson the following:

26



� The recognition of CCS as a climate mitiga-tion option in national policies and interna-tional conventions and agreements;

� The formulation of affirmative, predictable,nondiscriminatory and cost-effective CCS andenergy policies;

� The integration of the CCS option into thesepolicies, as part of a portfolio of mitigationmeasures;

� The adoption of investor-conscious nationalframeworks and laws and regulations onCCS licensing, decommissioning, safety andliabilities;

� Interaction between government, industry andresearch institutes on the tenor and sequenc-ing of CCS development;

� The eligibility of CCS projects in clean devel-opment mechanisms, joint implementation,emission trading systems, IBRD and GlobalEnvironment Facility funding;

� Financial mechanisms to set a value for car-bon at the global level and incentives, if initialcarbon prices are too low;

� The adaptation of international treaties andconventions on the marine environment andcross-border transportation;

� The acceleration of national and internationalcooperation in CCS RD&D, in particular oncost reduction, the permanence of storageand “capture-ready” capacity expansion;

� The building of several cost-effective large-scale demonstration plants;

� The involvement of all stakeholders;� Given their growing role as emitters: the inte-

gration of developing countries in CCS net-works (capacity building), emission tradingand project funding; and

� An early proactive and participatory outreacheffort. The message: “Carbon Capture andStorage is an Essential Bridge to a Sus-tainable and Secure Energy Future”

27

The message: “Carbon Capture and Storage is an EssentialBridge to a Sustainable and Secure Energy Future”



A. Papers Presented at CFFSSeminars1. WEC CFFS Committee Discussion Sessionduring the 19th World Energy Congress on:Cleaner Fossil Fuels – The Cornerstone forHuman Development and Energy Security,Sydney (Australia), 8 September 2004Website:http://www.worldenergy.org/news__events/world_energy_congress/sydney_2004/default.asp� Introduction

Barbara N. McKee, Director, Office of CleanEnergy Collaboration, U.S. Department of En-ergy; Chairman, WEC Cleaner Fossil FuelsSystems (CFFS) CommitteeEmail: [email protected]

� Energy Security and Cleaner Fossil FuelsSystemsAhmad Waqar, Secretary, Ministry of Petro-leum and Natural Resources, PakistanEmail: [email protected]

� Investment in Cleaner Fossil Fuels SystemsFernando Zancan, Executive Manager,SIECESC, BrazilEmail: [email protected]

� Energy Technology TransitionsRobert Gentile, President, Leonardo Tech-nologies, Inc., United StatesEmail: [email protected]

� Human Development and Cleaner FossilFuels SystemsJoanne DiSano, Director, CSD Secretariatand Division for Sustainable Development,Department of Economic and Social Affairs,United Nations, New York

2. World Federation of Scientists and WECCleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS) CommitteeJoint Workshop on: Carbon Capture and Storage– A Way Forward for Cleaner Fossil Fuels, Erice(Sicily), 24 August 2005Website:http://www.usea.org/CFFS/CFFSErice.htm;http://energypmp.org;http://www.worldenergy.org/focus/ccs/default.asp;also available on CD-ROM� Opening Remarks and Welcome

Richard Wilson, Department of Physics, Har-vard University, Chairman of the World Feder-ation of Scientists PMP, United StatesEmail: [email protected]

� Introduction and OverviewBarbara N. McKee, Director, Office of CleanEnergy Collaboration, U.S. Department of En-ergy; Chairman, WEC Cleaner Fossil FuelsSystems (CFFS) CommitteeEmail: [email protected]

28

Annexes



� The NeedHisham Al-Khatib, Honorary Vice ChairmanWEC, JordanEmail: [email protected]

� The TechnologiesJames Ekmann, Associate Director, NationalEnergy Technology Laboratory (NETL), USDepartment of Energy, United StatesEmail: [email protected]

� The EconomicsJacek Podkanski, Senior Energy TechnologySpecialist, Energy Technology CollaborationDivision, International Energy Agency (IEA),FranceEmail: [email protected]

� Environmental IssuesDavid Hawkins, Director, Climate Center, Nat-ural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),United StatesEmail: [email protected]

� Funding Needs and OpportunityElena Nekhaev, Director of Programmes,World Energy Council (WEC), United King-dom,Email: [email protected]

� Industry PerspectivesArthur Lee, Principal Advisor, Global Policyand Strategy, Corporate Health EnvironmentSafety, Chevron Corporation, United StatesEmail: [email protected]

� DeploymentFernando Zancan, Executive Manager,SIECESC, BrazilEmail: [email protected]

� Regulatory and Legal IssuesSteve Tantala, Manager, Resources Environ-ment and Carbon Capture and Storage Policy,Department of Industry, Tourism and Re-sources, AustraliaEmail: [email protected]

� New and Innovative Approaches for CO2Capture and StorageKlaus Lackner, Professor of Geophysics andEnvironmental Engineering, Columbia Univer-sity, United StatesEmail: [email protected] Hurter, Shell International Explo-ration and Production B.V., the NetherlandsOlav Kårstad, Carbon Dioxide Management,Statoil, NorwayEmail: [email protected] Sevier, Managing Director, AqueousLogic, United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]

� Discussion and DialogueRobert Gentile, Managing Partners, AtlanticPartners, United StatesEmail: [email protected]

3. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)Committee Dialogue on: Cleaner Fossil FuelsSystems with Carbon Capture and Storage:Whatʼs in It for the Developing World?Colombo (Sri Lanka), 6 September 2005� Introduction and Session Overview

Barbara N. McKee, Director, Office of CleanEnergy Collaboration, U.S. Department of En-ergy; Chairman, WEC Cleaner Fossil FuelsSystems (CFFS) CommitteeEmail: [email protected]

� The Need and TechnologiesHisham Al-Khatib, Honorary Vice Chairman,WEC, JordanEmail: [email protected]

� The EconomicsMichel Lokolo, Deputy Director of PetroleumProducts, Ministry of Mines, Water and En-ergy, CameroonEmail: [email protected]

29



� Energy Situation and the Role of Fossil Fuelsin South AsiaHilal Raza, Director General and Chief Execu-tive Hydrocarbon Development Institute ofPakistan, Islamabad, PakistanEmail: [email protected]

4. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)Committee and Craiova Power Energy ComplexJoint Workshop on: Cleaner Fossil Fuels for Sus-tainable DevelopmentNeptun (Romania), 13 June 2006Website : http://www.usea.org/CFFS/CFFSNep-tun.htm� Opening Remarks, Welcome and Overview

Constantin Balasoiu, General Manager,Craiova Power Energy Complex, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]

� Session 1: Current Cleaner Fossil FuelsSystemsPollution Controls SystemsDumitru Manea, Customer Manager, AlstomGlobal Power Sales, RomaniaE-mail: [email protected] EfficienciesIonel Ilie, Craiova Power Energy Complex,RomaniaE-mail: [email protected] of Coal and BiomassHenrik Noppenau, Vice President, ProductSystems Development, Energi E2, DenmarkE-mail: [email protected]ʼs Strategy on Clean Coal Power in theEuropean NetworkHenning Joswig, RWE Power, Germany,

� Session 2: Future Cleaner Fossil Fuels Sys-temsModeratorBarbara N. McKee, Director, Office of CleanEnergy Collaboration, U.S. Department of En-ergy; Chairman, WEC CFFS Committee

Email: [email protected] Multi-Generation Systems (Power, Hy-drogen, CCS and Systems Integration)Robert Gentile, Managing Partners, AtlanticPartners, United StatesEmail: [email protected] and Dissemination (Financing,Partnerships, Corporate Social Responsibility)Zara Khatib, Technology Manager, Shell EPInternational Limited, United Arab EmiratesEmail: [email protected] Drivers for Carbon Capture and Stor-age (Commercial and Environmental Aspects,Emission Trading, and Standards)Michael Moore, Director of Marketing, EasternRegion Falcon Gas Storage Company,Inc., United StatesE-mail: [email protected]&D PrerequisitesGurgen Olkhovsky, General Director, All-Russ-ian Thermal Engineering Institute, RussiaEmail: [email protected] Policy on Global Fossil Fuelʼs FuturePeter Mak, Chief, Energy and TransportBranch, Department of Economic &Social Affairs, United Nations, New YorkEmail: [email protected]

5. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)Committee Focused Lectures on: Global and Re-gional Efforts Toward Carbon Capture and Stor-ageTallinn (Estonia), 4 September 2006Website:http://www.usea.org/CFFS/CFFSTallinn.htm� Opening Remarks

Barbara N. McKee, Director, Office of CleanEnergy Collaboration, U.S. Department of En-ergy; Chairman, WEC CFFS CommitteeEmail: [email protected]

30



� Carbon Capture and Storage: a WEC InterimBalance – What Message for the BalticStates?Klaus Brendow, Senior Advisor, WEC,SwitzerlandEmail: [email protected]

� Practical Aspects of Oil Shale Energy in Esto-niaMati Uus, Development Director, Narva PowerPlants Ltd.

� What Are the Options for Europe and theBaltic States to Mitigate CO2 Emissions?Anita Kvesko, Senior Environmental Special-ist, Latvenergo

6. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)Committee and the All-Russian Thermal Engineer-ing Institute (VTI) Workshop on: Cleaner FossilFuels for Power GenerationMoscow (Russia) 8 September 2006Website: http://www.usea.org/CFFS/CFFS-Moscow.htm� Opening Remarks

Sergey Mazurenko, Federal Agency for Sci-ence and Innovations, Russia; V. P. Voronin,Open Joint Stock Company RAO “UES ofRussia,” RussiaE-mail:Barbara McKee, Chairman, WEC CleanerFossil Fuels Systems (CFFS) Committee,Email: [email protected] Olkhovsky, Director General, All-Russian Thermal Engineering Institute,RussiaEmail: [email protected]

� Fossil Fuels for Power GenerationElena Nekhaev, Director of Programmes,World Energy Council, United KingdomEmail: [email protected]

� The Use of Fossil Fuels in the Power Industryof RussiaAnatoly Tumanovsky, All-Russian Thermal En-gineering Institute, RussiaEmail: [email protected]

� Natural Gas Combined Cycle PlantsAlexander Silin, GE, United States

� Environmental Protection Systems for FossilPower PlantsJohn Topper, International Energy AgencyClean Coal Centre (IEA CCC)Email: [email protected]

� Results of Implementation of IGCC Demon-stration Plants in the USA and Further Devel-opment of This TechnologyRobert Gentile, Leonardo Technologies Inc,United StatesEmail: [email protected]

� Application Experience with the Operation ofthe IGCC Plants in Portalamo and theProspects of this TechnologyPedro Casero, ELCOGAS, Spain

� Application Experience with the Operation ofPressurized Fluidized-bed Combined CyclePlants and the Prospects of the Use of thisTechnology for Power GenerationAkio Nakanishi, Japan

� Power Unit Generated CO2 Capture and Se-questration – Ideas and AchievementsJohn Topper, International Energy Agency,Clean Coal Center (IEA CCC)Email: [email protected]

31



7. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)Committee Dialogue on: Mitigating the growingcontributions of West Asia in global emissionsDead Sea (Jordan), 25 April 2007Website: http://www.usea.org/CFFS/CFFSAm-man.htm� Opening Remarks, Welcome and Overview

Hisham Al-Khatib, Honorary Vice Chairman,WEC, JordanEmail: [email protected]

� Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) – GlobalOverviewBarbara McKee, Chairman, WEC CleanerFossil Fuels Systems (CFFS) Committee,Email: [email protected]

� Energy Situation in JordanGhaleb Ma-abrah, Commissioner, ElectricityRegulatory Commission, JordanE-mail: [email protected]

� The Clean Development MechanismMustafa Attili, Quality Environment & SafetyDepartment Manager, Development & Plan-ning Division, Central Electricity GeneratingCo., JordanEmail: [email protected]

� Power Sector PerspectiveRasheed Sulaiman, Sales Application Engi-neering, GE Energy, Middle East & AfricaE-mail: [email protected]

� Oil and Gas Sector PerspectiveZara Khatib, Technology Manager, Shell EPInternational Limited, United Arab EmiratesEmail: [email protected]

� Gas Flaring ReductionFrançois Mouton, Advisor, Global Gas FlaringReduction, The World BankEmail: [email protected]

� Effect of Firing Heavy Fuel Oil for ElectricityGeneration on the EnvironmentFouad M. Alsaeedi, Generation Engineer,General Technical Department, Saudi ArabiaEmail: [email protected]

� Technology for Sustainable DevelopmentMilton Catelin, Chief Executive, World Coal In-stitute, United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]

� Regulatory Perspective on Mitigating GlobalEmissionsSergio Garribba, Former Director General,Ministry of Productive Activities, ItalyE-mail: [email protected]

� Carbon Capture and Storage: Opportunitiesand ChallengesKlaus Brendow, Senior Advisor, World EnergyCouncil, SwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

8. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)Committee Session during the 20th World EnergyCongress on: Fossil Fuels Leading the Clean En-ergy Revolution?Rome (Italy) 12. November 2007� Opening Statement & Why Fossil Fuels Must

Lead the Clean Energy RevolutionBarbara McKee, Chairman, WEC CleanerFossil Fuels Systems (CFFS) Committee,Email: [email protected]

� Opportunities and Challenges for New Tech-nologies and Deployment Including CCSVictor Der, Deputy Assistant Secretary forClean Coal, US Department of EnergyE-mail: [email protected]

� Fossil Energy and Environment in an Interde-pendent WorldPeter Garrucho, Managing Director, FirstPhilippines Holding Corporation; Chairman,WEC Philippines Member CommitteeE-mail: [email protected]

32



� Market Drivers for Clean Fossil Fuels Sys-temsMichael Moore, Director of Marketing, EasternRegion Falcon Storage Company, Inc., UnitedStatesE-mail: [email protected]

� The Global Stake in Technology TransferPreston Chiaro, Chief Executive Energy, RioTinto PLC; Chairman, World Coal Institute(WCI), United KingdomEmail: [email protected]

� Open DiscussionModerator:Hisham Al-Khatib, Chairman, Electricity Regu-latory Commission, JordanEmail: [email protected]

B. List of International CCSInitiativesa) Formulation of policies� The G8 (Group of 8), at Gleneagles (Scot-

land) in 2005 (www.g8.gov.uk), agreed in itsPlan of Action inter alia to accelerate the de-velopment and commercialization of CCS. Itmandated the IEA and CSLF to hold a work-shop on short-term opportunities. It will con-sider a report on Climate Change, CleanEnergy and Sustainable Development at itssession in Japan in 2008.

� The International Energy Agency (IEA)(www.iea.org) expanded its long-standing in-volvement in clean fossil fuel technologies intoCCS.

� The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum(CSLF) (www.cslforum.org) endeavors tomake CCS technologies broadly available. Itfosters collaborative RD&D and, in responseto the above-mentioned G8 request, exam-ines near-term CCS opportunities, togetherwith IEA, at workshops (San Francisco 2006,Oslo 2007, Canada 2007).

� The UN Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) (http://unfccc.org) and theKyoto Protocol (http:unfccc.int/kyoto) aim atthe mitigation of climate change They con-sider present eligibility of CCS projects forclean development mechanism and joint im-plementation.

� The European Union emission tradingscheme (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cli-mat/emission.htm) does not, at present, sup-port CCS; however, the 6th

(http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/index.html)and 7th Framework Programmes for Researchand Technological Development

(http://ec.europa.eu/resear ch/fp7/index.html)call for CCS-related projects.

b) Data collection and analysis� IEA publications (www.iea.org):

– Prospects for CO2 capture and storage,2004;

– Legal aspects of storing CO2, 2005;– Legal aspects of carbon capture and

storage, 2006;� IEA bodies:

– Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme(www.ieagreen.org);

– IEA Clean Coal Centre (www.iea-coal.org);

– IEA Working Party on Fossil Fuels (zeroemissions, legal aspects);

– IEA Coal Industry Advisory Board(www.iea.org/ciab);

� European Commission: European ClimateChange Program Working Group on CarbonCapture and Geological Storage (http://eu-ropa.eu.int/comm./environment/climat/stake_wg.htm);

� WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-mate Change Working Group I on The physi-cal science basis, Working Group II onClimate change impacts, adaptation and vul-nerability, and Working Group III on Mitigation

33



of climate change (www.ipcc.ch); Special re-port on carbon dioxide capture and storage(2005)

� World Energy Council (www.worldenergy.org):– Committee on Cleaner Fossil Fuels Sys-

tems (CFFS): pamphlet on Carbon Cap-ture and Storage – a WEC interimBalance, London 2006 and 2007;

– Committee on the Performance of Gen-erating Plants: Study on energy and cli-mate change;

– Pilot programme on greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions reduction (concluded);

– CCS pilot projects in Brazil, China, SouthAfrica (initiated).

c) Collaborative development of technologies� The IEA Implementing Agreements also ad-

dress CCS; the IEA Coal Research - CleanCoal Centre (www.iea-coal.org) undertakes anextensive programme on clean coal technolo-gies, surveys progress in CCS;

� The CSLF supports 17 CCS collaborativeprojects (www.cslforum.org/projects.htm);

� The EU 6th

(http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/index.html)and 7th Framework Programmes for Researchand Technological Development (http://ec.eu-ropa.eu/resear ch/fp7/index.html) call forCCS-related projects.

d) International legal and regulatory frameworks� The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS) (www.unclos.com), 1982, does notspecifically regulate or prohibit CCS activities,but calls on States to protect the marine envi-ronment from human activity such as dumping.

� The London Convention on the Prevention ofMarine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes andOther Matter, 1972(www.londonconvention.org) prohibits thedumping of “waste” into the sea;

� The London Protocol to the above Conven-tion, 1996, allows as of 10 February 2007 thedumping of CO2 streams from CO2 captureprocesses and incidental associated sub-stances in sub-seabed geological formations;

� The Basel Convention on the Control ofTransboundary Movements of HazardousWaste, 1989 (www.basel.int), does not con-sider CO2 as a hazardous waste, but may doso if containing toxic substances.

� Regional treaties and conventions for the pro-tection of the marine environment may haveimplications for CCS: in the North-East At-lantic (OSPAR), 1992; Baltic Sea, 1992; BlackSea, 1994; wider Caribbean region, 1983;Mediterranean, 1976; Gulf, 1978; west andcentral African region, 1981; South Pacific,1981, 1986; as well as the Bamako Conven-tion on the Ban of the Import to Africa and theControl of Transboundary Movement andManagement of Hazardous Waste withinAfrica, 1991.

e) Selected RD&D projectsSome 110 RD&D projects on CCS have been un-dertaken worldwide and described in the databaseof the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme(http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/search.php4). Major CCS projects addressing new combustionand storage technologies (excluding EOR) include:

i. Storage� Sleipner (Norwegian North Sea)

(www.statoil.com/) – first industrial-scale stor-age of CO2 from gas processing since 1996,ongoing

� CO2 Store (www.co2store.org) – a follow-upto the Sleipner project on storing and monitor-ing CO2 in aquifers

� In Salah (Algeria) (www.bp.com) – an indus-trial scale demonstration of CO2 geologicalstorage commenced in 2004

� Gassi Touil (Algeria) – an integrated gas proj-ect between Repsol (Spain) and Sonatrach

34



(Algeria), including CCS, contracted 2004, op-erational in 2010

� Weyburn II (Canada) (www.ptrc.ca/) – CO2storage in conjunction with commercial scaleenhanced oil recovery since 2001

� Gorgon (Australia) (www.co2crc.com.au) – in-jecting CO2 from natural gas processing in anoffshore saline formation as of 2011, with anintended capacity of 120 million tons

� CO2 Sink (www.cosink2.org) – testing captureand storage of 60 kt in a saline aquifer, in Ket-zin near Berlin

� CASTOR (www.co2castor.com) – pilot plantcapturing and storing CO2 from the Elsamcoal power station in Denmark

� Halten (mid-Norway) – capturing 2.5 milliontons CO2 from natural gas exploration andpower generation for EOR and permanentstorage in the Draugen and Heidrun deposits

� Stanwell (Australia) – a 1800 t/day coal-basedIGCC demonstration plant (2007-2010) withcarbon sequestration (4100 t/day) and storage(net efficiency without/with carbon capture:40%, 34.3%)

� GeoNet (www.co2geonet.com) – a Europeanproject on geological storage of CO2

ii. Power generation with CCS� FutureGen (www.futuregenalliance.org) - a

U.S.-led international full-scale CCS demon-stration coal-fired plant based on IGCC andpre-combustion capture

� The Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power PlantTechnology Platform – a European Union ini-tiative build on the EC Hypogen-Dynamis andother projects; the Platforms emphasizes theneed for about 10 CCS projects covering theentire chain (http://ec.europa.eu/research/en-ergy/pdf/zero_emission_ffpp_en.pdf)

� Vattenfall Oxyfuel pilot plant Schwarze Pumpe(www.vattenfall.de) (Germany)

� GREENGEN – a Chinese Government projectfor a 400 MW zero-emission power plant by2020

� TOTAL Oxyfuel boiler pilot scale at Lacq(France)

� COORETEC – COORIVA (www.cooretec.de) -innovative IGCC combustion technologieswith CO2 reduction and storage (Germany)

� CANMET (www.nrcan.gc.ca) - a TechnologyCentre pilot project on CCS (Canada)

� ENCAP (www.encapco2.org) - an integratedproject on new precombustion technologiessponsored by 33 legal entities, including theEU

� COMTES 700 (www.comtes700.org) – testingcomponents to enable CO2 reduction for anew 400 MW 700° C power plant (Germany)

� CO2 Capture Project (www.co2capturepro-ject.org) - an initiative of major energy compa-nies to reduce emissions via post-combustionscrubbing, pre-combustion decarbonization,Oxy-combustion and geological sequestration

� ZeroGen (www.zerogen.com.au) – an IGCCpower plant with CCS in saline aquifer (Aus-tralia)

� Progressive Energy(www.dti.gov.uk/files/file30865pdf) – an IGCCpower plant with CO2 capture for enhancedoil recovery (United Kingdom)

� Sask Power (www.saskpower.com) – low sul-phur lignite power plant with Oxyfuel technol-ogy for enhanced oil recovery (Canada)

� Powerfuel – a IGCC coal-based power plantwith CCS (United Kingdom)

� E.ON (www.eon-uk.com/883.aspx) – an IGCCproject with a gas-fired power plant, with CCSat a later stage (United Kingdom)

� RWE (www.rwe.com/generator.aspx) – IGCCtechnology to separate hydrogen for syntheticfuel production (Germany) (see ENCAPabove)

35



� RWE nPower (www.npower.co. uk) – super-critical technology with post-combustion CCS(United Kingdom)

iii. Enhanced coal bed methane recovery� RECOPOL (http//recopol.nitg.tno.nl) – a EU

co-financed R&D project on storing CO2 in anunderground coal bed (adsorption), wherebysimultaneously methane is released for sale(Silesia, Poland)

� COAL SEQ II CONSORTIUM (www.coal-seq.com) - a US-led collaborative researchproject into the storage of CO2 in unminablecoal seams, and related methane displace-ment and capture

� The Alberta Research Council (Canada)(ARC) Enhanced Coalbed Methane RecoveryProject via the injection of CO2(www.arc.ab.ca), with a collaborative outreachto the China Coalbed Methane Technology /CO2 Sequestration Project, Shanxi (China)(www.arc.ab.ca/Index.aspx/ARC/4517)

� a research project on underground coal gasifi-cation with local CCS storage (with or withoutenhanced coalbed methane recovery)presently promoted (www.ucgp.com).

C. AbbreviationsC carbonCCS carbon capture and storageCCGT combined cycle gas turbineCDM clean development mechanism (Kyoto

Protocol)CFFS WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems

CommitteeCO2 carbon dioxideCSLF Carbon Sequestration Leadership ForumEOR enhanced oil recoveryEGR enhanced gas recoveryGEF Global Environmental FacilityGHG greenhouse gasGt gigaton (1 ton x 109)GW gigawatt (1 Watt x 109)IEA International Energy AgencyIGCC integrated gasification combined cycleIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

ChangeJI joint implementation (Kyoto Protocol)LNG liquefied natural gasMW megawatt (1 Watt x 106)PCC pulverized coal combustionppm parts per million (ratio of the number of

CO2 molecules in the total number ofmolecules of dry air)

RD&D research, development and demonstra-tion

SCSC super-critical steam cycleWEC World Energy CouncilWIPO World Intellectual Property OrganizationWTO World Trade OrganizationZET zero emission technology

D. Contact editorDr. Klaus BrendowSenior Adviser, World Energy CouncilE-mail: [email protected]

E. Contact WECElena NekhaevDirector of ProgrammesE-mail: [email protected]

36


2007 CCS booklet_covers2.qxp:Layout 1 10/28/07 9:53 PM Page 3

World Energy CouncilRegency House 1-4 Warwick StreetLondon W1B 5LT United KingdomT (+44) 20 7734 5996F (+44) 20 7734 5926E [email protected]

Promoting the sustainable supply and useof energy for the greatest benefit of all

2007 CCS booklet_covers2.qxp:Layout 1 10/28/07 9:53 PM Page 4

ccs brochure final

Documents