Transcript Carbon_Capture_And_S..

Carbon Capture and
Storage
Potentials and Barriers to
Deployment
PRESENTATION STRUCTURE
(1) Overview
- What is Carbon Capture and Storage?
- Do we need it?
(2) Potentials, risks and barriers: Global
(3) Case study: Malaysia
(4) Conclusions
Key questions

What is the current status of CCS technology?

What is the global potential of CCS as a
climate change mitigation tool?

What are the barriers to CCS?

How do potentials for and barriers to CCS
differ in different countries?
Overview
What is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)?
Schematic diagram of possible CCS systems
Transport
Capture
Storage
SRCCS Figure TS-1
Source: IPCC 2005
Overview
Why do we need CCS?

Climate change is real

Fossil fuels likely to be main source of fuel in
the near future

Large GHG mitigation potential

All options are needed

BUT need to be one in a portfolio of options
Overview
CCS has large mitigation potential
650 ppm
490-540 ppm
Source: IPCC (2007)
CCS: CO2 Capture
Options for capture

Power plants


Post-combustion, Pre-combustion, Oxyfuel
Industrial

ammonia, gas refineries
Source: Total
CCS: CO2 Transport
CO2 Pipeline Transport Experience



Mainly for EOR- pure CO2
Long distances, large volumes- cheap and fast
Low population density areas
CO2 Transport from Capture

Different impurities and gas composition- capture
process dependent



Different pipeline designs necessary
Has to be dry to avoid corrosion
Undersea pipelines for CO2
CCS: CO2 Storage
Main
geological
storage
formations
Methods
for storing
CO2 in deep
underground
geological formations
Source: IPCC (2005)
SRCCS Figure TS-7
CCS: CO2 Storage
Trapping mechanisms

Physical trapping under
impermeable layer

Solubility trapping

Mineral trapping

CO2 trapped as
supercritical fluid in
tiny pore spaces
Long term (thousands of
years)
Source: CO2CRC
CCS: CO2 Storage
Estimated global capacity
Source: IPCC (2005)
Global capacity estimate: 200 GtCO2 to 2000 GtCO2
CCS Technology: Current projects
CCS projects
Source: IPCC (2005)
Risks and barriers:Global
CCS cost factors

Mainly from capture processes


Fuel prices
Commodity prices (e.g. steel)

New built or retrofit?

Distance and mass flow rate

Scale
Scale
Risks and barriers:Global
Source: McKinsey (2009)
Risks and barriers:Global
CCS involves risks and obstacles
Liability
Monitoring
Verification
Legislations
OBSTACLES CCS Technology
maturity/cost
Environment
and ecosystems
Public
acceptance
RISKS
Climate
risks
Human health
and safety
Risks and barriers:Global
International legislations and regulations

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS)

London Convention 1972 & London Protocol 1996
-Amended

OSPAR -Amended

United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol



Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
Annex I countries implement projects in non-Annex I
countries
No methodology yet
- Watch this space
Case Study: Malaysia
Case study: Malaysia
Development and economic context

25 million people
180



Total Primary Energy Consumption (Mtoe)
160
Economic development a priority
140
120
Party to Kyoto Protocol but no binding
targets
100
80
High GDP growth rate and CO2 emission
 26th
60
40
of the global highest emitters list
(UNDP HDR 2007)
20
0
1998
 221%
2004
2010
2020
2030
Year
increase in CO2 emission between
Source: Gan and Li
1990 and 2005
(2008)
Gan and Li (2008)
Malaysia Energy Centre
Case study: Malaysia
Energy diversification, increase coal use


Energy policy:

Fuel diversification

Huge potential in renewable energy but actual
share has decreased

Target of coal already reached
Interest in CDM

37 projects ≈ 2,830,000 CERs ≈ 2.83 MtCO2e/year
Potential >17,800,000 CERs/year
≈ 1.14- 3.8 billion RMY (230-760 million € )

Case study: Malaysia
Low-cost CCS is possible in developing
countries
1) Cheap CO2 (pre-separated)
Identify sources IEA 2006 database
2) Pipeline transport <50 km
Estimate distances
3) And/or generating revenue from EOR
EOR opportunities?
Case study: Malaysia
Peninsular Malaysia
Large stationary CO2 sources
3 power plants
2 ethylene
1 ammonia
East Malaysia
20 power plants
(4 large coal)
7 cement
3 refineries
1 ammonia,
ethylene, iron
and steel
3 power plants
Case study: Malaysia
Offshore oil and gas fields
Source: Steinshouer et al. (1999)
Case study: Malaysia
CO2 source and sinks
Case study: Malaysia
Incompatible source-sinks
120-150 km
345 km
30-90 km
Case study: Malaysia
Potentials

Oil and gas producing fields= possible
storage
-Storage potential (Malay Basin ≈4321 Mt CO2 ;
Greater Sarawak Basin ≈ 6679 Mt CO2)

Some coal beds= possible ECBM

Increasing CO2 emission

Enhanced oil/gas recovery

Storage in Indonesia’s Central Sumatran
Basin
Case study: Malaysia
Risks and Barriers









Offshore setting
COST
Source-sink mismatch
Marine geologic storage
No depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs
Unknown storage potential
Legislative barriers
No GHG reduction requirement
Different national priorities
Lack of public awareness
Conclusion
The take home message:

Possibly large storage potential, technically feasible

Technical improvements needed

BUT there will always be costs associated with CCS


Appropriate price for CO2 avoided
Legislative requirement

Lack of regulatory certainty

Taking enabling steps

Local legislations, geological site characterisation, longterm planning
Conclusion
The take home message:
CCS needs to happen in BOTH developed
and developing countries
We need an economic incentive for CCS in
developing countries
MORE RESEARCH