International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

METI's Energy Technology Vision 2100

and CCS Technologies

International Workshop on
CO2 Geological Storage
February 20, 2006
Toranomon Pastoral Hotel Tokyo

Makoto Akai
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
M. Akai; AIST

1

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Contents• Energy Technology Vision 2100 (METI)
http://www.meti.go.jp/committee/materials/g51013aj.html (J)
http://www.iae.or.jp/2100.html (E)• Scenario Study on ETV 2100
• Concluding Remarks

M. Akai; AIST

2

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Energy Technology Vision 2100

M. Akai; AIST

3

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Development of“Energy Technology Vision 2100”
Purpose• To establish METI strategic energy R&D plan
– To consider optimum R&D resource allocation.
– To prioritize energy R&D programs and specificproject of METI.

• To prepare strategy for post-Kyoto andfurther deep reduction of GHG• To develop technology roadmap to bereflected in METI's energy, environmental
and industrial policy

M. Akai; AIST

4

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Why to consider Ultra Long-term?
• Timeframe for future risk or constraint– Resource (10s ~ 100yrs?)– Environment (100 ~ 1000 yrs)

• Long lead time for energy sector ingeneral– Research and development tocommercialization– Market diffusion– Infrastructure development– Stock turnover time (10s yrs)
M. Akai; AIST

5

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Scope of Work• Timeframe– Vision: - 2100
– Technology roadmap: -2100• Benchmarking years: 2030 and 2050

• Approach– To introduce backcasting methodology– To compile experts' view– To confirm long-term goal using both topdown and bottom-up scenario analysis

M. Akai; AIST

6

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Work Structure

Development of Draft “Technology Vision”
ANRE,
METI
IAE

Secretariat

Steering Committee

Steering Body
•Goal setting•Stocktaking•Project management

SWG

Transformation

WG - General

SWG

Industry

SWG

Workshops•Goal definition•Demand specific

Residential &Commercial

SWG

Transport

M. Akai; AIST

7

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Methodology - Backcasting
Exploratory (opportunity-oriented):• what futures are likely to happen? ⇒ Forecasting– starts from today’s assured basis of knowledge
and is oriented towards the future

Normative (goal-oriented):• how desirable futures might beattained? ⇒ Backcasting– first assesses future goals, needs, desires,
missions, etc. and works backward to thepresent
Clement K. Wang &Paul D. Guild
M. Akai; AIST

8

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Framework of Backcasting
Constraint (Resource,
Environment, etc.)

Existing
Roadmaps, etc.

2000

2030

2050

BackcastingSpecification
Specification
Based
Based
Technology
Technology
Roadmaps
Roadmaps• Quantitative
Target• Enabling
Technologies

2100
Backcasting• Desirable
Future• Quantitative
Target• Enabling
Technologies

M. Akai; AIST

9

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Basic Recognitionon the Energy Sector• Constraints on energy connect directly tothe level of human utility (quantity of
economic activity, quality of life).
• Consideration of future energy structure
should take into account both resource andenvironmental constraints.
• The key to achieve a truly sustainable future
is technology.
• However, there is great uncertainty because
various kinds of options are selected in theactual society.
M. Akai; AIST

10

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Premises• Resource and environmental constraints do
not degrade utility but enrich the humanrace (improve utility)• To develop the technology portfolio for the
future in order to realize it throughdevelopment and use of the technologies.
• Not to set preference to specific technology
such as hydrogen, distributed system,
biomass, etc.

M. Akai; AIST

11

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Assumptions
Developing a Challenging Technology Portfolio• The effect of modal shift or changing oflifestyle were not expected.
• Although the assumption of the future
resource and environmental constraints
includes high uncertainties, rigorous
constraints were assumed as "preparations".
• To set excessive conditions about energy
structure to identify the most severe
technological specifications.
– As a result, if all of them are achieved, theconstraints are excessively achieved.
M. Akai; AIST

12

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Desirable Futures• Society where the economy grows and thequality of life improves• Society where necessary energy can bequantitatively and stably secured• Society where the global environment ismaintained• Society where technological innovation andutilization of advanced technology arepromoted through international cooperation• Society with flexible choices depend on
national and regional characteristics
M. Akai; AIST

13

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Assumptions towards 2100
• Population and economy– To increase continuously• Energy consumption– To increase following the increase inpopulation and GDP
IPCC-SRESS(A1)
IPCC-SRESS(B2)
IIASA-WEC

500
GDP, trillion US$

Population, billions

14
12
10
8
6

400

IPCC-SRES(A1)
IPCC-SRES(B2)Primary energy consumption, Gtoe

16

60

600

18

IIASA-WEC(A)IIASA-WEC(B)
IIASA-WEC(C)

300
200

4

100
2
0

0
2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

2000

2020

Year

Forecast of world population

2040
Year

Forecast of world GDP

2060

2080

2100

50
40

IPCC-SRES(A1)
IPCC-SRES(B2)
IIASA-WEC(A)IIASA-WEC(B)
IIASA-WEC(C)

30
20
10
0
2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Year

Forecast of energy consumption

M. Akai; AIST

14

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Resource Constraints• Although assumption of the future resource
constraints includes high degree of
uncertainties, the following rigorous
constraints were assumed as "preparations".
– Oil production peak at 2050
– Gas production peak at 2100
1012Conventional oil
Total conventional and non-conventional oil
production from 2000

8

Gtoe (gigatonnes oil equivalent

Gtoe (gigatonnes oil equivalent)

9

7
6
5

Date and volume of peak:
conventional and nonconventional oil

4
3
2

10

Date and volume of peak:
conventional and non-conventional
gas production

8

Conventional gas

6

Total conventional and nonconventional ags production

4

2

1
0
1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040 2060
Year

2080

2100

2120

2140

The Complementarity of Conventional and NonConventional Oil Production: giving a Higher and Later
Peak to Global Oil Supplies

0
1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040
Year

2060

2080

2100

2120

2140

The Complementarity of Conventional and NonConventional Gas Production: giving a Higher and Later
Peak to Global Gas Supplies

Example of estimates for oil and natural gas production

M. Akai; AIST

15

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Environmental Constraints• CO2 emission intensity (CO2/GDP)should be improved to stabilize
atmospheric CO2 concentration

12
10
8
Gt-C/year– 1/3 in 2050
– Less than 1/10 in 2100
(further improvement
after 2100)

64
WGI450WRE450

2
0
2000

2050

2100

WGI550
WRE5502150

YearGlobal carbon dioxide emission scenario

M. Akai; AIST

16

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

To Overcome Constraints --• Sector specific consideration– Residential/Commercial– Transport– Industry– Transformation (Elec. & H2 production)• Definition of goal in terms of sector or subsector specific CO2 emission intensity.
• Identification of necessary technologies andtheir targets
Demand sectors and their typical CO2 emission intensity
Industry: t-C/production volume = t-C/MJ × MJ/production volume

Commercial: t-C/floor space= t-C/MJ × MJ/floor space

Residential: t-C/household= t-C/MJ × MJ/household

Transport: t-C/distance= t-C/MJ × MJ/distance(Transformation sector: t-C/MJ)

Conversion
efficiency

Single unit and equipment
efficiency

M. Akai; AIST

17

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Three Extreme Cases and Possible
Pathway to Achieve the Goal
Fossil fuel100％
(together with carbon captureand sequestration (CCS))<Advantage>
・ Reduction is certain if
technology is established.
<Disadvantage>・Quantum leap in technology
is necessary.

Renewable energy(together withultimate energy saving)
100％

Case Ｃ

Case Ａ

Current status<Advantage>・Potential of reduction infossil resource consumption ishigh.
・Technology shift is easy.
・Cost may be reduced.
<Disadvantage>
・Uncertainty due to factors otherthan technological factors.

Case Ｂ

Nuclear power(together with nuclear
fuel cycles)
100％•

Cases A & C assume least dependency on energy saving
M. Akai; AIST

18

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Basic Approach to Achieve the
Desirable Future
Utility Improvement

Increase in Final
Energy Demand①②Increase in Primary
Energy Demand③
FossilResource
Constraints

Increase in Fossil
Fuel Demand

Environmental
Constraints

Increase in CO2Emissions

Economic
Constraints

Cost Increase④

Cut off the chain between "utility" and"energy demand"energy saving, efficiency improvement,
self-sustaining, and material saving
Cut off the chain between "final energy
demand" and "primary energy demand"
improvement of energy conversion
efficiency

Cut off the chain between "primary energy
demand" and "fossil fuel demand"
Fuel switching to non-fossil

Cut off the chain between "fossil
fuel demand and CO2 emissions"
CO2 capture and sequestration

M. Akai; AIST

19

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Sketch of Technology Spec. 2100
Extreme Case-A (Fossil + CCS)

Effective use of fossil resources together with carbon capture and sequestration- Case A assumes a situation where we cannot heavily rely onenergy saving.
*Value is compared- The growing ratios of electricity and hydrogen in composition
to that in 2000
are considered.
[ Target in the Industrial Sector ][ Target in the Transformation Sector ] Electric (1) Over 80% of fossil fuel consumption to be put
power
to CCS process
CO2
and/or(1)Production of Electric Power Hydrogenand Hydrogen
Eight times* the current total amountof power generation

Fossil Fuel

CO2

CO2 Capture andSequestration (CCS)

Supplying by coal thermal power with CCS

CCS(2) Over 65% of sector’s energy to besupplied with electric power and/or hydrogenfrom the conversion sector[ Target in the Transport and Res/Com Sectors ](1)100% of energy demand is suppliedwith electric power and/or hydrogen
The total amount of CO2 sequestration inconversion
andindustrial
sectorsisapproximately 4.0 billion t-CO2/year.
Additional energy required for the CCS process
is not included.

Transport

Res/Com(Residential)

Res/Com(Commercial)

M. Akai; AIST

20

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

5

250

4

200

3

150
Annual amount of CO2
sequestration, left axis

2

Cumulative amount of CO2
sequestration, right axis

100

Potential of geologic CO2 sequestrationin Japan and the sea near the shore

1

0
2030

50

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

Cumulative amount of CO2
sequestration, billion t-CO2

Annual amount of CO2
sequestered, billion t-CO2

CCS Activities under Case-A andGeological Sequestration Potential

0
2100

Year

M. Akai; AIST

21

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Sketch of Technology Spec. 2100
Extreme Case-B (Nuclear)

Effective use of nuclear power (with fuel cycle establishment)- Case B assumes a situation where we cannot heavily rely on energy saving.
- The growing ratios of electricity and hydrogen in composition are considered.
[ Target in the Transformation Sector ](1) Production of ElectricPower and Hydrogen
Eight times* the current total
amount of power generation*Value is comparedto that in 2000

[ Target in the Industrial Sector ]Electric
power(1)All demand is supplied with electric power and/or
and/orhydrogen with the exception of feedstocks andHydrogenreductants

Nuclear Power

Supplying by nuclear power[ Target in the Transport and Res/Com Sectors ](1)100% of energy demand is supplied with electric
power and/or hydrogen

Transport

Res/Com(Residentila)

Res/Com(Commercial)

M. Akai; AIST

22

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Sketch of Technology Spec. 2100

Extreme Case-C (Renewable + Ultimate Energy Saving)
Maximum use of renewable energy sources combined with ultimate energy saving* Value is comparedto that in 2000** Per unit utility[ Target in the Transformation Sector ][ Target in the Industrial Sector ](1) Production of Electric Powerand Hydrogen
Twice* as much as the amount ofEnergy demand** to be reduced by 70%(1) 50% of the production energy intensity is
reduced.
(2) Making the rate of material/energy
regeneration to 80%(3) Improvement of functions such as strength byfactor 4

the current total power generation

Electric
Power,
Hydrogen
and/orBiomass

Renewable Energies

Supplying by renewable energies[ Target in the Transport Sector ][ Target in the Res/Com Sector ](1) 70% of the energy demand** isreduced through energy-saving andfuel switching.

(1) Energy demand to be reduced by 80%

Transport

For automobile, 80% is
reducedRes/Com(Residential)

Res/Com(Commercial)

M. Akai; AIST

23

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Significance of CCS in Case A(Fossil + CCS)

• ... while it can reduce CO2 emission
generated from use of non-conventional
fossil resources significantly, it is merely atransitional solution ... However, this has an
immediate effect, and can be regarded as an
emergency measure.
• Potential of CO2 sequestration is supposed
to be high worldwide. On the other hand,
there may be a limitation for geologicalsequestration potential in Japan. However,
if ocean sequestration is realized, thepotential in Japan becomes larger.
M. Akai; AIST

24

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Sector Specific Considerations on
CCS• Transport– If we try to make CO2 emissions zero in
the transport sector, we have to supply
energy to vehicles in the form ofelectricity or hydrogen which are supplied
by nuclear power, renewables, or fossil
fuels with CO2 capture and sequestration.

• Industry– The process and scale in this sector
enables CO2 capture and sequestration if
required when using fossil resources.
M. Akai; AIST

25

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Scenario Analysis on
Extreme Cases and Mix Case
35,00030,00035,00020,00025,00030,00015,00020,00025,00015,00020,00010,0005,000(PJ)35,000(PJ)

30,00010,000

0

5,000
2000
2050
2100
35,000035,000Electricity, Hydrogen,etc.（incl. Renewables, Methanol for Transport, etc.）
Oil & Gas
30,000Coal （incl. Directuse, Methanol for Industry & Res/Com）
30,000

(PJ)
(PJ)

(PJ)

25,00025,00025,00020,00020,00015,00015,00010,00010,000
5,000
5,000
0
0

15,000
Energy Creation

10,0005,000
20002050 02100

Electricity, Hydrogen, etc.（incl. Renewables, Methanol for Transport, etc.）
2000
2050
2100
Oil & Gas
Coal （incl. Direct use, Methanol for Industry& Res/Com）Electricity,
Hydrogen, etc.（incl. Renewables, Methanol for Transport, etc.）
Oil & Gas
Coal （incl. Direct use, Methanol for Industry & Res/Com）

Energy Creation
Energy Creation

2000
2000

2050
2050

2100
2100

Electricity, Hydrogen, etc.（incl. Renewables, Methanol for Transport, etc.）
Electricity, Hydrogen, etc.（incl. Renewables, Methanol for Transport, etc.）
Oil & Gas
Oil & Gas
Coal （incl. Direct use, Methanol for Industry & Res/Com）
Coal （incl. Direct use, Methanol for Industry & Res/Com）

M. Akai; AIST

26

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Possible Solution with the
Combination of Three Cases (1/2)• ... capacity for geological sequestration isconsidered to have limitations. We have toconsider ocean sequestration to satisfy therequired capacity ...
• Case A (fossil + CCS) cannot be a long-term
solution due to the limitation of fossil
resources. Therefore, the combination ofcase C (renewable + energy-saving) andcase B (nuclear) is desirable ... on a longterm basis, by avoiding rapid climate change
by CCS as required on a mid-term basis.
M. Akai; AIST

27

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Possible Solution with the
Combination of Three Cases (2/2)• ... combination of these cases can vary
according to situations in the future. It is
important to prepare technologies throughR&D for social and economic changes atvarious occasions in the future.
• As a result, we can acquire an optimal androbust energy system structure...
• Also, if we prepare for the three extreme
cases ..., their synergy effect enables the
reduction of fossil resources consumption
and CO2 emissions...
M. Akai; AIST

28

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Ongoing and Future Tasks• To coordinate with domestic activities
on short- & mid-term energy strategy– Development of roadmaps based on
forecasting approach– Prioritization on energy R&D (incl. CCS) in
Council for Science and Technology Policy– Development of National Energy Policy– Revision of energy related action plans• To coordinate with international
activities
M. Akai; AIST

29

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Related International Activities• International Energy Agency– Energy Outlook 2006
– Energy Technology Perspective– Response to Gleneagles Action Plan
• Suggesting cooperation of IEA and CSLF

• Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean
Development and Climate• Work Plan includes collaboration on CCS

M. Akai; AIST

30

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Scenario Study on the Vision

M. Akai; AIST

31

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Energy Scenario of Japan
based on Energy Technology Vision 2100
• Case Study by an Energy Model “ATOM-J”
developed by Akai.
ATOM-J Model– Optimized LP– Term：1990-2100– 18 world regions– Demand Sectors¾ Industry¾ Household¾ Service¾ Transport

Structure of ATOM-J Model

Global Model

Japan

Japan Model

Results of Japan(Globally
日本のoptimized)
結果
Optimized
日本最適解
Resultsfor Japan

M. Akai; AIST

32

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Energy Scenario of JapanBAU defined in the ETV 2100
Primary Energy Supply (PJ)

Final Energy Demand (PJ)

30000

45000
40000

25000

DS Ren35000
Others

30000

Heat

20000

Biomass

Ren

25000

Hydro

20000

SynFuel

15000

H2

Nuclear

15000

Gas

10000

Oil
Coal

5000

Electricity

10000

Gas
Oil

5000

Coal

0

0
2000

2050

2000

2100

Electricity Supply (TWh)

2050

2100

CO2 Capture and Sequestration (Mt-C)

3500

1
0.9

3000

0.8
2500
Ren
2000

Nuclear
Gas

1500

Oil
Coal

1000

0.7

No CCS

0.6
0.5

Industry
H2 Prod.
SynFuel Prod.

0.4

Fossil Pow er

0.3
0.2

500

0.1

0

0
2000

2050

2100

2000

2050

2100

M. Akai; AIST

33

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Energy Scenario of Japan≈ Case-A (Fossil + CCS)
Primary Energy Supply (PJ)

Final Energy Demand (PJ)

30000

50000
45000

25000

40000
35000

Others

30000

Ren

25000

Hydro

20000

Nuclear

15000

Gas

10000

Oil
Coal

5000

DS RenHeat

20000

Biomass
SynFuel

15000

H2Electricity

10000

Gas
Oil

5000

Coal

0

0
2000

2050

2000

2100

Electricity Supply (TWh)

2050

2100

Hydrogen

CO2 Capture and Sequestration (Mt-C)

4500

900

4000

800

3500

700

3000

Ren

600

2500

NuclearGas

500

H2 Prod.

400

SynFuel Prod.

2000

Oil
Coal

1500

Industry

1000

200

500

100

0

Fossil Pow er

300

0
2000

2050

2100

2000

2050

2100

M. Akai; AIST

34

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Hydrogen Society with CCS is
NOT a Sustainable Option
World’s Primary Energy Supply (MTOE)
80,00070,000

Renewables &Nuclear60,00050,000

Oil & Gas

40,00030,000Coal (known &unknown)

20,00010,000

2100

2090

2080

2070

2060

2050

2040

2030

2020

2010

2000

0

M. Akai; AIST

35

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Energy Scenario of Japan≈ Case-B (Nuclear)Primary Energy Supply (PJ)

NuclearFinal Energy Demand (PJ)

30000

80000
70000

25000

DS Ren

60000
Others

50000

Heat

20000

Biomass

Ren

40000

Hydro

SynFuel

15000

H2

Nuclear

30000

Gas
20000

Electricity

10000

Gas

Oil
Coal

10000

Oil

5000

Coal

0

0
2000

2050

2000

2100

Electricity Supply (TWh)

2050

2100

Small
amount of
CCS

CO2 Capture and Sequestration (Mt-C)

6000

90
80

5000
70
4000

Ren

60
50

3000

NuclearGas

H2 Prod.

40

SynFuel Prod.

2000

Oil
Coal

Industry

Fossil Pow er

30
20

1000
10
0

0
2000

2050

2100

2000

2050

2100

M. Akai; AIST

36

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Energy Scenario of Japan≈ Case-C (Renewable)
Primary Energy Supply (PJ)

Final Energy Demand (PJ)

25000

18000
16000

20000

DS Ren

14000
Others

15000

Ren
Hydro
Nuclear

10000

5000

Heat

12000

Biomass

10000

SynFuel

8000

H2

Gas

6000

Oil

4000

Coal

2000

0

Electricity
Gas
Oil
Coal

0
2000

2050

2100

2000

Electricity Supply (TWh)

2050

2100

CO2 Capture and Sequestration (Mt-C)

1200

1
0.9

1000

0.8

800

Ren

600

Nuclear
Gas

400

Oil
Coal

0.7
Industry

No CCS

0.6
0.5

H2 Prod.
SynFuel Prod.

0.4

Fossil Pow er

0.3
0.2

200

0.1
0

0
2000

2050

2100

2000

2050

2100

M. Akai; AIST

37

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Energy Scenario of Japan≈ Mix (Moderate limit for Nuc. + Case-C; w/o. CCS)
Primary Energy Supply (PJ)

Final Energy Demand (PJ)

25000

18000
16000

20000

DS Ren

14000
Others

15000

Ren
Hydro
Nuclear

10000

5000

Heat

12000

Biomass

10000

SynFuel

8000

H2

Gas

6000

Oil

4000

Coal

2000

0

Electricity
Gas
Oil
Coal

0
2000

2050

2100

2000

Electricity Supply (TWh)

2050

2100

CO2 Capture and Sequestration (Mt-C)

1200

1
0.9

1000

0.8

800

Ren

600

Nuclear
Gas

400

Oil
Coal

0.7
Industry

0.6

H2 Prod.

0.5

SynFuel Prod.

0.4

Fossil Pow er

0.3
0.2

200

0.1
0

0
2000

2050

2100

2000

2050

2100

M. Akai; AIST

38

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Energy Scenario of Japan≈ Mix (w. CCS, Cumulative CCS potential: 10Gt-CO2）
Primary Energy Supply (PJ)

Final Energy Demand (PJ)

25000

18000
16000

20000

DS Ren

14000
Others

15000

Ren
Hydro
Nuclear

10000

5000

Heat

12000

Biomass

10000

SynFuel

8000

H2

Gas

6000

Oil

4000

Coal

2000

0

Electricity
Gas
Oil
Coal

0
2000

2050

2100

2000

Electricity Supply (TWh)

2050

2100

CO2 Capture and Sequestration (Mt-C)

1200

45
40

1000
35
800

Ren

30
25

600

NuclearGas

H2 Prod.

20

SynFuel Prod.

400

Oil
Coal

Industry

Fossil Pow er

15
10

200
5
0

0
2000

2050

2100

2000

2050

2100

M. Akai; AIST

39

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Implications from Scenario Study• Case-A “Fossil + CCS” would
contribute to hydrogen economy but
not be a sustainable option from theviewpoint of resource depletion.
• Nuclear and CCS (especially as a midterm option) would increase theflexibility of energy supply anddemand structure.
• Energy efficiency is the key!
M. Akai; AIST

40

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Concluding Remarks• On-going R&D under METI
• Towards the Future of CCS

M. Akai; AIST

41

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Towards the Future of CCS- Bridging over Science and Society • Social acceptance for the technology⇑• Conformity with regulations– London Convention, OSPAR, Domestic Laws, etc.
– Action for amendment, if necessary• Definite recognition by IPCC and UNFCCC• Better communication– Audience: general public, scientists, industries,
policy makers, NGOs, etc.

⇑
• Accumulation of scientific knowledge
M. Akai; AIST42

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

CCS R&D Projects under METI
• Ocean Sequestration(Environmental Assessment for CO2 Ocean Sequestration)– 1997 - 2001 (Phase-1)– 2002 - 2006 (Phase-2)• Geological Sequestration– 2000 - 2004 (Phase-1)– 2005 - （Phase-2）• ECBM– 2002 - 2006 (Phase-1)
M. Akai; AIST

43

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Other CCS Research under METI
• Accounting Rules on CO2 Sequestration for
National GHG Inventories [ARCS] (2002 -)– Development of accounting methodology– Contribution to NGGIP– Policy studies including CCS-CDM• Environmental Impact and Safety
Management based on Natural Analogue(2005 - )• Methodology of Applicability of CCS to Kyoto
Mechanism including CDM (2004 - )• Public Perception on CCS (2002 - )– Cooperation with AGS Project

M. Akai; AIST

44

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Strategic Action Plan on Putting CO2
Sequestration on the Viable Policy Agenda• Establish a epistemic community– Forums by the stakeholders/policy makers• Establish validation methodologies ofemissions reduction– Analysis/assessment of existing scientific works
on the technologies– Evaluation of the effectiveness, provision formonitoring requirements, etc.

• Establish communication strategy– Audience includes general public, scientists,industries, policy makers, etc.
98.01; 00.10: M. Akai to USDOE – MITI Meeting
M. Akai; AIST

45

International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage; February 20, 2006

Thank you!

M. Akai; AIST

46