- International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage, Japan February 20, 2006

Socio-Economic and Environmental
Studies for CCS Technology Deployment- Cost, Potential and Deployment Scenarios -Keigo Akimoto
Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)
E-mail: aki@rite.or.jp

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Contents♦ Economic Evaluation of CO2 Geological Storage in

Japan
z
z
z

z

Cost analyses for CO2 injection, transportation and capture
Component cost (sensitivity study)
Relationship between amounts of CO2 injection and theinjection cost
Evaluation of CCS deployment scenario in Japan(Role of CCS for CO2 mitigation in Japan)♦ Perspectives of the World CCS DeploymentzzRole of CCS for CO2 mitigation in the world
Regional differences♦ Conclusion
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

I. Economic Evaluation of CO2
Geological Storage in Japan
Cost Analyses

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Cost Analyses of CCS: Overview (1)Assumed amounts of captured CO2: 1.0 and 0.2 MtCO2 per year

Injection
液化

Tanker

貯槽

７MPa

♦
♦
♦
♦
♦

気化

１５MPa

Pipeline
パイプライン

分離･回収
Capture

圧入

貯槽

輸 送
Transportation

CO2 capture cost
CO2 transportation cost
CO2 injection cost
Geological survey cost
Monitoring cost

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Injection
圧入

圧 入
Injection

Cost Analyses of CCS: Overview (2)Large-scale emission sources

Land area

Reservoir

Offshore(ERD (extended
reach drilling))

Sea

Offshore platform

Offshore(Offshore platform )Offshore(Subsea wellhead)

Submarine pipeline

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Subsea wellhead

CO2 Onshore and Offshore (ERD)
Injection Costs depending on injection depth
5000

Onshore (0.1Mt/yr/well)
Onshore (0.5Mt/yr/well)

Injection cost [JPY/tCO2]

4000

ERD (0.1Mt/yr/well)
ERD (0.5Mt/yr/well)

0.1 Mt/yr/well

3000

Injection rate: 1.0 [Mt/yr]
2000

1000

0.5 Mt/yr/well

0
0

500

1000
Injection depth [m]International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

1500

2000

Injection Cost

Depending on amounts of annual injection
and injection rate per well
Land

Injection cost
[JPY/tCO2]

1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

Injection rate per well
[MtCO2/yr]

0.9
1250-1500
1000-1250
750-1000
500-750250-500

2.9

2.7

2.5

2.3

2.1

1.9

1.7

1.5

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.1

0.2
0-250

0.1

Annual injection rate [MtCO2/yr]

ERD

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

2.9

2.7

2.5

2.3

2.1

1.9

1.7

1.5

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.3

Injection rate per well
[MtCO2/yr]

0.8

0.1

Injection cost
[JPY/tCO2]

1.0
0.9

1750-2000
1500-1750
1250-1500
1000-1250
750-1000
500-7500.2

250-500

0.1

0-250

Annual injection rate [MtCO2/yr]
International Workshop on CO２ Geological
Storage , Japan ‘06
Injection depth: 1000m
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

CO2 Offshore Injection Costs

Depending on distance from shore
Offshore platform

14000

1Mt/yr; 0.1Mt/yr/well
1Mt/yr; 0.5Mt/yr/well
0.2Mt/yr; 0.1Mt/yr/well
0.2Mt/yr; 0.5Mt/yr/well
Injection depth: 1,000 [m]

10000
8000

Subsea wellhead

6000
14000

1Mt/yr; 0.1Mt/yr/well
1Mt/yr; 0.5Mt/yr/well
0.2Mt/yr; 0.1Mt/yr/well
0.2Mt/yr; 0.5Mt/yr/well
Injection depth: 1,000 [m]

4000
12000
2000
0
0

20

40
60
Distance from shore [km]

80

100

Injection cost [JPY/tCO2]

Injection cost [JPY/tCO2]

12000

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

0

20

40
60
Distance from shore [km]

80

100

Injection Cost

Depending on amounts of annual injection
and injection rate per well
Offshore platform

1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

Injection rate per well
[MtCO2/yr]

0.9

2.9

2.7

2.5

2.3

2.1

1.9

1.7

1.5

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.1

0.2
0.1

Annual injection rate [MtCO2/yr]

Injection cost
[JPY/tCO2]
4000-4250
0.9
3750-4000
0.8
3500-3750
0.73250-3500
3000-3250
0.62750-3000
0.5
2500-2750
2250-2500
0.4
2000-2250
0.3
1750-2000
1500-1750
0.2
1250-1500
0.1
1000-1250
750-1000
500-750250-500
0-250
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06
1.0

Annual injection rate [MtCO2/yr]
International Workshop on CO２ Geological
Storage , Japan ‘06

Injection depth: 1000m, distance from shore: 20km

2.9

2.7

2.5

2.3

2.1

1.9

1.7

1.5

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.1

Injection rate per well
[MtCO2/yr]

Subsea wellhead

Injection cost
[JPY/tCO2]
4000-4250
3750-4000
3500-3750
3250-3500
3000-3250
2750-3000
2500-2750
2250-2500
2000-2250
1750-2000
1500-1750
1250-1500
1000-1250
750-1000
500-750250-5000-250

CO2 Transportation Cost

Transportation cost (JPY/tCO2)

10000

8000

6000

4000
Land pipeline (1MtCO2/yr)
Land pipeline (0.2MtCO2/yr)
Offshore pipeline (1MtCO2/yr)
Offshore pipeline (0.2MtCO2/yr)
Liquid CO2 by tanker (1MtCO2/yr)
Liquid CO2 by tanker (0.2MtCO2/yr)

2000

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Distance of transportation (km)Note: Costs of land purchase/rent for the pipeline on land and those for theindemnity for fishery due to the offshore pipeline construction are excluded.

♦ Scale of economy for the pipeline is large.

International Workshop on CO２
Geological Storage , Japan ‘06♦ Land CO2 pipeline cost is higher than the offshore pipeline cost in Japan.

CO2 Transportation Cost

- Comparison with the SRCCS 120

250
ENAA (2004)
Weyburn (300 km): 1.1-1.8 MtCO2/yr

RITE (2004)
100

NEDO (1992)

200

JPY/tCO2/km

80This study (Land)
150

60
100

US$/tCO2/250km

This study (Offshore)

40

50

20

0

0
0

0.5

1
1.5
2
2.5
Mass flow rate (MtCO2/yr)

3
1.0 MtCO2/yr

Source: IPCC SRCCS, 2005

♦ CO2 pipeline cost in Japan is considerably higher than that reported in

the world.

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Sensitivity of CO2 Capture Cost
Electric power (PC;
1MtCO2/yr; KS1)

Electric power (PC;0.2MtCO2/yr; KS1)

Facility cost of capture

Electric power (PC;
1MtCO2/yr; Operation
rate: 70%; KS1)

Variable cost of capture

Electric power (PC;0.2MtCO2/yr; Operation
rate: 70%; KS1)

Facility cost for increasingpressure to 7MPa

Iron production(1MtCO2/yr; MEA)

Variable cost for increasingpressure to 7MPa

Iron production(0.2MtCO2/yr; MEA)
Oil refining (PSA;
0.2MtCO2/yr; Amine
scrubber)
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

JPY/tCO2 captured

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

7000

8000

9000

Sensitivity of CCS Costs[1]PC; PL100km; ERD[2]PC; PL100km; ERD (0.2MtCO2/yr)[3]PC; PL100km; ERD (0.1MtCO2/yr/well)[4]PC; PL100km; ERD (injection into 2000m)[5]PC; PL20km; ERD

Basic assumption
Stored CO2: 1.0 MtCO2/yr
Possible injection rate:
0.5 MtCO2/yr/well[6]PC; ERD[7]PC; Offshore20km[8]PC; PL100km; Offshore20km[9]PC; PL100km; Offshore70km[10]PC; PL100km; ERD; High quality monitoring (exploration well)[11]PC; PL20km; Offshore20km (0.2MtCO2/yr)[12]PC; PL100km; Offshore70km (0.2MtCO2/yr); injection into 2000m
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

CCS cost (JPY/tCO2)

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06
Capture& pressure
increase
Transportation
Geologicalsurvey before injection
International
Workshop
onup
COto２ 7MPa
Geological
Storage , Japan‘06

Injection

MonitoringCO2 Injection Costs and Potentials (1)(Preliminary)Potentials were corresponding to only the reservoirs whichwere examined by actual boring data.

CO2 injection cost [JPY/tCO2]

7000
0.1Mt/yr/well
0.5Mt/yr/well
1.0Mt/yr/well

6000

The injection cost is
considerably high andincreases rapidly in thecase of 0.1 MtCO2/yr/well.

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Cumulative CO2 storage [MtCO2]

5000

Most of the reservoirs
are available with thecost under approximately
1,100 and 1,500 JPY per
ton of CO2 in the case of
6000 1.0 and 0.5 MtCO2/yr/well,respectively.

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Note: This cost covers only the CO2 injection cost for the onshore storage andthe CO2 injection cost from shore for the offshore storage.

CO2 Injection Costs and Potentials (2)(Preliminary)Potentials were corresponding to the reservoirs which were
examined by geophysical exploration data.
7000
CO2 injection cost [JPY/tCO2 ]0.1Mt/yr/well
6000

0.5Mt/yr/well
1.0Mt/yr/well

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

2000

The reservoirs by about
6,000 MtCO2 areavailable with the cost
under approximately 800
and 1,100 JPY per ton of
CO2 in the case of 1.0
and 0.5 MtCO2/yr/well,respectively.

Most of the reservoirs
are available with thecost under approximately
1,100 and 1,500 JPY per
4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 ton of CO2 in the case of
1.0 and 0.5 MtCO2/yr/well,
Cumulative CO2 storage [MtCO2 ]respectively.
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Note: This cost covers only the CO2 injection cost for the onshore storage andthe CO2 injection cost from shore for the offshore storage.

Implications from the Cost Analyses♦ The cost of CO2 geological storage is approximately JPY6,000 per

ton of CO2 for the scale of 1 MtCO2 per year if the distance
between the emission source and the storage site is small.
♦ The transportation cost of CO2 is considerably high in Japan.

Therefore, it is very important to consider the matching between
the emission source and the storage site.
♦ It will be important to explore the reservoirs including non-anticline

saline aquifer near large-scale emission sources because of thelarge dependency of the cost on the distance between the theemission source and the storage site.
♦ Possible CO2 injection rate is a key for the CCS cost in Japan.
♦ The CO2 capture cost still accounts for a large proportion in the

CCS cost, and therefore, the development for the technology
achieving the low cost is important.
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

I. Economic Evaluation of CO2
Geological Storage in Japan
Deployment Scenario

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Outline of a Model for Evaluation of CO2
Geological Storage Deployment in Japan♦ Intertemoral MIP model

minimizing the system costs under the considerationof scale of economy for CO2 transportation and injection facility.

♦ Model time span: 2000-2050
・ Representative time point: 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2040, 2050
♦ Regional resolution:
・ 47 land regions by prefecture
・ Onshore and offshore reservoirs having anticline structure
・ Ocean storage point♦ Interregional transportation: CO2, Electricity♦ Bottom-up modeling for energy supply and CCS technologies♦ Primary energy supply: coal, oil, LPG, LNG, hydro energy,

geothermal energy, photovoltaics, wind power and nuclear power.
♦ Energy demand side: top-down treatment using long-term priceelasticity for solid, liquid (gasoline, light oil, heavy oil), gaseous fuels
and electricity♦ Electricity demand and supply are formulated for 4 time periods:
instantaneous peak, peak, intermediate and off-peak periods

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Other Assumptions♦ Cost reduction of renewable energies
Wind power: -1%/yr, Photovoltaics: -3%/yr♦ Population: 0.127 in 2010, 0.118 in 2030, 0.101 in 2050 (billion people)(Source: National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (2002),
Population Projection for Japan: 2001-2050; the mid. scenario)♦ Per-capita GDP growth: +1.5 %/yr between 2000 and 2050
♦ Per-GDP final energy growth: IPCCC SRES B2♦ Long-term price elasticity in final energy demand:
Electricity: -0.2, Non-electricity: -0.3

♦ Assumed maximum capacity of nuclear power: 61.85 GW♦ Variable cost of nuclear power: 2 ¢/kWh♦ CO2 ocean sequestration is available only after 2020.
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

etc.

Region Division in the Model

Only aquifer having anticline
structure which was examined byactual boring data is considered(preliminary).

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Simulation Cases♦ CO2 emission constraint
Case 1: Per-GDP CO2 emission in 2050 is 1/3 relative to that in 2000.
(The same assumption to the Energy Technology Vision 2100)
Case 2: Per-GDP CO2 emission in 2050 is 1/2 relative to that in 2000.
♦ Possible CO2 injection rate
Case A: 0.5 MtCO2/year/well
Case B: 0.1 MtCO2/year/well

Case 1-A

Case 1-B

Case 2-A

Case 2-B

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

CO2 Emissions and Sequestrationin Japan
Case 1-A
CO2 Emissions & Sequestration (MtC/yr)

500
Emission in Reference Case (BaU)
400

Emission reduction by- Energy saving,- Nuclear power,- Renewable energy

300
Ocean storage
200

Geological storage
Net emission in Case 1

100

0
2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Year

Approximately 14 MtC/yr (52 MtCO2/yr) in 2020
Approximately 47 MtC/yr (170 MtCO2/yr) in 2050

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

CO2 Emissions and Sequestrationin Japan
Case 2-B
CO2 Emissions & Sequestration (MtC/yr)

500
Emission in Reference Case (BaU)
400

300

Emission reduction by- Energy saving,- Nuclear power,- Renewable energy
Ocean storage
Geological storage200
Net emission in Case 2
100

0
2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Year

Approximately 4 MtC/yr (16 MtCO2/yr) in 2020
Approximately 52 MtC/yr (190 MtCO2/yr) in 2050

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Cumulative CO2 Geological Storagein Japan
Maximum potential of CO2 geological storage assumed in this study

Cumulative CO2 geological storage (MtC)

1500

Case 1-A
5000

Case 1-B
1200

Case 2-A
4000

Case 2-B
900

3000
600

2000

300

0
2000

1000

2010

2020

2030
Year

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

2040

0
2050

Cumulative CO2 geological storage (MtCO2)

6000

Implications from the Analyses for CCS
Deployment in Japan♦ CO2 geological storage is a cost-effective option for CO2

emission reduction in Japan, even if the scale of economy of
CO2 transportation and injection is considered.
♦ The amount of the cumulative CO2 storage between 2000

and 2050 is around 3 GtCO2 according to the analyses.
♦ However, the deployment scenarios obtained through theanalyses consider only economic factors. We should pay
attention to non-economic factors for the deployment
scenario such as public perceptions and otherinfrastructures without consideration in the model.

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

II. Perspectives of CCS in the WorldInternational Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Perspectives of CCS Deployment
in the World (IPCC SRCCS)
CO2 emission reduction effects of technological options
for the CO2 stabilization at 550 ppmv

MiniCAM model (PNNL)MESSAGE model (IIASA)International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Source: IPCC SRCCS

Outline of DNE21+ Model♦ Linear Programming Model (minimizing the world energy system cost)♦ Evaluation time period: 2000-2050 (or -2100)♦ World divided into 77 regions♦ Energy supply side: bottom-up, demand side: top-down♦ Primary energy: coal, oil, natural gas, hydro&geoth., wind,photovoltaics, biomass and nuclear power♦ Final energy demand: solid, liquid, gaseous fuels, and electricity♦ Electricity demand and supply are formulated for 4 time periods:

instantaneous peak, peak, intermediate and off-peak periods♦ Interregional trade: coal, crude oil, natural gas, methanol,hydrogen, electricity and CO2♦ Existing facility vintages are explicitly modeled.
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Model Regions in DNE21+ Model

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

CO2 Sequestration Potential into Aquifer

Note: The potential was estimated by RITE based on a sedimentary basin map of USGS.
The “ideal” potential of aquifer sequestration is shown.
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Assumed Potential and Costof CO2 Sequestration†

Sequestration potential (GtC)

Sequestration cost ($/tC)

30.7

81 – 118

Oil well (EOR)‡††

Depleted gas well40.2 – 241.5

34 – 215

Coal-bed (ECBM)

40.4

113 – 447

Aquifer

856.4

Ocean

–

‡‡

*

18 – 143**

36†

Cost of CO2 capture and interregional transportation excluded.
The proceeds from recovered oil excluded.
††40.2 is the initial value in 2000, and the capacity increases with natural gas production.
‡‡
The proceeds from recovered gas excluded.
*
The potential is the “practical” one, which is 10% and 20% of the ”ideal” potentials for onshore andoffshore, respectively.
**
The cost includes that of CO2 liquefaction.
Source: Hendriks, et al.; USGS; Stevens, et al.; IEA-GHG; Kotsubo et al.
‡Note: the potentials and costs are assumed by region in the model.
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Comparison data: Technical Summary in IPCC SRCCS
Lower estimate(Gt-CO2)(GtC)

Upper estimate(Gt-CO2)(GtC)

Oil & gas fields

675

184

900

245

Unminable coal seams (ECBM
Deep saline formations

3-15
1000

1-4
273

200
4
Uncertain, but possibly 10

55
≈2700

Assumption of Final Energy Demand♦ Population: IPCC SRES B2 (Task Group on Scenarios for Climate

Impact Assessment (TGCIA))♦ Growth rate of GDP per cap: IPCC SRES B2 (adjusted by WEO;

Perspective of Energy Research Institute in China)♦ Growth rate of final energy per GDP for reference case: IPCC SRES

B2
350

United States
CanadaUnited Kingdom
FranceGermanyJapan
Australia
New Zealand
China
Malaysia, Singapore
ThailandIndia
Saudi Arabia
BrazilRussiaOECD E.Europe
Other Annex I of E.Europe

Final energy demand (Y2000=100)

300

250

200

150

100

50
2000

International Workshop on CO２

2010

2020

2030
2040
Year
Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

2050

Only selected regions

Assumed Regional CO2 Emission Limit for S550

CO2 emission from energy (MtC/yr)

10000

8000

Non-annex I
United States
Annex I
IPCC S550

6000

4000

2000

0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year

* IPCC S550: The CO2 concentration stabilization scenario at 550 ppmv by IPCC WG1
Year 2010: Kyoto target for Annex I countries excluding US
Per-GDP CO2 emission reduction of 18% by 2010 for US
Year 2015 (Years 2013-2017) and thereafter:
UK-proposed-target for Annex I (Approximately 60% reduction in 2050
relative to in 1990)
Emission reductions for Non-Annex I countries to keep the S550 in total

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

CO2 Emission Reduction Effectsof Technological Options- CO2 Concentration Stabilization Case (IPCC S550) Burden share: KP+UK Proposal w.o. Emission Trading
CO2 emissions & reductions (MtC/yr)

20000
Energy Saving

Net emission in Reference Case

Fuel Switching among
Fossil Fuels
Nuclear Power

15000

Renewables

10000

CO2 Geological Storage
CO2 Ocean Storage

5000

Net Emission
0
2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

Year
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

2050

CO2 Emission Reduction Effectsof Technological Options- CO2 Concentration Stabilization Case (IPCC S550) with Emission Trading
CO2 emissions & reductions (MtC/yr)

20000
Energy Saving

Net emission in Reference Case

Fuel Switching among
Fossil Fuels
Nuclear Power

15000

Renewables

10000

CO2 Geological Storage
CO2 Ocean Storage

5000

Net Emission
0
2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

Year
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

2050

Cumulative CO2 Sequestration
between 2000 and 2050 by Region

Amounts of CO2 sequestration (GtC)- CO2 Concentration Stabilization Case (IPCC S550) Burden share: KP+UK Proposal w.o. Emission Trading
30

100%

24

80%

18

60%

Ocean
Aquifer
1240%

Coal-bed (ECBM)
620%

Oil well (EOR)
Total (GtC)

U

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

In
di
a

0%
Au K
st
ra
l ia
R
u
N
ew ssia
Ze
al
an
d

ni
te
d

St
at
es
G
er
m
an
y
Ja
pa
n
Fr
an
ce
C
hi
na
C
an
ad
a

0

U

Deplet. gas wellCumulative CO2 Sequestration
between 2000 and 2050 by Region

20

100%

16

80%

12

60%

8

40%

Deplet. gas well
Coal-bed (ECBM)

4

20%

0

0%

Oil well (EOR)International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

nc
e

Fr
a

K
U

In
di
a
R
us
sia
G
er
m
an
y
C
an
ad
Au a
st
ra
l ia
Ja
N
ew pan
Ze
al
an
d

C

St

hi
na

Total (GtC)

ni
te
d
U

Ocean
Aquiferat
es

Amounts of CO2 sequestration (GtC)- CO2 Concentration Stabilization Case (IPCC S550) with Emission TradingImplications from the Analyses for CCS
Deployment in the World♦ The model analysis revealed the regional differences in useof the CO2 sequestration technologies.
♦ As regional CO2 sequestration perspectives under theassumed emission reduction scenario:zzzz

The amount of the cumulative sequestration is large and all the fourtypes of underground CO2 sequestration technologies are utilized in US.
Sequestration into aquifer and coal-bed (ECBM) is important for Canada
and Australia.
Sequestration into aquifer and ocean plays a major role in Japan.
EOR and/or ECBM play a major role in Russia and Non-Annex I countries
such as China and India.

♦ The opportunity for CO2 geological storage also exists in theworld, but the cost-effectiveness for regions will be sensitive
to the flexible mechanism.
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06