IPCC Special Report on
Carbon Dioxide Captureand Storage
Edward S. Rubin
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Presentation to theRITE International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage
Tokyo, JapanFebruary 20, 2006

Structure of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Plenary: All Member Countriesof UNEP/WMO ( >150 )Review Editors

Working Groups I, II, III
Bureau, Secretariat, Technical Support UnitsSTUDIES

Lead Authors
Coodinating Lead Authors
Contributing Authors
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

Expert andGovernment
Reviewers

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

About IPCC Reports• Provide assessments of scientifically andtechnically sound published information• Authors are best experts available worldwide,reflecting experience from academia, industry,government and NGOs
• Policy relevant, but NOT policy prescriptive• No research, monitoring, or recommendations• Thoroughly reviewed by other experts andgovernments• Final approval of Summary for Policymakers
by all member governments
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

History of this Special Report• 2001: UNFCCC (COP-7) invites IPCC to write a technicalpaper on geological carbon storage technologies• 2002: IPCC authorizes a workshop (held November 2002) thatproposes a Special Report on CO2 capture and storage• 2003: IPCC authorizes the Special Report under auspices of
WG III; first meeting of authors in July
• July 2003–June 2005: Preparation of report by ~100 LeadAuthors + 25 Contributing Authors (w/100s of reviewers)• September 26, 2005: Final report approved by IPCC plenary• December 2005: Presented officially to UNFCCC at COP-11E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Why the Interest in CCS?
• The UNFCCC goal of stabilizing atmospheric
GHG concentrations will require significant
reductions in future CO2 emissions• CCS could be part of a portfolio of options tomitigate global climate change• CCS could increase flexibility in achieving
greenhouse gas emission reductions• CCS has potential to reduce overall costs ofmitigation

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

CO2 Capture and Storage System
CarbonaeousFuels

CaptureProcesses

Transport and Storage Options(Source:CO2CRC)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Structure of the Report
1. Introduction
2. Sources of CO2
3. Capture of CO2
4. Transport of CO2
5. Geological storage
6. Ocean storage
7. Mineral carbonation and industrial uses
8. Costs and economic potential
9. Emission inventories and accounting
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Key Questions for the Assessment•••••••••

Current status of CCS technology?
Potential for capturing and storing CO2?
Costs of implementation?
Health, safety and environment risks?
Permanence of storage as a mitigation measure?
Legal issues for implementing CO2 storage?
Implications for inventories and accounting?
Public perception of CCS?
Potential for technology diffusion and transfer?

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Maturity of CCS Technologies
Oxyfuelcombustion

Post-combustion
captureIndustrial
separation

Pre-combustion
captureOcean storage

Enhanced coalbed methane

Mineralcarbonation

ResearchPhase
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

Demonstration
Phase

Tankertransport

Pipelinetransport

Gas and oilfieldsEnhanced oil
recoverySaline aquifers

Industrialutilization

Econ. Feasible(specific conditions)International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

MatureMarket
RITE Workshop

CO2 Capture Technology Options

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Status of Capture Technology• CO2 capture technologies are in commercial
use today, mainly in the petroleum andpetrochemical industries• Capture also applied to several gas-fired andcoal-fired boilers, but at scales small compared
to a large modern power plant• Net capture efficiencies typically 80-90%• Integration of capture, transport and storage
has been demonstrated in several industrial
applications, but not yet at an electric powerplant

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

(Source: Dakota Gasification(Source: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries)

Industrial Capture Systems

Post-Combustion Capture

Pre-Combustion Capture(gas-fired power plant, Malaysia)(coal gasification plant, USA)

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

Source: NRDC

Source: USDOE/Battelle

CO2 Pipelines (for EOR Projects)

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Source: S. Benson, LBNL

Existing/Proposed CO2 Storage Sites

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Geological Storage Projects

In Salah /Krechba (Algeria)

Source: BPSource: Statoil

Sleipner (Norway)

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

(Source:IEA GHG, 2002)

Global Distribution of Large CO2 Sources

Large sources clustered in four geographical regions.
Fossil fuel power plants account for 78% of emissions;industrial processes (including biomass) emit 22%.
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Potential Geological Storage Areas(Prospective areas in sedimentary basins where suitable saline formations, oil or gas fields, or coal beds may be found)

Storage prospectivity
Highly prospective sedimentarybasins
Prospective sedimentary basins
Non-prospective sedimentarybasins, metamorphic andigneous rock
Data quality and availability vary
among regions(Source: Geoscience Australia).

Good correlation between major sources and areas with potential
for geological storage. More detailed regional analyses required toconfirm or assess actual suitability for storage.
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Leading Candidates for CCS• Fossil fuel power plants– Pulverized coal combustion (PC)– Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)– Integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC)• Other large industrial sources of CO2 such as:– Refineries and petrochemical plants– Hydrogen production plants– Ammonia production plants– Pulp and paper plants– Cement plants

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Typical Component Cost Ranges(All values in 2002 US$/tCO2)
CCS System Component

Cost Range

Capture: Fossil fuel power plant

15–75 US$/tCO2 net captured

Capture: Hydrogen and ammonia
production or gas processing plant

5–55 US$/tCO2 net captured

Capture: Other industrial sources

25–115 US$/tCO2 net captured

Transport: Pipeline/tanker/250 km

1–8 US$/tCO2 transported

Storage: Geological

0.5–8 US$/tCO2 net injected

Storage: Ocean

5–30 US$/tCO2 net injected

Storage: Mineral carbonation

50–100 US$/tCO2 net mineralized

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Estimated CCS Cost for New Power
Plants Using Current Technology(Levelized cost of electricity production in 2002 US$/kWh)Power Plant System

Natural Gas
CombinedCycle Plant

Pulverized
Coal Plant

Integrated
Gasification
Combined
Cycle Plant

Reference Plant Cost
(without capture) ($/kWh)0.03–0.05

0.04–0.05

0.04–0.06

Added cost of CCS withgeological storage

0.01–0.03

0.02–0.05

0.01–0.03

Added cost of CCS with
EOR storage

0.01–0.02

0.01–0.03

0.00–0.01

Variability is due mainly to differences in site-specific factors.
Added cost to consumers will depend on extent of CCS plants
in the overall power generation mix
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Cost of CO2 Avoided(Based on Current Technology)(2002 US$ per tonne CO2 avoided)

Power Plant System

Same plant with CCS(geological storage)
Same plant with CCS(EOR storage)

Natural Gas
Combined
Cycle Plant

Pulverized
Coal Plant

Integrated
Gasification
Combined
Cycle Plant

40–90

30–70

15–55

20–70

10–45

(-5)–30

Other industrial processes have roughly similar costs
Different combinations of reference plant and CCS plant types
have avoidance costs ranging from $0–270/tCO2 avoided;site-specific context is important
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Advanced Technology• R&D programs are underway worldwide todevelop lower-cost capture technologies• New or improved systems under development
have the potential to reduce capital and operating
costs of CO2 capture by about 20–30% in the nearterm, and significantly more over the longer term
– Advanced power systems(IGCC, PC, NGCC, Oxyfuel, SOFC, hybrids, etc.)– Advanced capture technologies– Other advanced plant components

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Million Tonnes Carbon Dioxide per Year

Economic Potential of CCS
Conservation

80,00090,000and EnergyMESSAGE Model
B2-550 (MESSAGE)
Efficiency
80,00070,00070,000
Energy60,00060,00050,00050,00040,00040,00030,000Coal to Gas
30,00090,00020,000MiniCAM(MiniCAM)
Model
B2-550Conservation andEnergy Efficiency

Renewable

Renewable Energy
Nuclear

NuclearCoal to Gas
Substitution

Substitution

Emissionsto theatmosphere
Emissionsconsistent
with

10,000550 ppmv-20,000

Emissionsthe atmosphere
Emissionstoconsistent
with

CCS
10,000550 ppmv

CCS

2005 2020 2035

2050 2065 2080 2095

2005 2020
AllowableEmissions for2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

• Across a range of stabilization and baseline scenarios,
models estimate cumulative storage of 220–2200 GtCO2
via CCS to the year 2100
• This is 15–55% of the cumulative worldwide mitigation
required to achieve stabilization• Cost is reduced by 30% or more with CCS in the portfolio
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Geological Storage Options

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Geological Storage Capacity
Lower Estimate(GtCO2)Upper Estimate(GtCO2)

Oil and gas fields

675*

900*

Unminable coal seams

3–15

200

Deep saline formations

1000

Uncertain, but
possibly ~104

Reservoir Type* Estimates are 25% larger if “undiscovered reserves” are included.

Available evidence suggests that worldwide, it is likely that there
is a technical potential of at least about 2000 GtCO2 (545 GtC) of
storage capacity in geological formations. Globally, this would be
sufficient to cover the high end of the economic potential range,
but for specific regions, this may not be true.
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Security of Geological Storage• Lines of evidence for duration of storage:– Natural CO2 reservoirs– Oil and gas reservoirs– Natural gas storage– CO2 EOR projects– Numerical simulation of geological systems– Models of flow through leaking wells– Current CO2 storage projects

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Trapping Mechanisms Provide
Increasing Storage Security with Time• Storage security depends
on a combination ofphysical and geochemical
trapping• Appropriate site selection
and management are thekey to secure storage
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

Source: S..Benson, LBNL

• Over time, residual CO2
trapping, solubility
trapping and mineraltrapping increase

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Estimates of Fraction Retained• Storage security defined as fraction retained =percent of injected CO2 remaining after x years• “Observations from engineered and natural
analogues as well as models suggest that thefraction retained in appropriately selected andmanaged geological reservoirs is very likely* toexceed 99% over 100 years and is likely** toexceed 99% over 1,000 years.”* “Very likely” is a probability between 90 and 99%.
** “Likely” is a probability between 66 and 90%.
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Would Leakage Compromise CCS as a
Climate Change Mitigation Option?
• Studies have addressed non-permanent storage froma variety of perspectives• Results vary with methods and assumptions made• Outcomes suggest that non-permanent storage canstill be valuable for mitigating climate change if
fraction retained on the order of 90–99% for 100 yrs,
or 60–95% for 500 yrs• All studies imply an upper limit on amount ofleakage that can take place
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Local Health, Safety andEnvironmental Risks• CO2 Capture: Large energy requirements of CCS (10–40%
increase per unit of product, depending on system) can increase
plant-level resource requirements and some environmentalemissions; site-specific assessments are required• CO2 Pipelines: Risks similar to or lower than those posed byhydrocarbon pipelines• Geological Storage: Risks comparable to current activities suchas natural gas storage, EOR, and deep underground disposal ofacid gas, provided there is:– appropriate site selection (informed by subsurface data)– a regulatory system– a monitoring program to detect problems– appropriate use of remediation methods, if needed
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Ocean Storage Options

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Ocean Storage• Storage potential on the order of 1000s GtCO2,depending on environmental constraints• Gradual release over hundreds of years(65–100% retained at 100 yrs, 30–85% at 500 yrs,depending on depth of injection)• CO2 effects on marine organisms will haveecosystem consequences; chronic effects ofdirect injection are not known

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Mineral Carbonation Storage

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Mineral Carbonation & Utilization• Mineral carbonation storage potential cannot
currently be determined, but large quantities ofnatural minerals are available• Environmental impacts from mining and wastedisposal• Best current processes have high cost and energy
requirements• Storage via Industrial Utilization:– Little potential for net CO2 reductions; also possible
increase in net CO2 emissions
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Legal and Regulatory Issues•

Onshore Storage: National Regulations Apply––•

Some existing regulations apply, but few specific legal
or regulatory frameworks for long-term CO2 storage
Liability issues largely unresolved

Offshore Storage: International Treaties Apply–––

OSPAR, London Convention
Sub-seabed geological storage and ocean storage:
unclear whether, or under what conditions, CO2
injection is compatible with international law
Discussions on-going

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Inventory and Accounting Issues• Current IPCC guidelines do not include methods specificto estimating emissions associated with CCS• 2006 guidelines are expected to address this issue• Methods may be required for net capture and storage,
physical leakage, fugitive emissions, and negativeemissions associated with biomass applications of CCS• Cross-border issues associated with CCS accounting (e.g.,capture in one country and storage in another country withdifferent committments) also need to be addressed; theseissues are not unique to CCS

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Gaps in Knowledge• Technologies—CCS demonstrations for large-scale power
plant and other applications to reliably establish cost andperformance; R&D to develop new technology concepts• Source–storage relationships—more detailed regional andlocal assessments• Geological storage—improved estimates of capacity andeffectiveness• Ocean storage—assessments of ecological impacts• Legal and regulatory issues—clear frameworks for CCS• Global contribution of CCS—better understanding oftransfer and diffusion potential, interactions with othermitigation measures, and other issues to improve future
decision-making about CCS
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop

Report is Available from IPCC
(www.ipcc.ch)• IPCC Web Site provides:- Summary for Policymakers- Technical Summary- Full Technical Report

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

RITE Workshop