Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
IPTS (2000) Preliminary Analysis of the Implementation of an EU-Wide Permit Trading Scheme on $ CO_{2} $ Emissions Abatement Costs, Results from the POLES Model. Sevilla, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS)

KEMFERT, C. (2003) Applied Economic- Environment- Energy Modelling for Quantitative Impact Assessment IN ROTMANS, J., AMELUNG, B. & VALKERING, P. (Eds.) Integrated Assessment for Policy Modelling. Maastricht.

KEMFERT, C., KOHLHAAS, M., TRUONG, T. & PROTSENKO, A. (2006) The Environmental and Economic Effects of European Emissions Trading. Climate Policy, 6, 441-455.

KLEPPER, G. & PETERSON, S. (2005) Emissions Trading, CDM, JI and More - The Climate strategy of the EU. Kilier Working Paper No. 1238. Kiel, Kiel Institute for World Economics.

MONTGOMERY, W. (1972) Markets in Licenses and Efficient Pollution Control Programs. Journal of Economic Theory, 5, 395-418.

NAKICENOVIC, N. & SWART, R. (2000) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

NEWELL, R. G., JAFFE, A. B. & STAVINS, R. N. (1999) The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and Energy-Saving Technological Change.

OBERNDORFER, U. (May 2008) EU Emission Allowances and the Stock Market: Evidence from the Electricity Industry ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.

OBERNDORFER, U. & RENNINGS, K. (2007) Costs and competitiveness effects of the European Union emissions trading scheme. European Environment, 17, 1-17.

OWEN, A. D. & HANLEY, N. (2004) The economics of climate change, London, New York, Routledge.

PERMAN, R., MA, Y., MCGILVRAY, J. & COMMON, M. (2003) Natural Resource and Environmental Economics, Essex, Pearson Education Limited.

PETERSON, S. (2006) Efficient Abatement in Separated Carbon Markets: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Kieler Working Paper No. 1271. Kiel, Kiel Institute for World Economics.

PROOST, S. & VAN REGEMORTER, D. (2003) Climate change policy in European countries and its effects on industry. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën, Energy, Transport and Environment.

REINAUD, J. (2004) Industrial competitiveness under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Information Paper. IEA.

REPETTO, R. & AUSTIN, D. (1997) The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed. Washington, D.C., World Resource Institute.

REPETTO, R., DOWER, R., JENKINS, R. & GOEGHEGAN, J. (1992) Green Fees: How a Tax Shift Can Work for the Environment and the Economy. Washington, D.C., World Resources Institute.

RUSS, P., CISCAR, C. & SZABO, L. (2005) Analysis of Post-2012 Climate Policy Scenarios with Limited Participation. Technical report series. Seville, Joint Research Centre (DG JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS).

SIJM, J., NEUHOFF, K. & CHEN, Y. (2006) CO $ _{2} $ cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector. Climate Policy, 6, 49-72.
SIJM, J. P. M., SMEKENS, K. E. L., KRAM, T. & BOOTS, M. G. (2002) Economic Effects of Grand fathering CO $ _{2} $ Emission Allowances. Petten, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).

STANKEVICIUTE, L. & CRIQUI, P. (2008) Energy and Climate Policies to 2020 : impacts of the "20/20/20" European policy. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 2, 252-273.

TOL, R. S. J. (2000) Modelling the Costs of Emission Reduction: different approaches. Pacific and Asian Journal of Energy, 10, 1-7.

VAN DEN BERGH, J. & BUTTON, K. J. (1997) Meta-analysis of Environmental Issues in Regional, Urban and Transport Economics. Urban Studies, 34, 927-944.

ZACHMANN, G. & VON HIRSCHHAUSEN, C. (2008) First Evidence of Asymmetric Cost Pass-Through of EU Emissions Allowances: Examining Wholesale Electricity Prices in Germany. Economic Letters, 99, 465-469.
Annex 1 Summary of the assumptions about structural modelling features

Main reference	Model	Model description	Intra fossil fuel substitution (1) or not (0)	Non-fossil fuel substitution (1) or not (0)	Substitution of energy by other inputs (1) or not (0)	Substitution of energy intensive goods by non-energy intensive goods (1) or not (0)	Back-stop energy sources (1) or not (0)	Climate benefits (1) or not (0)	Non-climate benefits (1) or not (0)
Capros and Mantzos (2000)	PRIMES	ECOFYS et al. (2001) and Capros (2005)	1	1	0	0	1	0	0
IPTS (2000)	POLES	LEPII-EPE (2006)	1	1	0	0	1	0	0
ERM and Euroelectric (2002)	GETS 4	n/a	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
Sijm et al. (2002)	MARKAL-MATTER	Kram et al. (2001)	1	1	1	1	1	0	0
Proost and Van Regemoter (2003)	GEM-E4	Capros et al. (1995) and Capros et al. (1997)	1	1	1	1	0	0	0
Babiker et al. (2004)	EPPA-EU	Babiker et al. (2001)	1	1	1	1	1	0	0
COWI (2004)	GTAP-ECAT	n/a	1	1	1	1	0	0	0
Bohringer et al. (2005)	SIMAC	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	0	0
Bohringer and Lange (2005)	PACE	Bohringer and Lange (b2005)	1	0	1	1	1	0	0
Kemfert et al. (2006)	GTAP-E	Burniaux and Truong (2002)	1	0	1	1	0	0	0
Klepper and Peterson (2005)	DART	Klepper et al. (2003)	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
Russ et al. (2005)	POLES	LEPII-EPE (2006)	1	1	0	0	1	0	0
Russ et al. (2005)	GEM-E4	Capros et al. (1995) and Capros et al. (1997)	1	1	1	1	n/a	0	0
Peterson (2006)	DART	Klepper et al. (2003)	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
Alexeeva and Anger (2007)	PACE	ZEW TanSust.Scan	1	0	1	1	1	0	0
den Elzen et al. (2007)	FAIR-EU	den Elzen & Lucas (2005)	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	0	0	0
Stankeviciute and Criqui (2008)	POLES+AS PEN	LEPII-EPE (2006)	1	1	0	0	1	0	0
Annex 2 Representation of technological change

Main reference	Model	Model description	Modelling approach	Projection period (up to)	Representation of technological change
Capros and Mantzos (2000)	PRIMES	ECOFYS et al. (2001) and Capros (2005)	PE	2010	LBD
IPTS (2000)	POLES	LEPII-EPE (2006)	PE	2010	LBD
ERM and Euroelectric (2002)	GETS 4	n/a	PE	2017	n/a
Sijm et al. (2002)	MARKAL-MATTER	Kram et al. (2001)	PE	2010	Learning curves
Proost and Van Regemoter (2003)	GEM-E4	Capros et al. (1995) and Capros et al. (1997)	GE	2010	Exogenous or endogenous (R&D, spillover effects)
Babiker et al. (2004)	EPPA-EU	Babiker et al. (2001)	GE	2010	AEEI
COWI (2004)	GTAP-ECAT	n/a	GE	2010	Exogenous
Bohringer et al. (2005)	SIMAC	n/a	PE	2005	n/a
Bohringer and Lange (2005)	PACE	Bohringer and Lange (2005)	GE	n/a	AEEI
Kemfert et al. (2006)	GTAP-E	Burniaux and Truong (2002)	GE	2005-2006	n/a
Klepper and Peterson (2005)	DART	Klepper et al. (2003)	GE	2012	AEEI
Russ et al. (2005)	POLES	LEPII-EPE (2006)	PE	2025	LBD
Russ et al. (2005)	GEM-E4	Capros et al. (1995) and Capros et al. (1997)	GE	2025	Exogenous or endogenous (R&D, spillover effects)
Peterson (2006)	DART	Klepper et al. (2003)	GE	2012	AEEI
Alexeeva and Anger (2007)	PACE	ZEW TanSust.Scan	GE	2020	AEEI
den Elzen et al. (2007)	FAIR-EU	den Elzen & Lucas (2005)	PE	2020	Exogenous or endogenous (LBD)
Stankeviciute and Criqui (2008)	POLES+ASPEN	LEPII-EPE (2006)	PE	2020	LBD
Annex 3 Summary of the assumptions about the European climate change options

Main reference	Model	EU-wide emissions trading (1) or not (0)	CDM (1) or not (0)	JI (1) or not (1)	Permit auctioning revenue recycling (1) or not (0)	Grandfathering of emissions (1) or not (0)	Auctioning of emissions (1) or not (0)	Allocation according real NAPs (1) or not (0)	Transaction costs (1) or not (0)
Capros and Mantzos (2000)	PRIMES	1	0	0	0	n/a	0	0	1
IPTS (2000)	POLES	1	0	0	0	n/a	0	0	0
ERM and Euroelectric (2002)	GETS 4	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	1
Sijm et al. (2002)	MARKAL-MATTER	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Proost and Van Regemoter (2003)	GEM -E4	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Babiker et al. (2004)	EPPA-EU	1	0	0	0	n/a	0	0	0
COWI (2004)	GTAP-ECAT	1	1	1	0	n/a	0	0	1
Bohringer et al. (2005)	SIMAC	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
Bohringer and Lange (2005)	PACE	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	0
Kemfert et al. (2006)	GTAP-E	1	0	0	0	n/a	0	1	0
Klepper and Peterson (2005)	DART	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1
Russ et al. (2005)	POLES	1	0	0	0	n/a	0	0	0
Russ et al. (2005)	GEM-E4	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0
Peterson (2006)	DART	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1
Alexeeva and Anger (2007)	PACE	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1
den Elzen et al. (2007)	FAIR-EU	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1
Stankeviciute and Criqui (2008)	POLES+ASPEN	1	1	1	0	n/a	n/a	1	0
# CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE IN EUROPE

## - A PRIORITY FOR INNOVATION AND COMMERCIALISATION

## I ntroduction

The potential perils of increasing atmospheric $ CO_{2} $ concentrations are becoming better understood with each major climate science study. A recent study released by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has painted a stark picture of the future effects of current and near term climate policy and emissions choices $ ^{15} $ . If current emissions trajectories are allowed to continue and emissions reductions are not made immediately the outlook appears to get increasingly dire, as scientific understanding continues to grow. The NOAA study finds “if $ CO_{2} $ is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl in zones including southern Europe, northern Africa, south-western North America, southern Africa and western Australia.” These are less than desirable outcomes for the mentioned regions and also the other regions that are likely to be hardest hit by changing hydrological cycles, and sea level rise. The importance in halting the accumulation of $ CO_{2} $ is becoming more apparent as climate scientists get a better handle on the effects of global mean rising temperatures on weather patterns and current ecosystems.

The International Energy Agency recently released its 2008 World Energy Outlook and in the reference scenario, accounting for all current policies in place and economic variables, world $ CO_{2} $ emissions from energy related (power generation and transport primarily) activities will rise from 28 Gt $ CO_{2} $ in 2006 to 41 Gt $ CO_{2} $ in 2030, an increase of 45%. 97% of the increase in energy related $ CO_{2} $ emissions increases will come from non-OECD countries with China (6.1 Gt), India (2 Gt) and the Middle East (1.3 Gt) accounting for the majority of the growth. The fossil fuel power plants generated 11.4 Gt $ CO_{2} $ in 2006 (41% of world total) and this will be projected to rise to 16 Gt $ CO_{2} $ (44% of world total) in 2020 and 18 Gt $ CO_{2} $ (45% of world total) in 2030.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the most promising near to medium term technology that will allow for deep cuts in $ CO_{2} $ emissions by turning fossil fuel powered electricity generation plants into $ CO_{2} $ free energy sources. However, CCS is not a ready-made technology that is simply waiting to be deployed into the utility mix. Different aspects of the technology are proven at the commercial scale while others are in development stages. Deployment of CCS technology at the global scale is necessary if near to medium term emissions reductions are to be met, which may prove crucial in avoiding the crossing of certain thresholds that would allow for non-linear damaging changes in climate systems.
This report aims to cover the most important questions and aspects regarding the development, commercialisation, and diffusion of CCS technologies and is organized as responses to the questions we feel must be answered regarding CCS and its future as a key greenhouse gas mitigation tool.

### 1. The global climate change challenge is very unlikely to be successfully met unless we succeed in capturing the carbon emitted from new (coal and gas-fired) electricity plants

As stated above, emissions for fossil fuel power generation plants are set to grow in magnitude and also as a share of total emissions unless actions are taken. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) CCS Special Report released in 2005 summarizes the large point sources (greater than 0.1 Gt) for $ CO_{2} $ emissions with power generation accounting for more than half of emissions sources and 75% of emissions. These candidates for CCS in the future are numerous and geographically distributed.

Table 1. Candidates for CCS: Large stationary sources for carbon emissions as of 2005

Process	Number of Sources	Emissions (Mt CO2/yr)
Fossil Fuels
Power	4,942	10,539
Cement production	1,175	932
Refineries	638	798
Iron and steel industries	269	646
Petrochemical industries	470	379
Oil and gas processing	N/A	50
Other sources	90	33
Biomass-Bioethanol and energy	303	91
Total	7,887	13,466

Source: IPCC (2005, p.81)

Geographically speaking, energy related $ CO_{2} $ emissions and their growth rates as projected by the IEA (2008) display the unsustainable growth of emissions according to regions and countries. The most attention grabbing growth rates are in non-OECD countries with China as the top aggregate emitter by far.
Table 2. Energy-related $ CO_{2} $ emissions by region in the Reference Scenario (Gt)

Region	1980	1990	2000	2006	2020	2030	% of World emissions in 2030
OECD	10.65	11.04	12.43	12.79	13.31	13.17	32%
North America	5.3	5.57	6.54	6.62	6.95	7.06	17%
United States	4.66	4.85	5.66	5.67	5.77	5.8	14%
Europe	4.12	3.89	3.9	4.06	4.16	3.99	10%
Pacific	1.23	1.58	1.99	2.11	2.21	2.11	5%
Japan	0.88	1.07	1.19	1.21	1.15	1.06	3%
Non-OECD	6.85	9.29	10.17	14.12	21.89	26.02	64%
E. Europe/Eurasia	3.41	4.03	2.45	2.65	3.18	3.34	8%
Russia	n.a.	2.18	1.5	1.57	1.92	2	5%
Asia	2.14	3.52	5.2	8.36	14.17	17.3	43%
China	1.42	2.24	3.08	5.65	10	11.71	29%
India	0.29	0.59	0.98	1.25	2.19	3.29	8%
Middle East	0.34	0.59	0.97	1.29	2.09	2.61	6%
Africa	0.41	0.55	0.69	0.85	1.08	1.17	3%
Latin America	0.55	0.6	0.86	0.97	1.38	1.6	4%
Brazil	0.18	0.19	0.3	0.33	0.5	0.58	1%
World	18.05	20.95	23.41	27.89	36.4	40.55	100%
European Union	n.a.	4.04	3.8	3.94	3.95	3.76	9%

Source: IEA (2008, p.385)

If CCS is deployed successfully then it can greatly contribute to global $ CO_{2} $ emissions mitigation efforts. Figure 1 displays the IPCC estimates that CCS can make a significant contribution to global emissions reductions. Panels a) and b) show global primary energy use, including the deployment of CCS. Panels c) and d) show the global $ CO_{2} $ emissions in grey and corresponding contributions of main emissions reduction measures in colour. Panel e) shows the calculated marginal price of $ CO_{2} $ reductions. The price of $ CO_{2} $ in panel e) is rising rapidly from approximately 2020 onwards, and is necessary to allow for the development and uptake of low carbon technologies, of any sort. With current EUA prices well below €20 $ tCO_{2} $ it is evident that policy must evolve in order for these objectives to be met.
## I llustrative example of the global potential contribution of CCS as part of a mitigation portfolio (MiniCAM and MESSAGE results)

## The role of coal

An important point to note is the role that coal plays in the future of global and power generation emissions scenarios. Since 2000 global coal consumption has grown faster than any other fuel despite higher prices (IEA, 2008 p. 123). The IEA (2008, Chapter 5) estimates that coal demand will grow at a rate of 2% per year with 97% of this demand coming from non-OECD countries (China-67%, India-19%). The US also has significant coal reserves and will require a considerable change of course if significant emissions' reductions are to be made. Coal-fired power generation currently provides 1000 GW of electricity globally, which produces approximately 4 Gt of $ CO_{2} $ . Coal-fired electricity production is expected to grow to approximately 1400 GW by 2030. Nearly two-thirds of the plants currently operating are over 20 years old and have an average operation efficiency of 29%. If these plants are replaced at the end of their technical lives with modern technologies with 45% efficiency.
then emissions could fall by 1.4 GT CO $ _{2} $ (Kessels, 2008). Figure 2 displays the short-term landscape of power generation. From a CO $ _{2} $ perspective, growing hydro capacity is promising, and gas fired generation is preferable to coal, but the volume of coal fired generation under construction, along with projected growth makes the deployment of CCS technology even more vital. Coal-fired generation plants are by nature, not as efficient as natural gas generation plants. The average efficiency of coal-fired generation is projected to increase from 34% in 2006 to 36% in 2015 and to 38% in 2030, which is still significantly less than efficiencies of various natural gas fired generation units. The representative value of the emissions rate without capture for a new Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) plant is .367 kg CO $ _{2} $ /kWh while a new pulverized coal and integrated gasification combined cycle plant have representative rates of 0.762 and 0.773 kg CO $ _{2} $ /kWh, respectively.

Figure 2. Power generation capacity under construction worldwide in 2007

Note: Includes power plants considered as under construction in 2007.

Source: Platt's World Electric Power Plants Database, January 2008 version.

### Source: IEA (2008, p. 144)

Possible alternatives to decarbonising electricity generation systems are the increased use of nuclear and renewable energy technologies in the areas of wind, solar and tidal power. The geopolitical implications of increased nuclear facilities, along with the costs of building a nuclear plant, make it an unpopular alternative for some countries. Renewable technologies have experienced significant growth in recent years and the trend is expected to continue into the future. Renewable energy (mostly hydro and wind) is forecasted to grow from 18% of total electricity output in 2006 to 23% in 2030 and supersede gas as the second largest source, behind coal, of electricity, by 2015 (IEA, 2008). However in order for the renewable energy sectors to grow and compete with mature fossil fuel generated power industry technologies, then much research and development is needed in order to make renewables feasible without the heavy subsidies that have been required thus far for certain technologies. Strong policy in the form of a price signal via a cap and trade system or a carbon tax is a necessary, but likely not a sufficient condition.
Figure 3 displays how CCS applied in industry and power generation can contribute to atmospheric $ CO_{2} $ concentration stabilization if there is adequate and timely uptake of the technology. While efficiency of fossil fuels and electricity end-use gains could be the largest contributors to reducing atmospheric concentrations, CCS has the potential to make a sizeable contribution. End use efficiency gains can be thought of as gains related to the direct use of fossil fuels for all energy related activities other than electricity generation. Significant gains are also possible from improved efficiency in how electricity (derived from fossil fuels) is used. A concrete example to illustrate this point is that of upgrading to a more efficient car and refrigerator. The efficient car contributes to emissions reductions by using less fossil fuel, but the refrigerator uses less electricity. Both use efficiency as a vehicle to reduce emissions but do so in slightly different ways.

Figure 3. Energy-related $ CO_{2} $ emissions by source in the 550 and 450 Policy Scenarios relative to the Reference Scenario

Source: IEA (2008, p. 446)

### 2. Carbon capture, transport and storage is technically feasible

There are different pieces of technology that can be assembled in various combinations to create a full-scale carbon capture, transport and storage system. As there are three main components we will discuss the status and details of each area separately.

## a) Carbon Capture

There are three main types of $ CO_{2} $ capture systems - pre-combustion capture, post-combustion capture and oxy-fuel combustion.
The IPCC (2005, p.109) summarizes the three capture technology families as follows:

- Post-combustion capture of $ CO_{2} $ in power plants is economically feasible under specific conditions. It is used to capture $ CO_{2} $ from part of the flue gases from a number of existing power plants. Separation of $ CO_{2} $ in the natural gas processing industry, which uses similar technology, operates in a mature market.

- The technology required for pre-combustion capture is widely applied in fertilizer manufacturing and in hydrogen production. Although the initial fuel conversion steps of pre-combustion are more elaborate and costly than post combustion, the higher concentrations of $ CO_{2} $ in the gas stream and the higher pressure make the separation easier.

- Oxyfuel combustion is in the demonstration phase and uses high purity oxygen. This results in high $ CO_{2} $ concentrations in the gas stream and, hence, in easier separation of $ CO_{2} $ and in increased energy requirements in the separation of oxygen from air.

Figure 4 provides a visual overview of the different ways in which $ CO_{2} $ can be captured using current technologies.

Figure 4. Overview of $ CO_{2} $ capture processes and Systems

Source: IPCC (2005, p. 108)

## b) Transport

The transport of $ CO_{2} $ is a mature technology, as there are currently 2,500 km of pipeline in the US which move approximately 40 Mt $ CO_{2} $ per year (IPCC 2005, p.5). While the magnitude is a fraction of what will be required in future $ CO_{2} $ transport, scaling up is not seen as an impediment to progress.
Shipping is another commercially viable transport option at current technologies levels, especially for distances greater than 1000 km’s or to offshore storage sites deemed appropriate.

## c) Storage

Storage can be subdivided into different areas. Storage in saline aquifers, either onshore or offshore, involves injecting the $ CO_{2} $ to suitable depths in areas where cap-rock is present in the geological matrix and can form a “seal.” Opportunities to use $ CO_{2} $ storage to enhance oil or coal bed methane recovery are currently being employed and developed further. Ocean storage, the reaction of $ CO_{2} $ with metal oxides and the industrial uses of $ CO_{2} $ are also potential storage solutions which are not as far along the development curve.

The important questions concerning the technologies that comprise a fully functioning CCS system are the costs of the different stages. As shown in figure 5, capture is truly the most costly aspect of the full CCS system. Capture costs are by far the most important hurdle that must be surmounted in order for CCS technology systems to enter markets and diffuse.

Figure 5. Costs of various components of CCS system

CCS system components	Cost range	Remarks
Capture from a coal- or gas-fired power plant	15-75 US$/tCO2net captured	Net costs of captured CO2, compared to the same plant without capture.
Capture from hydrogen and ammonia production or gas processing	5-55 US$/tCO2net captured	Applies to high-purity sources requiring simple drying and compression.
Capture from other industrial sources	25-115 US$/tCO2net captured	Range reflects use of a number of different technologies and fuels.
Transportation	1-8 US$/tCO2transported	Per 250 km pipeline or shipping for mass flow rates of 5 (high end) to 40 (low end) MtCO2yr1.
Geological storagea	0.5-8 US$/tCO2net injected	Excluding potential revenues from EOR or ECBM.
Geological storage: monitoring and verification	0.1-0.3 US$/tCO2injected	This covers pre-injection, injection, and post-injection monitoring, and depends on the regulatory requirements.
Ocean storage	5-30 US$/tCO2net injected	Including offshore transportation of 100-500 km, excluding monitoring and verification.
Mineral carbonation	50-100 US$/tCO2net mineralized	Range for the best case studied. Includes additional energy use for carbonation.

$ ^{a} $ Over the long term, there may be additional costs for remediation and liabilities.

### Source: IPCC (2005, p. 42)

As said previously, various pieces of CCS technology are being employed throughout the world. The technologies have proven economically feasible in the case of using the $ CO_{2} $ for enhanced oil recovery in Canada, and in Norway where carbon taxes make the offshore storage financially viable in the oil and gas industry. It is worth noting that none of these current storage operations are coupled with capture from a coal-fired power plant.