Suess, Siemens AG
Jean-Michel Gires, TOTAL SA
Stephan Singer, WWF International
Roberto Garosi, Ansaldo Energia S.p.A. Charles Soothill, ALSTOM Power
Gardiner Hill, BP
Antonio Valero, Fundación CIRCE
Jozef Dubinski, CMI
Johannes Lambertz, RWE Power AG
Iain Miller, Mitsui Babcock
Frederic Hauge, The Bellona Foundation
Hakon Mosbech, ENERGI E2 AS
Harry Lampenius, Foster Wheeler Power Group Europe
Arve Thorvik, Statoil
Foreword
Experts agree that CO2 capture and storage technology CCS,
together with improved energy conversion efficiency, is a near-
term solution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil
fuel power generation on a massive scale. Its immediate
deployment is therefore vital if we are to avoid the catastrophic
consequences of climate change we are facing today. Yet despite most of the technology elements being available, CCS is still not deployed for two
key reasons
1. The costs and risks still outweigh the commercial benefits
2. The regulatory framework for CO2 storage is not sufficiently defined. Following the priority given to zero emission power generation in the Sixth Framework Programme
FP6, industrial stakeholders and the research community therefore united to form the European
Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP. Its brief? To identify and
remove the barriers to creating highly efficient power plants with zero emissions, which would
drastically reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuel use, particularly coal. In the autumn of 2005, the Advisory Council and Coordination Group along with the Working
Groups and Mirror Group were established. The Technology Platform was officially launched in
December and a Vision Paper was published the following May. In August 2006, the Technology Platform then published two key documents the Strategic
Deployment Document SDD and the Strategic Research Agenda SRA.
While the SDD outlines
how we can accelerate the market for deployment, the SRA describes a collaborative programme
of technology development for reducing the costs and risks. This Strategic Overview is a summary
of both documents, providing key highlights and recommendations on concrete actions required to
realise our Vision
To enable European fossil fuel power plants to have zero CO2 emissions by 2020. European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
Contents
Key recommendations
1. 2. CO2 capture and storage its time has come
Lowering the cost of CO2 capture
3. Demonstrating the safety of CO2 geological storage
4. Building a transport infrastructure
5. Moving from small to industrial-scale CCS projects
6. Kick-starting the CO2 value chain
7. Resolving environmental issues
8. Gaining the support of the public
9. Looking ahead to 2020
10. Conclusion
Page
8
10
14
16
18
20
21
24
26
28
29
European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
Key recommendations
The European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants
ZEP recommends under the Seventh Framework Programme, FP7
ZEP Deployment Strategy
1. Kick-starting the CO2 value chain with urgent short- and long-term commercial
incentives
By 2007, clarify the conditions under which the geological storage of CO2 qualifies
for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme EU ETS and other incentive mechanisms
By 2007, clarify CCS status under European Union EU guidelines for State Aid
By 2007, create early mover funding mechanisms to support the development of
10-12 large-scale CCS projects which demonstrate a diverse range of infrastructure,
technologies, fuels and storage locations
Establish long-term, sustainable mechanisms to supplement EU ETS, informed by
experience gained in demonstration projects. 2. Establishing a regulatory framework for the geological storage of CO2
By 2007, amend existing EU legislation concerning waste and water in order to clarify
the conditions under which CO2 is stored underground
By 2008, implement new EU guidelines for Member States permitting geological
storage projects including risk management, site selection, operation, monitoring,
reporting, verification, closure and post-closure. 3. Gaining public support via a comprehensive public information campaign
Generic EU-wide outreach via multi-media TV, Internet, print
Local, focused outreach in support of early mover CCS projects. Key recommendations
The immediate and wide implementation of CCS is vital if we
are to avoid the devastating and irreversible consequences of
climate change
Frederic Hauge, President, the Bellona Foundation
ZEP Research Agenda
1. Urgently implementing 10-12 integrated, large-scale CCS demonstration
projects Europe-wide
Improve the cost-effectiveness and availability of current CO2 capture technologies
optimise energy conversion efficiency when integrated into a power plant and bring to
commercial readiness by 2020
Assess the full potential for CO2 geological storage, demonstrate its safety to the
public and understandrespond to their concerns
Resolve all technological uncertainties and establish a critical mass of data for
exploitation in parallel RD projects. 2. Developing new concepts already identified, but not validated, for demonstration by
2010-2015 and implementation beyond 2020, e.g. Advanced new materials and combustion systems
Storage in onshore, deep saline aquifers and CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery in the
North Sea. 3. Supporting long-term exploratory RD into advanced, innovative concepts for
implementation of next-generation technology, e.g. Innovative CO2 capture technologies membranes, adsorption etc. Innovative concepts for CO2 storage
Simple, reliable tools for long-term modelling and monitoring of CO2 storage. 4. Maximising cooperation at national, European and international level
Mobilise national and European funding and explore new options for launching large
integrated projects, such as Joint Technology Initiatives
Further promote international cooperation, especially with emerging countries such as
China and India. 10
European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
1
CO2 capture and storage
its time has come
Let no one be in any doubt climate change is happening and it is happening at an alarming rate sea levels
are rising, oceans are acidifying and temperatures continue to rise. Indeed, if we do not succeed in keeping
the average global temperature increase below 2C relative to pre-industrial level, the consequences
even as early as 2050 could be grave. Every region in the world will be affected, including Europe. The solution is, of course, unanimous reduce greenhouse gas GHG emissions especially CO2 and by
50-80 by 2050, according to the IPCC1. This is confirmed by the EU Green Paper on energy2. Yet with
world energy demand predicted to increase by 60 between 2002 and 20303, and renewable energies to
make up only a third4 of the energy mix by 2050, the immensity of the challenge becomes clear.
When used with pre-
combustion CO2 capture technology, they can even produce clean hydrogen as a by-product, which
can then be used for either electricity or as a fuel. Zero emissions from European fossil fuel power
plants by 2020
To this end, the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP was
established in 2005. Its goal to enable zero CO2 emissions from European fossil fuel power plants
by 2020. The task? To implement a complete CO2 value chain from the capture of CO2 at large
emission sources, to its transportation to storage sites, to its storage in underground geological
formations. It is an ambitious goal, but an entirely feasible one. After all, the technology has been practised within
the oil and gas industries for decades. This is borne out by the number of CO2 capture and storage
projects already planned or taking place throughout the world today, with Europe a leader in CCS
technology. However, it is a precarious lead and current projects do not demonstrate its full potential. Indeed,
substantial RD is required, not only to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of CO2 capture
technologies, but demonstrate the safety and feasibility of large-scale CO2 geological storage. There is certainly no shortage of suitable storage sites on land or offshore. We therefore need to initiate the immediate large-scale deployment of CCS, starting
with 10-12 industrial-scale demonstration projects, Europe-wide. These should be ready for commissioning by 2015 at the latest but many will be ready before this date. At this stage, it is imperative that we learn by doing in parallel with RD projects into advanced
concepts in order to accelerate technology development. 6
Bellona Paper, August 2006, httpbellona.noartiklernotater_stangeland_solomon
12
European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
What are the main drivers for research? a Reduce CO2 capture and power plant costs
If all RD gaps are addressed, the three main CO2 capture technologies are certainly
considered capable of achieving commercial readiness by 2020. In fact, they have the
potential to satisfy market demand not only in Europe, but worldwide, if global CO2
challenges are to be met. Their demonstration in full-scale plants is therefore of critical importance, supported by
parallel RD on key technical issues. These plants should use hard coal, lignite, gas and
biomass, and cover the full range of CO2 capture systems. b Demonstrate the safety of CO2 geological storage
Experts already agree that CO2 geological storage is both practical and safe. But if
we are to gain public support, it must be proved beyond doubt through large-scale
demonstration projects, in parallel with an RD programme for assessing storage
capacity and the behaviour of CO2 underground. It means building about 10-12 full-scale storage sites, in a variety of geological and
geographical settings, Europe-wide. With a lead time of 5-10 years, this will almost
certainly be during the seven-year running period of FP7.
Such projects would provide a
critical mass of scientific data for proving that operations, monitoring, verification, risk
and mitigation can indeed be carried out in a manner acceptable to both regulators and
the public. CCS represents a global business
opportunity to reduce CO2
emissions, especially in countries
such as China. Source NASA
A coordinated effort is essential
This will require substantial investment, a burden which industry cannot take on alone, with
each full-scale project costing as much as 500-1,000 million apiece and all the risks such a
commitment involves. Indeed, it is why such a step change has not already happened.
It means taking an integrated approach, with the cooperation of both industry and government at
national and EU levels and a combination of funding sources. It also means kick-starting the CO2
value chain with a range of fiscal incentives and a clear regulatory framework that goes beyond
2012. Only then will investors have the long-term certainty they require to commit their funds and
resources. European early mover funding mechanisms will be key to achieving this objective. SECTION 1 CO2 capture and storage its time has come
13
CCS complements, not replaces, renewable energy
Yet all will be to no avail without the approval and consent of regulators and the public. We therefore
also need to initiate an ongoing dialogue which cultivates the understanding that CCS is not only safe
and reliable, but a vital and complementary solution to our longer-term goal for renewable energy. As
such, ZEP is a process that must work in concert with the other EU efforts, such as the Hydrogen and
Fuel Cell Technology Platform and European Climate Change Programme ECCP initiatives. This is a challenge we can most certainly meet but only if we begin that process now.
Europe can
afford to wait no longer. Shell and
Statoil are
developing the
worlds largest
integrated
CO2 project
for gas power
and Enhanced
Oil Recovery
at Halten,
which could
potentially
utilise, and
permanently
store, more
than 2 million
tonnes of CO2
a year
The cost of not reducing CO2 emissions
While we can broadly estimate the investment required to implement CCS, this is
expected to fall as we gain experience and advance technological development. Any
estimation of costs, however, must also include that of not implementing it, i.e. dealing
with the tangible effects of climate change from unchecked CO2 emissions. According to the latest report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change IPCC Climate Change 2007 GHG emissions have already made the world
0.76º C warmer and, if no action is taken, there is likely to be an increase of between
2.4º and 6.4º by 2100.
Climate change models established by the IPCC indicate that if
we fail to keep below 2º, dramatic climate effects will occur, including
Increased flood, landslide, avalanche and mudslide damage
Increased risks of infectious diseases epidemics
Increased property and infrastructure losses
Increased damage to coastal ecosystems
Decreased water resource quantity and quality
Increased risk of forest fire. The IPCC has confirmed that CCS is one of the key technologies required to reduce
CO2 emissions. 14 European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
2
Lowering the cost of
CO2 capture
The purpose of CO2 capture is to produce a concentrated stream that can be easily transported to a
CO2 storage site a deep underground geological formation. CO2 capture applies mainly to large power plants fired with hard coal, lignite or natural gas7. It also
applies to large, single-point emission processes such as refineries, cement plants, chemical plants
and steel mills. It can even apply to biomass, paving the way for net negative emissions, because
biomass also draws CO2 down from the atmosphere while it is growing. Proven technologyon a small scale
There are three main technology options under development
Post-combustion systems separate CO2 from the flue gases produced by combustion of a
primary fuel coal, natural gas, oil or biomass in air. Can be retrofitted to existing power plants,
as well as new builds. Pre-combustion systems
process the primary fuel natural
gas or synthetic gas from coal
in a shift reaction to produce
streams of CO2 and hydrogen
which can be separated. The
hydrogen can then be used for
either electricity or as a fuel
accelerating the transition to a
hydrogen economy. Oxy-fuel combustion systems
use oxygen instead of air for
combustion, producing a flue
gas that is mainly H2O and CO2,
which can be easily captured
after the water vapour is
condensed. The monitoring, risk and legal
aspects associated with CO2
capture present no significant
new challenges, as they can easily
be added to well-established
health, safety and environmental
control regulations within related
hydrocarbon industries.
BPs Peterhead project in North East Scotland will not only
utilise CO2 to increase oil production, but produce hydrogen
to generate 475MW of clean electricity
7
Although several CO2 capture technologies for coal also apply to oil, it is not considered an economically preferred
fuel for future power generation except for niche applications
SECTION 2 Lowering the cost of CO2 capture
15
Future commercial use of hydrogen requires CO2-free or
CO2-lean production technologies. In this context, CCS can
contribute to a hydrogen economy
Prof. Dr Herbert Kohler, Chairman, European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform
Why research is needed
In principle, all three technologies can be applied using commercially available equipment,
with varying degrees of system modification. However, a significant scale-up will be required
20-50 times including full process integration and optimisation. Minimising the energy
requirements for CO2 capture and improving the efficiency of energy conversion processes are
also essential for reducing costs and the consumption of primary energy sources which CO2
capture increases. Making ZEP cost-competitive with other forms of
power generation
Our primary goal is therefore to make power generation with CCS competitive with low or zero CO2
power generation technologies, by
a Increasing the efficiency of energy conversion processes
As more efficient ZEPs replace the older, less efficient ones, and improved technology reduces
construction costs, it is estimated that net impacts will be compatible with clean air emission
goals for fossil fuel use by at least 20208. b Taking the CO2 trading system into account
Prices are also affected by the CO2 trading system if the price of CO2 rises, so too does that of
electricity. Whats more, the technologies creating the market price are the conventional ones we
use today, i.e.
gas-fired, combined cycle plants and coal-fired conventional steam plants. In order
for CCS technology to compete effectively on world markets, CO2 avoidance costs of 15-25t
CO2 should therefore be assumed as ambitious goals. c Improving CO2 capture technologies and power systems
New or improved methods of CO2 capture, combined with advanced power systems and
industrial process designs, can significantly reduce CO2 capture costs and associated energy
requirements. Although there is considerable uncertainty as to the magnitude and timing of
future cost reductions, it is estimated that improvements to commercial technologies alone can
reduce costs by at least 20-30 over approximately the next decade.
Indeed, each is considered capable subject to substantial RD and economies of scale of
delivering future zero emissions power at electricity prices of 45-55MWh for coal and around
60MWh for gas with CO2 avoidance costs of 15-25t CO2 for coal and 50-60t CO2 for
natural gas calculated with current fuel prices and excluding CO2 transport and storage costs. 8
IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, 2005
16 European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
3
Demonstrating the safety of
CO2 geological storage
The existence of suitable geological storage capacity is clearly prerequisite and no shortage of storage
options is anticipated on land or offshore. Their relative order-of-magnitude potential may be
expressed, very simply, as follows
1000 Deep saline aquifer storage saltwater-bearing rocks
100 Oilgas field use and storage
10
1
Deep unmineable coal bed use and storage
Mineral sequestration
FactoryPower Station
CO2 Capture
Facility
N2, O2, H2O
2
O
C
2
O
C
2
O
C
2
O
C
CO2Stored in DeepSalineAquifer
CO2DisplacesMethane FromCoal
CO2Stored in DepletedOilGasReservoir
CO2Displaces TrappedOilEnhancedOilRecovery
e
n
a
h
t
e
M
2
O
C
d
n
a
l
i
O
There is a wide variety of options for CO2 underground storage available
Source www.co2captureproject.org
Why research is needed
For any geological formation, research is needed to improve capacity assessment and ensure that
CO2 can be stored safely for a long period of time. This includes developing proper modelling and
monitoring tools, together with knowledge on trapping mechanisms, rock and fluid properties,
stabilityintegrity and CO2 mobility. It also means establishing a European leakage laboratory
sites in order to study leaks and their consequences in a controlled environment.
In addition, urgent field studies are required to investigate opportunities for using CO2 for
Enhanced Oil Recovery as the most attractive option for early ZEP deployment. SECTION 3 Demonstrating the safety of CO2 geological storage
17
The Utsira deep saline aquifer is big enough to store all the CO2
emissions from all the power stations in Europe for the next 600
years! Niels Peter Christensen, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland
No shortage of storage options is anticipated
Deep saline aquifers or formations have the largest storage potential globally, but are the least
well explored and researched.
We therefore need to build a more comprehensive dataset of their
geological characteristics. Using CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR is the most attractive option for early ZEP deployment
not only is the geology well understood and existing infrastructure potentially recyclable, there is
even the opportunity to offset costs from the additional oil production. Indeed, when used in this
way, CCS could contribute to improved energy security for Europe. EOR may also be combined with
the storage of even more CO2 after the commercial life of the fields ends. Although at the experimental stages, Enhanced Gas Recovery EGR is a promising technology for
CCS that would further increase fossil fuel resources. Depleted oil and gas fields are also attractive
because the geology is well understood and existing infrastructure recyclable. Enhanced Coalbed
Methane ECBM has similar potential. Other options, although limited, include deep unmineable
coal beds, which may become quite important in some coal provinces. Mineral sequestration,
which consists of trapping CO2 by reacting with basic rock material, is still at an exploratory stage. What is clear is that CO2 storage needs to be demonstrated in a variety of large-scale
settings in order to convince operators, academia, regulators and most critically the
public that it is both safe and desirable. Zero leakage from the Utsira storage site
In storage sites that are well-sited, operated
and monitored, leakages simply should not
happen at any significant level. This is borne
out by experience for example, one million
tonnes of CO2 from Statoils Sleipner gas
field has been stored in the Utsira deep saline
aquifer 1,000 metres beneath the North
Sea every year since 1996. Since then,
sophisticated monitoring equipment has not
detected any leakage of CO2. In fact, experts agree that it is very likely
that the fraction of CO2 retained will be
more than 99 over the first 100 years and
likely that the fraction of CO2 retained will
be more than 99 over the first 1,000 years
IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide
Capture and Storage, 2005
Since 1996, one million tonnes of CO2 has
been stored successfully every year in the
Utsira deep saline aquifer
1 European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
4
Building a transport
infrastructure
The transportation of CO2 is already well understood it has been shipped regionally in small
liquid quantities for the last 15 years and a 4,000 km onshore network has been in operation in the
US for the past 30 years while in Europe, at the Snøhvit Liquefied Natural Gas LNG processing
facility in the Norwegian Sea, a pipeline to an offshore CO2 storage site is due to start operating
in 2007. A wealth of experience to draw upon
There is also extensive knowledge of the liquid propane gas LPG and LNG industries upon which
we can draw. Indeed, experience in hydrocarbon pipeline transportation can be transferred directly
to CO2 transport. Why research is needed
While there are very few major research gaps regarding CO2 transportation, all pipeline, ship
and equipment materials, metallurgy and seal technologies must be sufficiently advanced to
meet safety and environmental requirements for transport systems. Analyses must also be
performed to determine how impurities in the CO2 might react in different transport settings,
as well as storage locations. Snøhvit will be the first LNG processing plant of its kind in Europe, storing 0.75 million tonnes of
CO2 a year from 2007 in the Barents Sea
SECTION 4 Building a transport infrastructure
1
Many elements of CO2 transportation are directly transferable
from the oil and gas industries
Olivier Appert, Chairman and CEO of Institut Français du Pétrole
What are the options? In general, pipelines are used for large volumes over shorter distances, while ships can be used
for smaller volumes over long distances trains and trucks are rarely used. Due to their lower cost,
pipelines will ultimately dominate. Nevertheless, the best transport system will vary according
to individual CCS infrastructure projects, according to CO2 volume distance between source and
storage location geography and geology of the route taken and costs. With many potential storage sites both onshore and offshore in Europe, new and ongoing
studies are needed to determine the optimal linking of CO2 sources with storage locations,
aimed at minimising costs and the environmental footprint.
Transparent rules and tariffs for CO2
transportation will also need to be established. Our long-term strategy is to link large-scale plants together, where economically feasible. An
infrastructure for EOR in the North Sea is probably the first, larger regional infrastructure that
can be built. It could begin within the next 5-8 years, capturing and storing more than 30 million
tonnes of CO2 a year. It is essential that we do not wait for the CO2 infrastructure to be fully established before
developing initial projects they can be carried out in parallel with the deployment of an
overall infrastructure. 20 European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
5
Moving from small to
industrial-scale CCS projects
The good news is that technologies required for CO2 capture and storage have been practised for
many years especially in EOR where it is currently in operation in the US, Canada, Brazil, Turkey,
Hungary, Croatia and elsewhere. There are over 70 projects in the US alone and it is estimated that
over 500 million tonnes of CO2 have already been stored in US oil fields in the Permian basin. Most of the tools and methods which will be employed for CCS have therefore been used in the oil
and gas industries for decades. However, some elements such as storage site monitoring and CO2
migrations need to be tested more in this context. CO2 storage is already a fact
A great deal of research has already been carried out in FP5 and FP6 integrated and Specific
Targeted Research Projects STREP on various sites throughout Europe. It is now essential that
we apply that research in the marketplace, in parallel with associated RD projects. A number of
demonstrations of CO2 geological storage are already under way, including
Sleipner, Norway 1 million tonnes Mtyear in the North Sea since 1996
K12B, Netherlands CO2-EGR, some hundred kilo tonnes Ktyear in the North Sea since 2004
In Salah, Algeria 1.2 Mtyear, since 2004
Ketzin, near Berlin, Germany some 60Kt over a few years starting 2007
Snøhvit, Norwegian Sea 0.75 Mtyear, starting 2007
As demonstrations or commercial projects using a variety of geology, we will be able to learn a
great deal from them, but research on a far larger scale is now required. CCS projects are also happening
Indeed, as many as 13 combined CO2 capture and storage projects have already been
announced or are under way in Europe, demonstrating the confidence industry has in this
technology9. All large-scale projects will require Government incentives if they are to progress. RWEs CCS project based
on IGCC technology
will produce 350MW net
electricity and store 2.3
million tonnes of CO2
a year in a depleted gas
reservoir or deep saline
aquifer
Integrated coal gasification
combined cycle
9
See the Strategic Deployment Document for details www.zero-emissionplatform.euwebsitelibraryindex.html
Kick-starting the CO2 value chain
6
21
The reason why CCS technology has not yet fulfilled its potential is very clear its real or implied
commercial value has been insufficient to compensate for the substantial costs and risks involved.
When applied within a holistic value chain, it explains why CO2 projects have been so rare and
will continue to be until long-term fiscal incentives and a regulatory framework are established. Major projects require major funding
To put this into perspective, each storage site alone will cost possibly as much as 40-100m. This pales in comparison to the capital investment needed for CO2 capture, each facility for a
large-scale power plant 350-500MW costing an additional 200-300m while transportation
will cost 50-100m, depending on size and distance. N.B. These costs are in addition to the cost
of building the power plant itself. However, costs are expected to fall as we gain experience from demonstration projects
and advance technology development. Transport costs will be avoided altogether where
ZEP plants are located above the storage location itself. Incentivising the early movers
Nevertheless, at current trading levels 10-20t CO2, it does not look like emissions trading will
provide sufficient financial support even to cover the costs for CCS at this stage. The CCS value
chain therefore needs to be kick-started with the implementation of specific short-term incentives,
either at Member State or EU level. Long-term incentives are also essential in order to create a stable environment for investors who
may be deterred by fears that they could be changed, e.g. as a result of political changes. There
must also be consistency with the stimulation of other parallel developments in clean energyfuels
available to Member States. Making the most of the EU ETS
Emission trading is a powerful tool for reducing GHG emissions at the lowest cost to society
and CCS technology is a key element in fulfilling this objective. Indeed, avoidance of emissions
to the atmosphere through CO2 capture and long-term geological storage should be treated
as equivalent to emissions reduction at the source. It should therefore receive similar incentive
treatment as renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programmes. It is therefore essential that CO2 used for CCS projects is fully accredited under EU ETS,
as well as the Clean Development Mechanism CDM. Longer-term regulations must
also be in place to govern the EU ETS beyond 2012. 22
European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
We also recommend establishing a Clean Power Generation Act for Europe which stipulates
that a certain percentage of energy production should be clean energy either via CCS, nuclear or
renewables. This should be in line with the Renewable Energy Sources RES Directive, which sets a
target for 12 of electricity to be produced from renewable energy by 2010. Kyoto and beyond
Projects must also be viewed in the context of obligations to the Kyoto Protocol and any
successors, including Joint Implementation JI10 and Clean Development Mechanism CDM11
projects. The CDM, in particular, is an important pathway for incentivising investment in CCS
activities. Creating a level playing field
The present legislative system was not written with CCS in mind and is currently being revised. In
fact, a positive movement to permit CCS has already begun, initiated by the European Commission
itself via a Directorate General Environment taskforce the London Convention12 has already
drafted a proposal that sub-sea CO2 storage should be permitted and the London Protocol13,
UNFCCC14SBSTA15, IPCC and OSPAR16 are in a similar process. It means creating a level playing field for all industrial actors, with a common legislative framework
where possible. Indeed, the larger the system, the more stable it will be and we hope it will extend
worldwide. The framework must also have a long lifetime at least 30 years. Many international, regional and EU legal frameworks are relevant to CCS, with definitions
and prohibitions that are sufficiently broad to encompass and regulate various CCS activities. However, only a few explicitly address them.
Laws and treaties regulating the economics involved
when CO2 crosses country borders must also be consistent within all countries involved in a CO2
infrastructure. 10 Part of the Kyoto Protocol, Joint Implementation JI provides for projects aimed at reducing emissions or removing
carbon from the atmosphere
11
The Clean Development Mechanism CDM is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialised
countries with a GHG reduction commitment to invest in emission-reducing projects in developing countries as an
alternative to more costly emission reductions within their own countries
12 The London Convention sets out rules to prevent marine pollution by the dumping of waste, with over
77 member countries
13 The London Protocol also governs the prevention of marine pollution by the dumping of wastes etc
14 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
15
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice of UNFCCC
16 OSPAR was set up in 1992 to prevent and eliminate pollution in the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic
and entered into force in 1998. Its members include Denmark, the European Commission, France, Germany, the
Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the UK
SECTION 6 Kick-starting the CO2 value chain
23
With the right incentives, the private sector can deliver
solutions. Delay would be costly or dangerous
Sir Nicholas Stern, The Stern Review, October 2006
Who is liable? Although any CO2 leakages will be identified and immediately corrected due to rigorous risk
monitoring systems, clear regulations on liability must be established, based on the principles
of the Environmental Liability Directive. This will have a significant impact on our ability to
reassure the public. CCS liability issues are actually very similar to those of other industrial activities and gases. Indeed, CO2 capture plants and transport already have well-established directives and
national legal frameworks whilst storage facilities can adapt current mining and petroleum
laws, whereby the state assumes liability after a law-regulated abandonment process. Vattenfall Europe is building a 30MWth coal-fired pilot boiler with oxy-fuel CO2 capture technology
at Schwarze Pumpe in Germany
24 European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
Resolving environmental issues
7
Experts already agree that storing CO2 underground should pose no health, safety or
environmental hazard either over the short or long term. Indeed, CO2 is comparatively benign it
will neither burn nor explode and even comprises 8 of human breath! It is worth remembering
that there are billions, maybe trillions, of tonnes of CO2 already present in nature in volcanic
areas, it seeps out daily. CO2 has been handled successfully for decades
In fact, CO2 has also been handled successfully for decades and any risks implied with its use
have been effectively managed or mitigated many existing post-combustion capture plants
already produce high-purity CO2 for use in the food industry and other industries. Zero tolerance for CO2 leakages
In storage sites that are well-sited, operated and monitored, leakages simply should not
happen at any significant level. However, in the unlikely event that they do, sophisticated
monitoring and remediation techniques, already well proven in the oil and gas industries,
should be able to correct them immediately. Well-established
monitoring and
remediation
techniques
from the oil and
gas industries
are directly
transferable to CCS
SECTION 7 Resolving environmental issues
25
It is far safer to put CO2 into the ground than into the sky and
we have the knowhow
Dr John Ludden, Executive Director, British Geological Survey
Developing a clear risk management strategy
However, impact on the physical environment is a vital part of the infrastructures overall design
and construction, and deployment of environmental monitoring systems must be integral to any
CCS project. This means developing a clear risk management strategy, including Risk Acceptance
Criteria RAC, in order to drive regulations, ensure compliance by CO2 producers, transporters and
storage site operators and, crucially, gain public acceptance. All methodologies should be considered, with Features-Events-Processes FEP and the Decision
Risk Analysis DRA the front runners as they employ a very direct approach. Consistent
regulation is also needed at both national and international levels to ensure harmonisation of the
process chain and compliance with health, environmental and safety HSE requirements. Although some CO2 capture processes and materials produce wastes, both CO2 capture and
transport are already covered by well-established frameworks for permission and organisational
processes. With CO2 storage, the main risk of leakage is due to wells, faults and seals. Although the
best corrective actions are still under discussion, experience in the oil and gas industries is directly
transferable. Why research is needed
Although much environmental research has been done in the area of CO2 ground
contamination, further studies are required.
These should cover the entire CO2 infrastructure
chain including CO2 capture plants, onshore and offshore pipelines, ships, storage sites and
process equipment to assess any risk of leakage. 26 European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
8
Gaining the support of
the public
The heated debate over GMOs17 is a stark reminder of what can happen when the public feels
its trust has been betrayed. In some countries, a rather secretive approach was used, with much
reliance on the opinion of experts, resulting in public distrust. It is therefore crucial that we
maintain an open dialogue with the public on all aspects of CCS technology at every stage of its
development and implementation. Gaining public and political support is essential if CCS is to receive the funding,
incentives and State Aid guidelines it urgently requires. CCS the bridge to a sustainable energy system
It must be made clear that as fossil fuels will still be required for many years to come and
renewable energies cannot reduce GHG emissions significantly in the short term, CCS will play
a vital role in combating climate change, as the bridge to a sustainable energy system. CCS and
renewable energy are therefore complementary not competing strategies, with the latter still
our ultimate, long-term aim. Industrial-scale demonstration projects provide the ideal opportunity to engage with the public
and understand their concerns. This should form part of a comprehensive public information
campaign, for which funds must be set aside around 250k per country. Timing is critical in some
countries CCS is moving onto the policy agenda relatively quickly whereas in others, there is still
virtually no recognition of CCS, even in policy circles. 17 Genetically modified organisms
SECTION 8 Gaining the support of the public
27
At this early stage in the public awareness of CCS, we need to
gain experience with real projects that meet tight regulatory
standards and move us up the technology learning curve
Dr David Reiner, Course Director of the MPhil in Technology Policy, University of Cambridge
Why research is needed
A successful outreach campaign requires in-depth knowledge of the publics perception of
both CCS and climate change using sophisticated socio-economic research tools. While CO2 capture itself is not of particular concern for the public, its acceptance of the need
to commercialise CO2 capture technologies is vital to securing funding and technical resources. Based on the results of transparent and publicly available risk assessments, it can be assured that
underground CO2 storage is safe. However, we must communicate this fact clearly in order to
allay any fears, i.e. sites will not leak or explode.
This applies primarily to storage sites on land, as
opposed to offshore. Public acceptance also includes acceptance of new laws, treaties and regulations to ensure the
successful implementation of CCS projects. The challenge is to get the key messages out early so that the public are reassured
that their lives will not be affected adversely in any way. On the contrary, if we do
not develop CCS technology, their lives will almost certainly be affected adversely by
climate change. 2 European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
Looking ahead to 2020
9
Given the urgency of the situation, deployment of CCS must begin with the implementation of the
most promising technologies available today. However, as the application of CCS grows and the
industry opens up to more players, many new technologies may become available which have not
yet been identified. If next-generation technology is to be ready for implementation by 2020, longer-term
exploratory research into advanced, innovative concepts must begin immediately. It means providing dedicated training and education to the next generation of professionals. Geo-science and engineering disciplines are currently dominant within CO2 storage and these
will need to be supplemented by a broader range of professionals within biology, social sciences,
communications, legal and financial issues etc. Developing existing and new CO2 networks in
Europe is also key. Maximising EU and international cooperation
Strong cooperation from all stakeholders will therefore be required in order to optimise resources,
avoid duplication and maximise synergies. The ZEP Technology Platform will obviously play a
key role in promoting coordination at a European level between power and utilities, oil and gas
companies, equipment manufacturers and RD centres. Ensuring Europe maintains its competitive edge
may also require a dedicated programme, in the
form of a public-private-partnership, in order to
accelerate the development and demonstration
of innovative technologies on a large-scale. This is already happening the EC is not only coordinating Member State activities through the
European Research Area e.g. FENCO ERA-NET initiative18, but playing an active role in many
global initiatives, e.g. the Committee of Energy Research and Technology CERT and Working
Party on Fossil Fuels WPFF of the International Energy Agency IEA and the Carbon
Sequestration Leadership Forum CSLF, which involves 22 countries worldwide. The EU also has Science and Technology Cooperation Agreements with many countries, such as
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Russia, South Africa and the US. Indeed, the role
of emerging countries such as China, India and Brazil will be vital to curbing future CO2 emissions. Making the link
It is equally important to link up with other related European Technology Platforms and initiatives
in order to maximise opportunities in sustainable energy, i.e. Advanced Engineering Materials and
Technologies EuMaT Steel ESTEP Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Sustainable Chemistry Biofuels and
Sustainable Mineral Development. 18
Fossil Energy Coalition
Conclusion
10
2
The goal of the ZEP Technology Platform is clear to enable zero CO2 emissions from European fossil
fuelled power plants by 2020. It is an ambitious goal, but perfectly feasible as long as the process
starts now. It means CO2 capture technology must be commercialised, storage locations identified
and full-scale demonstration projects implemented without delay. It also means establishing a clear,
stable fiscal and regulatory framework. Unless investors are convinced that CCS technology has a
secure, long-term future, it will simply not get off the ground.
As importantly, Europe needs to commit to a fully coordinated research agenda in order to
a Bring current CO2 capture technologies together with improved power plant efficiency
to commercial readiness by 2020
b Develop new concepts for implementation beyond this date. Time is not on our side
But none of this will be achievable without full public support. Indeed, implementing a comprehensive
outreach campaign is a matter of urgency not only to reassure the public, but convince them of the
necessity of deploying CCS as soon as possible.
Rising energy demand and the increasingly visible
effects of climate change mean that time is not on our side. We will therefore only achieve our goal by adhering strictly to the following roadmap
Achieving the Vision zero emission power plants by 2020
DEPLOYMENT
Introduce the need for 10-12 CO2 capture and storage demonstration projects in the FP7. Engage with regulators and the public in 2007 and carry out an information campaign as
soon as possible. Establish a legal and long-term regulatory framework by 20078, including accreditation of
CCS under EU ETS, CDM and JI19. Identify CO2 point-sources and possible locations for new power plants and other industrial
plants with large CO2 emission and storage sites in 2007. Establish early mover funding mechanisms by 2007. Undertake a study on the re-use of existing infrastructure in the North Sea versus new build
requirements in 2008. Define optimum model for the European CO2 infrastructure linking capture and storage
locations by 2009. Establish an EU storage programme to develop knowledge, skills and capability for
large-scale, deep saline aquifer storage by 2010. 19 Although this is an ambitious target, given the urgency of the situation, it is essential that we push for the earliest
possible date
30
European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
Start planning for building pipelines that will become part of a European CO2 transport
infrastructure in 2010. Each power plant has its own plant life cycle. By 2015, all power plants which are due to be
replaced, or have increased capacity, should be assessed for CO2 capture. Build 4-6 onshore storage sites by 2015 with a minimum capacity of 2 million tonnes CO2. Linking CO2 sources to storage locations through transport systems to continue through 2020. RESEARCH
Promote RD activities which enhance the technological assets of the European industry in
order to improve competitiveness edge. Introduce new options for launching integrated projects, such as public-private-partnerships. Define specific roadmaps for launching innovative concepts even if commercial
implementation is long-term, planning has to start now. Establish development tools for testing innovative processes or storage facilities. These could
include specific sites dedicated to the investigation of innovative technologies, e.g. pilot
plants for CO2 capture, leakage laboratories etc. Define RD projects using experimental data from demonstration projects in order to
develop and validate new tools e.g. modelling tools for CO2 storage. Support the establishment of networks in key technology and scientific areas e.g. combustion science, thermodynamics, materials, fluid mechanics, separations, geoscience. Organise meetings and promote knowledge transfer between European research centres and
joint access to common tools. Develop an information kit for training scientists and engineers in zero emission power
plant technology. This document has been prepared on behalf of the Advisory Council of the European Technology Platform for Zero
Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants. The information and views contained in this document are the collective view of
the Advisory Council and not of individual members, or of the European Commission. Neither the Advisory Council,
the European Commission, nor any person acting on their behalf, is responsible for the use that might be made of the
information contained in this publication. European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
This publication is printed using environmentally
friendly inks on 100 per cent recycled paper. March 2007
European Technology Platform for
Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP
For more information, please contact the ZEP Secretariat on
Telephone 31 6426 25727
E-mail infozero-emissionplatform.eu
Website www.zero-emissionplatform.eu