Carbon Capture

and Storage:

a WEC “Interim Balance”

Le Captage et

Stockage du Carbone:

un Bilan Intérimaire du CME

World Energy Council 2007

Promoting the sustainable supply and use

of energy for the greatest benefit of all

World Energy Council (WEC) Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems Committee (CFFS)
1 Preface

Chairman, Barbara N. McKee

The WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems

(CFFS) Committee

4 Carbon Capture and Storage:

a WEC “Interim Balance” 2007 Edition

4 1. Needs

— World energy demand

— Related carbon dioxide emissions

— Enabling development while mitigating

climate change

5 2. Technologies

— Carbon capture

— Transportation

— Storage

— RD&D

8 3. Comparative economics

— Costs

— Competitiveness

— Revenues

— Externalities

— Investments

10 4. Deployment

— The drivers

— The potential

— Coal-based power generation

— Natural gas-based power generation

— Oil-based power generation

— Management issues

13 5. Developing countries and transitional

economies

— The dilemma

— Enhanced recovery of oil and gas

— Efficiency first

— CCS next steps

17 6. Perspectives

— Synthesis

— Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

— International Energy Agency

— European Commission

18 7. Policies

— Climate policies

— Energy policies

— CCS policies

21 8. Laws and regulations

— Adapting national legal and regulatory

frameworks

— Reviewing international treaties and

conventions

— Sharing or protecting intellectual property

— Securing a level-playing field for CCS

25 Conclusion

— Current Status

— Potential

— Caveats

28 Annexes

28 A. Papers presented at CFFS seminars

33 B. List of international CCS projects

— Formulation of policies

— Data collection and analysis

— Collaborative development of technologies

— International legal and regulatory

frameworks

— Selected RD&D projects

36 C. Abbreviations

36 D. Contact editor

36 E. Contact WEC

Contents
The Committee

In 1999 the World Energy Council created the

Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS) Committee

to discuss and promote knowledge worldwide

about the research, development, demonstration

and deployment of cleaner fossil fuels systems to

meet global energy needs. Global energy use is

projected to increase by 53% during 2004 – 2030.

Fossil fuels are critical to meeting global economic

development and energy security needs. Their

share of global energy use is even expected to increase from 81% in 2004 to 82% in 2030. Production and consumption of every form of fossil fuel

will increase to meet needs (IEA 2006).

Use of fossil fuels could have major local, regional

and global environmental impacts, and the environmental challenge is great. Cleaner systems mitigate and even neutralize the adverse

consequences of the use of fossil fuels and permit

their positive qualities to be enjoyed for economic

and social development. The technology for these

systems is advancing rapidly.

The mandate

Stakeholders need to fully understand the high

value of clean systems to ensure that cleaner fossil

energy systems will be used and to enable fossil

fuel systems to be sustainable. Hence, the aim of

the Committee is to ensure that a broad range of

stakeholders appreciate the great potential of these

systems to ensure the sustainable use of fossil

fuels. To achieve this mission, the Committee:

 provides a forum for energy experts, decision

makers and consumers to discuss the role of

cleaner fossil fuel technologies;

 exchanges information, creates networks,

elaborates proposals and introduces recommendations for the worldwide deployment of

such technologies, including to developing

countries;

 addresses barriers and critical issues that

may hamper the advancement of cleaner fossil fuel systems and encourages governments, investors and financial institutions to

proactively deploy clean and innovative fossil

fuel technologies.

The activities

The Committee endeavors to achieve these goals

mainly by presenting seminars and roundtables organized throughout the world in: Ankara, Turkey1999; Krakow, Poland-1999; Dakar, Senegal-2000;

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil-2001; Buenos Aires, Argentina-2001; Washington, DC, United States2002; Warsaw, Poland-2002; Cairo, Egypt-2002;

Kiev, Ukraine-2003; Sydney, Australia-2004; Erice,

Italy-2005; Colombo, Sri Lanka-2005; Neptun, Romania-2006; Tallinn, Estonia-2006; Moscow, Russia-2006; and Amman, Jordan-2007. We also

research and publish informational documents.

Focus on carbon capture and storage

From 2004 to 2007, the Committee focused on carbon capture and storage.

1

The WEC

Cleaner Fossil Fuels

Systems Committee

Preface by the Chairman, Barbara N. McKee:
The Discussion Session on “Cleaner Fossil Fuels –

The Cornerstone for Human Development and Energy Security,” held in Sydney, Australia, on 8 September 2004 at the occasion of the 19th World

Energy Congress placed carbon capture and storage in the general context of sustainable development and mitigation of energy poverty.

The Workshop held in Erice, Sicily, on 24 August

2005 focused on “Carbon Capture and Storage – A

Way Forward for Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems.” It

was a unique event because it was organized at

the invitation of the World Federation of Scientists

(WFS) and was held in the prestigious International

Centre for Scientific Culture in Erice. Prof. Richard

Wilson, Chairman of WFS-Energy PMP (Permanent Monitoring Panel), and I jointly chaired the

workshop.

On 7 September 2005, the CFFS Committee organized a dialogue on “Cleaner Fossil Fuel Systems with Carbon Capture and Storage – Whatʼs In

It for the Developing World?” in Colombo, Sri

Lanka, at the occasion of the Executive Assembly

of the World Energy Council.

“Cleaner Fossil Fuels for Sustainable Development” was the topic of a workshop organized jointly

by the CFFS Committee and the Craiova Power

Energy Complex on 13 June 2006, at the occasion

of the WEC Regional Forum FOREN06 in Neptun,

Romania.

“Focused lectures on global and regional efforts toward carbon capture and storage” were given at a

workshop organized by the CFFS Committee in

Tallinn, Estonia, on 4 September 2006, at the occasion of the Executive Assembly of the WEC.

“Cleaner Fossil Fuels for Power Generation” were

discussed at a workshop organized jointly by the

CFFS Committee and the All-Russian Thermal Engineering Institute (VTI) in Moscow, Russia, on 3

September 2006.

On 25 April 2007, the CFFS Committee and the

Arab Union of Electricity Producers, Transmitters

and Distributors held a workshop on “Mitigating the

Growing Contributions of West Asia in Global Emissions” in Amman, Jordan.

At the occasion of the 20th World Energy Congress

in Rome, a forum on “Fossil Fuels Leading the

Clean Energy Revolution” will be held on 12 November 2007.

For 2008, a workshop in Africa on “Facilitating

CCS Project Preparation and Management” is

under consideration.

Outreach

All the above-mentioned events created a wealth of

information that called for its broad dissemination.

Hence, this brochure aims at informing a broader

audience about the Committeeʼs assessment of the

present status of carbon dioxide capture and stor2
age. The assessment is gauged against the dual

need to control climate change and to advance on

the road of economic development to eliminate

poverty. As carbon capture and storage develops,

“interim balances” rather than final conclusions are

in order. Hence this 2007 Edition is the second in a

series on the subject.

The Committee naturally concentrates on the papers generated under its auspices and listed in

Annex A. Main references appear at the end of

each chapter. Interested readers may wish to access papers with the help of the Annex.

Acknowledgments

I thank the members of the Committee, the authors, Barry Worthington, USEA and the editor

Klaus Brendow for their valuable contributions to

this document.

Barbara N. McKee

Chairman, CFFS Committee, WEC

3
1. Needs

The development of carbon capture and storage

(CCS) technologies is driven by the need to mitigate climate change resulting from economic development.

1

World energy demand: Fossil fuels have supplied

nearly all of the worldʼs commercial energy supply

between 1900 and 1970, and still provide about

85% in 2007. They are predicted to continue to

supply 82% in 2030 and 64% in 2050. In absolute

terms, this expectation implies a significant increase in generation and use. Figure 1 demonstrates that under present policies fossil fuel

demand will increase by 80% between 1990 and

2050 (Fig. 1, first column 2050). However, under alternative policies, increased efficiencies, substitution of coal by natural gas, promotion of

non-carbon emitting sources or new technologies

could constrain fossil fuel demand and related carbon dioxide emissions. In such a scenario, fossil

fuel demand growth during 1990 – 2050 could be

curbed (from 80% to 60%) and CO2 emissions reduced (by 12%) (Fig. 1, last column 2050).

The worldʼs energy system is huge. The introduction of new technology and systems on an annual

basis can only incrementally change the entire system. Changes in energy sources and utilization

technology take 25 to 50 years of penetration to

change the entire system.

This is due to the extraordinary capital needs and

the long lifetime of facilities and equipment, i.e. a

low capital turnover. This is in part compensated for

by rising efficiencies in energy production, conversion and transportation/transmission. However,

today, there appears to be no feasible and viable

alternative to fossil fuels to meet the twin developmental and environmental aspirations of nations, at

least up to 2050. A faster decline of fossil fuel use

would, in fact, absorb resources, which most, if not

all, countries are unable to mobilize.

Related CO2 emissions: Over the past 250 years,

fossil fuels contributed 75% - 80% to the build-up of

global CO2 concentrations. From an average 23.5

Gt in the 1990s, annual CO2 emissions from fossil

fuel use rose to 26.1 Gt during 2000 – 2005 (IPCC

2007). Given that the carbon intensity of energy

use (2.3 tCO2/toe) is projected to fall only slightly,

energy-related CO2 emissions would increase to

40.4 Gt by 2030 under present policies (including

implementation of the Kyoto Protocol) or to 34.1 Gt

under alternative, more stringent policies (IEA

2006). Thus the Kyoto Protocol is not likely to have

a significant impact on energy use and carbon

dioxide emissions. One reason is that in the 2020s,

emissions from developing countries (which are not

subject to Kyoto reduction requirements) will overtake emissions from OECD countries and reach a

share of 60% - 70% in 2050. Thus, it is important

in the post- Kyoto process to find ways and means

to involve these countries in the process of climate

control, while safeguarding their progress on the

road to development. Carbon capture and storage

4

Carbon Capture and

Storage: A WEC Interim

Balance – 2007 Edition

1 IPCC WG I, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers, February 2007, p. 2 and 5: “The

global increases of carbon dioxide concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change ... The understanding of

anthropogenic warming and cooling... has improved..., leading to a very high confidence [>90 %] that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.”
will be an important option for many developing

countries with fossil fuel sources (see Chapter 5).

Enabling development while mitigating climate

change: Unabated increases in CO2 emissions

would obviously severely undermine any policy to

mitigate climate change. This reality illustrates the

need for at least precautionary measures, where

feasible and cost-effective. In particular, mitigating

impacts of fossil fuels can be accomplished first by

improving combustion and end-use efficiency and

replacing the direct use of fuels by potentially more

efficient and less polluting electricity, and then by

deploying CCS technologies.

Carbon capture and storage technology systems

have the potential to achieve substantial reductions

in global energy-related CO2 emissions, if deployed at a significant scale, in a timely manner

and at competitive costs needed to attract investments. The relevance of CCS in emissions reduction will increase over time, since the growth rates

of global CO2 emissions will likely exceed those of

global energy demand due to projected declining

shares of nuclear and hydropower. However, the

currently high cost of CCS is seen as a serious impediment to its deployment and must be reduced.

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: Hisham Al-Khatib;

Workshop in Tallinn: Barbara N. McKee; other sources: IEA

World Energy Outlook 2004 and 2006; IPCC Climate Change

2007, Summary report for policy makers

2. Technology

Carbon capture and storage technology captures

carbon dioxide, then compresses and liquefies it,

and finally transports it by pipeline or in tankers to

safe and permanent storage in geologic formations.

Some of this technology is proven and has been utilized by the oil industry for enhanced oil recovery.

However, it has not been adequately demonstrated

on large-scale coal-fired power plants as components of integrated clean energy systems. CCS

technology for utilization at new, large power plants

offers the greatest potential for CCS. CCS can also

be used to mitigate CO2 emissions from other

large, stationary source industrial applications.

It should be noted that, in addition to geologic storage, research is also being conducted on terrestrial

storage, mineral carbonation and options to convert

CO2 to beneficial products.

Carbon - Capture: Technology utilized with new

large coal plants can reduce emissions by 80% –

85%. However, capture technologies require additional energy, which reduces overall efficiency. Earlier conversion loss estimates of up to 13% have

been revised (IEA 2004) down to eight percentage

points in existing coal-fired power plants, and to

four percentage points in future integrated coal

gasification combined cycle (IGCC) designs.

 Pre-combustion technologies convert coal or

natural gas into hydrogen and/or ultra-clean

diesel fuels while removing the CO2. Inte5
grated coal gasification combined cycle

(IGCC) technology is a promising approach

because of the potential coproduction of electricity, fuels and chemicals (Fig. 2).

 Post-combustion technologies capture CO2

from flue gases by chemical processes. Another option is oxyfueling, which modifies the

combustion process by using pure oxygen instead of air to obtain highly pure CO2. An attractive example is the oxygen-fired

super-critical steam cycle (SCSC) in pulverized coal combustion (PCC).

Transportation: The transportation of CO2 from

the source point to the storage site is comparatively

inexpensive but substantial infrastructure needs to

be built. The mode of transportation (pipeline,

tanker, truck, ship) of the CO2 in gaseous, liquid or

supercritical state depends on the pressures and

volumes to be shipped, and on the distance to the

storage site. A network linking various source

points to a storage site would be an asset in regions where storage sites are not proximate to the

sources. It remains to be determined how such networks can be sited, financed and operated. At

present, 3,000 km of dedicated, land-based CO2

pipelines are in routine operation (IEA 2004).

Storage: Potential underground depositories for

CO2 are plentiful. Global capacities in saline formations are estimated at 1,000 to 10,000 GtCO2 and

in depleted oil and gas fields at 1,100 GtCO2. This

corresponds to 90 – 480 years of current world

emissions at 23 – 24 GtCO2/year. Moreover, CO2

can also be stored in abandoned or unminable coal

beds or glacial clathrates. At present, more than 33

million tons of CO2 are being captured and stored

in over 70 projects (IEA 2004). Most are experimental, but there are large-scale commercial projects in

operation in In Salah (Algeria), Weyburn (Canada),

the North Sea (Sleipner), and forthcoming in the

Barents Sea, Gorgon (Australia), Gassi Touil (Algeria) and other fields. As noted earlier, CO2 is injected commercially into oil reservoirs for enhanced

oil recovery (EOR) in many parts of the world.

Storage-related issues include a reliable assessment of storage capacity; an increased understanding of CO2 trapping, migration and impact on

ground water; and prevention, monitoring and remediation of leaks. Public concern about the risk of

leaks needs to be addressed at an early stage by

pointing to the present safe storage of millions of

tons of CO2 and the elaboration of designated regulatory regimes. Additionally, issues of short and

long-term liability need to be discussed and settled.

Mineralization/adsorption of CO2 in porous and thermally stable structures (silicates, shale, and salt) is

still speculative and at the conceptual stage; however, this storage method may have great promise.

Research, development and demonstration

(RD&D): The most pressing aims for RD&D are to

reduce the present cost of 50 – 100 US$/tCO2

6

Fig. 2: Coal-based power generation: main technology routes to carbon capture

source: adapted from John Topper, Colin Henderson, I EA Clean Coal Centre (2005)

Commercialisation 

of 

Advanced IGCC 

and PCC

zero emission 

technologies

(ZETs)

Low emissions 

of conventional pollutants

Target for the removal of 

CO2: 90 % 

IGCC ZETs:

Coproduction of power, 

hydrogen, fuels, chemicals

EU Hypogen

US Futuregen

IGCC

+ low efficiency loss

+ good envir. 

performance

+ more products

- perceived higher 

costs 

- more chemical 

technology

PCC

+ experience with flue 

gas scrubbing

+ large commercial 

base and favorable 

ordering pattern

- efficiency penalty

2000 2015 2025

R&D:

hot/cold syngas 

cleaning, hydrogenfired gas turbines,

membrane

separation or reactors,

 mercury removal

CCS

Super-critical 

PCC with flue gas 

scrubbing or oxycoal combustion

R&D: new solvents, 

membranes and other 

absorbents, mercury 

removal, CCS

Early full flow 

demonstration

First 

commercial 

retrofits

 and new plants

With integrated 

CCS systems
(Figure 3) by at least 50%, enhance the integration

of CCS in power plant designs, increase capture

efficiency, upsize installations to demonstration and

commercial scales, and achieve technical feasibility, operational reliability, safety, leak prevention,

commercial viability and public acceptance. In view

of the increase in emissions, RD&D must be accelerated. At this stage, different approaches are

being developed, and prioritizing one approach

over another is neither possible nor desirable.

Rather, the near-term objective is to achieve a diversified portfolio of advanced technologies. The

long-term vision is to operate near-zero emission

multi-product power/chemical plants.

At present, some 110 RD&D projects are underway

worldwide. They include the U.S. FutureGen and

EU-Hypogen projects (both also producing hydrogen as a chemical feedstock or transportation fuel),

the Canada-Clean Power Coalition and programs

in Australia, Germany (Cooretec), United Kingdom,

Norway, France, Italy, Japan and others (see

Annex B).

International cooperation aims at information exchange and coordination through the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, IEA Working Party

on Fossil Fuels, EU Framework Programmes for

Research and Technological Development, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuel Systems Committee and

others. Industry involvement in these efforts is essential. In the United States, industry funds about

one-third of the cost of sixty research projects,

which supplements US$200 million expenditure by

the federal government.

The completion of several larger-scale demonstration plants (250 MW or larger) by 2015 is critical in

order for CCS to gain market share and become

widely deployed in the 2020 – 2030 timeframe.

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: James Ekmann;

Jacek Podkanski; David Sevier; Olav Kaarstad; Klaus Lackner;

Suzanne Hurter; Workshop in Neptun: Ionel Illie; Henrik Noppenau; Robert Gentile; Gurgen Olkhovsky; Workshop in Tallinn: M.

Uus; Workshop in Moscow: A. Tumanovsky, A. Silin, J. Topper,

R. Gentile, P. Casero, A. Nakanishi; further sources: IEA

Prospects of carbon capture and storage, Paris 2004, p. 13 –

21, 55; John Topper, Colin Henderson – IEA Clean Coal Centre:

Advanced technologies towards zero emissions from coal-fired

plant and their introduction in EU member States; lecture given

at the International Conference on Policy and strategy of sustainable energy development for central and eastern European

countries until 2030, Warsaw, 22/23 November 2005; for storage risks and remedies, see: Wolfgang Heidug, Geologische

CO2-Speicherung als Beitrag zum Klimaschutz: Potenzial,

Sicherheit, Wirtschaftlichkeit, in Erdöl Erdgas Kohle 123

Jahrgang, Heft 1 (for English: www.dgmk.de)

The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) has set

a goal to develop by 2012 fossil fuel conversion

systems that offer 90% CO2 capture with 99% storage at less than a 10% increase in the cost of energy services.

7
3. Comparative Economics

Costs: Electricity produced by generating plants

equipped with carbon capture and storage technology is certain to be more expensive than electricity

produced from coal-fired power plants today. This

reality applies regardless of whether existing or new

build plants are outfitted with these technologies. At

present, IEA (2004) estimates the costs of CCS to

range from US$50 to US$100/tCO2. CCS increases

capital cost for power plants by 30% - 100%, and

electricity production cost by 25% – 100%. By 2030,

costs might fall to US $25 –$50/tCO2 (Fig. 3). Some

experts expect this to represent an increase to consumers of one to two cents (US) per kilowatt hour,

which represents a cost increase of approximately

10% to 20%. This may be much less in an IGCC

plant (EC) (IEA 2009).

Competitiveness: The range of uncertainty regarding the cost of deploying CCS technologies makes

comparison of competitiveness relative to other

CO2 emission reduction options speculative. This

reality is a factor not only of the uncertainty of CCS

costs, but the uncertainty of costs of other options.

Figure 3, from the IEA, illustrates the costs of CCS

deployment today and in 2030, which assumes

dramatic cost reductions. The current range of

costs as well as the range in 2030 is significant.

Costs of CCS deployment are often compared to

costs of new renewable or nuclear generation.

Wide ranges of the expected costs of all these options have been developed by experts (see Table

1). Not surprisingly, at the low end of the range for

CCS costs and the middle to high end of the range

for the alternatives, CCS looks very competitive.

However, at the high end of the CCS cost range

and the low end of the alternative range, CCS

looks very expensive.

Efforts to drive down the costs of all of these technologies are underway, and the success of these

efforts will determine which technologies are most

quickly and widely deployed. The reality is that the

world will need to utilize all available technologies

to their maximum economic potential to reduce

emissions and, ultimately, concentrations of CO2 in

the atmosphere to levels scientists predict to be

sustainable.

CCS competitiveness will be influenced by the

proximity of sources to sinks and other local circumstances. Additionally, policy choices that favor

one technology over others will have a huge bearing on the economics of CCS. Currently CCS is

not afforded the benefits that renewables receive

under some international agreements.

Perhaps most important, as noted earlier, the most

economic and competitive options to improve energy efficiency are to reduce CO2 emissions from

power generation, petroleum production, refining,

automobiles and industrial application.

8
Revenues: Most prospective CCS applications, for

example deployment of technologies for utilization

with a large coal fired power plant, represent costs

to the plant owner - both capital costs and operating and maintenance costs. However, some circumstances represent revenue opportunities that

may reduce net expenditures or perhaps in select

circumstances cover the total cost of CCS deployment. For example, if the coal plant location is in

proximity to oil fields, CO2 could be sold to the oil

field operator for use in enhanced oil recovery.

Some estimates of the value of CO2 in this application are US $55/+ CO2 (IEA), while others range

higher, US $40-200/+ CO2 (Z. Khatib).

Other industrial uses of CO2 exist and future applications are likely to develop. Future business opportunities may include managing CCS applications

for others, such as hydrogen production, fuel

cell/battery applications, emission trading and

CO2 storage.

In deploying technologies to reduce sulfur and nitrogen emissions, researchers and technology developers found ways to make useful products by

capturing these pollutants at coal plants rather than

placing these wastes in landfills. It is highly likely

that the worldʼs scientists will develop uses for carbon not currently envisioned, including storage as a

solid.

Externalities: Similar to most advanced technologies, CCS will offer society benefits not easily

quantifiable. Perhaps the most significant is the

contribution to the global economy by maintaining

the viability of coal as an option for power generation and industrial applications. Coalʼs viability represents not only a low-cost fuel supply, but also a

corresponding number of generally high-income

jobs (although this is not universal). For countries

with coal resources and those importing from stable suppliers, coal utilization offers energy security

value as well. In some circumstances CCS will reduce atmospheric pollutants such as NOx, SO2

and mercury. Resulting improvements are thus

achieved in air quality, reduced negative health effects, improved soil fertility, and so on. By preserving the coal option, CCS deployment contributes

directly to the three primary WEC goals of accessibility, affordability and acceptability.

Investments: Investment needs for the first generation of new highly efficient coal-fired power plants of

about 250 MW with CCS (based on super-critical

steam cycles or IGCC) are estimated at between US

$500 million and $1 billion each. At least ten demonstration plants will be needed by 2015 to develop the

technology and bring down costs to achieve a significant market penetration by 2030 (IEA 2004). Equipping 250 GW of new IGCC plants in the OECD

region during the next thirty years with CCS would

increase investments by 20% - 25% or US $350 -

$440 billion. For 500 GW of combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants, the incremental cost would be

US $200 - $250 billion. This would increase investments in power generation in the OECD area by

20% - 25% (IEA WEIO 2003, p. 417).

TABLE 1: Comparison of CO2 abatement costs for a range of renewables, 9

fossil fuel and nuclear generation technologies in 2010

Technology

Abatement cost relative to coal

(US$/tC), low to high

Abatement cost relative to

natural gas (US$/tC), low to high

onshore wind

offshore wind

energy crops

nuclear

wave

CCS retrofit on IGCC

CCS on new IGCC

CCS retrofit on coal

CCS on new coal

-63 to 125

11 to 287

108 to 200

44 to 80

277 to 597

24 to 45

54 to 101

66 to 122

92 to 221

-61 to 291

265 to 592

240 to 447

89 to 164

572 to 1168

101 to 188

151 to 282

195 to 362

243 to 566

Source: World Coal Institute, ECOAL, July 2005, p. 6, similar: Euracoal, Coal industry across Europe 2005, p. 7.
To attract private sector investors or government financing in this demonstration phase, there should

be no policy discrimination against fossil fuels and

no policy uncertainty regarding investment returns,

planning horizons and post-decommissioning liabilities. Market drivers and incentives for CCS deployment need to be in place. Today, these

prerequisites are largely not present and there are

a number of commercial, technical, legal and political uncertainties related to future deployment of

CCS. While there may already be a number of

demonstration plants by 2015 or so, the real commercial take-off depends on the commercial value

of CCS – and eventually on incentives, if that market value is too low.

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: Jacek Podkanski;

Elena Nekhaev; Michel Lokolo; Workshop in Neptun: Michael

Moore; Zara Khatib; further sources: IEA, Prospects for CO2

capture and storage, Paris 2004, p. 20; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2006, p. 75; Euracoal: Coal industry across Europe 2005,

p. 6, 7; Barry Worthington: Funding for clean coal technologies

(www.usea.org); for costs of storage, see also Wolfgang Heidug,

op. cit.; on costs and health benefits: European Commission

Staff working document on Sustainable power generation from

fossil fuels: aiming for near-zero emissions from coal after 2020,

SEC(2006) 1722, p. 39-42; IPCC, Special Report on Carbon

Dioxide Capture and Storage, 2005, p. 358; IEA World Energy

Investment Outlook 2003, fig. 8.1

4. DEPLOYMENT

The drivers: The deployment of CCS depends on

demonstrating the technology on a large scale, its

competitiveness with other mitigation options, the

policy and legal/regulatory framework (see Chapters 7 and 8), executive and board level management support, and adequate time to demonstrate

integrated systems. Applicable in principle to all

major fossil fuel-consuming sectors and emitters,

CCS is most likely to be first deployed in coal- and

natural gas-based power generation with high CO2

concentration in the waste or flue gas in developed

countries and in new facilities. Model calculations

suggest that CCS systems will begin to be deployed significantly when the price for CO2 reaches

approximately US$25 to 30/tCO2 (IPPC), provided

CCS costs have been brought down to at least this

level. Nonmarket-based policies also could accelerate CCS deployments as noted in Chapter 2.

The potential: The potential for CCS deployment

could be significant. For entire energy systems,

CCS deployment may be less significant, limited by

system replacement cycle and possibly competition

between mitigation options. The IEA (2004) suggests that by 2050, and assuming a carbon penalty

or carbon price of $50/tCO2, CCS could reduce

total global energy-related CO2 emissions by half

10

CCS adds20 to 25 %

Source: IEA WEIO, op. cit., p. 419

CCS adds 20 to 25 %

Source: IEA WEIO op cit p 4

%

Source: IEA WEIO, op. cit., p. 419
compared to a scenario without such a penalty

(Chapter 6). If one looked only at coal-related

emissions instead of total emissions, the percentage reduction could be much higher. Unless deployment is accelerated, it will take decades to

achieve widespread deployment of CCS. The

good news is that most energy facilities operating

in 2000 will be retired or subject to major modification by 2050. In the short term, there is the risk

that out of the 1,391 GW new coal plants forecast

worldwide by 2020, almost 86% will likely be built

with conventional technology (Hawkins). These

units will likely still be operating in 2050.

Coal-based power generation: Figure 5 illustrates

the combined effect of CCS and efficiency improvements on CO2 emissions from global coal-based

power plants. These generate about 80% of the 18

GtCO2 of all energy-related CO2 emissions in 2050.

In this scenario, net efficiency gains (22%) and CCS

deployment (30%) would reduce CO2 emissions

from coal-based power generation in 2050 from

about 14.4 GtCO2 to 7.5 GtCO2. However, emissions remain significantly above present levels.

There is an additional potential for reducing CO2

emissions from further advances in combustion efficiency, faster CCS technology development, earlier international deployment, aggressive plant

modernization, improved CCS conversion efficiency, faster market penetration, and co-combustion of biomass and coal. By contrast, CO2

abatement would be less if the relative cost reductions of coal combustion and CCS fall below expectations, which might result from delays in RD&D.

Indeed, more may need to be done. Depending on

the international consensus of what is “sustainable,” the amount of unabated CO2 emissions in

this scenario (7.5 GtCO2) or parts thereof could be

considered unacceptable from a climate change

mitigation policy point of view.

Natural gas-based power generation: Natural

gas has a competitive advantage over coal in regard to CO2 emissions. However, reliance on imported natural gas increases energy security

concerns and only partially reduces climate change

concerns, including the following:

 CO2 emissions during combustion are lower

(but there are potential methane emissions

upstream).

 Combustion efficiencies are higher, even taking into account efficiency losses during capture.

 CCS is already used for natural gas production: CO2 is separated from produced natural

gas streams and reinjected in underground

formations for permanent storage. Presently a

significant CO2 storage operation takes place

in the Norwegian natural gas field Sleipner.

Switching from coal to natural gas fuel, regardless

of size, would continue to contribute to the global

mitigation of energy-related emissions. Local ex1

Figure 5 assumes a doubling of global coal demand through 2050. This corresponds to an annual growth rate of 1.4%, compared

with the historical rate of 2%. Coal use in power generation and related emissions between 2000 and 2050 are estimated to grow

faster, by 1.8%/year. Average world combustion efficiency for coal plants is assumed to rise from 32% at present to the present

state of the art in 2050: 43%. CCS conversion losses are assumed to decline to 4 percentage points, which limits efficiency growth

to 39% in 2050 (IEA 2004). The market penetration of CCS by 2050 is estimated at 30% (IEA 2004).
periences in the United Kingdom, where liberalization of electricity markets has resulted in a considerable expansion of natural gas use in power

generation, show a correspondingly significant reduction in CO2 emissions. However, in the United

States, climate policy must be linked with increased

access to domestic reserves that are currently off

limit to production.

This trend, even if attenuated by rising gas prices

and a growing price competitiveness of coal, will be

an important driver for a cleaner fossil energy system globally, especially before CCS is widely available for deployment. IEA projects that global

natural gas consumption will increase by 68% during 2004 - 2030 (coal: 60%) (2006). This translates

into a projected faster growth of gas-based power

generation (3.2%/year) compared with coal-based

plants (2.9%/year). However, coal would remain

first in terms of capacity (33%) compared with gas

(31%) and oil (5%). This scenario does not see

CCS playing a notable role before 2030 (IEA). By

contrast, a US$50/t CO2 penalty or carbon price

would stimulate CCS penetration and thus coal

combustion. In this case, by 2050, 69% of the capacity of all power plants equipped with CCS would

be on coal units, 23% on gas units and 8% on dedicated biomass (IEA 2004).

Oil-based power generation: In 2004, oil generated 7% of world electricity generation and is expected to generate 3% in 2030 (IEA 2006). In

absolute terms, the decline is less impressive –

from 1161 mtoe in 2004 to 940 mtoe in 2030. There

are, however, many countries where oil use is still

important. For example in Mexico oil still accounts

for 40% of fossil fuel power generation, down from

90% some time ago. Generally speaking, in most

countries oil power plants are the oldest and least

efficient. Their main competitor is natural gas.

Some natural gas units have dual-fuel capability.

Also, some small generators use gasoline, diesel

or kerosene. These offer no CCS options and the

only climate mitigation strategy is to not use them.

Management issues: Experience from companies

leading in emission control suggests that CSS must

be an integrated part of medium- and long-term

GHG emission control strategies. Some companies

see CCS as a step on the road toward a hydrogen

economy. Such an approach requires strong involvement at the central management level and the

integration of CCS into corporate business plans.

Cooperation with other stakeholders, through national and international partnerships and conventions, is another facet of management involvement

to educate the public and clarify issues that are potential barriers for widespread CCS deployment.

Relations with authorities and policy makers are

important to carry the message that CCS policies

should take into account the project-specific nature

of CCS installations, be predictable, transparent

and cost-effective; promote RD&D; and reduce uncertainties such as the regulation of decommissioning of installations (post-closure liability).

12
Management should also consider business opportunities associated with its CCS action plans (EOR,

emission trading, hydrogen, fuel cells, and storage

services). Results in terms of reduced CO2 emissions and reinjections into depositories should be

recorded in standardized GHG emission accounting systems to enhance comparability and credibility. All strategies to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions are likely to eventually be subject to

third-party audits.

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: Elena Nekhaev;

David D. Hawkins; Arthur Lee; Jacek Podkanski; Workshop in

Neptun: Dumitru Manea; further sources: IEA: Prospects for

CO2 capture and storage, Paris 2004; IEA: World Energy Outlook 2006, p. 258, 492, 493); IPPC Special Report on carbon

dioxide capture and storage, p. 11: K. Brendow: Sustainable

World coal mining and use: perspectives to 2030, lecture given

at the International Conference on Policy and strategy of sustainable energy development for central and eastern European

countries until 2030, Warsaw, 22/23 November 2005; on coal

CCS, see: European Commission Staff working document on

Sustainable power generation from fossil fuels: aiming for nearzero emissions from coal after 2020, SEC(2006) 1722

5. Developing Countries and Transition

Economies

Today, 1.6 billion of the worldʼs 6.2 billion population have no access to electricity. No availability of

commercial energy results in lower life expectancy,

lower school enrollment, reduced education opportunities, poorer health - particularly in children, and

dirtier drinking water. “Lack of energy in developing countries and regions is a planetary emergency” (Wilson).

The dilemma: Enforcing a strong carbon discipline

and developing alternative energy systems presupposes a broad public awareness of the risk of climate change and support for mitigation policies. It

also requires a capacity at the government and industry levels to comprehend issues, elaborate solutions and shoulder a considerable cost. These are

high hurdles for developing countries (see Box)

and transition economies. While developing countries have not committed themselves to CO2 reduction targets, the transitional economies did, but

their emissions will remain below the agreed upper

limit for a number of years, depending on their rate

of economic growth.

For the world as a whole, the problem is compounded by the fact that most of the future increases in CO2 emissions will come from

developing countries. Their share in global CO2

emissions will rise from 39% in 2004 to 52% in

2030. As of 2012, their emissions will exceed those

of the industrialized world.

1
Financing the deployment of

CCS to developing countries

From a global perspective of mitigating climate

change, financing the deployment of CCS to developing countries is a priority, due to the growing contributions of these countries to global

CO2 emissions. How can the deployment of

CCS in developing countries be financed?

How much? During 2015-2030, fossil fuel power

generation capacity in the developing countries

may increase by 592 GW, according to the IEA

(WEO 2006) alternative scenario. These plants

would produce an additional 1.4 Gt of CO2,

which corresponds to 56% of the increase of

world energy-related CO2 emissions (2.48 Gt)!

Assuming that deploying CCS in fossil-fuel

power generation in the developing countries

will, as of 2015, cost 20 to 30 US$/tCO2, the

total additional cost of deploying CCS to mitigate

the above mentioned 1.4 Gt CO2 would be

US$28 to $42 billion during 15 years. As a result,

world CO2 emissions would rise much less:

from 31.6 Gt in 2015 to only 32.7 Gt in 2030, instead of 34.1 Gt. There is no other single technological option that would cut the growth of global

emissions by more than half, while enabling development and energy security.

How? Can the world community afford to inject

on average US$2 to $3 billion per year into technology transfer? The consensus of opinion is

yes - the more so, if national and regional carbon

trading schemes were encouraged and compatible, creating a significant carbon price signal

worldwide, 1 and if in the extended EU emission

trading system and in the post-Kyoto process,

CCS projects were eligible for CDM and JI projects, which is presently not the case. In this

case, the above-mentioned public funding needs

could be reduced.

For their part, the developing countries “must develop legal policies on copyright, intellectual property and dispute settlement and provide new

incentives for private investment” (WEC Statement 2007: The Energy Industry Unveils Its Blueprint for Tackling Climate Change, London, 2007).

1 Stern Review, The impact of climate change, Executive

summary, London 2007, estimates the cost of “no action” with

regard to climate change over the next two centuries at an

average reduction of global per capita consumption of at

least 5 to 20%, particularly in developing countries. This compares with a cost of emission reduction consistent with stabilization at 550 ppm of on average 1% of GDP (p. xiii).

(http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/8AC/F7/

Executive_Summary.pdf)

14
This trend is driven by high economic and population growth, rising per capita energy consumption

and a high carbon-intensity of the fuel mix. This

emphasizes the fact that a global carbon constraining policy, without the involvement of developing

countries, will miss the goal of mitigating climate

change. However, developing countries could utilize CCS once these technologies are mature and

viable. There would be a time lag in adopting CCS

in developing countries, but by 2050 almost half of

the capture activity could be in these countries,

particularly China and India (IEA 2004).

Enhanced recovery of oil and gas: The utilization

of CCS to mitigate climate change will be easier for

oil and gas producing countries. They can reduce

part of their rising CO2 emissions by capturing

CO2 and injecting it into some oil and gas fields.

This raises both well productivity and profitability,

as the value of CO2-EOR can be as high as US$40

to 200 t/CO2. Moreover, CO2 injections could liberate gas from enhanced gas recovery (EGR) operations for residential use, LNG (liquefied natural gas)

or gas-to-liquids production. However, at present,

EOR contributes only 4% or 160 million tons of oil

equivalent to world oil production, of which 7% or

11 million tons of oil equivalent is via CO2 injection

(but more in the United States) (Z. Khatib).

The Middle East could see a favorable development as gas flaring can be significantly reduced.

And while unrelated to CCS, it reduces greenhouse

gas emissions of methane. Moreover, fossil fuelbased electricity generation during 2004 - 2030 is

expected to increase by 150%, while CO2 emissions would rise by only 108%. This difference reflects the expectation that CO2 injections will play a

growing role. Several feasibility studies on CO2-

EOR are underway in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar and

Libya, with first demonstration plants expected toward 2015. A regional CO2 grid covering Qatar, the

United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain is

on the drawing boards for operation around 2020.

CO2-EOR or EGR are not primarily driven by concerns about climate change but by resource constraints. This should not demean their role in

attenuating the growth of CO2 emissions. Moreover, EOR/EGR can help build a CCS capacity in

terms of skills and infrastructure to ultimately address the issue of capturing CO2 from fossil fuel

plants in large quantities and storing it on a longterm basis. Evolving from EOR/EGR to CCS with

long-term storage requires developing countries

and economies in transition to design an approach

based first on raising the efficiency of power generation and, second, preparing for CCS deployment.

It is in the interest of electric utilities and hydrocarbon producers to take a lead in deploying CCS.

Efficiency first: Raising the combustion and plant

efficiency of thermal power generation offers

a significant potential for savings of fuel, emissions

and cost. This is true the world over, but particularly

with regard to coal-based power generation in developing countries, where coal is 36%, oil 15% and

1
natural gas 21% of installed generating capacities

(2004).

At present, average coal-based power generation

efficiency in developing countries is perhaps at best

28% (lower rates are quoted), while state-of-the-art

generating efficiencies are 42% to 45% (Fig. 6).

Raising the efficiency in developing countries to

present state of the art during the next two or three

decades would imply a reduction of specific CO2

emissions from coal-based power stations by perhaps 40% – 45% (taking into account CCS conversion losses). This would be a significant contribution

to mitigating climate change and, in fact, the single

most cost-effective supply-side mitigation option.

CCS next steps: At the same time, and with the

strong support of developed nations and the international CCS community,

2 developing countries

and transitional economies could and should prepare themselves for the CCS option, by:

 Developing a knowledge and technology base

as a foundation for technology transfer;

 Joining international CCS networks and partnerships;

 Promoting a new international clean technology fund;

 Creating regional alliances and energy research and investment funds;

 Seeking financial assistance for

– Energy and CCS RD&D; –

– Studying the concept of “applied” CCS

for developing countries;

– Bringing down the cost of clean electricity for the poorest of the poor in order to

make “less clean resources,” e.g. animal

dung, less attractive;

 Designing power systems and new plants so

as to facilitate the later retrofit with CCS (“capture-ready”);

 Mapping underground storage capacities;

 Participating in the licensing and manufacture

of low-cost components for CCS equipment;

 Considering joint ventures in CCS;

 Promoting CDM (clean development mechanisms), IBRD and GEF (Global Environmental

Facility) funding for CCS investments and

emission trading;

 Protecting intellectual property and trade secrets, in particular through nondisclosure

agreements;

 Undertaking studies of public attitudes toward

CCS and addressing concerns referring to different technologies of sequestration, alternative

use of underground storage (storage of natural

gas, etc.), the risk of CO2 leakage from underground storage, and the availability of laws and

regulations to secure health and safety;

16

2 It will be recalled (see Preface) that the WEC CFFS Committee held workshops in Colombo and Jordan and is considering an

event in Africa.
 Stressing the potential of CCS as an important option along with others for economic development and reduced energy poverty. The

message: what is needed is a “low carbon

world” or even better, a “low emissions world,”

and not a “low fossil fuel world.”

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: Barbara McKee;

Hisham Al-Khatib; F. Zancan; Hilal Raza; Richard Wilson; Elena

Nekhaev; Workshop in Tallinn: Anita Kvesko; K. Brendow; further sources: WEC: Sustainable global energy development –

the case of coal, London 2004, p. 8; IEA, World Energy Outlook

2006, p. 81; Zara Khatib: Opportunities for CCS in the MENA region; role of WEC in accelerating its development and implementation; lecture given at the CFFS meeting held in London on

12. 12. 2006; Georg Rosenbauer, in WEC: The World Energy

Book, issue 3; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2006, p. 513

6. Perspectives

Synthesis: Projections of present (and alternative

scenarios) policies suggest that CCS will play a

significant global, climate-relevant role after 2020.

Its market penetration depends on adequate technology demonstration, on the price for carbon (or

incentives) exceeding the cost of CCS systems,

and on the cost of other mitigation options. The

benchmark is presently estimated at around US$25

to 30/tCO2 (€ /t19 – 23). This implies that present

CCS costs must be brought down by half. The

greater the difference between CCS cost and carbon prices, the more significant the role of CCS becomes. Its maximum effect by 2050 is estimated at

around 50% of world energy-related CO2 emissions (IEA 2004). This is the minimum goal of the

EU. More could be attained for coal-based CCS

(92% in the European Union) (Fig. 7). A 50% reduction would stabilize global energy-related CO2

emissions and later, concentrations, while allowing

a 2° C increase in global temperatures. However

important such a reduction of CO2 emissions may

be, climate mitigation measures should also cover

the other greenhouse gases, particularly methane

and should be portfolios of various mitigation

measures, of which CCS would be an important –

but not alone sufficient – component.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

Model calculations estimate the economic cumulative reduction potential of CCS during 2000 - 2100 at

between 220 and 2200 GtCO2 compared to cumulative emissions of 3000 Gt. The range of reduction

(7% to 73%) reflects the differing stringency of the

assumed mitigation policies, with 50% being the

long-term goal for 2050. The higher estimate implies

stabilization of CO2 concentrations at around 450

ppm. IPCC suggests that CCS systems will begin to

deploy significantly when the price for CO2 reaches

approximately US$25 to 30/tCO2. In most of its scenarios, the role of CCS increases over time.

CCS would be a low-cost reduction option accounting for 15% - 85% of a least-cost mitigation strategy; CCS is expected to reduce the costs of

stabilizing CO2 concentrations by 30% or more

(see also Fig. 3 and Table 1).

1

Fig. 7: Explanations and sources: 2020: refers to OECD region = world, IPCC Special Report on carbon dioxide capture and storage, 2005, p. 358; 2030 and 2050, low: reduction of global energy-related emissions compared with a base line without CCS (IEA

WEO 2006, p. 258 and IEA 2004, p. 101); 2030 and 2050, high: reduction of emissions from EU coal power plants compared with

2005 (EC Sustainable power generation from fossil fuels, SEC (2006) 1722, p. 71); 2100: average 2000-2100 reduction of global

energy-related emissions compared with a baseline without CCS (IPPC 2005, op. cit., p. 350, 354)
International Energy Agency: IEA foresees no

notable contribution of CCS in its reference and alternative scenarios for 2030. However, in its more

stringent “Beyond the Alternative Policy Scenario”

(BAPS), IEA explores the conditions for CCS to

bring global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2030

(26.1 Gt) down to the 2004 level. In this case, IEA

attributes to CCS proper (excluding efficiency

gains) a savings potential in power generation of 2

GtCO2 or 11% of global emissions from power and

heat plants (IEA 2006). However, this excludes

gains of 1 Gt due to efficiency improvements in

power plants. For industry, BAPS projects a reduction of 1 Gt due to CCS and efficiency gains. As

CCS would be introduced only in highly efficient facilities, the combined effects of efficiency gains and

CCS in power generation and industry could be estimated at about 4 Gt in 2030, or 10% of global energy-related emissions compared to the alternative

and reference scenarios (IEA 2006).

The reduction in 2030 could be 4.6 Gt or 18% of

the BAPS scenario in case of a CO2 emission

penalty or market price of $50/tCO2. With this latter

assumption and in comparison with a scenario

without such penalty, CCS could reduce emissions

in 2050 by about 27 to 33 GtCO2 or 50%, down

roughly to the level of 2000, thereby stabilizing

emissions and concentrations (at 550 ppm). This is

deemed to be the maximum obtainable from CCS

for global energy-related emissions (IEA 2004).

The percent reduction would be higher for coalbased CCS (EC) (Fig. 7).

European Commission: If CCS-supported policies were introduced in the European Union (EU),

CCS could be used systematically in new coal

plants and retrofits by 2020; by 2030, 25% of coalfueled power generation capacity could be based

on CCS, with a resulting reduction of CO2 emissions from coal plants by 16% in comparison with

2005. By 2050, 100% of coal-based capacity would

be CCS-supported and CO2 emissions 88% lower.

The objective of the EU is to limit global temperature increase to a maximum of 2°C, which implies a

reduction of global greenhouse gases in 2050 by

60 – 80% in developed countries, compared with

1990 (EC).

FURTHER READING: IPPC, Special Report, already quoted, p.

354 (www.ipcc.ch); World Coal Institute, Newsletter ECOAL, October 2005; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2006, p. 258 and Annex,

p. 493; IEA: Prospects for carbon capture and storage, Paris

2004, p. 101, 108, 120; further sources: EURACOAL: Third Coal

Dialogue, Brussels, 18 October 2006, paper presented by Ioannis Galanis (EC DG for Energy and Transport) on: Communication on sustainable coal: impact assessment and communication

outline, p. 12 and 71; on EU emission trading:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission.htm

7. Policies

The deployment of CCS can be greatly supported

by nondiscriminatory and affirmative policies.

Climate policies: Implementation of CCS will ultimately depend on the consensus regarding the urgency of climate protection policies. While there is

18
some agreement on the principles of remedial action (enhanced energy efficiency, promotion of noncarbon energy sources, fuel substitution), views

differ on timeframes, institutional processes and

means (incentives, penalties).

These uncertainties about the scope, urgency, timing and institutional support of climate control policies are reflected in the recent decrease of the

price for a ton of CO2 at EU emission trading exchanges (Fig. 8). These uncertainties need to be

reduced to encourage investors.

At this early stage of CCS development, policies

should focus on technical progress, rather than on

intervention in markets and customer choice.

Present climate policies are inadequately balanced

on two accounts. There is first the sharp focus on

CO2. In reality, during 1980-1990, carbon dioxide

contributed only 55% to the increase in radiative

forcing. Secondly there is the focus on power generation. However, only 29% of global CO2 emissions and 41% of energy-related global CO2

emissions stem from power generation (20% from

transport, 18% from industry, 13% from the residential sector and services, 8% from others). This

imbalance needs to be replaced by considering all

greenhouse gases and all sectors of energy consumption so as to avoid inter-fuel and inter-sectoral

distortions.

Moreover, the focus on emissions at the electricity

generation stage takes into account only part of

total emissions, omitting emissions prior and subsequent to that stage. A full life cycle analysis of

emissions is required to determine the global impact of individual energy projects. If life cycle analysis is used and other greenhouse gases (GHG) are

also taken into account, electricity generation from

coal, gas or oil would show similar levels of GHG

emissions. The projected increase in annual GHG

emissions from coal between 2001 and 2025 of

1.1 billion tons of carbon equivalent is less than

that projected for natural gas (1.3 billion tons) and

oil (1.5 billion tons).

 The CCS option should be integrated into energy policies, emission trading schemes, energy balances, scenarios and models in order

to avoid discrimination against clean fossil fuel

use. CCS should be part of a portfolio of technology and strategies. It is acknowledged that

the quantification of its market penetration and

emission reduction potential is difficult at this

stage – as is the quantification of the contribution of other mitigation options.

 Institutionalized cooperation between all

stakeholders - government, industry and the

public at large – creates mutual understanding

and confidence, hence promotes solutions.

 Developing and transitional economies should

exploit the enormous potential of improved

combustion and increased plant efficiency as

a first option. Internationally, they should be

part of networks established for developing

Fig. 8: EU Emission trading of CO2 1

sources: European Climate Exchange (Amsterdam); EC COM 2007/2 final

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

J O6

MM

J

S

N

J 07

D08D10D12

/t CO2

historical and forward

prices

minimum CCS cost

target

price necessary to

limit global

temperature increase

to 2 ° C in 2020

ditto for 2030
CCS and promote the eligibility of CCS projects as clean development mechanisms

(CDMs) and for GEF funding. Nationally, they

should build human and technical capacity to

deal with CCS and consider interim measures

such as plant designs, which allow the later

retrofit with CCS (see Chapter 5).

Public trust and support must be achieved and retained. Public concerns over issues such as leakages from CO2 storage must be addressed. The

benefits of CCS in terms of mitigating climate

change and allowing fossil fuels to facilitate further

economic development and reduction of energy

poverty must be recognized. A EU inquiry into the

public acceptance of CCS showed that so far less

than 10% of the European population had heard of

CCS; of those, only 13% felt positive about it right

away – this increased to 55% following an explanation of the concept (Euracoal, op. cit.).

Energy policies: In a balanced all-energy perspective, fossil fuels need to be recognized as the

major driver of economic development for decades

to come. The potential of cleaner fossil fuel systems must also be recognized. No source of energy should be idolized or demonized. All will be

needed. CCS should be treated on an equal footing

with other mitigation options (as noted earlier, in

CDM, emission trading, GEF funding).

CCS policies: The lag time inherent in deploying

new technologies as components of energy systems calls for an early definition of the role of CCS.

Plans concerning CCS should cover the entire system, from emissions to sinks and trading. CCS policies should balance public and private interest in

safety, health, the considered use of natural resources and the profitability of CCS operations.

 CCS policies should offer investment certainty

for CCS projects. They should be predictable,

transparent and low-cost, enabling market

forces to unfold. Flexibility within a given

framework is essential, as CCS projects are

site-specific.

 CCS technology policy should be openended, avoid the early selection of “winners”

and be long-term oriented, including toward

the development of the hydrogen economy.

 Policies and regulations should take into account the entire life cycle of CCS investments,

including:

– Assessment and approval of CCS

projects

– Access and property rights (CO2

ownership)

– Operation of CCS facilities

– Transportation issues, including across

borders

– Monitoring and verification of storage

– Decommissioning

– Sharing of post-decommissioning

liabilities

20
 Best practices should be shared internationally.

 The applicability of maritime conventions to

CO2 storage and other legal aspects need to

be reviewed.

 Expenditure in public energy RD&D, which

had been cut by half in OECD countries over

the last few years, should be reconsidered in

the light of the changes that are taking place.

Given the importance of fossil fuels for development and the environment, RD&D in

cleaner fossil fuels systems, and in particular

in CCS, should be accelerated and internationally coordinated.

 The roles of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), the IEA and WEC are

recognized.

 Pilot studies should explore the “captureready” design of conventional plants.

 If in the early deployment phase, the carbon

value and, hence, the commercial value of

CCS projects or components is insufficient, incentives should be considered (such as early

mover incentives, faster depreciation allowances, etc.).

 The fair comparison of CCS technology in

Greenhouse Gas Emission inventories requires standardized statistics.

FURTHER READING: Workshop in Erice: Steve Tantala; Arthur

Lee; Jacek Podkanski; David Hawkins; Elena Nekhaev; Klaus

Lackner; Workshop in Neptun: Peter Mak; further sources: IEA

Legal aspects of storing CO2; Paris 2005; IPPC: Climate

change – the IPCC scientific assessment, 1990, figures 7; IEA

World Energy Outlook 2004, table 2.3; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2006; Euracoal, op. cit.; EC Limiting global climate change

to 2°, COM (2007) 2 final; Nicholas Stern, The Stern review on

the economics of climate change (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk)

8. LAWS AND REGULATIONS

The timely deployment of CCS technologies worldwide is preconditioned on affirmative national legal

and regulatory frameworks, an update of international conventions and treaties, reliable (private)

contractual arrangements and an equal playing

field for CCS.

Solutions, however partial and inconsistent they

may be, are emerging in developed and hydrocarbon-producing countries. They seek a balance

among private and societal objectives, market

mechanisms and policy interventions, risk avoidance and risk management, and national sovereignty and international convergence. Emphasis at

present is on enabling the uptake of CCS projects,

particularly those enjoying an enhanced hydrocarbon recovery bonus.

2
Current discussions:

 Recognize the role of CCS and consider

adapting national and international legal

frameworks and conventions (removal of technological and cost barriers, pro-active actions);

 Address longer-term concerns (storage, postoperational ownership of sites and CO2 and

related liability for leakage);

 Address the protection of intellectual property;

 Consider equivalence of treatment between

CCS projects and other mitigation options regarding emission trading, clean development

mechanisms, joint implementation and GEF

funding;

 Encourage conditions for the (later) deployment of CCS in developing countries; and

 Build social acceptance of CCS.

By 2008, matters should have been greatly clarified, since the G8 Summit of Gleneagles in 2005

had mandated the IEA and CSLF to submit recommendations to the G8 Summit in Japan in 2008.

Broadly, this timing and focus of efforts seems to fit

the longer term calendar of launching CCS power

plants with long-term storage. In any case, technical progress in CCS and regulatory advancement

need to be correlated.

Adapting national legal and regulatory frameworks: Some countries likely to use CCS in the

near term have well-established legal and regulatory regimes for the hydrocarbon and mineral industries, and for environmental protection and

waste disposal. These countries may not have to

substantially change those regimes to apply to

CCS projects. Other countries that do not have

such legal and regulatory regimes could benefit

from experience acquired elsewhere.

Any such regimes have two objectives: protecting

the public with regard to health, safety, financial

and environmental risks associated with CCS,

while enabling the development of CCS as part of a

climate change mitigation portfolio. The issues include the following:

 The definition of CO2 as an industrial commodity (used for enhanced recovery) or as a

substance to be stored permanently. This determines the type and jurisdiction of regulations governing CO2 injections;

 Criteria for site selection and use, in particular

assessing the risk of leakage and related risk

management. Data collection, monitoring and

verification must be sufficiently accurate to

meet international inventory standards.

 Licensing of activities and sites;

 Ownership of, and access to, CCS injection

sites and storage space; arbitration of conflicting rights between the CCS and hydrocarbon

and mineral industries;

22
 Legal and financial liabilities during the lifetime of the project and after decommissioning;

post-closure ownership of the CO2 and storage sites and liability; and

 Regulation of CO2 transportation and storage

across international or subnational borders, or

offshore.

Consistent national frameworks are emerging, for

example, in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands,

Norway, the United Kingdom and the United

States, in addressing the immediately relevant issues. The next priority, also from the point of view

of public acceptance, appears to be the monitoring

of CO2 streams and the definition of responsibilities after closure of a storage site. Models applied

to other materials injected into geological formations may serve as examples. In the long-term,

governments may need to assume liability for longterm storage.

Reviewing international treaties and conventions: CCS projects are subject to international law

when they cross borders or take place in international waters. International law requires CCS projects to avoid transboundary environmental damage

and to protect the marine environment. These obligations had been specified in a number of legally

binding global and regional international instruments, established before CCS became an environmental and climate mitigation option:

 The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,

1982, which does not specifically regulate or

prohibit CCS activities, but calls on States to

protect the marine environment from human

activity such as dumping;

 The London Convention on the Prevention of

Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and

Other Matter, 1972, prohibits the dumping of

“waste” into the sea;

 The London Protocol to the above Convention, 1996, allows as of 10 February 2007 the

injection of CO2 streams from CO2 capture

processes and incidental associated substances in sub-seabed geological formations;

 The Basel Convention on the Control of

Transboundary Movements of Hazardous

Waste, 1989, which might be applicable if

CO2 contained toxic substances;

 The UN Framework Convention on Climate

Change, 1994, under which CCS could be

considered as an option to mitigate climate

change;

 The Kyoto Protocol, 2005, excludes CCS from

the Clean Development Mechanism; and

 Regional treaties and conventions for the protection of the marine environment of the

North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention),

1992; Baltic Sea, 1992; Black Sea, 1994;

wider Caribbean region, 1983; Mediterranean,

1976; Gulf, 1978; west and central African re2
gion, 1981; South Pacific, 1981, 1986; Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import to

Africa and the Control of Transboundary

Movement and Management of Hazardous

Waste within Africa, 1991.

At present, the above major conventions are being

reconsidered to distinguish CO2 injections from

dumping. On 2 November 2006, the Parties to the

London Protocol defined the conditions under

which CO2 can be stored in sub-seabed geological

formations (see above). Parties recognized that

ocean acidification caused by rising CO2 emissions

calls for a portfolio of mitigation options, including

placement of CO2 in sub-seabed formations.

These amendments may prompt reconsideration of

other treaties.

Sharing or protecting intellectual property (IP):

Some CCS investors (such as Statoil for Sleipner

and Snovit) are willing to release their knowledge

to the public domain. However generally, CCS investors cannot be expected to commit themselves

unless their IP rights (particularly patents and trade

secrets) are protected. IP protection aims to:

 Secure the property of, and access to, land,

plants, equipment, storage sites and stored

CO2 , with capture technology being particularly sensitive, and

 Enable the transfer of knowledge and technology to receiving countries, and related capacity building.

The preferred route for dealing with these issues is

through enforceable, private contracts rather than

through laws and regulations, which do not fit specific circumstances. But IP law needs to support

such contractual provisions. IP protection of CCS

plants and processes can benefit from well-established protocols in the chemical, engineering and

petroleum industries. By contrast, service

providers will need to develop specific means of IP

protection, probably through trade secrets rather

than patents. In both cases, law must enable the

protection of IP.

The role of governments consists primarily in securing a robust national regime of IP protection as

a precondition for private investments. This is particularly true for developing and transition

economies, where, at present, the absence of stringent regulatory frameworks in terms of enforcement and sanctions inhibits the deployment of CCS

(see Table 2). Continued efforts at international harmonization of patent and other IP protection

regimes (WTO, WIPO) would be beneficial for CCS

deployment, but progress may be faster in terms of

soft law than of hard law, and at the regional level

(Convention on the Grant of European Patents).

Public involvement in CCS funding or projects may

reduce risks for investors but also render ownership and enforcement more complicated. Predictability of licensing conditions or standards

would be an asset. However, on the whole, “the

issue of IP is not expected to compromise or inhibit

the deployment of the CCS industry” (IEA/CSLF).

24 Table 2: Protection of intellectual property rights

(Index: 0 = weakest, 10 = strongest performance)

World 5.3

North America 6.4

Latin America 4.0

Africa 4.2

Middle East/Northern Africa 5.0

Western Europe 7.4

CEE and Russia 4.2

Australia, New Zealand, Japan 9.7

India, China, Philippines 6.0

Pakistan, Kenya, Ethiopia 3.7

Source: IPRI International Property Rights Index 2007 (http://internationalpropertyrightsindex.org)
Securing a level playing field for CCS: As a latecomer among climate change mitigation options,

CCS does not benefit from incentives offered to

other low-carbon technologies, such as emission

trading (EU), the clean development and joint implementation mechanisms (Kyoto Protocol) or funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

The resulting competitive bias to the detriment of

CCS projects has been recognized, and efforts

have been initiated in the above conventions, within

GEF and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), on whether and how to apply the

mentioned instruments to CCS. The difficulty is that

CCS projects, unlike other mitigation options, do not

remove all the CO2. Accounting schemes have to

be developed to measure the net emission reduction from a CCS project compared to emissions that

would occur in the absence of such a project (the

baseline). Emissions resulting from the higher energy use during carbon capture will have to be

taken into account. International guidelines should

ensure equivalence of treatment between CCS and

other mitigation options, in order to reduce investor

uncertainty toward CCS projects.

Alternatively, governments could level the playing

field CCS deployment by other means, such as tax

incentives, grants, RD&D funding, sovereign guarantees or by assuming long-term liability for leakage after decommissioning. Financing of CCS

deployment is in any case a difficult and as yet unresolved issue, even anticipating future cost reductions of CCS technology. Financing is particularly

difficult if emission trading credits are below the

higher cost of advanced technologies and if longterm mitigation policies and incentives remain uncertain.

FURTHER READING: IEA/CSLF Second Workshop on Legal

Aspects of Carbon Capture and Storage, Paris, 17 October

2006; Harry Audus, An Update on CCS: Recent Developments;

Lecture Given at the IEA/CSLF Second Workshop, op. cit.;

Barry Worthington, Funding for Clean Coal Technologies

(www.usea.org)

CONCLUSION

The CFFS Workshops in Erice, Colombo, Neptun,

Tallinn, Moscow and Jordan allow an interim appreciation of the prospects of CCS.

Current status: At present, more than 33 million

tons of CO2 are captured every year worldwide.

They are stored in at least 70 projects, with Sleipner

alone accounting for more than 6 million tons. There

are 3000 km of land-based dedicated CO2

pipelines. In contrast to enhanced oil and gas recovery, CCS is not yet a commercial reality in electricity

generation because of its costs and ongoing strive

for technological maturity. There will be a number of

demonstration projects by 2015 or earlier, with as

yet limited impact on global CO2 emissions.

Potential: By about 2020, CCS can develop into a

significant and competitive option to simultaneously

slow the growth of CO2 emissions and promote

2
economic development, energy security and air

quality in many countries for decades to come.

Commercial deployment depends on the commercial value of carbon exceeding the cost of CCS

systems, and eventually on incentives, if that condition is not met initially.

On the assumption that CCS would reach its full

potential in the next 30 to 40 years, CCS could reduce energy-related global CO2 emissions by up to

half by 2050 compared to a business-as-usual

case. If coal-based power plants are utilized together with improved combustion and higher plant

efficiencies, CCS would have an even greater mitigation effect. During 2000-2100, CCS could economically reduce estimated global CO2 emissions

by 220 – 2200 GtCO2, which corresponds to 15% -

55% of a worldwide least-cost mitigation effort.

Hence, CCS, together with other mitigation options,

could serve as a bridge to a future sustainable energy economy and to better air quality.

Caveats: A significant role for CCS depends upon

its cost being reduced by half to about US$25 to

30/tCO2. But even in this case, CCS – while a lowcost option - is not a universal remedy. It is initially

limited to new, highly efficient, high-capacity power

and industrial plants in developed countries. CCS

projects are site-specific, driven by local conditions

and opportunities, and are hence unlikely to be precisely replicable. CCS should be seen as an important part of a portfolio of measures, including

enhanced efficiency of energy production and use,

renewables and new nuclear technologies.

CCS deployment would slow the growth of and ultimately reduce CO2 emissions. However, the stabilization of emissions and concentrations at

acceptable levels will require advances in combustion efficiency, faster CCS technology development,

earlier international deployment, aggressive plant

renewal, improved CCS conversion efficiency,

faster market penetration and co-combustion of

biomass and coal. These measures depend on

policies whose stringency would still need to be determined. In transportation, the (likely) mismatch

between the location of the emitter and the sink

may be a limiting factor for small volumes and very

long distances.

The prospects of CCS are also determined by the

need to safely store billions of tons of CO2 for centuries. Failure to prevent, control or remedy leakage (and reassure the general public on this issue)

would severely reduce the prospects of CCS. Note,

though, that IPCC considers that appropriately selected and managed reservoirs are “very likely” (a

probability of 90 to 99%) to retain 99% of the stored

CO2 for over one hundred years and are “likely”

(probability of 66 to 90%) to retain 99% for over

one thousand years.

Action: Successful deployment of CCS depends

on the following:

26
 The recognition of CCS as a climate mitigation option in national policies and international conventions and agreements;

 The formulation of affirmative, predictable,

nondiscriminatory and cost-effective CCS and

energy policies;

 The integration of the CCS option into these

policies, as part of a portfolio of mitigation

measures;

 The adoption of investor-conscious national

frameworks and laws and regulations on

CCS licensing, decommissioning, safety and

liabilities;

 Interaction between government, industry and

research institutes on the tenor and sequencing of CCS development;

 The eligibility of CCS projects in clean development mechanisms, joint implementation,

emission trading systems, IBRD and Global

Environment Facility funding;

 Financial mechanisms to set a value for carbon at the global level and incentives, if initial

carbon prices are too low;

 The adaptation of international treaties and

conventions on the marine environment and

cross-border transportation;

 The acceleration of national and international

cooperation in CCS RD&D, in particular on

cost reduction, the permanence of storage

and “capture-ready” capacity expansion;

 The building of several cost-effective largescale demonstration plants;

 The involvement of all stakeholders;

 Given their growing role as emitters: the integration of developing countries in CCS networks (capacity building), emission trading

and project funding; and

 An early proactive and participatory outreach

effort. The message: “Carbon Capture and

Storage is an Essential Bridge to a Sustainable and Secure Energy Future”

2

The message: “Carbon Capture and Storage is an Essential

Bridge to a Sustainable and Secure Energy Future”
A. Papers Presented at CFFS

Seminars

1. WEC CFFS Committee Discussion Session

during the 19th World Energy Congress on:

Cleaner Fossil Fuels – The Cornerstone for

Human Development and Energy Security,

Sydney (Australia), 8 September 2004

Website:

http://www.worldenergy.org/news__events/world_e

nergy_congress/sydney_2004/default.asp

 Introduction

Barbara N. McKee, Director, Office of Clean

Energy Collaboration, U.S. Department of Energy; Chairman, WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels

Systems (CFFS) Committee

Email: Barbara.Mckee@hq.doe.gov

 Energy Security and Cleaner Fossil Fuels

Systems

Ahmad Waqar, Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Pakistan

Email: hdip@apollo.net.pk

 Investment in Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems

Fernando Zancan, Executive Manager,

SIECESC, Brazil

Email: zancan@siecesc.com.br

 Energy Technology Transitions

Robert Gentile, President, Leonardo Technologies, Inc., United States

Email: RHGentile@aol.com

 Human Development and Cleaner Fossil

Fuels Systems

Joanne DiSano, Director, CSD Secretariat

and Division for Sustainable Development,

Department of Economic and Social Affairs,

United Nations, New York

2. World Federation of Scientists and WEC

Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS) Committee

Joint Workshop on: Carbon Capture and Storage

– A Way Forward for Cleaner Fossil Fuels, Erice

(Sicily), 24 August 2005

Website:

http://www.usea.org/CFFS/CFFSErice.htm;

http://energypmp.org;

http://www.worldenergy.org/focus/ccs/default.asp;

also available on CD-ROM

 Opening Remarks and Welcome

Richard Wilson, Department of Physics, Harvard University, Chairman of the World Federation of Scientists PMP, United States

Email: wilson5@fas.harvard.edu

 Introduction and Overview

Barbara N. McKee, Director, Office of Clean

Energy Collaboration, U.S. Department of Energy; Chairman, WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels

Systems (CFFS) Committee

Email: Barbara.mckee@hq.doe.gov

28

Annexes
 The Need

Hisham Al-Khatib, Honorary Vice Chairman

WEC, Jordan

Email: Khatib@nets.com.jo

 The Technologies

James Ekmann, Associate Director, National

Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), US

Department of Energy, United States

Email: James.Ekmann@netl.doe.gov

 The Economics

Jacek Podkanski, Senior Energy Technology

Specialist, Energy Technology Collaboration

Division, International Energy Agency (IEA),

France

Email: jacek.podkanski@iea.org

 Environmental Issues

David Hawkins, Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),

United States

Email: dhawkins@nrdc.org

 Funding Needs and Opportunity

Elena Nekhaev, Director of Programmes,

World Energy Council (WEC), United Kingdom,

Email: Nekhaev@worldenergy.org

 Industry Perspectives

Arthur Lee, Principal Advisor, Global Policy

and Strategy, Corporate Health Environment

Safety, Chevron Corporation, United States

Email: RLAS@chevron.com

 Deployment

Fernando Zancan, Executive Manager,

SIECESC, Brazil

Email: zancan@siecesc.com.br

 Regulatory and Legal Issues

Steve Tantala, Manager, Resources Environment and Carbon Capture and Storage Policy,

Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, Australia

Email: Steve.Tantala@industry.gov.au

 New and Innovative Approaches for CO2

Capture and Storage

Klaus Lackner, Professor of Geophysics and

Environmental Engineering, Columbia University, United States

Email: Kl2010@columbia.edu

Suzanne Hurter, Shell International Exploration and Production B.V., the Netherlands

Olav Kårstad, Carbon Dioxide Management,

Statoil, Norway

Email: okaa@statoil.com

David Sevier, Managing Director, Aqueous

Logic, United Kingdom

E-mail: David.s@aqueouslogic.co.uk

 Discussion and Dialogue

Robert Gentile, Managing Partners, Atlantic

Partners, United States

Email: RHGentile@aol.com

3. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)

Committee Dialogue on: Cleaner Fossil Fuels

Systems with Carbon Capture and Storage:

Whatʼs in It for the Developing World?

Colombo (Sri Lanka), 6 September 2005

 Introduction and Session Overview

Barbara N. McKee, Director, Office of Clean

Energy Collaboration, U.S. Department of Energy; Chairman, WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels

Systems (CFFS) Committee

Email: Barbara.mckee@hq.doe.gov

 The Need and Technologies

Hisham Al-Khatib, Honorary Vice Chairman,

WEC, Jordan

Email: Khatib@nets.com.jo

 The Economics

Michel Lokolo, Deputy Director of Petroleum

Products, Ministry of Mines, Water and Energy, Cameroon

Email: mclokolo@yahoo.com

2
 Energy Situation and the Role of Fossil Fuels

in South Asia

Hilal Raza, Director General and Chief Executive Hydrocarbon Development Institute of

Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan

Email: hilalraza2007@gmail.com

4. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)

Committee and Craiova Power Energy Complex

Joint Workshop on: Cleaner Fossil Fuels for Sustainable Development

Neptun (Romania), 13 June 2006

Website : http://www.usea.org/CFFS/CFFSNeptun.htm

 Opening Remarks, Welcome and Overview

Constantin Balasoiu, General Manager,

Craiova Power Energy Complex, Romania

Email: cen@termo.oltenia.ro

 Session 1: Current Cleaner Fossil Fuels

Systems

Pollution Controls Systems

Dumitru Manea, Customer Manager, Alstom

Global Power Sales, Romania

E-mail: dumitru.manea@power.alstom.com

Improving Efficiencies

Ionel Ilie, Craiova Power Energy Complex,

Romania

E-mail: ilie@termo.oltenia.ro

Co-firing of Coal and Biomass

Henrik Noppenau, Vice President, Product

Systems Development, Energi E2, Denmark

E-mail: hno@e2.dk

RWEʼs Strategy on Clean Coal Power in the

European Network

Henning Joswig, RWE Power, Germany,

 Session 2: Future Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems

Moderator

Barbara N. McKee, Director, Office of Clean

Energy Collaboration, U.S. Department of Energy; Chairman, WEC CFFS Committee

Email: Barbara.mckee@hq.doe.gov

New Multi-Generation Systems (Power, Hydrogen, CCS and Systems Integration)

Robert Gentile, Managing Partners, Atlantic

Partners, United States

Email: RHGentile@aol.com

Deployment and Dissemination (Financing,

Partnerships, Corporate Social Responsibility)

Zara Khatib, Technology Manager, Shell EP

International Limited, United Arab Emirates

Email: Zara.z.khatib@shell.com

Market Drivers for Carbon Capture and Storage (Commercial and Environmental Aspects,

Emission Trading, and Standards)

Michael Moore, Director of Marketing, Eastern

Region Falcon Gas Storage Company,

Inc., United States

E-mail: mmoore@falcongasstorage.com

R&D Prerequisites

Gurgen Olkhovsky, General Director, All-Russian Thermal Engineering Institute, Russia

Email: vti@cnt.ru

CSD Policy on Global Fossil Fuelʼs Future

Peter Mak, Chief, Energy and Transport

Branch, Department of Economic &

Social Affairs, United Nations, New York

Email: makk@un.org

5. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)

Committee Focused Lectures on: Global and Regional Efforts Toward Carbon Capture and Storage

Tallinn (Estonia), 4 September 2006

Website:

http://www.usea.org/CFFS/CFFSTallinn.htm

 Opening Remarks

Barbara N. McKee, Director, Office of Clean

Energy Collaboration, U.S. Department of Energy; Chairman, WEC CFFS Committee

Email: Barbara.mckee@hq.doe.gov

30
 Carbon Capture and Storage: a WEC Interim

Balance – What Message for the Baltic

States?

Klaus Brendow, Senior Advisor, WEC,

Switzerland

Email: Kbrendow@compuserve.com

 Practical Aspects of Oil Shale Energy in Estonia

Mati Uus, Development Director, Narva Power

Plants Ltd.

 What Are the Options for Europe and the

Baltic States to Mitigate CO2 Emissions?

Anita Kvesko, Senior Environmental Specialist, Latvenergo

6. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)

Committee and the All-Russian Thermal Engineering Institute (VTI) Workshop on: Cleaner Fossil

Fuels for Power Generation

Moscow (Russia) 8 September 2006

Website: http://www.usea.org/CFFS/CFFSMoscow.htm

 Opening Remarks

Sergey Mazurenko, Federal Agency for Science and Innovations, Russia; V. P. Voronin,

Open Joint Stock Company RAO “UES of

Russia,” Russia

E-mail:

Barbara McKee, Chairman, WEC Cleaner

Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS) Committee,

Email: Barbara.mckee@hq.doe.gov

Gurgen Olkhovsky, Director General, AllRussian Thermal Engineering Institute,

Russia

Email: vti@cnt.ru

 Fossil Fuels for Power Generation

Elena Nekhaev, Director of Programmes,

World Energy Council, United Kingdom

Email: Nekhaev@worldenergy.org

 The Use of Fossil Fuels in the Power Industry

of Russia

Anatoly Tumanovsky, All-Russian Thermal Engineering Institute, Russia

Email: vti@cnt.ru

 Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plants

Alexander Silin, GE, United States

 Environmental Protection Systems for Fossil

Power Plants

John Topper, International Energy Agency

Clean Coal Centre (IEA CCC)

Email: John.Topper@iea-coal.org.uk

 Results of Implementation of IGCC Demonstration Plants in the USA and Further Development of This Technology

Robert Gentile, Leonardo Technologies Inc,

United States

Email: RHGentile@aol.com

 Application Experience with the Operation of

the IGCC Plants in Portalamo and the

Prospects of this Technology

Pedro Casero, ELCOGAS, Spain

 Application Experience with the Operation of

Pressurized Fluidized-bed Combined Cycle

Plants and the Prospects of the Use of this

Technology for Power Generation

Akio Nakanishi, Japan

 Power Unit Generated CO2 Capture and Sequestration – Ideas and Achievements

John Topper, International Energy Agency,

Clean Coal Center (IEA CCC)

Email: John.Topper@iea-coal.org.uk

3
7. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)

Committee Dialogue on: Mitigating the growing

contributions of West Asia in global emissions

Dead Sea (Jordan), 25 April 2007

Website: http://www.usea.org/CFFS/CFFSAmman.htm

 Opening Remarks, Welcome and Overview

Hisham Al-Khatib, Honorary Vice Chairman,

WEC, Jordan

Email: Khatib@nets.com.jo

 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) – Global

Overview

Barbara McKee, Chairman, WEC Cleaner

Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS) Committee,

Email: Barbara.mckee@hq.doe.gov

 Energy Situation in Jordan

Ghaleb Ma-abrah, Commissioner, Electricity

Regulatory Commission, Jordan

E-mail: gmaabreh@erc.gov.jo

 The Clean Development Mechanism

Mustafa Attili, Quality Environment & Safety

Department Manager, Development & Planning Division, Central Electricity Generating

Co., Jordan

Email: mattili@cegco.com.jo

 Power Sector Perspective

Rasheed Sulaiman, Sales Application Engineering, GE Energy, Middle East & Africa

E-mail: rasheed.sulaiman@ge.com

 Oil and Gas Sector Perspective

Zara Khatib, Technology Manager, Shell EP

International Limited, United Arab Emirates

Email: Zara.z.khatib@shell.com

 Gas Flaring Reduction

François Mouton, Advisor, Global Gas Flaring

Reduction, The World Bank

Email: fmouton@worldbank.org

 Effect of Firing Heavy Fuel Oil for Electricity

Generation on the Environment

Fouad M. Alsaeedi, Generation Engineer,

General Technical Department, Saudi Arabia

Email: falsaeedi@se.com.sa

 Technology for Sustainable Development

Milton Catelin, Chief Executive, World Coal Institute, United Kingdom

E-mail: mcatelin@wci-coal.com

 Regulatory Perspective on Mitigating Global

Emissions

Sergio Garribba, Former Director General,

Ministry of Productive Activities, Italy

E-mail: s.garribba@hotmail.it

 Carbon Capture and Storage: Opportunities

and Challenges

Klaus Brendow, Senior Advisor, World Energy

Council, Switzerland

E-mail: KBrendow@compuserve.com

8. WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS)

Committee Session during the 20th World Energy

Congress on: Fossil Fuels Leading the Clean Energy Revolution?

Rome (Italy) 12. November 2007

 Opening Statement & Why Fossil Fuels Must

Lead the Clean Energy Revolution

Barbara McKee, Chairman, WEC Cleaner

Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS) Committee,

Email: Barbara.mckee@hq.doe.gov

 Opportunities and Challenges for New Technologies and Deployment Including CCS

Victor Der, Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Clean Coal, US Department of Energy

E-mail: Victor.Der@hq.doe.gov

 Fossil Energy and Environment in an Interdependent World

Peter Garrucho, Managing Director, First

Philippines Holding Corporation; Chairman,

WEC Philippines Member Committee

E-mail: pdgarrucho@fphc.com

32
 Market Drivers for Clean Fossil Fuels Systems

Michael Moore, Director of Marketing, Eastern

Region Falcon Storage Company, Inc., United

States

E-mail: mmoore@falcongasstorage.com

 The Global Stake in Technology Transfer

Preston Chiaro, Chief Executive Energy, Rio

Tinto PLC; Chairman, World Coal Institute

(WCI), United Kingdom

Email: preston.chiaro@riotinto.com

 Open Discussion

Moderator:

Hisham Al-Khatib, Chairman, Electricity Regulatory Commission, Jordan

Email: Khatib@nets.com.jo

B. List of International CCS

Initiatives

a) Formulation of policies

 The G8 (Group of 8), at Gleneagles (Scotland) in 2005 (www.g8.gov.uk), agreed in its

Plan of Action inter alia to accelerate the development and commercialization of CCS. It

mandated the IEA and CSLF to hold a workshop on short-term opportunities. It will consider a report on Climate Change, Clean

Energy and Sustainable Development at its

session in Japan in 2008.

 The International Energy Agency (IEA)

(www.iea.org) expanded its long-standing involvement in clean fossil fuel technologies into

CCS.

 The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

(CSLF) (www.cslforum.org) endeavors to

make CCS technologies broadly available. It

fosters collaborative RD&D and, in response

to the above-mentioned G8 request, examines near-term CCS opportunities, together

with IEA, at workshops (San Francisco 2006,

Oslo 2007, Canada 2007).

 The UN Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) (http://unfccc.org) and the

Kyoto Protocol (http:unfccc.int/kyoto) aim at

the mitigation of climate change They consider present eligibility of CCS projects for

clean development mechanism and joint implementation.

 The European Union emission trading

scheme (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission.htm) does not, at present, support CCS; however, the 6th

(http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/index.html)

and 7th Framework Programmes for Research

and Technological Development

(http://ec.europa.eu/resear ch/fp7/index.html)

call for CCS-related projects.

b) Data collection and analysis

 IEA publications (www.iea.org):

– Prospects for CO2 capture and storage,

2004;

– Legal aspects of storing CO2, 2005;

– Legal aspects of carbon capture and

storage, 2006;

 IEA bodies:

– Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

(www.ieagreen.org);

– IEA Clean Coal Centre (www.ieacoal.org);

– IEA Working Party on Fossil Fuels (zero

emissions, legal aspects);

– IEA Coal Industry Advisory Board

(www.iea.org/ciab);

 European Commission: European Climate

Change Program Working Group on Carbon

Capture and Geological Storage (http://europa.eu.int/comm./environment/climat/stake_

wg.htm);

 WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I on The physical science basis, Working Group II on

Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, and Working Group III on Mitigation

3
of climate change (www.ipcc.ch); Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage

(2005)

 World Energy Council (www.worldenergy.org):

– Committee on Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems (CFFS): pamphlet on Carbon Capture and Storage – a WEC interim

Balance, London 2006 and 2007;

– Committee on the Performance of Generating Plants: Study on energy and climate change;

– Pilot programme on greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions reduction (concluded);

– CCS pilot projects in Brazil, China, South

Africa (initiated).

c) Collaborative development of technologies

 The IEA Implementing Agreements also address CCS; the IEA Coal Research - Clean

Coal Centre (www.iea-coal.org) undertakes an

extensive programme on clean coal technologies, surveys progress in CCS;

 The CSLF supports 17 CCS collaborative

projects (www.cslforum.org/projects.htm);

 The EU 6th

(http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/index.html)

and 7th Framework Programmes for Research

and Technological Development (http://ec.europa.eu/resear ch/fp7/index.html) call for

CCS-related projects.

d) International legal and regulatory frameworks

 The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS) (www.unclos.com), 1982, does not

specifically regulate or prohibit CCS activities,

but calls on States to protect the marine environment from human activity such as dumping.

 The London Convention on the Prevention of

Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and

Other Matter, 1972

(www.londonconvention.org) prohibits the

dumping of “waste” into the sea;

 The London Protocol to the above Convention, 1996, allows as of 10 February 2007 the

dumping of CO2 streams from CO2 capture

processes and incidental associated substances in sub-seabed geological formations;

 The Basel Convention on the Control of

Transboundary Movements of Hazardous

Waste, 1989 (www.basel.int), does not consider CO2 as a hazardous waste, but may do

so if containing toxic substances.

 Regional treaties and conventions for the protection of the marine environment may have

implications for CCS: in the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR), 1992; Baltic Sea, 1992; Black

Sea, 1994; wider Caribbean region, 1983;

Mediterranean, 1976; Gulf, 1978; west and

central African region, 1981; South Pacific,

1981, 1986; as well as the Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import to Africa and the

Control of Transboundary Movement and

Management of Hazardous Waste within

Africa, 1991.

e) Selected RD&D projects

Some 110 RD&D projects on CCS have been undertaken worldwide and described in the database

of the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

(http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/search.php

4). Major CCS projects addressing new combustion

and storage technologies (excluding EOR) include:

i. Storage

 Sleipner (Norwegian North Sea)

(www.statoil.com/) – first industrial-scale storage of CO2 from gas processing since 1996,

ongoing

 CO2 Store (www.co2store.org) – a follow-up

to the Sleipner project on storing and monitoring CO2 in aquifers

 In Salah (Algeria) (www.bp.com) – an industrial scale demonstration of CO2 geological

storage commenced in 2004

 Gassi Touil (Algeria) – an integrated gas project between Repsol (Spain) and Sonatrach

34
(Algeria), including CCS, contracted 2004, operational in 2010

 Weyburn II (Canada) (www.ptrc.ca/) – CO2

storage in conjunction with commercial scale

enhanced oil recovery since 2001

 Gorgon (Australia) (www.co2crc.com.au) – injecting CO2 from natural gas processing in an

offshore saline formation as of 2011, with an

intended capacity of 120 million tons

 CO2 Sink (www.cosink2.org) – testing capture

and storage of 60 kt in a saline aquifer, in Ketzin near Berlin

 CASTOR (www.co2castor.com) – pilot plant

capturing and storing CO2 from the Elsam

coal power station in Denmark

 Halten (mid-Norway) – capturing 2.5 million

tons CO2 from natural gas exploration and

power generation for EOR and permanent

storage in the Draugen and Heidrun deposits

 Stanwell (Australia) – a 1800 t/day coal-based

IGCC demonstration plant (2007-2010) with

carbon sequestration (4100 t/day) and storage

(net efficiency without/with carbon capture:

40%, 34.3%)

 GeoNet (www.co2geonet.com) – a European

project on geological storage of CO2

ii. Power generation with CCS

 FutureGen (www.futuregenalliance.org) - a

U.S.-led international full-scale CCS demonstration coal-fired plant based on IGCC and

pre-combustion capture

 The Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plant

Technology Platform – a European Union initiative build on the EC Hypogen-Dynamis and

other projects; the Platforms emphasizes the

need for about 10 CCS projects covering the

entire chain (http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/zero_emission_ffpp_en.pdf)

 Vattenfall Oxyfuel pilot plant Schwarze Pumpe

(www.vattenfall.de) (Germany)

 GREENGEN – a Chinese Government project

for a 400 MW zero-emission power plant by

2020

 TOTAL Oxyfuel boiler pilot scale at Lacq

(France)

 COORETEC – COORIVA (www.cooretec.de) -

innovative IGCC combustion technologies

with CO2 reduction and storage (Germany)

 CANMET (www.nrcan.gc.ca) - a Technology

Centre pilot project on CCS (Canada)

 ENCAP (www.encapco2.org) - an integrated

project on new precombustion technologies

sponsored by 33 legal entities, including the

EU

 COMTES 700 (www.comtes700.org) – testing

components to enable CO2 reduction for a

new 400 MW 700° C power plant (Germany)

 CO2 Capture Project (www.co2captureproject.org) - an initiative of major energy companies to reduce emissions via post-combustion

scrubbing, pre-combustion decarbonization,

Oxy-combustion and geological sequestration

 ZeroGen (www.zerogen.com.au) – an IGCC

power plant with CCS in saline aquifer (Australia)

 Progressive Energy

(www.dti.gov.uk/files/file30865pdf) – an IGCC

power plant with CO2 capture for enhanced

oil recovery (United Kingdom)

 Sask Power (www.saskpower.com) – low sulphur lignite power plant with Oxyfuel technology for enhanced oil recovery (Canada)

 Powerfuel – a IGCC coal-based power plant

with CCS (United Kingdom)

 E.ON (www.eon-uk.com/883.aspx) – an IGCC

project with a gas-fired power plant, with CCS

at a later stage (United Kingdom)

 RWE (www.rwe.com/generator.aspx) – IGCC

technology to separate hydrogen for synthetic

fuel production (Germany) (see ENCAP

above)

3
 RWE nPower (www.npower.co. uk) – supercritical technology with post-combustion CCS

(United Kingdom)

iii. Enhanced coal bed methane recovery

 RECOPOL (http//recopol.nitg.tno.nl) – a EU

co-financed R&D project on storing CO2 in an

underground coal bed (adsorption), whereby

simultaneously methane is released for sale

(Silesia, Poland)

 COAL SEQ II CONSORTIUM (www.coalseq.com) - a US-led collaborative research

project into the storage of CO2 in unminable

coal seams, and related methane displacement and capture

 The Alberta Research Council (Canada)

(ARC) Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery

Project via the injection of CO2

(www.arc.ab.ca), with a collaborative outreach

to the China Coalbed Methane Technology /

CO2 Sequestration Project, Shanxi (China)

(www.arc.ab.ca/Index.aspx/ARC/4517)

 a research project on underground coal gasification with local CCS storage (with or without

enhanced coalbed methane recovery)

presently promoted (www.ucgp.com).

C. Abbreviations

C carbon

CCS carbon capture and storage

CCGT combined cycle gas turbine

CDM clean development mechanism (Kyoto

Protocol)

CFFS WEC Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems

Committee

CO2 carbon dioxide

CSLF Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

EOR enhanced oil recovery

EGR enhanced gas recovery

GEF Global Environmental Facility

GHG greenhouse gas

Gt gigaton (1 ton x 109)

GW gigawatt (1 Watt x 109)

IEA International Energy Agency

IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change

JI joint implementation (Kyoto Protocol)

LNG liquefied natural gas

MW megawatt (1 Watt x 106)

PCC pulverized coal combustion

ppm parts per million (ratio of the number of

CO2 molecules in the total number of

molecules of dry air)

RD&D research, development and demonstration

SCSC super-critical steam cycle

WEC World Energy Council

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

ZET zero emission technology

D. Contact editor

Dr. Klaus Brendow

Senior Adviser, World Energy Council

E-mail: Kbrendow@compuserve.com

E. Contact WEC

Elena Nekhaev

Director of Programmes

E-mail: Nekhaev@worldenergy.org

36

World Energy Council

Regency House 1-4 Warwick Street

London W1B 5LT United Kingdom

T (+44) 20 7734 5996

F (+44) 20 7734 5926

E info@worldenergy.org

www.worldenergy.org

Promoting the sustainable supply and use

of energy for the greatest benefit of all