A CORE ELEMENT OF A GLOBAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY 

STRATEGY TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

Carbon Dioxide Capture

and Geologic Storage 
A COR

Carb

a
TABLE OF 

LEGAL NOTICEThis report was prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle) as an account of sponsored research activities. Neither Client nor Battelle nor any person acting on behalf of either:MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, process, or composition disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights; orAssumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, process, or composition disclosed in this report.Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by Battelle. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Battelle.Printed in the United States of America

THE GLOBAL ENERGTO THE READER .....

EXECUTIVE SUMMAWhat Is Carbon Diox

The Challenge—CCCS Components Going Deeper: Ca

What Does a CO2 

CO2 Injection into a 

CO2 Storage: the Is

Market Potential of C

Where in the World Potential Geologic 

Who and Where ArPotential CCS Cus

Costs of CCS Compo

The Cost of CO2 C

Costs of CO2 Trans

Pulling It All Togeth

Future Scale of CCS 

Today’s CCS DeplCCS Deployment aCCS Deployment aTo Enable the LargKey CCS R&D and 

APPENDIX 1: AcronyAPPENDIX 2: Notes a

1

2

34
4

THE GLOBAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY PROGRAMThe Global Energy Technology Strategy Program (GTSP) began in 1998 with the goal of better understanding the role that energy technologies might play in addressing the problem of global climate change. The GTSP is a unique, global, public and private sector research collaboration, whose sponsors and research collaborators are drawn from around the world.The completion of the first phase of the GTSP in 2001 was marked by the release of a seminal report during a special session of the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This report, A Global Energy Technology Strategy Addressing Climate Change: Initial Findings from an International Public-Private Collaboration, demonstrated the importance of technology development and deployment as key cornerstones of a broader set of activities designed to address climate change. A central conclusion was that a robust “technology strategy” required the development of a technology portfolio. It found no evidence for a single technology whose development promised to “solve” the climate 

problem. That is, a priori, there is no technological “silver bullet.” Rather, the GTSP concluded that a variety of technologies and technology systems show promise for making substantially expanded contributions to the global energy system in a climate-constrained world. These include biotechnology, hydrogen energy and other advanced transportation technology systems, nuclear power, renewable energy technologies, end-use energy technologies, and carbon dioxide capture and storage. The first phase of the GTSP produced ground-breaking research, including many results that have made their way into the frequently cited literature. The first phase of the GTSP successfully added to the dialogue about responses to climate change a new, previously missing, element—technology. But building productive, long-term, real-world technology strategies to address climate change requires a deeper understanding of technologies and their potential. Thus, the GTSP launched its second phase in 2002. GTSP Phase 2 is pushing the frontiers of our knowledge to gain a much deeper understanding of how these key carbon management and advanced energy technologies will deploy in practice, and the means for launching and sustaining a meaningful global energy technology strategy. GTSP Phase 2 is in the process of distilling important lessons gleaned from research on the potential roles of six carbon management technology systems in the context of a competitive future global energy system. These summaries of key research insights will take the form of “capstone reports” for each of the six technology areas. This is the first capstone report—on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage. In addition, a set of overall conclusions will be drawn from the complete body of the GTSP work and will be published in 2006.For more information about the GTSP, please contactJae EdmondsLaboratory Fellow and Chief ScientistBattelle, Joint Global Change Research Institute8400 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201College Park, MD 20740 USAjae.edmonds@battelle.org

TO THE READEThe findings presented ithan ten years of researChange Research Institustand the significant poteand storage (CCS) technchange. A central focus owill allow CCS technologirent status as potential sthe point where these syshave become safe, effectivthe global energy system.CCS technologies are inimportant elements of a energy technologies nchange. One sign of the technologies is the recenernmental Panel on Climon Carbon Dioxide Captuacknowledging the signmade by many other reernments, state agenciepushing forward the devcial deployment of CCS is meant to summarize rGlobal Energy Technologand therefore principalcarried out at Battelle and second phases of the Overall, this document articulating the cost and targets for CCS, as well awill enable its commerciagas-constrained world. CCS technologies can mto reducing greenhouse gdescribes the cost, performistics of the component teplete CCS system. Includof deep underground geol

A Note on Terms: CCS do not include planting tor other bio-based activcommonly referred to as report will not use the teto avoid any possible co
THE CHALLENGCHANGE AND TPORTFOLIO RESAddressing climate chachallenge to reduce and amounts of greenhouse gof this century. Currentlyally emit approximately (GtCO2) to the atmosphe

sil fuels. In the absence climate change, rising gldards of living, and increresult in as much as 9,00

being emitted to the atmbustion over this coming However, to stabilize CO

sphere “at a level that wopogenic interference with for in the United Naton Climate Change, the 

released to the atmosphneed to be held to no mora substantial reduction aThe Global Energy Te(GTSP) has shown concluan enhanced portfolio of ing this challenge. Some involve continued energhomes, offices, and automnot only reduce CO2 emis

economic efficiency, compmental quality. Renewaband biotechnologies, adving hydrogen production nuclear power have also of the broad portfolio of eaddress climate change. strated that all aspects of ble of delivering significin CO2 emissions over the 

EXECUTIV

Dioxide Cain Mitigatin
8 

• In the long term, CCS will help make valuable commodities like electricity and hydrogen cheaper than 

they would otherwise be. This is the key merit; CCS technologies are not ends in themselves but a means—a means of realizing abundant energy and industrial production, without CO2 emissions.

CURRENT MARKET DEPLOYMENTMany component technologies for CCS systems already exist, including CO2 capture, transportation via pipeline, 

and injection into geologic formations deep underground. However, both the scale of existing CCS systems and the number of CCS commercial and field demonstration projects are very small compared to the scale necessary for significant and sustained CO2 emissions reductions. 

The very newness of CCS systems and a lack of realworld operational experience in essential markets such as electric power generation are current impediments to the expanded adoption of CCS technologies.Globally, there are currently more than 8,100 large CO2 point sources (accounting for more than 60% of all 

anthropogenic CO2 emissions) that could conceivably 

adopt CCS technologies as a means for delivering deep and sustained CO2 emissions reductions. These 8,100 large CO2 point sources are predominantly fossil-fueled 

electric power plants, but there are also hundreds of steel mills, cement kilns, chemical plants, and oil and gas production and refining facilities. A very small number of these facilities are already capturing and selling CO2, suggesting that in certain niche applications it is already profitable to deploy some CCS component technologies. However, the vast majority of 

these existing facilities have not adopted CCS systems. Moreover, the vast majority of the new power plants and other large industrial CO2 point sources that are 

now being built or that are in various stages of early development are also not planning to adopt CCS systems. This reveals an important point; the deployment of CCS technologies is almost exclusively motivated by the need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and, therefore, their large-scale adoption depends upon explicit efforts to control such emissions.

CO2 STORAGE CAPACITYOur research and that of many other research groups demonstrate that potential deep geologic CO2 storage 

sites exist around the world, although the distribution of these candidate storage sites is quite uneven (as is true for many other types of natural resources). Our preliminary estimate of the potential global deep geologic CO2

storage capacity is nearly 11,000 GtCO2. Assuming that 

other advanced energy technologies are developed and deployed along with CCS systems, this potential capacity should be more than enough to address global CO2

storage needs for at least this century. In many places, candidate CO2 storage formations are near large groupings of power plants and other industrial facilities, which 

should lower the cost of deploying CCS systems.

COST AND ECONOMIC VALUEFor most applications, assuming the adoption of currently available CCS component technologies, the cost of employing CCS systems most likely lies below $50/tCO2 including capture, transport, injection, storage 

and monitoring. At this cost level, CCS systems are capable of reducing the costs of climate stabilization by trillions of dollars because these technologies allow for the continued use of fossil fuels and enable the deployment of other key mitigation technologies such as large-scale, low-emissions hydrogen and synfuels production. GTSP research also confirms that the costs of CCS systems should be competitive with—and in some cases significantly less costly than—other potential large-scale CO2 emissions reduction and abatement 

technologies.

SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICACYAt a properly designed and well-managed CCS facility, the chance of appreciable CO2 leakage from the deep 

geologic storage formation is very small. The principal task for the measurement, monitoring, and verification of stored CO2 centers on how to demonstrate the longterm retention of stored CO2 to regulators and the public. New and improved measurement and monitoring 

techniques and standards for their use need to be developed to provide proof of public and environmental safety and of each CCS project’s effectiveness in mitigating climate change.

ADOPTION AND WITHIN THE ELINDUSTRYEarly adopters of CCS sthe electric utility industthat move beyond today’s 

enhanced oil recovery. explicit climate policy in tial and sustained emispower industry would liket for CCS systems. GTCCS systems will be mwith large baseload powate around the clock with for routine maintenance. terion for locating suitathose reservoirs have suhaps more than 50 year

plus some margin for grolarge quantities of reliab

decade, CCS-enabled elelikely look to deep saline flarge storage capacities.

THE VALUE OF The next five to ten yearin which to amass needeCCS technologies in real-wfield demonstrations, a CCS projects, and continare all needed to advancnumber of CCS-related acan deploy safely and effeconfigurations as needed lizing atmospheric CO2 co

of research identified by G

• Continually improve C

ensure that they are bwide array of industriabenefit by adopting CC

• Survey global candida

can better understand the world’s deep geolog

is particularly crucial isuch as China and Indisite new long-lived el
A complete end-to-en

cated assemblage of components—many oin other settings—woCO2 from entering thtion opens with an ogies that would comCCS system, along wcurrent state of the arA principal focus of tcandidate CO2 storagcess by which CO2 these formations. Thare located thousands 

Wh

is Carbon 

1
12 What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage? 

THE CHALLENGE—CLIMATE CHANGE, TECHNOLOGY, AND CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGEAddressing climate change is a challenge at the global scale. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere is enormous—measured in gigatons. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s, humans have released to the atmosphere slightly more than 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide (GtCO2), 

the most important greenhouse gas. Currently, the world’s economic systems annually emit approximately 26 GtCO2 to the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels.

Assuming continued econlogical growth, including and deployment of cleantechnologies, global CO2 e

as 5 times their current ledouble from that level by explicit efforts to address tive emissions from fossil ing century could reach a

However, to stabilize CO2 co

“at a level that would preinterference with the climaoverarching goal of the Unvention on Climate Chan189 nations) would necess

over the course of this cent4,600 GtCO2. The need to of gigatons of CO2 to the at

tury implies a significant is produced and consumed There is a broad consensthat the key to making thenergy economy will be ment of a broad portfolnologies. Part of this poimprovements in energy and automobiles, as thesCO2 emissions but also 

efficiency, competitivenequality. Renewable enerbiotechnologies, advanchydrogen production and have also been shown to global portfolio of energy To have a meaningful imcore element of this portfing at a scale that mattwhether a given advancethis criteria is to ask whethe technology has the potgreenhouse gas emissions 
14 What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage? 

CCS COMPONENTS AND THE STATE OF THE ART

The Whole SystemGlobal experience with complete end-to-end CCS systems is at present quite limited. When compared to the kinds of CCS systems needed to deliver significant CO2 reductions—a gigaton or more per year—the CCS systems that exist today are very 

small, and many of the individual system components can be viewed as first-generation technologies. In particular, a strong focus on CO2 capture and MMV will help bring about successive generations of more effective, economical and reliable technologies. But even when component technologies work well, they need to work well within an integrated CCS system—and at a 

scale far larger than any of the systems in operation today. The challenge of moving from today’s limited experiential knowledge 

base to the massive CCS systems that would be needed to contribute to climate mitigation is the focus of this report.

CO2 CaptureFor some CO2 emissio

chased from commercCO2 capture systems t

natural gas processing 

But the cost, performa

be improved in order to 

systems is also consid

will likely remain an areAncillary SystemsCO2 compressors, boo

sidered routine aspects CO2 Transport

Transporting CO2 is an eStates alone. Modern cocan be quickly shut dow

but rather potential obs

needed as CCS systemCO2 Injection into DThe most likely CO2 s

tions exist today and a

an established technovertically stacked reserthese more advanced 

locales, a necessary stMeasurement, MonitMMV technologies, crugies.” Some off-the-sh

certain classes of form

into a deep saline formlarge-scale deploymenarea of intense researccharacteristics of existito create new and bettesion of what it means in 
16 What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage? 

Candidate geologic reservoirs for storing CO2 lie deep below the surface of the Earth at varying depths. (FIGURE COURTESY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CO2CRC).

▲

PRINCIPAL CANDID(see appendix for sources an

GOING DEEPER: CANDIDATE GEOLOGIC CO2

STORAGE FORMATIONS

The deep geologic formations identified as candidates for long-term CO2 storage were deposited tens to hundreds 

of millions of years ago. Similar deep geologic formations have been used for oil and gas production and for fluid storage for more than a century. But only recently have researchers understood the potential value of these formations as tools in addressing climate change.Like nearly all other natural resources, CO2 storage 

reservoirs are highly heterogeneous in quantity, quality, and distribution (see the maps on pages 25 and 26). The figure below and table on the next page describe some the key characteristics of those classes of geologic formations that are being examined as candidates for long-term CO2 storage.

In most cases, CO2 is injected as a supercritical fluid, 

which means that it is dense like a liquid, but has a gas-like viscosity that allows it to flow very easily through pipelines and into the target storage formation. Maintaining the CO2 as a supercritical fluid in 

the storage formation typically can be accomplished in reservoirs that are at depths greater than 800 meters (0.5 miles) below the surface of the Earth.Candidate CO2 storage reservoirs are separated from 

the surface and from sources of fresh water by thousands of feet of layered rock. Some layers are very permeable and porous, allowing the CO2 to be injected and 

stored in the empty spaces between grains in the rock. Other layers are denser, effectively isolating the CO2

storage reservoirs from the shallower groundwater reservoirs. These intervening dense rock layers (often called caprocks) provide the principal means of trapping the CO2 in the deep subsurface over the long term.

Type of Reservoir GenDeep Saline Formations

Sandmitewateformparts 

Depleted Natural Gas Reservoirs

Oncral gof C

are o

Depleted Oil Reservoirs

Oncfrom 

avail

be ubehihave 

enhaAmedem

of thof is

Deep Unmineable Coal Seams

Metheverfor C

releaCO2 

coalneou

Deep Saline-Filled Basalt Formations

Permstorazone

migrthesrich inclu

bonain th

Other (Salt Caverns, Organic Shales, etc.)

Salt bearmay 
18 What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage? 

WHAT DOES A CO2 STORAGE 

RESERVOIR LOOK LIKE?

A key mechanism for storing CO2 in deep geologic formations and ensuring that it stays there is a system 

of layered, deeply buried, permeable rock formations that serve as the CO2 storage reservoir, overlain by 

impermeable caprocks which serve to keep the injected CO2 in place. A thorough evaluation of these formations and their ability to accept and retain injected 

CO2 must be an essential component of site assessment before any CO2 is injected. Here we take a closer 

look at these formations.

CO2 INJECTION 

A DEEP GEOLOFORMATION

As can be seen from the s

constitutes a highly engin

well is actually composed ensure that the CO2 only 

zone or zones (in this graare candidate injection zwith sources of drinking lower than candidate CO2 

Many of the technologie

into these deep geologic f

1 mm

1 mm1 mm

Microscopic view of a caprock. The grains making up this rock are densely packed with few interconnected pore spaces. The low permeability of these rocks makes them ideal barriers to prevent the migration of CO2 out of the target storage formation. Examples include shale and 

dense carbonates.

Microscopic view of a medium-grained sandstone that would serve as a good CO2 storage reservoir. The individual grains making up this 

rock are much less tightly packed than in the caprock. The blue areas are voids in the rock that are filled with water that is not suitable for drinking or irrigation because of high concentrations of salt and other minerals. Injected CO2 would move into and reside in these void spaces, over 

time dissolving in the formation water and reacting with the water and surrounding rocks to form stable compounds called carbonates.

Microscopic view of a coarse-grained sandstone that would serve as an excellent CO2 storage reservoir. Note that here the individual grains 

making up this rock are even less tightly packed than in the previous sample. This looser packing means that all of the voids are well connected to each other, allowing the injected CO2 to more easily move through 

the host formation. Thus, more CO2 can be injected and at a higher rate 

than in a formation composed of a medium-grained sandstone.

CO2 injection wells ar

injected CO2 only rea

▲
20 What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage? 

CO2 STORAGE: THE ISSUE OF PERMANENCEAt a properly designed and well-managed CO2 storage site, the chance of CO2 leakage should be small; 

thus, concerns about catastrophic release are likely unfounded. Properly-designed sites will have one or more injection zones that can accept and store large quantities of CO2, overlain by suitable caprocks, and 

will not be located in areas that have a high incidence of seismic activity. The features and attributes of storage formations and caprocks were discussed in the previous section. Here we focus on the issue of seismicity and the permanence of the stored CO2.

Fortunately, within the United States there are relatively few areas where seismicity would be a significant concern (as the map shows), allowing for CCS deployment across a wide range of locales. This type of assessment has not been completed for other regions of the world.

CO2 storage sites can be designed against sudden 

large releases by avoiding areas with significant risk of seismicity and by mitigating leakage pathways such as faults and abandoned wells. Seismic surveys can be undertaken at candidate sites to assess whether there are any faults that might allow injected CO2

to migrate out of the target injection zone. Seismic surveys, however, are just one aspect of a comprehensive pre-injection site evaluation that would need to be performed at each prospective CO2 storage site. 

This pre-injection site evaluation would also need to identify the extent and condition of any abandoned wells (e.g., decades-old oil and gas production wells). Adequate sealing of abandoned wells that penetrate the storage zone would need to be assured to prevent these man-made structures from becoming pathways for CO2 to migrate back to the surface.

Measuring, monitoring, awill be needed to ensure th

target formation. Some tcertain aspects of CO2 st

able. However, the large-nologies will depend in parobust and accurate suitwill draw from this suite MMV systems that will bleaks long before they possupplies or surface ecosysWhile the issue of leaka

geologic formations remintense research, several 

• Because the majority of 

deployment is still likthe next decade’s worth and potential early comfundamentally improvthis key issue. There is data to better bound lik

By translating raw data about historic rates of seismic activity into a more meaningful measure of potential seismic risk to CCS infrastructure, we can see that relatively few regions of the United States have even moderate risk to CCS surface infrastructure.

▲

Western 

California

Basin and 

Range

Cascadia 

Subduction 

Complex

New Madrid 

Fault Zone

Seismic imaging of tha routine step in the e

CO2 storage formatio

has been added) reveis truncated hundreds and therefore does noto the surface.

▲
Ma

Potential 

2

CCS systems must wbut that is not enough addressing climate coCCS systems must fill help industry curtail gwhile simultaneously and services that cusIn addition, CCS sysuitable geologic salso be available both Large CO2-emitting in

over the world; most generation sector, burange of other impoThere also appears to potential geologic CO
24 Market Potential of CCS Systems 

While there remains a significant amount of field validation to be performed surrounding global geologic CO2

storage potential, and while debate persists within the scientific community about the methodologies used to compute these theoretical storage capacities, our firstorder estimates of theoretical geologic CO2 storage 

capacity suggest a resource base that could potentially accommodate nearly 11,000 GtCO2 worldwide. One 

way to understand the immense size of this potential resource is to realize that, across a wide range of possible future energy and economic scenarios and across hypothetical scenarios used to model CO2 stabilization from 450 to 750 ppm, the demand for CO2 storage space is estimated to not exceed 2,220 GtCO2 over 

the course of this century. In a world in which there is a broad portfolio of complementary carbon management technologies that can be drawn upon (e.g., energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear power), it would appear that the deployment of CCS systems will not be constrained by a lack of overall storage capacity. Therefore, these technologies should be able to deploy 

to the extent that deployment makes economic sense in fulfilling a given 

climate stabilization goal.

Substantial CO2 storage 

be viewed as a very valuaFor example, regions tha

storage capacity can likfuels to power their econture retirement of fossitighter emissions constraHowever, even nations thstorage resources can bethrough the purchase of made possible by CCS use The important issue is nomore or less storage caparather whether it has en

meet its needs. This depenoptions are available to thand demographic trends and the stringency of futunot a simple comparison storage capacity with thresearch indicates that:

Initial assessments o

is more than enough 

a century, and in manfrom nearby CO2 sou

▲

WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE THE POTENTIAL STORAGE SITES FOR CARBON DIOXIDE?Candidate geologic CO2 storage reservoirs 

exist across the globe, and in many key regions they appear to be in the right places to meet current and future demand from nearby CO2

emissions sources. In fact, there is likely more than enough theoretical CO2 storage capacity in the world to meet projected needs for at 

least the next century.
26 Market Potential of CCS Systems 

• 240 GtCO2 in onshore s• 35 GtCO2 in depleted g• 30 GtCO2 in deep unmi

tial for enhanced coalb

• 12 GtCO2 in depleted 

enhanced oil recovery 

Together, these candidate 

the United States represnatural resource that mrole in cost-effectively btained reductions in greecandidate CO2 storage fo

states and two-thirds of th48 states. In total, these storing the United State

large stationary point socome. The highest capac

storage formations is fouDSFs can store hundreds 

More than 8,100 powto the atmosphere eathe potential for CCS 

▲

Early estimates of CO2 storage capacity in the United States reveal a very large, widely distributed and perhaps 

extremely valuable resource with which to cost effectively address climate change.

▲

POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC CO2

STORAGE RESERVOIRS IN THE UNITED STATES

The United States is fortunate to have an abundance of theoretical CO2 storage potential, well distributed 

across most of the country. Our preliminary and ongoing assessment of candidate geologic CO2 storage formations reveals that the formations studied to date 

contain an estimated storage capacity of 3,900+ GtCO2

within some 230 candidate geologic CO2 storage reservoirs (see map below):

• 2,730 GtCO2 in onshore deep saline formations 

(DSFs), with perhaps close to another 900 GtCO2 of 

storage capacity in offshore deep saline formations

The United States is fortunate 

to have an abundance of theoretical CO2 storage 

potential, well distributed 

across most of the country.
28 Market Potential of CCS Systems 

POTENTIAL CCS CUSTOMERS IN THE UNITED STATESThe United States represents a critical prospective market for CCS technologies. As was the case with the preceding global snapshot of CO2 point sources, the 

large CO2 point sources in the United States represent 

a highly heterogeneous set of potential CCS opportunities. As can be seen from the figure at right, the contiguous United States has approximately 1,715 large CO2 point sources that collectively emit more than 

2.9 GtCO2/per year.

CO2 point sources that produce a high-purity carbon 

dioxide stream are often seen as potential early adopters for CCS deployment. This is because, as the next section details, the cost of capturing CO2 from a given 

source is a function of the concentration of CO2 in the 

facility’s emissions. Roughly speaking, large highpurity (and low cost of capture) CO2 sources within 

the United States total 349 (20% of the sources) and account for 6% of the total emissions.One of the principal benefits associated with the potential deployment of CCS technologies relates to its ability to deliver deep emissions reductions when applied to the largest CO2 point sources. For example, in the 

United States:

• The 100 largest CO2 point sources (6% of all facilities) 

account for 39% of total annual CO2 emissions; 79% of 

these are power plants—all of them coal-fired.

• The 500 largest CO2 point sources (29% of total) 

account for 82% of annual emissions; 78% of these are power plants, most coal-fired.

The large CO2 point soare spread throughoudiversity across these CCS technologies wi

• Fossil fuel-fired power plants accounted for the largest 

fraction (60%) of these CO2 point sources and accounted 

for an even larger share of the emissions (71%).

• Natural gas processing plants accounted for less 

than 10% of the estimated emissions, while cement plants (6%), refineries (5%) and steel mills (5%) accounted for smaller but still significant shares.

• Roughly speaking, high-purity CO2 source streams 

exhibiting a low cost of CO2 capture (e.g., ammonia, ethanol, ethylene oxide, natural gas processing 

units and hydrogen production facilities) combined to account for 11% of both total sources and annual emissions.

• The 500 largest CO2 point sources on the planet contributed 42% of all emissions from the 8,100 large 

stationary sources. These 500 largest emitters are overwhelmingly coal-fired power plants and they and the other fossil-fired power generation units combined to represent 78% of total emissions from these largest sources.

• As can be seen from the map on the previous page, 

these large CO2 point sources are heavily concentrated in a few regions of the world: the United 

States (20% of CO2 emissions), OECD Europe (12%), 

China (18%) and India (4%). These four regions alone account for 54% of the emissions and 52% of the existing large CO2 point sources in the world. 

The last two regions—China and India—are particularly important future markets for CCS technologies given their rapid growth.

Within the United StateCCS systems to the 500 l

potentially yield substant

95% of these sources are CO2 reservoir. Those 500 

dollars of productive indplants, refineries, and ostrates the potential levwhen applied to a relativepoint sources.

▲
Next to questions like

and, “Is there enough 

the world to make thcommon question arelates to the cost of ing these systems.In addition to the presented in the prevconsider whether CO

and economically feaplant or other large in

Cos

of CCS Co

3
32 Costs of CCS Components 

requires relatively less processing and compression before it is ready to be introduced into a CO2pipeline. The table on the facing page presents an overview of CO2 capture technologies and costs described by the technical literature for a variety of large anthropogenic CO2 sources that could be considered candidates for adopting CCS technologies in a greenhouse gas-constrained world. As the table shows, the cost of CO2 capture varies considerably across these various types of large CO2 point sources.

THE COST OF CO2 CAPTUREFor the vast majority of CCS applications, the cost of CO2 capture is the largest contributor to overall CCS system cost and thus should be a focus of cost reduction efforts. The cost of CO2 capture 

depends in large measure on the pressure and concentration of CO2 in the flue gas or process 

stream from which the CO2 is being separated. As 

a general rule, it is cheaper to capture CO2 from 

a purer and higher-pressure CO2 stream, as it 

Plant Type CapSteam Rankine Power

Che(am

IGCC Power Phys

Refinery Flue Gas

CheFlue 

Steel Flue 

Che

Cement Flue 

Che

Ethanol (Fermentation)

Ethylene Oxide (Process Stream)Ammonia (Reformer Gas)

THE COST OF CO2 C(see appendix for sources anCO2 capture costs also v

nology classes. Thereforedeploying CCS systems, stand the specific circumunit will be deployed. Fto know not only whethepulverized coal (PC) or 

bined Cycle (IGCC) powplant’s vintage and effic

and other emissions contwhether the CO2 captur

existing plant or designebe built, before being ab

capture for any given fac
34 Costs of CCS Components 

facilities but will also lower the overall societal cost of addressing climate change by as much as one-third if large-scale deployment of CCS technologies occurs during this century. This equates to potentially hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars in potential savings.In addition to lowering the cost of CO2 capture it is also 

important to continually increase the capture efficiency or percent of CO2 captured from the target flue gas or 

process stream. This may be most important for power 

plant-based CCS applications given the large size of these facilities and their collective emissions contribution. Currently available technologies are likely to capture approximately 90% of the inlet CO2, while the 

remaining 10% is released to the atmosphere. In a carbon-constrained world, any CO2 released to the atmosphere would be taxed like any other greenhouse gas 

emission. As carbon permit prices rise, which would be necessary for stabilizing CO2 concentrations, this seemingly small amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere 

could have a profound impact on fuel choice and generation technology selection. Because power plants are very long-lived, proposals to build CCS plants that would capture only a modest fraction of a plant’s emissions might not prove economic in the long term.

COSTS OF CO2 

AND STORAGE

As described previously

resource is vast, and in storage resource appears graphic distribution with 

in close proximity to ca

reservoirs. However, the didate CO2 storage reser

ity, quantity, capacity, anacross the globe and eveas the distribution of othfor example, gold, oil, coaTherefore, the cost to 

will also vary from regioin determining the cost 

are the proximity of the C

storage reservoir and thvoir that is selected for C

There is a general concommunity that most C

its point of capture to a sreservoir via land-based mately 3,000 miles of de

CO2 to commercial CO2

America, in areas such aTexas and southeastern NRegion of Utah, WyominWeyburn Field in Saskatdedicated CO2 pipelines, 

CO2 over a distance of 50

This operational experie

the similarity in terms of costs between CO2 pipeli

networks provides a robused to estimate future C

transport costs via pipelinbetween the CO2 source an
36 Costs of CCS Components 

In North America, where we have been able to model in detail the complex interplay among the thousands of large CO2 sources and the large—but nonetheless 

finite—candidate CO2 storage formations in the region, 

our research tells us that the greatest impact associated with CO2 storage in value-added reservoirs could 

well relate to their ability to produce more domestic oil and gas and not because of their ability to reduce the cost of CO2 transport and storage.

The large-scale deployment of CCS systems hinges upon proving that CCS technologies can be integrated with fossil-fired electricity production (and perhaps in the future fossil-derived hydrogen production). There are a number of issues related to CO2 storage in value-added 

reservoirs that suggest the possibility of a significant mismatch between the nearly continuous need to store large quantities of CO2 from a CCS-enabled power 

plant and the more limited and episodic need for CO2

in CO2-driven EOR and ECBM projects. Such projects 

also require extensive and separate infrastructure for handling recovered oil and gas from the host storage formation; separating and recycling co-produced CO2; 

and handling produced waste water. All of this infrastructure requires additional fi nancing to construct and operate and also requires core competencies that are unlikely to reside within most electric utility, cement, iron and steel firms and other potential adopters of CCS technologies.Although gigatons of low-cost CO2 storage opportunities 

may be associated with value-added reservoirs in North America alone, the long-term challenge presented by the need to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2

indicates that, because the storage capacity available in oil- and gas-bearing reservoirs is dwarfed by capacity in reservoirs that do not bear saleable products, over the long term, CO2 storage in value-added reservoirs may not 

represent as significant a portion of total CO2 stored as 

is widely believed. Our research suggests that all classes of CO2 storage reservoirs are valuable and will be needed 

once CCS technologies begin their expected large-scale commercial deployment. For the rest of the larger economy and over the course of this century, our work suggests that the long-term average cost of CO2 transport 

and storage should stay below the level of approximately $12–$15/tCO2 for a region like North America, due 

largely to the abundant capacity offered by deep saline formations.Current estimates of the cost of employing the technologies needed to measure, monitor, and verify the fate of CO2 injected into deep geologic formations suggest that these costs will be small when measured on 

a per-ton-of-CO2-stored basis, perhaps as low as a few 

pennies per ton. Planned and future CCS field demonstrations and early commercial CCS deployments should help to validate these assumptions about the cost of MMV.

PULLING IT ALL THE NET COST So far, this section has dicosts for individual CCS sis most concerned with thcapture, transport, injectia real power plant or otnext page is a cost curve CCS within the United Sgies, for the 1,715 existin

all of the candidate CO2 st

able to identify to date. Tcost curve, the Battelle C

to gain understanding of ogies to deploy across Nomarketplace for cost-effecEach point on the curve (in $/tCO2) for a specific e

to employ CCS: capture iport; transport the captu

able candidate storage r

the reservoir; and measthe injected CO2 remainIn addition, for injectioreservoirs, any revenue

hydrocarbon recovery arcosts. This represents an end-to-end cost of emplothe inherent heterogeneiCCS technologies across This “net cost of employdistinct regions that are w

• At the far left end of th

and storage opportunitthat they fall below thcould make money todanities even in the absenicy requiring a reductio

hanging fruit” can be sthe few tens of million

that are currently beinthese represent potentment opportunities, sulimited and most are li

...our research tells us that the greatest impact associated with CO2 storage in value-added 

reservoirs could well relate to their ability to produce more domestic oil and gas...
38 Costs of CCS Components 

• Finally, the tail end of 

eration of this escalatinpurity sources of decrsmall natural gas-fired increasingly more dist

The numbers along the cbelow the graph serve to and significance of how inherent heterogeneity will impact the adoption These ten points have nsimply presented here to gies might deploy across sented by the entire CCS point, the text in the tabpoint source from which 

type of CO2 storage reser

available lowest-cost stopipeline distance needed 

THE NET COST OF 

THE NET COST OF EMPLOYING CCS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES—CURRENT SOURCES AND TECHNOLOGYThe ten marked points on the curve are characterized below the graph by their different circumstances related to use of CCS technologies.

1 High purity ammonia plant / nearby (<10 miles) EOR opportunity

2 High purity natural gas processing facility / moderately distant (~50 miles) EOR opportunity

3 Large, coal-fi red power plant / nearby (<10 miles) ECBM opportunity4 High purity hydrogen production facility / nearby (<25 miles) depleted gas field

5 Large, coal-fired power plant / nearby (<25 miles) deep saline formation

6 Coal-fired power plant / moderately distant (<50 miles) depleted gas field

7 Iron & steel plant / nearby (<10 miles) deep saline formation8 Smaller coal-fired power plant / nearby (<25 miles) deep saline basalt formation

9 Cement plant / distant (>50 miles) deep saline formation

10 Gas-fired power plant / distant (>50 miles) deep saline formation
40 Costs of CCS Components 

and circumstances. For instance, note that the capture costs for these ten sources range from $0/tCO2 for the 

very high-purity CO2 sources up to $57/tCO2 for the 

small and very low-purity NGCC source. Compression cost estimates vary also, depending again on the size of the CO2 stream and other characteristics, roughly 

between $6 and $12/tCO2. Transport costs are driven 

by the mass flow rate of CO2 to be transported, but 

also the distance between the source and its selected reservoir. Here, they range from about $0.20/tCO2 for 

the very large coal-fired power plant requiring minimal pipeline length, to nearly $10/tCO2 for the very 

small gas-fired power plant that is over 65 miles from its target reservoir.

For all but the highest pis related to separation o

stream. In fact, for the here, the cost of capture of the total estimated nesources. This is significan

capture from these low-pplants in particular) wouto the economic viability 

While the above analypotential adoption of CUnited States, it also rethe cost of employing CChold true in other parts o

• First, there is likely so

even negative cost (anprofitable) CCS opportties represent only a smitigation potential to already being utilized often without applicatwould be required to retention of the injecte

of these projects was c

The injection costs shown here represent the cost of injecting the CO2 into the selected reservoir, including 

all necessary capital and operating costs for wells and distribution pipeline, as well as monitoring equipment and procedures. In addition, for value-added CO2 injection for EOR or ECBM, the value of the anticipated 

incremental recovered oil or gas is then subtracted, thereby allowing for this net injection cost to be negative (i.e., resulting in a net profit) in some situations. For these ten sample points, the net injection costs vary from about $-18 to $12/tCO2, based largely on the 

type and characteristics of the selected reservoir (e.g., depth, injectivity, oil/gas recovery potential) and the value of any recovered oil and gas.
4 Fut

Scale of CThe GTSP’s research class of technologies role in societal efforts concentrations of gscale of CCS deplothis significant contrthousands of CCS-eover the course of this enough so that gigatroutinely being stored tions around the worlHowever, the current deployment and even deployment represen
44 Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward 

CCS DEPLOYMAT THE REGIONSECTORAL SCATo illustrate CCS deploysignificantly reduce CO2 

the hypothetical adoption fossil-fuel-intensive electthe eastern United Statecal emissions constraintregions, major sources o

sites. The specifics of the are discussed in the appescenario include a carbo

in 2015 and rises at 2.5% ral gas prices that, while reflect current thinking t

TODAY’S CCS DEPLOYMENT COMPARED TO POTENTIAL MID-CENTURY DEPLOYMENTThis page is too small to show the full extent of the difference between CCS deployment today and its potential deployment.The figure below shows 21 currently operational or planned CCS projects as of late 2005. Ranging from projected lifetime injection volumes of 1,000 tons of CO2

(or 0.000001 GtCO2) to 26 million tons of CO2 (0.026 

GtCO2), these 21 projects represent a critical test bed to 

fundamentally advance our knowledge about how CCS systems will operate under real-world conditions.

Even the largest project on the list, which hopes to inject 0.026 GtCO2 over its lifetime, will only inject one-tenth 

as much CO2 as a 1,000 MW IGCC plant would need to 

inject over its 50-year projected lifetime.However, the challenge is to deploy, not a single 1,000 MW plant, but potentially hundreds or thousands of such facilities worldwide. Indeed, the cumulative amount of CO2 that would need to be stored in geologic 

formations over approximately the next half century under a hypothetical 550 ppm stabilization policy could be nearly 20 GtCO2 in the United States and more 

than 100 GtCO2 across the world. The challenge is not 

a matter of doubling or tripling or even quadrupling current deployment, but of increasing current deployment by 3 to 4 orders of magnitude. The next sections explore how the needed scale-up might occur.

Current and future global deployments of CCS technologies—The small circles on the map show the location and scale of current global CCS activities. In contrast, the large circle at the bottom of the legend is drawn to the same scale and represents the cumulative CO2 storage needs of a single large coal power plant over a 50-year projected lifetime.

▲

The deployment of CCdemand for power, th

▲
46 Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward 

capital costs, efficiency, O&M costs, emissions; (4) other market factors—fuel prices, emissions policies, cost of financing, reserve margin requirements; and (5) the characteristics of candidate CO2 storage reservoirs.

When all of these factors and the heterogeneous composition of different geographic regions are taken into account, a highly nuanced picture of CCS deployment across different regions emerges, which we will briefly discuss before focusing on the larger issues that this analysis reveals about how CCS technologies might be adopted by the electric power sector.ECAR: The U.S. region located in the industrial upper Midwest (the East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement, or ECAR) has an electricity system that has historically been dominated by conventional coal plants. The region’s geologic CO2 storage opportunities are dominated by deep saline formations, 

although there is some potential for value-added CO2

storage. Under this scenario the deployment of CCSenabled IGCC units could clearly be a key to decarbonizing baseload electricity generation in this region by 2045. In the early years of this scenario, when carbon permit prices are relatively low, increased demand for electricity is met mainly through new coal- and natural gas-fired generation units. The coal plants are IGCC units which eventually adopt CCS systems (thus becoming IGCC+CCS) as carbon permit prices rise. The new natural gas-fired units—that is, those built after 2005—continue to operate during the period to 2045 although their utilization rate drops, moving farther out in the dispatch curve as carbon and natural gas prices rise. Contrary to conventional wisdom, most of the existing (pre-2005) pulverized coal plants would 

not be taken offl ine or rebuilt as IGCC+CCS; instead, the most efficient of these existing plants would continue to operate as baseload units while others become key resources in the region’s intermediate load capacity generation portfolio (see the top figure at right).SERC: In the Southeastern United States (the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council, or SERC), coalfired power plants also make up the majority of current (2005) electric generation capacity, but the region is home to substantially more nuclear and hydroelectric power than ECAR. Moreover, the region also has a significant amount of natural gas-fired generation capacity, most of which has come online very recently. Similar to ECAR, this region’s CO2 storage opportunities are heavily dominated by deep saline formations; 

however, on average these deep saline formations (both sedimentary and basalt) are farther away from today’s fossil-fired power generation units than is generally the case in the ECAR region, implying slightly higher costs for CO2 transport in this region. Under this CO2

emission reduction scenario, SERC’s baseload electricity generation is characterized by 2045 principally by nuclear and IGCC+CCS, along with some renewable energy. A relatively small amount of conventional PC and IGCC without CCS is built in the post-2005 period and continues to operate in 2045 as a part of SERC’s intermediate capacity load generation. Existing (pre2005) PC plants continue to operate but at reduced levels as these units move over time out of their former role as baseload units and transition to serve intermediate loads (see the middle figure, at right).ERCOT: The region that encompasses much of the 

state of Texas (the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc., or ERCOT) is home to significantly more valueadded CO2 storage potential than either of the other 

regions discussed above. However, like the other two regions (and much of the United States), the majority of the region’s CO2 storage potential is in deep saline 

formations. This third region has historically been dominated by gas and oil steam electricity production capacity. Conventional coal also fuels a substantial portion of the region’s current generation capacity, 
48 Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward 

The major lesson is that CCS technologies are really focused on baseload power production. The greatest amount of CO2 emissions mitigation via the application 

of CCS technologies in the electric power sector can be achieved at the least cost by focusing on fossil-fi red baseload capacity. It will be relatively more expensive to reduce CO2 emissions from intermediate and peaking generation units because of their lower utilization 

rates. Therefore, CCS-enabled baseload power plants should be designed so that they can capture nearly all of their emissions. This is a more robust long-term strategy than the alternative of capturing closer to 50% of a unit’s emissions, sometimes discussed in an effort to control the costs of CO2 capture and the resulting electric power. In the long term, units that cannot 

capture the vast majority of their emissions are likely to become unprofitable, stranded assets.The potential for CCS deployment in the electric power sector to be centered on decarbonizing high-capacity factor baseload plants has important implications for the possible evolution of the market for CO2 storage 

and the kinds of CO2 storage reservoirs that will likely 

be most relevant for this industry’s needs.Our research indicates that the overwhelming criteria for siting a CCS-enabled power plant will relate more to allowable CO2 injection rates and total reservoir capacity than to potential buyers for CO2. Knowing whether 

a region has more or less potential for value-added CO2

storage than any other region is only one of many pieces of information needed to understand the deployment of CCS-enabled electric generation systems.Because the cost of CO2 capture in the electric power 

sector—even including state-of-the-art IGCC+CCS—will likely be higher than the cost to capture CO2 from 

some industrial sources, much of the value-added CO2

storage capacity in a given region could already be spoken for before CCS systems begin their expected, significant deployment within the electric power sector. Large, deep saline formations will therefore likely be the CO2 storage workhorse for the electric utility sector.

In this scenario, there is a enabled power plants in jUnited States. These unitand storing more than 6 G

the middle of this centuryBut, at this point in timeand regulatory infrastrudeployment and CO2 stora

Moreover, these are nodeploy CCS systems, nor sive CCS deployment sfinding of GTSP’s CCS rdimension of CCS R&D ato develop tools and techin a wide variety of circube able to work in more potential large-scale ado

Analysis like this can occur in the future an

▲

and there has been a recent boom in new natural gasfired capacity. Here, the principal means for reducing the region’s electric utility emissions in 2045 is again a mix of nuclear, renewables and IGCC+CCS. However, in ERCOT, some new conventional coal capacity is built in the first decade under this scenario, even though its emissions will be taxed. The higher future gas and oil prices mean that some new coal capacity will be economic, as it would earn a sufficient margin in this gas-dominated electricity market to compensate for its higher emissions. In addition, the carbon permit price is not high enough in the early years to make investment in IGCC+CCS the economic choice. These new post-2005 conventional fossil-fired units continue to operate in 2045 by transitioning over time from baseload to intermediate load. Here again, rather than being scrapped, existing conventional coal plants can continue to deliver value to their owners by transitioning from baseload generation to intermediate load (see bottom figure, previous page).

The major lesson is that CCS 

technologies are really focused 

on baseload power production.
50 Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward 

CCS DEPLOYMENT AT THE PLANT SCALEEach utility planning new capacity is faced with complex decisions about which fuels and technologies to invest in. Building a new, long-lived capital asset such as a power plant with the expectation of future CO2 emissions constraints will add new criteria to the 

already complex processes of siting, construction, and operation of such facilities. New elements involved in a decision to build a CCS-enabled power plant would likely include the following:

• The need to acquire per

needed CO2 transport p

• An assessment of the 

toring, and verification able, required by regwith the specific geologto store the power plan

Planning for a CCS-e

operations over its en

▲

CO2 pipeline and 

used during the sdecades of full p

• An assessment of how a proposed CCS-enabled 

power plant will impact the utility’s ability to address increasingly stringent local and regional environmental regulations (e.g., regulations to address acid rain or mercury emissions) across the utility’s generation fleet.

• The likelihood that the utility will be able to recover 

some of the costs for the more capital-intensive CCSenabled power plant in the rate base.

• The likely market price for baseload power in the 

region and the generation costs for the CCS-enabled plant. That is, will the CCS-enabled plant produce competitively priced electricity in the near to mid term when CO2 permit prices likely are relatively low?

• The probable scenarios for CO2 permit prices, especially the price path for CO2 permits over the life of 

the CCS-enabled power plant.

• The availability of competencies in operating a CCSenabled power plant, either within the utility itself 

or from trusted vendors.

• The kinds of CO2 separations processes that exist, 

the ability to scale them to the needed plant capacity, and the compatibility of the capture units to perform reliably around the clock and day after day consistent with being mated to a high-availability baseload power plant.

• The additional time and budget requirements for 

assessing candidate geologic CO2 storage reservoirs 

at prospective power plant sites. This would need to include an assessment of the size, capacity, and physical properties of candidate CO2 storage reservoirs as 

well as modeling to begin assessing such practical issues as the number of CO2 injector wells required 

to handle the plant’s output and whether multiple injection fields will be needed over the lifetime of the power plant (see the drawing on the next page).
52 Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward 

Pre-Operational Phase (~10 years)

Decision to Expand or Replace Generation Capacity

Site and Power Generation System Selection Pre-construction Construction

Business, Regulatory, and Stakeholder Issues

Initiate process to begin considering various power system options (e.g., IGCC, NGCC, nuclear, wind, etc.) and candidate locations for new plant.

Begin and sustain dialogue with shareholders, regulators, local communities about the decision to proceed with construction of a CCS-enabled power plant. Permitting begins.

Regulatory oversight of construction and verification of compliance with environmental and engineering requirements.

Power Production

Down-select to a handful of candidate vendors for the power production system.

Select vendors for power plant systems and construction.

Footprint established, first unit and support facilities / infrastructure constructed.

CO2 Storage 

System

Begin early analysis of site-specifi c CO2

storage system design.Consult existing geological expertise to see if any candidate sites can be quickly ruled out due to known subsurface issues.

Site characterization and injection planning need to begin. Because there are no current vendors offering off-theshelf CO2 storage systems, utilities will need to assemble a team of consultants and vendors to create and implement CO2 storage 

system’s infrastructure.

Injection site wells are complete with wells drilled and supporting above-ground infrastructure such as storage tanks, CO2pipeline, and wellhead facilities in place.

Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV)

Solicit and incorporate feedback from stakeholders and regulators to inform design of MMV system.

Subsurface characterization performed to determine optimum injection zones and help decide what kind of MMV system is appropriate and how it should be sited.

Construct MMV systems and perform baseline characterization for system calibration and later comparison.

Ope

Initial Plant OperationsPower plant and its associa

storage system begin to geelectricity and revenue.Individual power production units are brought online as completed.Small-scale CO2 storage lik

at the first few injection siteCO2 storage system, allow 

gain familiarity with systemlocal public and other stakebecome more comfortable 

storage at this site.

Routine MMV begins with th

injected into deep storage 

PHASES DURING THE LIFETIME OF A CCS-ENABLED POWER UNIT
54 Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward 

TO ENABLE THE LARGE-SCALE DEPLOYMENT OF CCS, MUCH NEEDS TO BE DONE...Utilities and other potential users of CCS systems could be caught between the potential of CCS technologies to cost effectively deliver significant and sustained CO2 emissions reductions as described in numerous 

technical papers and reports like this one and the realities of today where CCS deployment is quite small. The real-world knowledge gained by operating dozens of CCS-enabled facilities will be critical to transforming CCS technologies from their current status as areas of intense cutting-edge research with tremendous potential to accepted technologies that are capable of delivering results in numerous configurations and settings around the world. In order to realize a future in which CCS technologies are accepted, trusted, economic and ordinary technologies, institutions must evolve in a number of spheres: social, political, technical, regulatory, economic, and corporate.

If large-scale deployment does happen, the following elements will need to be in place.

CCS Systems Will Work and Be AcceptedSocial, political, and technical spheres: From governance structures to popular opinion, there will need to be agreement that climate change concerns warrant a limit on cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases, and that a broad portfolio of options is needed.Regulatory sphere: Governments will need to establish climate policies, legislation, and regulations that recognize CCS technologies on an equal footing with other mitigation strategies.Economic and corporate spheres: Decision-makers will require a stable planning environment. They will need to know that climate policies are here to stay and that the value of carbon will rise to a level that requires investment in capital-intensive emissionsabatement technologies such as CCS systems.CCS Systems Will Make Economic SenseSocial, political, and technical spheres: Consumers must be willing to purchase products that come from CCS-enabled systems, and the technology works well and efficiently.Regulatory sphere: In emissions trading systems, CCS-derived credits will need to be equivalent to other emissions offsets, including their ability to be banked and traded.Economic sphere: CCS technologies must be economically competitive with other strategies for meeting corporate emissions reduction targets, including suitability for use with the corporate business models and industry-specific market circumstances such as regional power production.Corporate sphere: Companies will need to understand CCS technologies and the likely future regulatory environment well enough to see a prospective CCS-enabled unit as being profitable over a significant period of its operational lifetime, thus justifying the investment and acceptance of any risk.

CCS Systems Will BSocial and political swill need to understand aemployed to address climweaknesses.Technical sphere: CCS used for MMV, must havof success in the field thability to meet safety and Regulatory sphere: Regprotocols and standards foand selection and for the CCS systems, including tand monitoring for store

simulation tools will need by industry, regulators, ameans for qualifying pros

for predicting the movem

Economic sphere: Finabanks must understand provide financing for Crates comparable to thoscale emissions-abatemeCorporate sphere: Coevolve a set of internal able to work with vendorCCS aspects of their plan

CCS Systems Will BSocial and political must draw no more attscale emission abatemenTechnical sphere: CCSgen production facilities, aate around the clock at hunin the United States and tof facilities globally. Therparts, a cadre of trained pand regulations, and codifienable and support this laEconomic and regulatming from CCS operationand bounded. There muthe risk of not addressing risk of deploying and ope

The large-scale deployment 

of CCS technologies depends 

upon them becoming accepted, 

trusted, economic and ordinary technologies.
56 Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward 

R&D Needs for CO2 Capture

Continually improve capture technologies—not only in terms of cost, energy penalty, and efficiency, but also in the percentage of the CO2 stream that is 

effectively captured. This effort to improve capture technologies should be seen as a process and not as something that has a specific endpoint (i.e., the goal is not to reduce capture costs to some predefined level and then abandon this area of research). If the efficiency of capture systems is not continually advanced, then the options are limited for addressing climate change and ensuring that economies can continue to draw upon a diverse set of energy resources and technologies.Tune capture technologies to specific industrial applications—for example, in the cement industry, capture systems will need to be developed and demonstrated for that specific application.

R&D Needs for CO2 Transport, 

Storage and Injection

Survey global candidate CO2 reservoirs. Since 

the availability and distribution of this CO2 storage resource directly impacts the likely evolution of 

many nations’ future energy infrastructure, this is a near-term, high-priority task. This is particularly crucial in rapidly developing nations such as China and India. Helping developing nations site their new generation capacity while giving forethought to potential future deployment of CCS will allow them to avoid stranding those assets should CCS deployment become a reality.

Increase our understanding of the behavior of CO2 in the subsurface. Improved and widely 

accepted reservoir models are needed to help examine commercial-scale CO2 storage scenarios and help predict CO2 movement through deep geologic formations.

Improve the resolution of data on candidate geologic reservoirs. Much of the data on CO2 storage reservoirs and their potential capacities effectively treat very large geologic formations as if they 

were uniform across an entire basin. We know this is not the case. More detailed data at a finer scale of resolution would likely provide a more detailed and precise CO2 supply cost curve, and would allow 

us to understand the heterogeneities that will likely impact the deployment of CCS.Improve understanding of the production and cost dynamics of CO2-driven enhanced hydrocarbon recovery related to long-term CO2 storage.

Much of the analysis of CO2-driven enhanced hydrocarbon recovery assumes constant incremental oil 

and natural gas recovery rates (as well as constant rates of CO2 injection) for all years of injection into a 

depleted oil field or deep coal seam. However, this is not the case. In practice, production response to CO2

injection is rarely immediate, but rather increases over a number of years before peaking and then declining. This could have a significant impact on the true costs of CO2 storage options based on CO2-

driven enhanced hydrocarbon recovery.Create innovative and cost-effective CO2 transport and injection strategies. These strategies are 

necessary to create systems for allowing CCS deployment in the widest set of possible circumstances. The potential deployment of CCS technologies is so large that we will not have the luxury of selecting only the most ideal locations for CO2 storage. For example, 

advances in the ability to link smaller storage fields would help tailor EOR- and ECBM-based storage strategies to the needs of large CCS-enabled power plants, which will require massive amounts of storage capacity. Technologies for drilling horizontal wells or for injecting into two or more vertically stacked reservoirs would help improve the overall economics of CO2 storage by reducing the costs of required capital, 

driving down the per-ton cost of storage.

Craft a strategy for 

not remain in the taroptions must be identing with CO2 that mo

formation and that prwarrant remedial stenario might not necessscenario, implying a nremediation options avunder which each wou

R&D Needs for MeaMonitoring, and Ver

Continue to develop nthe-shelf MMV technolto ensure safe and effec

certain classes of formcumstances. But a broaset of MMV technoloneeds of a potential fof CCS systems with C

ferent kinds of formatMMV technologies neeperformance, and othof existing MMV technIn addition to this labate new and better Mindustrial users and ra shared vision of whasure, monitor, and veriinto the deep subsurfaBegin to evolve a bettesite-specific MMV systo meet the needs of Ctial users of CCS systedescription of packaged would deploy under a sexample, what configurgies would be most appplant contemplating CO

mation 1,000 meters baverage thickness of 1then be brought into 
APPENDIX 

bbl Barrel, as i

CCS Carbon Dio

CO2 Carbon Dio

CT Combustio

DSF Deep Salin

ECAR East Centr

 Coordinatio

ECBM Enhanced 

EOR Enhanced 

ERCOT Electric Re

ft bgs Feet Below 

 a measure 

GHG Greenhous

GtCO2 109 tons (a 

 CO2 (a pet

GTSP Global Ene

IGCC Integrated 

 power plan IGCC+CCS An Integrat

power planall of the neCarbon Dio
The cover photos were taspring of 2003 at the sit

age Project. This Battellsponsored by the United (DOE), American ElectriDevelopment Office, SchluNorthwest National Labgeologic CO2 storage asse

operational coal-fired powpower plant. This project the CO2 storage potential 

greater Ohio River Valleof the world’s largest con

sources that could be cannologies in the future. Pr9,108 ft. exploratory well, well are being used to corisk assessment, and to ppotential field-scale injectlearn more about the resproject, see N. Gupta and Valley Storage Project,” Gtenham, UK: InternationGas R&D Programme [IEThis report adopts the cocal community which exper ton of CO2 ($/tCO2) a

(MtCO2) or billions of to

can be converted to dollamultiplying by 3.644 and to the carbon (C) based technical community by in CO2-based units by 3.6

APPENDIX 
62 

course of this century. See, for example, T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds, “Economic and Environmental Choices in the Stabilization of Atmospheric CO2

Concentrations,” Nature 379, 6562 (1996): 240-243.

Because the trapping mechanisms are different in coal-based CO2 storage projects, CO2 is not necessarily 

injected as a supercritical fluid, which means that the pressure, temperature, and depth criteria listed here do not necessarily apply for coal-based CO2 storage 

projects. However, these criteria can still serve as useful guidelines for coal-based CO2 storage.

The schematic of various candidate CO2 storage formations has been used with permission from Dr. Peter Cook, 

Chief Executive of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC).The theoretical CO2 storage capacities presented for 

the world and the United States represent first-order estimates based on available data. These estimates will likely evolve over time as more research and a more thorough and consistent methodology is applied globally. The methodology and subsequent analyses that led to these first-order geologic CO2 storage capacity 

estimates can be found in the following publications:

• J.J. Dooley, S.H. Kim, J.A. Edmonds, S.J. Friedman 

and M.A. Wise, “A First-Order Global Geologic CO2

Storage Potential Supply Curve and Its Application in a Global Integrated Assessment Model,” in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume I, eds. E.S. Rubin, D.W. Keith and C.F. Gilboy (Elsevier Science, 2005).

• J.J. Dooley and S.J. Friedman, “A Regionally Disaggregated Global Accounting of CO2 Storage Capacity: Data and Assumptions,” PNWD-3431 (College 

Park, MD: Joint Global Change Research Institute, Battelle Pacifi c Northwest Division, May 2004).

• R.T. Dahowski, J.J. Dooley, C.L. Davidson, S. Bachu 

and N. Gupta, Building the Cost Curves for CO2Storage: North American, Technical Report 2005/3 (Cheltenham, UK: IEA GHG, 2005).

• C.L. Davidson, H.T. Schaef and R.T. Dahowski, “A 

First-Order Assessment of CO2 Storage Capacity 

in U.S. Basalt Formations,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture and Sequestration (Alexandria, VA: May 2-5, 2005) (also 

available as PNNL-SA-45124, Pacifi c Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA).

Definitions of the principal trapping mechanisms associated with deep geologic CO2 storage:

• Hydrodynamic trapping: involves free-phase CO2

being trapped beneath a caprock which has low permeability—that is, the CO2 cannot flow through the 

caprock, so it remains in place.

• Dissolution trapping: occurs when the CO2 dissolves 

into the formation fluids (oil, gas, and saline water).

• Mineralization-based trapping: When this dissolved 

CO2 reacts with minerals in the rock, other solutes 

in the formation fluids, or the formation fluids themselves, it sometimes forms stable minerals called carbonates in a process called mineralization. This is the most permanent form of trapping, since the CO2

has been chemically incorporated into nonreactive minerals, and can no longer enter the atmosphere without undoing those chemical reactions.

• Chemical adsorption in coals: The matrixed surface 

of coals is often covered with methane molecules, and because the chemical bonds holding the methane onto the coal would prefer to have CO2 instead 

of methane, the presence of CO2 causes the methane to be swapped out for the carbon dioxide molecules. The degree to which CO2 is preferentially adsorbed 

onto the surface of the coal can vary, with some coals accepting several more CO2 molecules for each methane molecule released.

The three pictures showing microscopic thin sections of rock core samples are taken from the AEP-1 deep well drilled at AEP’s Mountaineer Plant during 2003 (see the first note in this appendix). The images illustrate the nature of caprocks and storage reservoirs. Visible pore space in the rock thin sections is shown in blue. The top photo shows the Well Creek Shale, an impermeable caprock with essentially no pore space, at a depth of 7125 ft. The middle photo is of the Rose Run 

Sandstone, a potential s7771 ft. with a moderatbottom image is of a porSandstone at a depth of 7excellent candidate for C

ogy at this site can be foJ. Sminchak, D. Meggyenan and A. Boyd, “DeterReservoir Potential at a SOhio River Valley RegionTechnologies, Volume I, and C.F. Gilboy (Elsevier The schematic diagram test well design is from at AEP’s Mountaineer first note in this appendmajor geologic layers, intial injection zones, obserthe completion of the weusing multiple carbon steof regular and CO2-resist

the bottom 2800 ft. of thcasing. This additional related equipment will bsion to proceed with an inis undertaken. Details of in Gupta et al., “DetermiFor more on the screenstructure seismic risk, pDahowski and K.P. Saand the Storage of Carbmations,” in GreenhousVolume II, eds. M. WilsoThambimuthu (Elsevier Our most recent published considerations of leakage M.A. Wise, “Potential Leation Formations: Allowabations, and the Implicatin Proceedings of the SixtGreenhouse Gas Control Y. Kaya (Amsterdam: PerThe example of a seismic faulting in geologic formMr. William Rike, ConOhio, and is taken from 
64 

The data on the global distribution of CO2 point sources 

includes the modifications noted above for U.S. natural gas processing facilities and is primarily based upon Dahowski et al., “Building the Cost Curves” as well as periodic updates to the following dataset: International Energy Agency’s Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, 2002, Building the Cost Curves for CO2 Storage, Part 

1: Sources Of CO2, Report Number PH4/9. Note that 

similar adjustments to the non-U.S. gas processing CO2 emissions estimates were not made and therefore the estimates shown here for other regions of the 

world reflect higher than likely global emissions from this sector.Section 3 notes: More detailed information on our research into the cost of CO2 capture for various power 

plants and industrial facilities can be found in:

• N. Mahasenan and D.R. Brown, “Beyond the Big Picture: Characterization of CO2-Laden Streams and 

Implications for Capture Technologies,” in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume II, eds. M. Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale and K. Thambimuthu 

(Elsevier Science, 2005).

• N. Mahasenan, R.T. Dahowski and C.L. Davidson, 

“The Role of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in Reducing Emissions from Cement Plants in North America,” in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume I, eds. E.S. Rubin, D.W. Keith and C.F. Gilboy (Elsevier Science, 2005).

Our research on the need to improve the effi ciency of CO2 capture can be found in M.A. Wise and J.J. Dooley, 

“Modeling CO2 Capture Effi ciency: Implications of 

Alternative Specifi cations,” PNWD-3429 (College Park, MD: Joint Global Change Research Institute, Battelle Pacifi c Northwest Division, May 2004).Key publications examining the cost of CO2 transport 

and storage, including the possible value from enhanced CO2-driven hydrocarbon recovery are Dahowski et al., 

“Building the Cost Curves,” and the following:

• R.T. Dahowski and J.J. Dooley, “Carbon Management 

Strategies for U.S. Electricity Generation Capacity: a Vintage-Based Approach,” Energy 29, 9-10 (2004): 1589-1598.

• R.T. Dahowski, J.J. Dooley, C.L. Davidson and N. 

Mahasenan, “Regional Differences in Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Markets within the United States,” in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume II, eds. M. Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale and K. Thambimuthu (Elsevier Science, 2005).

• J.J. Dooley, R.T. Dahowski, C.L. Davidson and M.A. 

Wise, “CO2 Transport and Storage Costs and their 

Impact on the U.S. Electric Utility Industry’s Carbon Management Investment Decisions,” presented at EPRI’s Ninth Annual Global Climate Change Research Seminar (Washington, DC: June 2, 2004), also available as Report No. PNWD-SA-6513, Joint Global Change Research Institute, Battelle Pacifi c Northwest Division, College Park, MD).

As noted in the body of the report, our work strongly suggests that in an area like North America, which has a very large and widely distributed CO2 storage 

resource base, over the course of this century the longterm average cost of CO2 transport and storage should 

stay below the level of approximately $12–$15/tCO2. 

Some projects will surely experience higher transport and storage costs than this and others will undoubtedly face lower costs. But this $12–15/tCO2 represents 

a realistic estimate of the upper bound on transport and storage costs that most firms will likely face.An estimate of the cost of measurement, monitoring and verification of CO2 that has been stored in 

deep geologic formations can be found in our report L. Smith, N. Gupta, B. Sass and T. Bubenik, Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Saline Formations—Engineering and Economic Assessment, Final Technical Report, prepared for DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, Contract No. DE-AC26-98FT40418.

The net cost of employing was computed by employing method presented in the Cost Curves.” A seriewas used to determine th

capture, transport, and formations for existing laof CO2. The crucial compo

calculating pairwise solwith its lowest cost, glob(i.e., finding the best optinto account). Cost curvfor the best option for eaca set of constraints, as fo

• First, due to the close p

of CO2 point sources i

date storage reservoirsradius was imposed, suto consider selecting anwithin a distance of 10of CO2 storage options 

net costs were determcapital and operating cdehydration, pipeline ting injection, infrastmonitoring, and verifimight be generated by coalbed methane as a r

• Costs for capture, co

were estimated based type of plant, CO2 emi

produced CO2.

• Transport costs are ba

each source and candadjustments for differrequirements.

• Storage costs vary fo

and are based on a eters including type otivity. For depleted oil for enhanced oil recovto release methane as 

revenue associated wi
66 

• The specific policy modeled here assumes a carbon 

tax that begins in 2015 at $12/tCO2 and increases 

at a real, inflation-adjusted rate of 2.5% per year, reaching $25/tCO2 in 2045. This carbon tax is applied 

uniformly across the three regions and results in electric utility CO2 emissions in 2045 approximately 

equal to 2005 levels.

• Investment in new nuclear and renewable power 

generation is difficult to model based purely on optimal investment economics, as decisions to invest in these systems often include a significant aspect of non-economic consideration (e.g., government policies, environmental concerns, or social considerations such as public acceptability) that affect their deployment. Therefore we have adopted what we believe to be aggressive but realistic deployments for nuclear and renewable energy technologies and assume explicitly that these critical technologies will play major roles in responding to a CO2 emissions 

policy. Specifically for this study, we assume that nuclear growth is sufficient to maintain its share of total capacity in each region starting in 2015. Expansion of renewables is sufficient to reach a minimum of 10% of regional capacity by 2045 or to maintain its current share if higher. Different expansion rates for nuclear and renewables would certainly alter the CO2 emissions paths, but the decision to invest in 

CCS for fossil power would still be based on the relative economics of the technology and emissions price and would be relatively unaffected.

• Fuel prices (gas, oil, and coal) for the period up to 

2025 were taken from EIA AEO 2005 (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency, Annual 

Energy Outlook 2005 with Projections to 2025, DOE/EIA-0383, 2005, January 2005). Fuel prices for 2025–2045 were extrapolated from the EIA AEO 2005 data covering the period up to 2025. In this scenario, natural gas prices stay above $5/mmBtu for much of the period and increase steadily beyond $6/mmBtu by 2015 (AEO 2005 Restricted Natural Gas Supply Case). The assumed natural gas prices—while lower than recent peak spot prices—are much higher than the average gas price of the past decade and are sufficiently high that the economic choice for many electric generation regions is to build new 

coal plants, even in the face of a carbon policy such as this. As the carbon permit prices start to escalate, many older natural gas and oil steam plants begin to retire. IGCC+CCS only starts to deploy in earnest in this scenario in the 2025–2035 period as the carbon permit prices begin to escalate further. The largescale adoption of natural-gas-fired combined cycle power plants with CCS (NGCC+CCS) would require higher carbon permit prices than assumed in this scenario. Assumed coal prices are slightly higher than those in 2005 and oil prices are assumed to stay at approximately $40/bbl or above during the entire period (AEO 2005 High Case B).

• In building region-specific CO2 storage supply curves, 

we have sought to account for the fact that some facilities with higher-purity CO2 streams (hence, 

with lower-cost options for CO2 capture, e.g., natural gas processing facilities, ammonia plants) exist in these regions and may likely begin capturing and storing their CO2 at an earlier date when carbon 

permit prices are still relatively low. By deploying earlier, these lower-cost CO2 capture facilities would 

tend to reduce the amount of EOR and ECBM-based CO2 storage options that new CCS-enabled power 

plants are able to access when they begin capturing CO2. For the three regions modeled here, this 

reduction in the amount of value-added CO2 storage 

capacity available for the electric utility industry is most pronounced in the ERCOT region.

Readers who are interested in the core methodologies and tools used to perform this electric utility dispatch modeling should consult Dooley et al., “Accelerated Adoption”; and Dahowski et al., “Regional Differences.”Although they were not explicitly addressed in this report, we have looked at public attitudes regarding CCS deployment. The overwhelming conclusion from this work is that the public knows little about CCS and therefore there is an opportunity to positively shape public opinion about the need for and benefits of the possible large-scale deployment of CCS technologies. Readers interested in learning more may consult J.A. Bradbury and J.J. Dooley, “Who’s Talking? What Are the Issues? The Media’s Portrayal of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration in the United States,” in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume II, eds. M. Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale and K. Thambimuthu (Elsevier Science, 2005).

• The Battelle Memorial • California Energy Com• Electric Power Resear• Electric Power Resear• Gas Research Institute• General Motors Corpo• Kansai Electric Power• National Energy Techn• National Institute for • Pacific Northwest Nat• Rio Tinto• The U.S. Department GTSP PHA
creative | www.thedesignfarm.com