A CORE ELEMENT OF A GLOBAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGYSTRATEGY TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGECarbon Dioxide CaptureandGeologic StorageA TECHNOLOGY REPORT FROM THE SECOND PHASE OFTHE GLOBAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY PROGRAMJJ Dooley (Lead Author), RT Dahowski, CL Davidson,MA Wise, N Gupta, SH Kim, EL MaloneApril 2006A CORE ELEMENT OF A GLOBAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGYSTRATEGY TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGECarbon Dioxide CaptureandGeologic StorageA TECHNOLOGY REPORT FROM THE SECOND PHASE OFTHE GLOBAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY PROGRAMTABLEOFCONTENTSLEGAL NOTICEThis report was prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle) as an account of sponsoredresearch activities. Neither Client nor Battelle nor any person acting on behalf of either:MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, withrespect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in thisreport, or that the use of any information, apparatus, process, or composition disclosed in thisreport 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 hereindo not necessarily state or reflect those of Battelle.Printed in the United States of AmericaTHE GLOBAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY PROGRAM......................................................................................... 4TO THE READER...................................................................................................................................................................... 5EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................... 7What Is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?.................................................................................................................. 11The Challenge—Climate Change, Technology, and Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage ............................................. 12CCS Components and the State of the Art ........................................................................................................................ 14Going Deeper: Candidate Geologic CO2Storage Formations .......................................................................................... 16What Does a CO2Storage Reservoir Look Like? ............................................................................................................... 18CO2Injection into a Deep Geologic Storage Formation .................................................................................................... 19CO2Storage: the Issue of Permanence ............................................................................................................................. 20Market Potential of CCS Systems......................................................................................................................................... 23Where in the World Are the Potential Storage Sites for Carbon Dioxide? .......................................................................... 24Potential Geologic CO2Storage Reservoirs in the United States ......................................................................................26Who and Where Are the Potential Customers for CCS? .................................................................................................... 27Potential CCS Customers in the United States .................................................................................................................. 28Costs of CCS Components................................................................................................................................................... 31The Cost of CO2Capture .................................................................................................................................................... 32Costs of CO2Transport and Storage .................................................................................................................................. 35Pulling It All Together: the Net Cost of CCS ....................................................................................................................... 37Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward................................................................................................... 43Today’s CCS Deployment Compared to Potential Mid-Century Deployment .................................................................... 44CCS Deployment at the Regional and Sectoral Scale ....................................................................................................... 45CCS Deployment at the Plant Scale ................................................................................................................................... 50To Enable the Large-Scale Deployment of CCS, Much Needs to Be Done ...................................................................... 54Key CCS R&D and Knowledge Gaps ................................................................................................................................ 55APPENDIX 1:Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 59APPENDIX 2:Notes and References ...................................................................................................................................... 61123445THE GLOBAL ENERGYTECHNOLOGY STRATEGYPROGRAMThe Global Energy Technology Strategy Program(GTSP) began in 1998 with the goal of betterunderstanding the role that energy technologiesmight play in addressing the problem of globalclimate change. The GTSP is a unique, global,public and private sector research collaboration,whose sponsors and research collaborators aredrawn from around the world.The completion of the first phase of the GTSP in 2001was marked by the release of a seminal report during aspecial session of the Sixth Conference of the Parties tothe United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange. This report,A Global Energy Technology Strategy Addressing Climate Change: Initial Findings froman International Public-Private Collaboration,demonstrated the importance of technology developmentand deployment as key cornerstones of a broader set ofactivities designed to address climate change.A central conclusion was that a robust “technologystrategy” required the development of atechnologyportfolio. It found no evidence for a single technologywhose development promised to “solve” the climateproblem. That is,a priori, there is no technological “silver bullet.” Rather, the GTSP concluded that a varietyof technologies and technology systems show promise for making substantially expanded contributionsto the global energy system in a climate-constrainedworld. These include biotechnology, hydrogen energyand 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 madetheir way into the frequently cited literature. The firstphase of the GTSP successfully added to the dialogueabout responses to climate change a new, previouslymissing, element—technology.But building productive, long-term, real-world technology strategies to address climate change requiresa deeper understanding of technologies and theirpotential. Thus, the GTSP launched its second phasein 2002. GTSP Phase 2 is pushing the frontiers ofour knowledge to gain a much deeper understandingof how these key carbon management and advancedenergy technologies will deploy in practice, and themeans for launching and sustaining a meaningfulglobal energy technology strategy. GTSP Phase 2 isin the process of distilling important lessons gleanedfrom research on the potential roles of six carbon management technology systems in the context of a competitive future global energy system. These summariesof key research insights will take the form of “capstonereports” for each of the six technology areas. This isthe first capstone report—on Carbon Dioxide Captureand Geologic Storage. In addition, a set of overall conclusions will be drawn from the complete body of theGTSP 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.orgTO THE READERThe findings presented in this report stem from morethan ten years of research at Battelle’s Joint GlobalChange Research Institute (JGCRI) to better understand the significant potential of carbon dioxide captureand storage (CCS) technologies in addressing climatechange. A central focus of this report is on actions thatwill allow CCS technologies to transition from their current status aspotential solutionsto climate change tothe point where these systems are deployed widely andhave becomesafe, effective, and trusted cornerstones ofthe global energy system.CCS technologies are increasingly seen as criticallyimportant elements of a global portfolio of advancedenergy technologies needed to address climatechange. One sign of the significant interest in CCStechnologies is the recent publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’sSpecial Reporton Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage(2005). Whileacknowledging the significant contributions beingmade by many other research groups, national governments, state agencies, and private firms who arepushing forward the development and early commercial deployment of CCS technologies, this documentis meant to summarize research performed under theGlobal Energy Technology Strategy Program (GTSP),and therefore principally focuses on CCS researchcarried out at Battelle and JGCRI during the firstand second phases of the GTSP.Overall, this document fulfills the GTSP objective ofarticulating the cost and environmental performancetargets for CCS, as well as the institutional means thatwill enable its commercial deployment in a greenhousegas-constrained world. The report establishes thatCCS technologies can make a significant contributionto reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report alsodescribes the cost, performance and other key characteristics of the component technologies comprising a complete CCS system. Included in this is an examinationof deep underground geologic sites and the permanenceof injected carbon dioxide storage. Market and economiccost analyses are presented to elucidate the potentialdeployment of CCS technologies. Finally, the reportexplores how the world—especially industries, suchas electricity generators—would make decisions aboutusing CCS under a policy that places a value on carbondioxide emissions.Our CCS research has been supported by numerousfirms, nongovernmental organizations, and governmentagencies. We are grateful for their support, which hasenabled us to pursue this important work. However,JGCRI, GTSP and James J. Dooley, who leads JGCRIand GTSP’s research related to CCS technologies, alongwith the other authors are solely responsible for thecontent of this report. Also, we would like to acknowledge and thank the many peer reviewers who freelygave their time to comment on earlier drafts of this document. Their thoughtful review helped to significantlyimprove this document.For more information about the GTSP’s program on CCS,please contactJames J. DooleySenior Staff ScientistBattelle, Joint Global Change Research Institute8400 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201College Park, MD 20740 USAdooleyj@battelle.orgGTSP Phase II—Program ObjectiveTo articulate the cost andenvironmental performancetargetsfor technologies andtechnology systems in agreenhouse-gas-constrainedworld, and theinstitutionalmeans of implementation.A Note on Terms:CCS technologies, as used here,do not include planting trees, increasing soil carbon,or other bio-based activities. These activities are morecommonly referred to as“carbon sequestration.” Thisreport will not use the term “sequestration” in orderto avoid any possible confusion.7THE CHALLENGE OF CLIMATECHANGE AND THE TECHNOLOGYPORTFOLIO RESPONSEAddressing climate change is a large-scale, globalchallenge to reduce and avoid the release of enormousamounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) over the courseof this century. Currently, the world’s economies annually emit approximately 26 gigatons of carbon dioxide(GtCO2) to the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels. In the absence of explicit efforts to addressclimate change, rising global populations, higher standards of living, and increased demand for energy couldresult in as much as 9,000 gigatons of cumulative CO2being emitted to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion over this coming century.However, to stabilize CO2concentrations in the atmosphere “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” as calledfor in the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change, the cumulative amount of CO2released to the atmosphere over this century wouldneed to be held to no more than 2,600 to 4,600 GtCO2—a substantial reduction and formidable challenge.The Global Energy Technology Strategy Program(GTSP) has shown conclusively the value of developingan enhanced portfolio of energy technologies in meeting this challenge. Some aspects of this portfolio willinvolve continued energy efficiency improvements inhomes, offices, and automobiles, as these technologiesnot only reduce CO2emissions but also help to improveeconomic efficiency, competitiveness, and local environmental quality. Renewable energy, advanced bioenergyand biotechnologies, advanced transportation including hydrogen production and fuel cell technologies, andnuclear power have also been shown to be key aspectsof the broad portfolio of energy technologies needed toaddress climate change. GTSP research has demonstrated that all aspects of this portfolio need to be capable of delivering significant and sustained reductionsin CO2emissions over the course of this century.Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which are the focus of this report, have the potential to be central elements of this advanced energytechnology portfolio. CCS technologies are capable ofdeploying widely across the globe in many differenteconomic sectors and in many different locales. Thesetechnologies are capable of delivering deep, cost-effective,and sustained emissions reductions. This reportseeks to conclusively demonstrate the technical feasibility and potential economic value of CCS in thisbroader portfolio of advanced energy and carbon management technologies.POTENTIAL TO DELIVERBENEFITS TODAY, TOMORROW,AND WELL INTO THE FUTURECCS systems offer several unique benefits as part ofa climate change mitigation portfolio:•In the near term, CCS systems help the owners, operators and beneficiaries of established, economic production methods—which lie at the heart of the modernindustrial economy—to find a financially viable pathway forward into a world in which there are significantconstraints on CO2emissions. CCS may be pivotal inhelping reduce the emissions from fossil fuel-firedelectricity generation, steel and cement manufacturing, refining, and chemicals production. Without CCStechnologies, many of these firms may see efforts toaddress climate change as threats to their businesses.The potential cost savings from using CCS systemsopens the dialog with these industries about how bestto address climate change in the future.•In the medium term, the implementation of CCS technologies allows for a smoother transition of the globaleconomy to a low-GHG emissions future. Establishedproduction methods and existing infrastructure cancontinue to be utilized, and the costs of transitioningto a lower-emitting energy system can be minimized.EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe RoleofCarbonDioxide CaptureandStorage TechnologiesinMitigating Climate Change89•In the long term, CCS will help make valuable commodities like electricity and hydrogen cheaper thanthey would otherwise be. This is the key merit;CCS technologies are not ends in themselves but ameans—a means of realizing abundant energy andindustrial production, without CO2emissions.CURRENT MARKETDEPLOYMENTMany component technologies for CCS systems alreadyexist, including CO2capture, transportation via pipeline,and injection into geologic formations deep underground.However, both the scale of existing CCS systems and thenumber of CCS commercial and field demonstrationprojects are very small compared to the scale necessaryfor significant and sustained CO2emissions reductions.The very newness of CCS systems and a lack of realworld operational experience in essential markets suchas electric power generation are current impedimentsto the expanded adoption of CCS technologies.Globally, there are currently more than 8,100 largeCO2point sources (accounting for more than 60% of allanthropogenic CO2emissions) that could conceivablyadopt CCS technologies as a means for delivering deepand sustained CO2emissions reductions. These8,100large CO2point sources are predominantly fossil-fueledelectric power plants, but there are also hundreds ofsteel mills, cement kilns, chemical plants, and oil andgas production and refining facilities. A very smallnumber of these facilities are already capturing andselling CO2, suggesting that in certain niche applications it is already profitable to deploy some CCS component technologies. However, the vast majority ofthese existing facilities have not adopted CCS systems.Moreover, the vast majority of the new power plantsand other large industrial CO2point sourcesthat arenow being built or that are in various stages of earlydevelopment are also not planning to adopt CCS systems. This reveals an important point; the deploymentof CCS technologies is almost exclusively motivated bythe need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and, therefore, their large-scale adoption dependsupon explicit efforts to control such emissions.CO2STORAGE CAPACITYOur research and that of many other research groupsdemonstrate that potential deep geologic CO2storagesites exist around the world, although the distribution ofthese candidate storage sites is quite uneven (as is truefor many other types of natural resources). Our preliminary estimate of the potential global deep geologic CO2storage capacity is nearly 11,000 GtCO2. Assuming thatother advanced energy technologies are developed anddeployed along with CCS systems, this potential capacity should be more than enough to address global CO2storage needs for at least this century. In many places,candidate CO2storage formations are near large groupings of power plants and other industrial facilities, whichshould lower the cost of deploying CCS systems.COST AND ECONOMIC VALUEFor most applications, assuming the adoption of currently available CCS component technologies, the costof employing CCS systems most likely lies below $50/tCO2including capture, transport, injection, storageand monitoring. At this cost level, CCS systems arecapable of reducing the costs of climate stabilization bytrillions of dollars because these technologies allow forthe continued use of fossil fuels and enable the deployment of other key mitigation technologies such aslarge-scale, low-emissions hydrogen and synfuels production. GTSP research also confirms that the costs ofCCS systems should be competitive with—and in somecases significantly less costly than—other potentiallarge-scale CO2emissions reduction and abatementtechnologies.SAFETY ANDENVIRONMENTAL EFFICACYAt a properly designed and well-managed CCS facility,the chance of appreciable CO2leakage from the deepgeologic storage formation is very small. The principaltask for the measurement, monitoring, and verificationof stored CO2centers on how to demonstrate the longterm retention of stored CO2to regulators and the public. New and improved measurement and monitoringtechniques and standards for their use need to be developed to provide proof of public and environmental safetyand of each CCS project’s effectiveness in mitigatingclimate change.ADOPTION AND DEPLOYMENTWITHIN THE ELECTRIC POWERINDUSTRYEarly adopters of CCS systems will likely lie outsidethe electric utility industry and will seek opportunitiesthat move beyond today’s niche markets in CO2-drivenenhanced oil recovery. However, if there were anexplicit climate policy in place that called for substantial and sustained emissions reductions, the electricpower industry would likely become the largest market for CCS systems. GTSP research has shown thatCCS systems will be most economic when deployedwith large baseload power plants. These plants operate around the clock with only occasional brief outagesfor routine maintenance. For these facilities, a key criterion for locating suitable storage reservoirs is thatthose reservoirs have sufficient capacity to hold perhaps more than 50 years’ worth of the facility’s CO2plus some margin for growth. Because of this need forlarge quantities of reliable CO2storage, decade afterdecade, CCS-enabled electric power plants will mostlikely look to deep saline formations, which tend to offerlarge storage capacities.THE VALUE OF CONTINUED R&DThe next five to ten years constitute a critical windowin which to amass needed operational experience withCCS technologies in real-world conditions. Planned CCSfield demonstrations, a handful of early commercialCCS projects, and continued laboratory-based researchare all needed to advance the state of the art across anumber of CCS-related areas, so that CCS technologiescan deploy safely and effectively in as many locales andconfigurations as needed to meet the challenge of stabilizing atmospheric CO2concentrations. Important areasof research identified by GTSP include the following:•Continually improve CO2capture technologies andensure that they are being developed and tuned to awide array of industrial sectors that can potentiallybenefit by adopting CCS systems.•Survey global candidate CO2reservoirs so that wecan better understand the nature and distribution ofthe world’s deep geologic CO2storage reservoirs. Thisis particularly crucial in rapidly developing countriessuch as China and India. Helping developing nationssite new long-lived electricity generation or otherlarge CO2-emitting industrial facilities while givingforethought to potential deployment of CCS will allowthem to avoid stranding those assets should there bea need to adopt CCS systems at those facilities atsome point in the future.•Develop a broader and more advanced set of measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV) technologies for stored CO2than currently exists in orderto meet the needs of a potential future large-scaledeployment of CCS systems with CO2being stored inmany different kinds of formations and circumstances.New MMV technologies need to be invented and thecost, performance, and other operating characteristicsof existing MMV technologies need to be improved.•Obtain more experience with end-to-end CCS systems in real-world conditions and make specificefforts to utilize the opportunity presented by theseearly commercial and research demonstrationCCS facilities to increase our understanding of thebehavior of CO2in the subsurface, develop a base ofempirical data to facilitate the development of MMVsystems and their regulation, train and educate alarger cadre of individuals who are capable of running commercial-scale CCS systems, garner publicsupport for CCS deployment, and otherwise lay thefoundation for the larger scale deployment to come.THE EFFORT REQUIRED FORLARGE-SCALE COMMERCIALDEPLOYMENTFulfilling the potential that the large-scale use of CCStechnologies could hold will take significant effort.Despite recent technical successes and growing budgets for the development and critical field demonstration of CCS technologies, much hard work remains totransition them—perhaps quickly—from their currentstatus as potential solutions to climate change to safe,effective, and trusted cornerstones of the global energysystem. If the world can do this, then our researchsuggests that CCS systems hold promise to be an economic, cost-effective means for facilitating the stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as part ofa portfolio of technologies to address climate change.A complete end-to-end CCS system isa dedicated assemblage of various technologies andcomponents—many of which are already usedin other settings—working together to preventCO2from entering the atmosphere. This section opens with an overview of the technologies that would comprise a fully functionalCCS system, along with an assessment of thecurrent state of the art for each of them.A principal focus of this section is to describecandidate CO2storage reservoirs and the process by which CO2is injected and stored inthese formations. These candidate reservoirsare located thousands of feet below the surface.Their depth and the confining layers of denserock (often called caprocks) that lie abovethem serve to isolate the candidate CO2storage reservoirs and provide the principal meansof trapping the injected CO2in the deep subsurface over the long term.This chapter also discusses the issue of verifying permanence; that is, how will operators offuture CCS facilities demonstrate that the CO2that they have injected into the deep subsurface is staying in the target injection zones?Further information about technical terms andconcepts introduced in this section can befound in the appendices.WhatisCarbon Dioxide CaptureandStorage?111What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?12Section 113THE CHALLENGE—CLIMATECHANGE, TECHNOLOGY, ANDCARBON DIOXIDE CAPTUREAND STORAGEAddressing climate change is a challenge at theglobal scale. The amount of greenhouse gasesemitted to the atmosphere is enormous—measured in gigatons. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s, humanshave released to the atmosphere slightly morethan 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide (GtCO2),the most important greenhouse gas. Currently,the world’s economic systems annually emitapproximately 26 GtCO2to the atmospherefrom the combustion of fossil fuels.Assuming continued economic, population and technological growth, including the continued developmentand deployment of cleaner and more efficient energytechnologies, global CO2emissions could rise to as muchas 5 times their current level by the year 2050 and thendouble from that level by 2100. Thus, in the absence ofexplicit efforts to address climate change, total cumulative emissions from fossil fuel combustion over this coming century could reach as high as 9,000 GtCO2.However, to stabilize CO2concentrations in the atmosphere“at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenicinterference with the climate system” (consistent with theoverarching goal of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has been ratified by189 nations) would necessitate that global CO2emissionsover the course of this century total no more than 2,600 to4,600 GtCO2. The need to avoid the release of thousandsof gigatons of CO2to the atmosphere over the coming century implies a significant change in the way that energyis produced and consumed around the globe.There is a broad consensus in the technical literaturethat the key to making this large-scale transition in theenergy economy will be the development and deployment of a broad portfolio of advanced energy technologies. Part of this portfolio will involve continuedimprovements in energy efficiency in homes, offices,and automobiles, as these technologies not only reduceCO2emissions but also help to improve economicefficiency, competitiveness, and local environmentalquality. Renewable energy, advanced bioenergy andbiotechnologies, advanced transportation includinghydrogen production and fuel cells, and nuclear powerhave also been shown to be core aspects of this broadglobal portfolio of energy technologies.To have a meaningful impact on climate change, eachcore element of this portfolio must be capable of deploying at a scale that matters. One way to think aboutwhether a given advanced energy technology can meetthis criteria is to ask whether commercial deployment ofthe technology has the potential to cost-effectively reducegreenhouse gas emissions bya gigaton or more per year.Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) representsanother candidate component of this larger portfolioof advanced energy technologies and climate policiesneeded to bring about the stabilization of atmosphericCO2concentrations. CCS systems are specificallydesigned to remove CO2from the flue gases and various process streams of large power plants and industrial facilities and safely deposit the CO2in securestorage sites deep underground—thus keeping it outof the atmosphere. At present, there are more than8,100 large CO2point sources on Earth comprisingprimarily large fossil-fired power plants and otherlarge industrial facilities. These facilities collectivelyemit approximately 15 GtCO2annually. Many of thesepower plants and industrial facilities are believed to benear suitable candidate CO2storage reservoirs.CCS technologies, the focus of this report, have thepotential to prevent many hundreds to thousands ofgigatons of CO2from reaching the atmosphere over thecourse of this century and thus they clearly pass this“gigaton or more per year” test.The need to avoid the releaseof thousands of gigatons of CO2to the atmosphere over thecoming century implies asignificant change in the waythat energy is produced andconsumed around the globe.What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?14Section 115CCS COMPONENTSAND THE STATE OF THE ARTThe Whole SystemGlobal experience with complete end-to-end CCS systems is at present quite limited. When compared to the kinds of CCSsystems needed to deliver significant CO2reductions—a gigaton or more per year—the CCS systems that exist today are verysmall, and many of the individual system components can be viewed as first-generation technologies. In particular, a strongfocus on CO2capture 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 ascale far larger than any of the systems in operation today. The challenge of moving from today’s limited experiential knowledgebase to the massive CCS systems that would be needed to contribute to climate mitigation is the focus of this report.CO2CaptureFor some CO2emissions mitigation applications, first-generation CO2capture systems already exist and can be purchased from commercial vendors. There are even a few operational coal- and natural gas-fired power plants that applyCO2capture systems to a small portion of the plants’ emissions to serve niche industrial CO2markets, and there arenatural gas processing plants that routinely capture and separate CO2and sell it for various industrial uses.But the cost, performance, and other operating characteristics of these first-generation CO2capture systems need tobe improved in order to enable CCS systems to deploy to their full market potential. The scale of today’s CO2capturesystems is also considerably smaller than the scale needed to address climate change concerns. CO2capture is andwill likely remain an area of intense CCS research.Ancillary SystemsCO2compressors, booster pumps, surge tanks, and other equipment are all off-the-shelf technologies that can be considered routine aspects of future commercial CCS operations.CO2TransportTransporting CO2is an established practice. Currently, more than 3,000 miles of dedicated CO2pipeline exist in the UnitedStates alone. Modern control technologies help to ensure pipeline integrity and safety—a pipeline section that is damagedcan be quickly shut down, limiting the loss of CO2. The principal issue for CO2transport is not research and developmentbut rather potential obstacles in the siting and placement of potentially large CO2pipeline networks that would likely beneeded as CCS systems begin to deploy at a significant scale.CO2Injection into Deep Geologic FormationsThe most likely CO2storage sites are deep geologic formations. The technologies to inject CO2into these formations exist today and are routinely used in the oil and gas industries. In this sense, CO2injection can be consideredan established technology, although ways to optimize injection, such as using lateral wells and injecting into multiplevertically stacked reservoirs, still need to be better understood. The continued development and field demonstration ofthese more advanced drilling and CO2injection techniques could facilitate the use of CCS in a much broader range oflocales, a necessary step if CCS technologies are to deploy on a large scale.Measurement, Monitoring, and Verification (MMV)MMV technologies, crucial elements of a complete CCS system, are not as easily described as “established technologies.” Some off-the-shelf MMV technologies can be applied to ensure safe and effective storage of injected CO2incertain classes of formations and under specific circumstances (e.g., seismic imaging of CO2that has been injectedinto a deep saline formation or a depleted oil field). But that alone is not sufficient to meet the MMV needs of a futurelarge-scale deployment of CCS in many varied locales and circumstances. MMV is, and will continue to be, an activearea of intense research; new MMV technologies need to be developed and the cost, performance, and other operatingcharacteristics of existing MMV technologies need to be improved. In addition to this laboratory and field research effortto create new and better MMV technologies, prospective industrial users and regulators also need to create a shared vision of what it means in practice to measure, monitor, and verify CO2that has been injected into the deep subsurface.What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?16Section 117Candidate geologic reservoirs for storing CO2lie deep below the surface of the Earth at varying depths.(FIGURE COURTESY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CO2CRC).▲PRINCIPAL CANDIDATE GEOLOGIC CO2STORAGE RESERVOIRS(see appendix for sources and assumptions)GOING DEEPER:CANDIDATE GEOLOGIC CO2STORAGE FORMATIONSThe deep geologic formations identified as candidates forlong-term CO2storage were deposited tens to hundredsof millions of years ago. Similar deep geologic formationshave been used for oil and gas production and for fluidstorage for more than a century. But only recently haveresearchers understood the potential value of these formations as tools in addressing climate change.Like nearly all other natural resources, CO2storagereservoirs 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 describesome the key characteristics of those classes of geologicformations that are being examined as candidates forlong-term CO2storage.In most cases, CO2is injected as a supercritical fluid,which means that it is dense like a liquid, but hasa gas-like viscosity that allows it to flow very easilythrough pipelines and into the target storage formation. Maintaining the CO2as a supercritical fluid inthe storage formation typically can be accomplished inreservoirs that are at depths greater than 800 meters(0.5 miles) below the surface of the Earth.Candidate CO2storage reservoirs are separated fromthe surface and from sources of fresh water by thousands of feet of layered rock. Some layers are very permeable and porous, allowing the CO2to be injected andstored in the empty spaces between grains in the rock.Other layers are denser, effectively isolating the CO2storage reservoirs from the shallower groundwater reservoirs. These intervening dense rock layers (oftencalled caprocks) provide the principal means of trappingthe CO2in the deep subsurface over the long term.Type ofReservoir General CharacteristicsPrincipalTrappingMechanismTheoreticalGlobal Capacity(GtCO2)TheoreticalU.S. Capacity(GtCO2)Deep SalineFormationsSandstone and carbonate (limestone or dolomite) rocks with void spaces inhabited by saltywater. Injection of waste fluids into deep salineformations (DSFs) is a common practice in manyparts of the world.Hydrodynamic,dissolution,mineralization9,500 3,630Depleted NaturalGas ReservoirsOnce the formation has been stripped of its natural gas, it essentially behaves like a DSF in termsof CO2storage. Depleted natural gas formationsare often used for natural gas storage.Hydrodynamic,dissolution,mineralization700 35Depleted OilReservoirsOnce the recoverable oil has been producedfrom the formation, CO2may be stored in theavailable pore space. CO2injection can alsobe used to recover additional oil that was leftbehind during primary production. Oil producershave 30+ years of experience using CO2-drivenenhanced oil recovery (EOR) in areas of NorthAmerica, but there has been little focus ondemonstrating the retention of CO2or the useof these depleted oil fields as a long-term meansof isolating CO2from the atmosphere.Hydrodynamic,dissolution,mineralization120 12Deep UnmineableCoal SeamsMethane is found on the surfaces of coal. However, those surfaces have a chemical preferencefor CO2, which when injected induces the coal torelease its methane while adsorbing the injectedCO2instead. At present, CO2-driven enhancedcoalbed methane recovery (ECBM) with simultaneous CO2storage is an emerging technology.Primarilychemicaladsorption140 30Deep Saline-FilledBasalt FormationsPermeable, porous “interflow” zones providestorage capacity while impermeable “massive”zones separate interflows and keep CO2frommigrating out of the storage zones. Althoughthese formations are similar to DSFs, basalts arerich in iron and other elements that allow for theinclusion and permanent storage of CO2in carbonate minerals, so the mineralization potentialin these formations tends to be much higher.Hydrodynamic,dissolution,mineralizationUnknown 240Other (SaltCaverns, OrganicShales, etc.)Salt caverns, organic shales, methane hydratebearing formations and other geologic mediamay provide novel niche CO2storage options.Various Unknown UnknownWhat is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?18Section 119WHAT DOES A CO2STORAGERESERVOIR LOOK LIKE?A key mechanism for storing CO2in deep geologic formations and ensuring that it stays there is a systemof layered, deeply buried, permeable rock formationsthat serve as the CO2storage reservoir, overlain byimpermeable caprocks which serve to keep the injectedCO2in place. A thorough evaluation of these formations and their ability to accept and retain injectedCO2must be an essential component of site assessment before any CO2is injected. Here we take a closerlook at these formations.CO2INJECTION INTOA DEEP GEOLOGIC STORAGEFORMATIONAs can be seen from the schematic below, CO2injectionconstitutes a highly engineered system. A CO2injectionwell is actually composed of several casings that help toensure that the CO2only enters the intended injectionzone or zones (in this graphic, the yellow bands at leftare candidate injection zones) and does not interferewith sources of drinking water, which are much shallower than candidate CO2storage formations.Many of the technologies needed to safely inject CO2into these deep geologic formations exist today and aredrawn from technologies, techniques and industrialbest practices that are routinely used in the oil andnatural gas production industries. While CO2injectioncan be considered an established technology, the largescale deployment of CCS systems as a central component of a global climate change mitigation responseis potentially so large that it requires the continueddevelopment and field demonstration of more advanceddrilling and CO2injection techniques, to allow for thegreatest possible utilization of available CO2storagecapacity, and to allow a wider range of CO2storage reservoirs to be pressed into service if needed.The schematic also shows clearly that the CO2injection well traverses many thousands of feet of variousgeologic strata before reaching the target CO2storageformations, the yellow bands in the figure. The rocksthat make up these formationsare ancient and deeply buried.For example, the Cambrian-agesandstone (the lowermost yellowband)—a potential CO2storagereservoir nearly two miles belowthe surface—was deposited about500 million years ago as life onour planet was transitioning fromsingle-celled organisms to a morediverse set of biota. The sandybeach that eventually became partof the Ordovican sandstone (the second-lowest yellow band) predatedthe emergence of terrestrial plantsby at least ten million years. Overhundreds of millions of years theseloose, sandy beaches have beencompacted under enough youngersediment to turn them into consolidated rock formations capableof storing CO2over the long term.1 mm1 mm1 mmMicroscopic view of a caprock.The grains making up this rock aredensely packed with few interconnected pore spaces. The low permeability of these rocks makes them ideal barriers to prevent the migrationof CO2out of the target storage formation. Examples include shale anddense carbonates.Microscopic view of a medium-grained sandstone that would serveas agoodCO2storage reservoir.The individual grains making up thisrock are much less tightly packed than in the caprock. The blue areasare 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 CO2would move into and reside in these void spaces, overtime dissolving in the formation water and reacting with the water andsurrounding rocks to form stable compounds called carbonates.Microscopic view of a coarse-grained sandstone that would serve asanexcellentCO2storage reservoir.Note that here the individual grainsmaking up this rock are even less tightly packed than in the previoussample. This looser packing means that all of the voids are well connected to each other, allowing the injected CO2to more easily move throughthe host formation. Thus, more CO2can be injected and at a higher ratethan in a formation composed of a medium-grained sandstone.CO2injection wells are engineered systems designed to ensure thatinjected CO2only reaches the appropriate storage formation.▲What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?20Section 121CO2STORAGE: THE ISSUEOF PERMANENCEAt a properly designed and well-managed CO2storage site, the chance of CO2leakage should be small;thus, concerns about catastrophic release are likelyunfounded. Properly-designed sites will have one ormore injection zones that can accept and store largequantities of CO2, overlain by suitable caprocks, andwill not be located in areas that have a high incidenceof seismic activity. The features and attributes of storage formations and caprocks were discussed in the previous section. Here we focus on the issue of seismicityand the permanence of the stored CO2.Fortunately, within the United States there are relativelyfew areas where seismicity would be a significant concern(as the map shows), allowing for CCS deployment acrossa wide range of locales. This type of assessment has notbeen completed for other regions of the world.CO2storage sites can be designed against suddenlarge releases by avoiding areas with significant riskof seismicity and by mitigating leakage pathways suchas faults and abandoned wells. Seismic surveys canbe undertaken atcandidate sites to assess whetherthere are any faults that might allow injected CO2to migrate out of the target injection zone. Seismicsurveys, however, are just one aspect of a comprehensive pre-injection site evaluation that would need tobe performed at each prospective CO2storage site.This pre-injection site evaluation would also need toidentify the extent and condition of any abandonedwells (e.g., decades-old oil and gas production wells).Adequate sealing of abandoned wells that penetratethe storage zone would need to be assured to preventthese man-made structures from becoming pathwaysfor CO2to migrate back to the surface.Measuring, monitoring, and verification (MMV) systemswill be needed to ensure that injected CO2remains in thetarget formation. Some technologies needed to monitorcertain aspects of CO2storage are commercially available. However, the large-scale deployment of CCS technologies will depend in part on developing a much morerobust and accurate suite of MMV technologies. Siteswill draw from this suite to create tailored, site-specificMMV systems that will be designed to detect potentialleaks long before they pose any danger to drinking watersupplies or surface ecosystems.While the issue of leakage from CO2storage in deepgeologic formations remains a subject of debate andintense research, several points are worth stressing:•Because the majority of any potential large-scale CCSdeployment is still likely decades away, we can usethe next decade’s worth of planned field experimentsand potential early commercial CCS deployments tofundamentally improve our knowledge base aboutthis key issue. There is a pressing need to amass fielddata to better bound likely leakage rates.•Sudden releases of CO2are unlikely. To the extentthat leakage does occur, the most likely pathways aretransmissivefaults and unsecured abandoned wells.In order to migrate back tothe surface, a moleculeof CO2would have to find its way through many layers of low-permeability rock, through which it mightmove only centimeters per century. Finding its wayto the surface by moving upward through thousandsof meters of solid rock could take millennia.•CO2leakage from deep geologic formations is therefore not principally about human health and welfaretoday. The concern relates to slow, undetected leakage and how that might impact the climate for futuregenerations.•Discussions of leakage should also be paired withdiscussions of possible remediation measures, theirstrengths and weaknesses, and how these measureswould be applied in the event that some CO2doesescape from the storage formation.•Tools and data exist that allow potential CO2storageproject operators to assess candidate sites and the presence of any potential natural or manmade pathwaysthat might allow CO2to migrate out of the target deepgeologic storage formation. Although not foolproof,these tools and industrial best practices will help togreatly minimize potential issues with CO2storage.•The likelihood and extent of any potential CO2leakage should slowly decrease as a function of timeafter injection stops. This is because the formationpressure will begin to drop to pre-injection levels,as more of the injected CO2dissolves into the porefluids and begins the long-term process of formingchemically stable carbonate precipitates.By translating raw data about historic rates of seismic activity into a more meaningful measure of potential seismicrisk to CCS infrastructure, we can see that relatively few regions of the United States have even moderate risk toCCS surface infrastructure.▲WesternCaliforniaBasin andRangeCascadiaSubductionComplexNew MadridFault ZoneSeismic imaging of the deep subsurface would bea routine step in theearly evaluationof aproposedCO2storage formation. The black lines (emphasishas been added) reveal deep-seated faulting thatis truncated hundreds of feet below the surfaceand therefore does not present a direct pathwayto the surface.▲MarketPotentialofCCS Systems2CCS systems must work well and efficiently—but that is not enough for them to play a role inaddressing climate concerns. To play this role,CCS systems must fill a market need; they musthelp industry curtail greenhouse gas emissionswhile simultaneously delivering the productsand services that customers want and expect.In addition, CCS systems—including verifiedsuitable geologic storage reservoirs—mustalso be available both when and where needed.Large CO2-emitting industrial facilities exist allover the world; most belong to the electricitygeneration sector, but others support a widerange of other important industrial sectors.There also appears to be an abundance of largepotential geologic CO2storage sites distributedaround the world. The capacity of these formations is likely more than enough to meet conceivable CO2storage needs from industry fora century or more.This section presents a market analysis whichshows that these candidate deep geologicCO2storage formations exist in close proximity to many power plants and industrial facilitiesthroughout the world. Thus, it is conceivablethat thousands to tens of thousands of CCSsystems could deploy, if needed, providing thelikely scale of deployment required (a gigatonor more per year of CO2emissions reductions)for CCS to be a significant component of theglobal climate change mitigation portfolio.23Market Potential of CCS Systems24Section 225While there remains a significant amount of field validation to be performed surrounding global geologic CO2storage potential, and while debate persists within thescientific community about the methodologies used tocompute these theoretical storage capacities, our firstorder estimates of theoretical geologic CO2storagecapacity suggest a resource base that could potentiallyaccommodate nearly 11,000 GtCO2worldwide. Oneway to understand the immense size of this potentialresource is to realize that, across a wide range of possible future energy and economic scenarios and acrosshypothetical scenarios used to model CO2stabilization from 450 to 750 ppm, the demand for CO2storage space is estimated to not exceed 2,220 GtCO2overthe course of this century. In a world in which thereis a broad portfolio of complementary carbon management technologies that can be drawn upon (e.g., energyefficiency, renewable energy, nuclear power), it wouldappear that the deployment of CCS systems will notbe constrained by a lack of overall storage capacity.Therefore, these technologies should be able to deployto the extent that deployment makes economic sense in fulfilling a givenclimate stabilization goal.Substantial CO2storage capacity within a nation couldbe viewed as a very valuable domestic natural resource.For example, regions that have an abundance of CO2storage capacity can likely rely on a broader mix offuels to power their economies and avoid the premature retirement of fossil-fired capital stock to meettighter emissions constraints in the future.However, even nations that do not have substantial CO2storage resources can benefit from CCS technologiesthrough the purchase of lower-cost emissions creditsmade possible by CCS use in other nations.The important issue is not whether a given country hasmore or less storage capacity than another country, butrather whether it hasenough CO2storage capacitytomeet its needs. This depends upon what other mitigationoptions are available to that country, as well as economicand demographic trends over the course of this centuryand the stringency of future greenhouse gas regimes—not a simple comparison of one country’s theoreticalstorage capacity with that of another country. GTSPresearch indicates that:•The United States, Canada, and Australia likely havemore than enough theoretical CO2storage capacity tomeet their needs for this century and perhaps beyond.•Countries such as Japan and Korea will likely seetheir future use of fossil-energy technologies—andtherefore the mix of energy technologies they canuse—more constrained under future greenhousegas policies than if they had more onshore geologic CO2storage capacity than they are currentlythought to possess.Whether the rest of the world has sufficient storagecapacity depends on how much of theirtheoreticalstorage capacity can be used. At this point in time, there isa lack of high-quality data upon which to base statements about how much usable CO2storage capacity isavailable in rapidly developing, fossil fuel-rich regionsof the world like China and India, as well as otherregions that would appear to be candidates for CCSdeployment. Therefore, one near-term, high-priorityresearch task is to survey global candidate CO2reservoirs, since the availability, quality and distribution ofthese reservoirs directly impact the future evolution ofthe energy infrastructures in many nations.Initial assessments of theoretical global CO2storage capacity reveal an important and encouraging result: thereis more than enough theoretical CO2storage capacity in the world to meet likely storage needs for at leasta century, and in many key regions the storage capacity is in the right places to meet current and future demandfrom nearby CO2sources.▲WHERE IN THE WORLD ARETHE POTENTIAL STORAGESITES FOR CARBON DIOXIDE?Candidate geologic CO2storage reservoirsexist across the globe, and in many key regionsthey appear to be in the right places to meetcurrent and future demand from nearby CO2emissions sources. In fact, there is likely morethan enough theoretical CO2storage capacity in the world to meet projected needs for atleast the next century.Market Potential of CCS Systems26Section 227•240 GtCO2in onshore saline-filled basalt formations•35 GtCO2in depleted gas fields•30 GtCO2in deep unmineable coal seams with potential for enhanced coalbed methane (ECBM) recovery•12 GtCO2in depleted oil fields with potential forenhanced oil recovery (EOR)Together, these candidate CO2storage reservoirs withinthe United States represent a valuable and very largenatural resource that may play a potentially criticalrole in cost-effectively bringing about deep and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Thesecandidate CO2storage formations underlie parts of 45states and two-thirds of the land mass of the contiguous48 states. In total, these formations may be capable ofstoring the United States’ current CO2emissions fromlarge stationary point sources for hundreds of years tocome. The highest capacity of the U.S. candidate CO2storage formations is found DSFs, and some individualDSFs can store hundreds of gigatons of CO2.More than 8,100 power generation and industrial facilities in the world each emit more than 100,000 tons of CO2to the atmosphere each year. The sheer size of the potential market and its geographic scope says much aboutthe potential for CCS technologies to contribute to climate change mitigation.▲Early estimates of CO2storage capacity in the United States reveal a very large, widely distributed and perhapsextremely valuable resource with which to cost effectively address climate change.▲WHO AND WHEREARE THE POTENTIALCUSTOMERS FOR CCS?In a carbon constrained future, a global market forCCS technologies will likely exist across a number ofdifferent industrial sectors. Although the fossil-firedpower market (and perhaps future fossil-based synfuels or hydrogen production markets) would undoubtedly be the largest market for CCS technologies, othersectors of the economy will see that adopting CCS systems could represent a cost-effective and robust meansof achieving deep and sustained emissions reductionswhile simultaneously serving their customers’ needs.In the year 2000, there were more than 8,100 documented large CO2point sources in the world, each ofwhich emitted more than 100,000 tons of CO2to theatmosphere.•Collectively, these large CO2point sources emitted approximately 15 GtCO2into the atmosphere,which is more than 60% of all global anthropogenicCO2emissions in that year.POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC CO2STORAGE RESERVOIRSIN THE UNITED STATESThe United States is fortunate to have an abundanceof theoretical CO2storage potential, well distributedacross most of the country. Our preliminary and ongoing assessment of candidate geologic CO2storage formations reveals that the formations studied to datecontain an estimated storage capacity of 3,900+ GtCO2within some 230 candidate geologic CO2storage reservoirs (see map below):•2,730 GtCO2in onshore deep saline formations(DSFs), with perhaps close to another 900 GtCO2ofstorage capacity in offshore deep saline formationsThe United States is fortunateto have an abundance oftheoretical CO2storagepotential, well distributedacross most of the country.Market Potential of CCS Systems28Section 229POTENTIAL CCS CUSTOMERSIN THE UNITED STATESThe United States represents a critical prospectivemarket for CCS technologies. As was the case with thepreceding global snapshot of CO2point sources, thelarge CO2point sources in the United States representa highly heterogeneous set of potential CCS opportunities. As can be seen from the figure at right, the contiguous United States has approximately 1,715 largeCO2point sources that collectively emit more than2.9 GtCO2/per year.CO2point sources that produce a high-purity carbondioxide stream are often seen as potential early adopters for CCS deployment. This is because, as the nextsection details, the cost of capturing CO2from a givensource is a function of the concentration of CO2in thefacility’s emissions. Roughly speaking, large highpurity (and low cost of capture) CO2sources withinthe United States total 349 (20% of the sources) andaccount 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 appliedto the largest CO2point sources. For example, in theUnited States:•The 100 largest CO2point sources (6% of all facilities)account for 39% of total annual CO2emissions; 79% ofthese are power plants—all of them coal-fired.•The 500 largest CO2point sources (29% of total)account for 82% of annual emissions; 78% of theseare power plants, most coal-fired.The large CO2point sources in the contiguous United States (each emitting more than 100,000 tons of CO2per year)are spread throughout the country and originate from a number of different industrial sectors. The significantdiversity across these large CO2point sources speaks to the many differing deployment options that exist forCCS technologies within the U.S.•Fossil fuel-fired power plants accounted for the largestfraction (60%) of these CO2point sources and accountedfor an even larger share of the emissions (71%).•Natural gas processing plants accounted for lessthan 10% of the estimated emissions, while cementplants (6%), refineries (5%) and steel mills (5%)accounted for smaller but still significant shares.•Roughly speaking, high-purity CO2source streamsexhibiting a low cost of CO2capture (e.g., ammonia, ethanol, ethylene oxide, natural gas processingunits and hydrogen production facilities) combinedto account for 11% of both total sources and annualemissions.•The 500 largest CO2point sources on the planet contributed 42% of all emissions from the 8,100 largestationary sources. These 500 largest emitters areoverwhelmingly coal-fired power plants and theyand the other fossil-fired power generation unitscombined to represent 78% of total emissions fromthese largest sources.•As can be seen from the map on the previous page,these large CO2point sources are heavily concentrated in a few regions of the world: the UnitedStates (20% of CO2emissions), OECD Europe (12%),China (18%) and India (4%). These four regionsalone account for 54% of the emissions and 52% ofthe existing large CO2point 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 States, the potential application ofCCS systems to the 500 largest CO2point sources couldpotentially yield substantial CO2reductions, since fully95% of these sources are within 50 miles of a candidateCO2reservoir. Those 500 facilities represent trillions ofdollars of productive industrial infrastructure (powerplants, refineries, and other facilities). This demonstrates the potential leverage that CCS can providewhen applied to a relatively manageable subset of largepoint sources.▲Fully 95% of the largestU.S. point sources are within50 miles of a candidate CO2reservoir.Next to questions like, “Will CCS really work?”and, “Is there enough CO2storage capacity inthe world to make this worthwhile?” the mostcommon question about CCS technologiesrelates to the cost of constructing and operating these systems.In addition to the technical considerationspresented in the previous section, firms mustconsider whether CO2capture is technicallyand economically feasible for a specific powerplant or other large industrial source, as well asthe costs of transporting it to a suitable reservoir, injecting it into the deep subsurface, andmaintaining it there. Each of these site-specificfactors will play a critical role in determiningwhether CCS technologies will be adopted byexisting CO2sources as well as power plantsand other industrial facilities that will be builtin the coming decades. This section focuseson what is known about the cost of deployingCCS technologies.CostsofCCS Components331Costs of CCS Components32Section 333requires relatively less processing and compression before it is ready to be introduced into a CO2pipeline. The table on the facing page presentsan overview of CO2capture technologies andcosts described by the technical literature fora variety of large anthropogenic CO2sourcesthat could be considered candidates for adopting CCS technologies in a greenhouse gas-constrained world. As the table shows, the cost ofCO2capture varies considerably across thesevarious types of large CO2point sources.THE COST OF CO2CAPTUREFor the vast majority of CCS applications, the costof CO2capture is the largest contributor to overall CCS system cost and thus should be a focusof cost reduction efforts. The cost of CO2capturedepends in large measure on the pressure andconcentration of CO2in the flue gas or processstream from which the CO2is being separated. Asa general rule, it is cheaper to capture CO2froma purer and higher-pressure CO2stream, as itPlant Type Capture Process(es)Cost Estimates forCapture & CompressionFactor(s) Driving Cost ofCapture and CompressionSteamRankine PowerChemical Absorption(amines)$25–$60/tCO2CO2content in flue gas stream, capital costand energy requirements for solvent cyclingIGCC PowerPhysical Absorption $25–$40/tCO2CO2content in flue gas stream, capital costRefineryFlue GasChemical Absorption/Flue Gas Recycling$35–$55/tCO2CO2content in flue gas stream and capitalcost, energy requirements for solvent cycling(if applicable)SteelFlue Gas Recycling/Chemical Absorption$20–$35/tCO2CO2content in flue gas stream and capitalcost, energy requirements for solvent cycling(if applicable)CementFlue Gas Recycling/Chemical Absorption$35–$55/tCO2CO2content in flue gas stream and capitalcost, energy requirements for solvent cycling(if applicable)Ethanol(Fermentation)NA $6–$12/tCO2No capture cost for pure CO2stream;compression cost onlyEthylene Oxide(Process Stream)NA $6–$12/tCO2No capture cost for pure CO2stream;compression cost onlyAmmonia(Reformer Gas)NA $6–$12/tCO2No capture cost for pure CO2stream;compression cost onlyTHE COST OF CO2CAPTURE FOR VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES(see appendix for sources and assumptions)CO2capture costs also vary considerably within technology classes. Therefore, when considering the cost ofdeploying CCS systems, decision makers must understand the specific circumstances under which the CCSunit will be deployed. For example, they would needto know not only whether a coal-fired power plant is apulverized coal (PC) or Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant but also what theplant’s vintage and efficiency are, whether SO2, NOxand other emissions controls are already in place, andwhether the CO2capture system will be mated to anexisting plant or designed for a plant that has yet tobe built, before being able to estimate the cost of CO2capture for any given facility.The costs in the table assume that commercial (off-theshelf) or near-commercial technologies are utilized.Ongoing research is designed to bring forward advancedand less costly CO2capture technologies. There is widespread agreement that suchadvancementswill helpaccelerate CCS deployment, and that deployment willpush the cost of CO2capture down through a processknown as “learning by doing.” There is significantvalue in efforts designed to continually improve CO2capture systems in terms of lowering the cost of employing them in the real world. Technologies that are capable of lowering the cost of CO2capture systems will notonly lower the cost of deploying CCS systems at specificCosts of CCS Components34Section 335facilities but will also lower the overall societal cost ofaddressing climate change by as much as one-third iflarge-scale deployment of CCS technologies occurs during this century. This equates to potentially hundredsof billions, if not trillions of dollars in potential savings.In addition to lowering the cost of CO2capture it is alsoimportant to continually increase the capture efficiencyor percent of CO2captured from the target flue gas orprocess stream. This may be most important for powerplant-based CCS applications given the large size ofthese facilities and their collective emissions contribution. Currently available technologies are likely tocapture approximately 90% of the inlet CO2, while theremaining 10% is released to the atmosphere. In a carbon-constrained world, any CO2released to the atmosphere would be taxed like any other greenhouse gasemission. As carbon permit prices rise, which would benecessary for stabilizing CO2concentrations, this seemingly small amount of CO2released to the atmospherecould have a profound impact on fuel choice and generation technology selection. Because power plants are verylong-lived, proposals to build CCS plants that would capture only a modest fraction of a plant’s emissions mightnot prove economic in the long term.COSTS OF CO2TRANSPORTAND STORAGEAs described previously, the geologic CO2storageresource is vast, and in many parts of the world thisstorage resource appears to be advantageous in its geographic distribution with many large CO2point sourcesin close proximity to candidate geologic CO2storagereservoirs. However, the characteristics of these candidate CO2storage reservoirs in terms of their quality, quantity, capacity, and value varies tremendouslyacross the globe and even within specific regions, justas the distribution of other natural resources varies—for example, gold, oil, coal, or sunshine.Therefore, the cost to access CO2storage capacitywill also vary from region to region. The key factorsin determining the cost of CO2transport and storageare the proximity of the CO2source to the selected CO2storage reservoir and the characteristics of the reservoir that is selected for CO2injection.There is a general consensus within the technicalcommunity that most CO2will be transported fromits point of capture to a suitable deep geologic storagereservoir via land-based pipelines. Already, approximately 3,000 miles of dedicated CO2pipeline deliverCO2to commercial CO2-EOR projects within NorthAmerica, in areas such as the Permian Basin of WestTexas and southeastern New Mexico, the Rocky MountainRegion of Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, and to theWeyburn Field in Saskatchewan. The longest of thesededicated CO2pipelines, the Cortez pipeline, deliversCO2over a distance of 500 miles.This operational experience with CO2pipelines andthe similarity in terms of construction and operationalcosts between CO2pipelines and natural gas pipelinenetworks provides a robust set of data that can beused to estimate future CO2transportation costs. CO2transport costs via pipeline are a function of the distancebetween the CO2source and its geologic storage reservoir.The cost also depends upon the diameter of the pipeline (which is a function of how much CO2the pipelinemust carry, i.e., its design mass flow rate), with largerpipelines experiencing some economies of scale. Recenthistory of natural gas pipeline land construction costs,while highly variable, suggest that capital costs forthesetransport pipelines are on the order of $40,000/mile per inch of pipeline diameter. So, assuming alarge CCS-enabled power plant produces 10 milliontons of CO2per year, the main trunk pipeline (approximately 26 inches in diameter) used to carry the CO2toits reservoir would cost roughly $1.2 million per mileto construct. Circuitous routing or challenging terraincould significantly increase the cost.For CO2storage, one of the most significant characteristics impacting overall economics revolves aroundwhether the storage reservoir is capable of producing avaluable hydrocarbon—oil or methane—in response toCO2injection. These reservoirs, which include maturing oil fields and certain classes of unmineable coalseams, are often referred to as “value-added reservoirs.” Other types of reservoirs, such as deep salineformations, deep saline-filled basalt formations, anddepleted natural gas fields, typically would not providevalue-added hydrocarbon recovery.Already, approximately3,000 miles of dedicated CO2pipeline deliver CO2to commercial CO2-EOR projectswithin North America.Costs of CCS Components36Section 337In North America, where we have been able to modelin detail the complex interplay among the thousandsof large CO2sources and the large—but nonethelessfinite—candidate CO2storage formations in the region,our research tells us that the greatest impact associated with CO2storage in value-added reservoirs couldwell relate to their ability to produce more domestic oiland gas and not because of their ability to reduce thecost of CO2transport and storage.The large-scale deployment of CCS systems hinges uponproving that CCS technologies can be integrated withfossil-fired electricity production (and perhaps in thefuture fossil-derived hydrogen production). There are anumber of issues related to CO2storage in value-addedreservoirs that suggest the possibility of a significantmismatch between the nearly continuous need to storelarge quantities of CO2from a CCS-enabled powerplant and the more limited and episodic need for CO2in CO2-driven EOR and ECBM projects. Such projectsalso require extensive and separate infrastructure forhandling recovered oil and gas from the host storageformation; separating and recycling co-produced CO2;and handling produced waste water. All of this infrastructure requires additional financing to construct andoperate and also requires core competencies that areunlikely to reside within most electric utility, cement,iron and steel firms and other potential adopters ofCCS technologies.Although gigatons of low-cost CO2storage opportunitiesmay be associated with value-added reservoirs in NorthAmerica alone, the long-term challenge presented bythe need to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2indicates that, because the storage capacity available inoil- and gas-bearing reservoirs is dwarfed by capacity inreservoirs that do not bear saleable products, over thelong term, CO2storage in value-added reservoirs may notrepresent as significant a portion of total CO2stored asis widely believed. Our research suggests that all classesof CO2storage reservoirs are valuable and will be neededonce CCS technologies begin their expected large-scalecommercial 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 CO2transportand storage should stay below the level of approximately$12–$15/tCO2for a region like North America, duelargely to the abundant capacity offered by deep salineformations.Current estimates of the cost of employing the technologies needed to measure, monitor, and verify thefate of CO2injected into deep geologic formations suggest that these costs will be small when measured ona per-ton-of-CO2-stored basis, perhaps as low as a fewpennies per ton. Planned and future CCS field demonstrations and early commercial CCS deploymentsshould help to validate these assumptions about thecost of MMV.PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER:THE NET COST OF CCSSo far, this section has discussed the range of expectedcosts for individual CCS system components, but societyis most concerned with the total cost of CCS (includingcapture, transport, injection, and monitoring) applied toa real power plant or other industrial facility. On thenext page is a cost curve for the net cost of employingCCS within the United States, given current technologies, for the 1,715 existing large CO2point sources andall of the candidate CO2storage reservoirs we have beenable to identify to date. The model used to compute thiscost curve, theBattelle CO2-GIS, was specifically builtto gain understanding of the potential for CCS technologies to deploy across North America in a competitivemarketplace for cost-effective emissions reductions.Each point on the curve represents the levelized cost(in $/tCO2) for a specific existing large CO2point sourceto employ CCS: capture its CO2and ready it for transport; transport the captured CO2via pipeline to a suitable candidate storage reservoir; inject the CO2intothe reservoir; and measure, monitor and verify thatthe injected CO2remains within the target reservoir.In addition, for injection into value-added storagereservoirs, any revenues from resulting CO2-drivenhydrocarbon recovery are also incorporated in the netcosts. This represents an attempt to capture the fullend-to-end cost of employing CCS technologies, giventhe inherent heterogeneity of the potential market forCCS technologies across the United States.This “net cost of employing CCS” cost curve has fourdistinct regions that are worth commenting on:•At the far left end of the curve are a few CO2captureand storage opportunities that appear to be so cheapthat they fall below the x-axis, indicating that firmscould make money today by exploiting these opportunities even in the absence of any explicit climate policy requiring a reduction in CO2emissions. This “lowhanging fruit” can be seen in the real world today asthe few tens of millions of tons of anthropogenic CO2that are currently being used in EOR projects. Whilethese represent potential negative-cost CCS deployment opportunities, such opportunities are relativelylimited and most are likely already being exploited.•Next in the cost curve are perhaps a few hundredmillion tons per year of relatively inexpensive fullend-to-end CCS opportunities. This region of thecost curve is dominated by high-purity (and therefore low cost of capture) CO2point sources such asnatural gas processing facilities seeking to storetheir CO2in nearby oil fields—and perhaps in thefuture as ECBM technology matures, in unmineablecoal seams—where there may be some potential foroffsetting revenues associated with CO2-driven EORand ECBM production. Although these are relativelylow cost options, they still have positive net costs,implying that society is unlikely to target theseoptions in the absence of a requirement to reducegreenhouse gas emissions.•The cost curve next transitions into a long, relativelyflat region which is the domain of the large fossilfired power plants seeking to dispose of their CO2emissions in thenation’s abundant, high-capacitydeep saline formations, depleted gas fields, and deepbasalt formations. Here is the potential for gigatons (that is, thousands of millions of tons) of stablypriced, long-lived CO2storage. The advent and adoption of advanced CCS-enabled fossil-fired power production technologies, such as IGCC with CCS, wouldlower this region of the cost curve and therefore hasten the large-scale adoption of CCS systems in theUnited States. The slight increase in per-ton cost ofCCS on this part of the curve results largely fromsources becoming smaller and more distant fromtheir best available storage reservoir....our research tells us thatthe greatest impact associatedwith CO2storage in value-addedreservoirs could well relate totheir ability to produce moredomestic oil and gas...Costs of CCS Components38Section 339•Finally, the tail end of the curve represents an acceleration of this escalating cost trend with mostly lowpurity sources of decreasing size and purity (e.g.,small natural gas-fired power plants), able to accessincreasingly more distant storage reservoirs.The numbers along the curve and the associated tablebelow the graph serve to further illustrate the natureand significance of how site-specific factors and theinherent heterogeneity in the marketplace for CCSwill impact the adoption of this class of technologies.These ten points have no special significance and aresimply presented here to highlight how CCS technologies might deploy across the entire economy, as represented by the entire CCS cost curve. For each samplepoint, the text in the table states the type of large CO2point source from which CO2is being captured, thetype of CO2storage reservoir thatit hasselected as itsavailable lowest-cost storage option, and the requiredpipeline distance needed to reach the target storagereservoir. For example, the first point on the curverepresents a high-purity ammonia plant that is ableto separate and compress CO2at a very low cost andstore it in a nearby mature oil field where the CO2isinjected to increase incremental oil recovery via EOR.These points show how the characteristics of the CO2sources, along with the storage reservoirs they arecoupled with and the distance between them, changeacross the economy and impact the net cost of employing CCS technologies.The chart below offers further insight into the dynamiccomposition of net CCS costs. For each of the ten sample points highlighted above on the cost curve, the individual capture, compression, transport and net injection cost components are presented. This figure helpsto more clearly illustrate the impact individual sourceand reservoir characteristics have in defining the totalcost for deploying CCS in a wide variety of settingsTHE NET COST OF EMPLOYING CCS: EXAMPLE COMPONENT COSTS BREAKOUTTHE NET COST OF EMPLOYING CCS WITHIN THEUNITED 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.1High purity ammonia plant/ nearby (<10 miles) EOR opportunity2High purity natural gas processing facility /moderately distant (~50 miles) EORopportunity3Large, coal-fired power plant /nearby (<10 miles) ECBM opportunity4High purity hydrogen production facility /nearby (<25 miles) depleted gas field5Large, coal-fired power plant/nearby (<25 miles) deep saline formation6Coal-fired power plant/ moderately distant (<50 miles) depleted gas field7Iron & steel plant/ nearby (<10 miles) deep saline formation8Smaller coal-fired power plant/ nearby (<25 miles) deep saline basalt formation9Cement plant/ distant (>50 miles) deep saline formation10Gas-fired power plant/ distant (>50 miles) deep saline formationCosts of CCS Components40Section 341and circumstances. For instance, note that the capturecosts for these ten sources range from $0/tCO2for thevery high-purity CO2sources up to $57/tCO2for thesmall and very low-purity NGCC source. Compressioncost estimates vary also, depending again on the sizeof the CO2stream and other characteristics, roughlybetween $6 and $12/tCO2. Transport costs are drivenby the mass flow rate of CO2to be transported, butalso the distance between the source and its selectedreservoir. Here, they range from about $0.20/tCO2forthe very large coal-fired power plant requiring minimal pipeline length, to nearly $10/tCO2for the verysmall gas-fired power plant that is over 65 miles fromits target reservoir.For all but the highest purity sources, the largest costis related to separation of CO2from the flue or processstream. In fact, for the example curve points shownhere, the cost of capture alone represents roughly 60%of the total estimated net CCS cost for the low-puritysources. This is significant, as reducing the cost of CO2capture from these low-purity sources (and from powerplants in particular) would provide a significant boostto the economic viability of geologic CO2storage.While the above analysis focuses on modeling thepotential adoption of CCS technologies within theUnited States, it also reveals a few key points aboutthe cost of employing CCS systems that are likely tohold true in other parts of the world:•First, there is likely some potential for very low andeven negative cost (and therefore perhaps alreadyprofitable) CCS opportunities, but these opportunities represent only a small portion of the emissionsmitigation potential to be exploited. Many are likelyalready being utilized by the marketplace, albeitoften without application of MMV systems, whichwould be required to demonstrate the long-termretention of the injected CO2if the primary purposeof these projects was climate protection.The injection costs shown here represent the cost ofinjecting the CO2into the selected reservoir, includingall necessary capital and operating costs for wells anddistribution pipeline, as well as monitoring equipmentand procedures. In addition, for value-added CO2injection for EOR or ECBM, the value of the anticipatedincremental 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 costsvary from about $-18 to $12/tCO2, based largely on thetype and characteristics of the selected reservoir (e.g.,depth, injectivity, oil/gas recovery potential) and thevalue of any recovered oil and gas.•Second, while the fossil-fired power sector representsthe largest potential demand for CCS, other, higherpurity large CO2point sources are likely to adoptCCS systems before electric power plants do and indoing so might lock up much of the remaining valueadded CO2storage opportunities.•Third, even under veryconservativeassumptionssuch as those used here (e.g., power plants and otherlarge industrial CO2point sources use existing CO2capture technologies), CCS technologies appear tohave great potential to cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.4FutureScaleofCCS Deploymentand thePath ForwardThe GTSP’s research on CCS affirmsthat thisclass of technologies could play a significantrole in societal efforts to stabilize atmosphericconcentrations of greenhouse gases. Thescale of CCS deployment needed to makethis significant contribution will likely requirethousands of CCS-enabled plants deployedover the course of this century, beginning earlyenough so that gigatons of CO2per year areroutinely being stored in deep geologic formations around the world by mid-century.However, the current state of CCS commercialdeployment and even early stage field researchdeployment represents a very small fraction ofwhat will be needed. This raises the question ofhow to expand the use of CCS technologies byorders of magnitude over the coming decades.The expansion of a new technology at that rateis not impossible, but it certainly is challenging.This concluding section explores the factorsinfluencing regional, sectoral, and plant-levelimplementation of CCS systems, factors thatmust be addressed to allow deployment at ascale large enough to greatly reduce the costsof reducing global CO2emissions. Also, a number of key R&D and institutional needs must bepursued in order to allow CCS technologies todeploy across a range of economic sectors.43Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward44Section 445CCS DEPLOYMENTAT THE REGIONAL ANDSECTORAL SCALETo illustrate CCS deployment at a scale that wouldsignificantly reduce CO2emissions, we have modeledthe hypothetical adoption of CCS systems within threefossil-fuel-intensive electricity generation regions inthe eastern United States in response to a hypothetical emissions constraint. The map below shows theregions, major sources of CO2, and potential storagesites.The specifics of the scenario being modeled hereare discussed in the appendix but key attributes of thescenario include a carbon tax that starts at $12/tCO2in 2015 and rises at 2.5% per year, and oil and natural gas prices that, while not as high as current prices,reflect current thinking that future prices for gas andTODAY’S CCS DEPLOYMENTCOMPARED TO POTENTIALMID-CENTURY DEPLOYMENTThis page is too small to show the full extent ofthe difference between CCS deployment todayand its potential deployment.The figure below shows 21 currently operational orplanned CCS projects as of late 2005. Ranging fromprojected lifetime injection volumes of 1,000 tons of CO2(or 0.000001 GtCO2) to 26 million tons of CO2(0.026GtCO2), these 21 projects represent a critical test bed tofundamentally advance our knowledge about how CCSsystems will operate under real-world conditions.Even the largest project on the list, which hopes to inject0.026 GtCO2over its lifetime, will only inject one-tenthas much CO2as a 1,000 MW IGCC plant would need toinject over its 50-year projected lifetime.However, the challenge is to deploy, not a single 1,000MW plant, but potentially hundreds or thousandsof such facilities worldwide. Indeed, the cumulativeamount of CO2that would need to be stored in geologicformations over approximately the next half centuryunder a hypothetical 550 ppm stabilization policy couldbe nearly 20 GtCO2in the United States and morethan 100 GtCO2across the world. The challenge is nota matter of doubling or tripling or even quadruplingcurrent deployment, but of increasing current deployment by 3 to 4 orders of magnitude. The next sectionsexplore how the needed scale-up might occur.Current and future global deployments of CCS technologies—The small circles on the map show the location andscale of current global CCS activities. In contrast, the large circle at the bottom of the legend is drawn to the same scaleand represents the cumulative CO2storage needs of a single large coal power plant over a 50-year projected lifetime.▲oil will remain higher than historical levels. Under thisscenario, there could be approximately 150 large, coalfired IGCC+CCS power plants operational by 2045 injust these three regions of the United States. Togetherthese advanced coal-fired power plants would be capturing and storing nearly 900 MtCO2per year by 2045and would have cumulatively stored over 6 GtCO2inregional geologic storage formations by 2045.To accurately model the potential adoption of CCS technologies within these three power production regionsof the United States, we included each region’s uniqueattributes: (1) the existing electricity generating capacity—efficiency, fuel costs, operating and maintenance(O&M) costs, emissions; (2) electricity demand—boththe varying nature of the electricity load profile (frombaseload to peaking) and future demand growth; (3)competing technologies for new generating capacity—The deployment of CCS-enabled power plants will be driven by a wide variety of regional factors including geology,demand for power, the stringency of future greenhouse gas regimes, and the nature of the existing capital stock.▲Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward46Section 447capital costs, efficiency, O&M costs, emissions; (4) othermarket factors—fuel prices, emissions policies, cost offinancing, reserve margin requirements; and (5) thecharacteristics of candidate CO2storage reservoirs.When all of these factors and the heterogeneous composition of different geographic regions are taken intoaccount, a highly nuanced picture of CCS deploymentacross different regions emerges, which we will brieflydiscuss before focusing on the larger issues that thisanalysis reveals about how CCS technologies might beadopted by the electric power sector.ECAR:The U.S. region located in the industrial upperMidwest (the East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement, or ECAR) has an electricity systemthat has historically been dominated by conventionalcoal plants. The region’s geologic CO2storage opportunities are dominated by deep saline formations,although there is some potential for value-added CO2storage. Under this scenario the deployment of CCSenabled IGCC units could clearly be a key to decarbonizing baseload electricity generation in this region by2045. In the early years of this scenario, when carbonpermit prices are relatively low, increased demandfor electricity is met mainly through new coal- andnatural gas-fired generation units. The coal plantsare IGCC units which eventually adopt CCS systems(thus becoming IGCC+CCS) as carbon permit pricesrise. The new natural gas-fired units—that is, thosebuilt after 2005—continue to operate during the periodto 2045 although their utilization rate drops, movingfarther out in the dispatch curve as carbon and naturalgas prices rise. Contrary to conventional wisdom, mostof the existing (pre-2005) pulverized coal plants wouldnot be taken offline or rebuilt as IGCC+CCS; instead,the most efficient of these existing plants would continue to operate as baseload units while others becomekey 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 regionis home to substantially more nuclear and hydroelectric power than ECAR. Moreover, the region also hasa significant amount of natural gas-fired generationcapacity, most of which has come online very recently.Similar toECAR,this region’s CO2storage opportunities are heavily dominated by deep saline formations;however, on average these deep saline formations (bothsedimentary and basalt) are farther away from today’sfossil-fired power generation units than is generallythe case in the ECAR region, implying slightly highercosts for CO2transport in this region. Under this CO2emission reduction scenario, SERC’s baseload electricity generation is characterized by 2045 principally bynuclear and IGCC+CCS, along with some renewableenergy. A relatively small amount of conventional PCand IGCC without CCS is built in the post-2005 periodand continues to operate in 2045 as a part of SERC’sintermediate capacity load generation. Existing (pre2005) PC plants continue to operate but at reduced levels as these units move over time out of their former roleas baseload units and transition to serve intermediateloads (see the middle figure, at right).ERCOT:The region that encompasses much of thestate of Texas (the Electric Reliability Council of Texas,Inc., or ERCOT) is home to significantly more valueadded CO2storage potential than either of the otherregions discussed above. However, like the other tworegions (and much of the United States), the majorityof the region’s CO2storage potential is in deep salineformations. This third region has historically beendominated by gas and oil steam electricity productioncapacity. Conventional coal also fuels a substantialportion of the region’s current generation capacity,The electric utility industry’sadoption of CCS-enabledfossil-fired generation unitswill vary from region to regionas a function of a broad set ofregion-specific factors. Notethat all regions build naturalgas-fired units early in themodeled period; these unitsare still operating in 2045.Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward48Section 449The major lesson is that CCS technologies are reallyfocused on baseload power production. The greatestamount of CO2emissions mitigation via the applicationof CCS technologies in the electric power sector canbe achieved at the least cost by focusing on fossil-firedbaseload capacity. It will be relatively more expensiveto reduce CO2emissions from intermediate and peaking generation units because of their lower utilizationrates. Therefore, CCS-enabled baseload power plantsshould be designed so that they can capture nearlyall of their emissions. This is a more robust long-termstrategy than the alternative of capturing closer to50% of a unit’s emissions, sometimes discussed in aneffort to control the costs of CO2capture and the resulting electric power. In the long term, units that cannotcapture the vast majority of their emissions are likelyto become unprofitable, stranded assets.The potential for CCS deployment in the electric powersector to be centered on decarbonizing high-capacityfactor baseload plants has important implications forthe possible evolution of the market for CO2storageand the kinds of CO2storage reservoirs that will likelybe most relevant for this industry’s needs.Our research indicates that the overwhelming criteriafor siting a CCS-enabled power plant will relate more toallowable CO2injection rates and total reservoir capacity than to potential buyers for CO2. Knowing whethera region has more or less potential for value-added CO2storage than any other region is only one of many piecesof information needed to understand the deployment ofCCS-enabled electric generation systems.Because the cost of CO2capture in the electric powersector—even including state-of-the-art IGCC+CCS—will likely be higher than the cost to capture CO2fromsome industrial sources, much of the value-added CO2storage capacity in a given region could already bespoken for before CCS systems begin their expected,significant deployment within the electric power sector.Large, deep saline formations will therefore likely be theCO2storage workhorse for the electric utility sector.In this scenario, there is a need to deploy over 150 CCSenabled power plants in just these three regions of theUnited States. These units would be capable of capturingand storing more than 6 GtCO2in regional formations bythe middle of this century, as shown in the graph below.But, at this point in time, we lack the physical, humanand regulatory infrastructures needed to enable CCSdeployment and CO2storage at this scale.Moreover, these are not the only regions that willdeploy CCS systems, nor is this a particularly aggressive CCS deployment scenario. Thus, another keyfinding of GTSP’s CCS research is that an importantdimension of CCS R&D and early field deployments isto develop tools and techniques to allow CCS to deployin a wide variety of circumstances. CCS systems mustbe able to work in more than just ideal settings. Thepotential large-scale adoption of CCS systems by theelectric utilities will depend to some degree upon thecontinued development of innovative technologies toallow CO2storage to be deployed at significant scalewhere needed, increasing effective storage capacitiesand CO2injection rates.CCS systems must be ableto work in more than justideal settings.Analysis like this can also help to shed light on where the most intensive deployment of CCS technologies mightoccur in the future and the timing and possible scale of that deployment.▲and there has been a recent boom in new natural gasfired capacity. Here, the principal means for reducingthe region’s electric utility emissions in 2045 is againa mix of nuclear, renewables and IGCC+CCS. However, in ERCOT, some new conventional coal capacityis built in the first decade under this scenario, eventhough its emissions will be taxed. The higher futuregas and oil prices mean that some new coal capacitywill be economic, as it would earn a sufficient marginin this gas-dominated electricity market to compensate for its higher emissions. In addition, the carbonpermit price is not high enough in the early years tomake investment in IGCC+CCS the economic choice.These new post-2005 conventional fossil-fired unitscontinue to operate in 2045 by transitioning over timefrom baseload to intermediate load. Here again, ratherthan being scrapped, existing conventional coal plantscan 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 CCStechnologies are really focusedon baseload power production.Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward50Section 451CCS DEPLOYMENTAT THE PLANT SCALEEach utility planning new capacity is faced with complex decisions about which fuels and technologiesto invest in. Building a new, long-lived capital assetsuch as a power plant with the expectation of futureCO2emissions constraints will add new criteria to thealready complex processes of siting, construction, andoperation of such facilities. New elements involved ina decision to build a CCS-enabled power plant wouldlikely include the following:•The need to acquire permits and rights-of-way for anyneeded CO2transport pipelines.•An assessment of the kinds of measurement, monitoring, and verification technologies that are available, required by regulations, and that will workwith the specific geologic reservoirs likely to be usedto store the power plant’s CO2.These and other factors will need to be integrated intoplanning for a CCS-enabled plant. The timeline on thenext pages gives an overview of how various aspectsof this type of planning and decision making for CCSenabled power plants may play out over the lifetime ofthe power plant and beyond.Planning for a CCS-enabled power plant must include a robust CO2storage plan for all phases of the plant’soperations over its entire half-century operational lifetime.▲CO2pipeline and injector wellsused during the fi rst decade offull plant operationsInitial CO2pipeline and injectorwell used during plant start upand validation phaseCO2pipeline and injector wellsused during the subsequentdecades of full plant operations•An assessment of how a proposed CCS-enabledpower plant will impact the utility’s ability to addressincreasingly stringent local and regional environmental regulations (e.g., regulations to address acidrain or mercury emissions) across the utility’s generation fleet.•The likelihood that the utility will be able to recoversome of the costs for the more capital-intensive CCSenabled power plant in the rate base.•The likely market price for baseload power in theregion and the generation costs for the CCS-enabledplant. That is, will the CCS-enabled plant producecompetitively priced electricity in the near to mid termwhen CO2permit prices likely are relatively low?•The probable scenarios for CO2permit prices, especially the price path for CO2permits over the life ofthe CCS-enabled power plant.•The availability of competencies in operating a CCSenabled power plant, either within the utility itselfor from trusted vendors.•The kinds of CO2separations processes that exist,the ability to scale them to the needed plant capacity, and the compatibility of the capture units toperform reliably around the clock and day after dayconsistent with being mated to a high-availabilitybaseload power plant.•The additional time and budget requirements forassessing candidate geologic CO2storage reservoirsat prospective power plant sites. This would need toinclude an assessment of the size, capacity, and physical properties of candidate CO2storage reservoirs aswell as modeling to begin assessing such practicalissues as the number of CO2injector wells requiredto handle the plant’s output and whether multipleinjection fields will be needed over the lifetime of thepower plant (see the drawing on the next page).Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward52Section 453Pre-Operational Phase (~10 years)Decision toExpand or ReplaceGenerationCapacitySite and PowerGeneration SystemSelection Pre-construction ConstructionBusiness,Regulatory, andStakeholder IssuesInitiate process to beginconsidering variouspower system options(e.g., IGCC, NGCC,nuclear, wind, etc.) andcandidate locations fornew plant.Begin and sustain dialogue with shareholders,regulators, local communities about the decisionto proceed with construction of a CCS-enabledpower plant. Permitting begins.Regulatory oversightof construction andverification of compliance with environmental and engineeringrequirements.PowerProductionDown-select to ahandful of candidatevendors for the powerproduction system.Select vendors forpower plant systemsand construction.Footprint established,first unit and supportfacilities / infrastructureconstructed.CO2StorageSystemBegin early analysisof site-specifi c CO2storage system design.Consult existing geological expertise to seeif any candidate sitescan be quickly ruled outdue to known subsurface issues.Site characterizationand injection planningneed to begin. Becausethere are no currentvendors offering off-theshelf CO2storage systems, utilities will needto assemble a teamof consultants andvendors to create andimplement CO2storagesystem’s infrastructure.Injection site wells arecomplete with wellsdrilled and supportingabove-ground infrastructure such asstorage tanks, CO2pipeline, and wellheadfacilities in place.Measurement,Monitoring andVerification (MMV)Solicit and incorporatefeedback from stakeholders and regulatorsto inform design ofMMV system.Subsurface characterization performedto determine optimuminjection zones andhelp decide what kindof MMV system isappropriate and how itshould be sited.Construct MMV systemsand perform baselinecharacterization forsystem calibration andlater comparison.Operational Phase (~40–60 years) Post-Operational PhaseInitial PlantOperationsFull PlantOperationsPlant Decommissioning andPost-Injection Monitoring ofInjected CO2Power plant and its associated CO2storage system begin to generateelectricity and revenue.Periodic need to communicate anddemonstrate via various filings withregulators and stakeholders that CCSsystems are working as expected.Stakeholder education aboutpost-injection safety and monitoring.Records maintenance regardingCO2that has been injected into deepgeologic storage formations.Compliance with regulation toperiodically monitor stored CO2.Individual power production trains /units are brought online as they arecompleted.All power production units operational. Power plants are taken offline, and plantfacilities are rehabilitated or removed.Small-scale CO2storage likely beginsat the first few injection sites to validateCO2storage system, allow plant staff togain familiarity with systems and allowlocal public and other stakeholders tobecome more comfortable with CO2storage at this site.Large-scale, continuous CO2injectionformany decades. As the storage capacityof any given reservoir is consumed, thatreservoir and its injector wells need to besafely decommissioned and new storagereservoirs need to be brought online.CO2injection ceases.Surface CO2injection facilities such aspipelines and wellheads are removed.CO2injector wells are plugged andprepared for long-term closure.Routine MMV begins with the first CO2injected into deep storage reservoirs.Continued monitoring of active injectionsites. Post-injection monitoring ofdecommissioned (i.e., filled) storage fields.Implementation of long-term post-injectionmonitoring phase begins.PHASES DURING THE LIFETIME OF A CCS-ENABLED POWER UNITFuture Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward54Section 455TO ENABLE THE LARGE-SCALEDEPLOYMENT OF CCS, MUCHNEEDS TO BE DONE...Utilities and other potential users of CCS systemscould be caught betweenthe potential of CCStechnologies to cost effectively deliver significant and sustainedCO2emissions reductions as described in numeroustechnical papers and reports like this one andthe realities of todaywhere CCS deployment is quite small. Thereal-world knowledge gained by operating dozens ofCCS-enabled facilities will be critical to transformingCCS technologies from their current status as areas ofintense cutting-edge research with tremendous potential to accepted technologies that are capable of delivering results in numerous configurations and settingsaround the world. In order to realize a future in whichCCS technologies are accepted, trusted, economic andordinary technologies, institutions must evolve in a number of spheres: social, political, technical, regulatory,economic, and corporate.If large-scale deployment does happen, the followingelements 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 beagreement that climate change concerns warrant a limiton cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases, and thata broad portfolio of options is needed.Regulatory sphere:Governments will need to establishclimatepolicies, legislation, and regulations that recognize CCS technologies on an equal footing with othermitigation strategies.Economic and corporate spheres:Decision-makerswill require a stable planning environment. Theywill need to know that climate policies are here to stayand that the value ofcarbon will rise to a level thatrequires investment in capital-intensive emissionsabatement technologies such as CCS systems.CCS Systems Will Make Economic SenseSocial, political, and technical spheres:Consumersmust be willing to purchase products that come fromCCS-enabled systems, and the technology works welland efficiently.Regulatory sphere:In emissions trading systems,CCS-derived credits will need to be equivalent to otheremissions offsets, including their ability to be bankedand traded.Economic sphere:CCS technologies must be economically competitive with other strategies for meetingcorporate emissions reduction targets, including suitability for use with the corporate business models andindustry-specific market circumstances such as regionalpower production.Corporate sphere:Companies will need to understandCCS technologies and the likely future regulatory environment well enough to see a prospective CCS-enabledunit as being profitable over a significant period of itsoperational lifetime, thus justifying the investmentand acceptance of any risk.CCS Systems Will Be TrustedSocial and political spheres:The general publicwillneed to understand and accept that each technologyemployed to address climate change has strengths andweaknesses.Technical sphere:CCS technologies, including thoseused for MMV, must have an established track recordof success in the field that clearly demonstrates theirability to meet safety and efficacy standards.Regulatory sphere:Regulations must contain acceptedprotocols and standards for geologic site characterizationand selection and for the safe and effective operations ofCCS systems, including the frequency of measurementand monitoring for stored CO2. Computer models andsimulation tools will need to be developed and acceptedby industry, regulators, and other stakeholders as validmeans for qualifying prospective CO2storage sites andfor predicting the movement of stored CO2.Economic sphere:Financial markets and investmentbanks must understand CCS systems well enough toprovide financing for CCS-enabled infrastructure atrates comparable to those extended to other largescale emissions-abatement options.Corporate sphere:Companies will need to eitherevolve a set of internal CCS core competencies or beable to work with vendors to construct and operate theCCS aspects of their plants.CCS Systems Will Be OrdinarySocial and political spheres:CCS installationsmust draw no more attention than any other largescale emission abatement installation.Technical sphere:CCS-enabled power plants, hydrogen production facilities, and steel mills must safely operate around the clock at hundreds or thousands of facilitiesin the United States and thousands or tens of thousandsof facilities globally. There will need to be standardizedparts, a cadre of trained professionals, established rulesand regulations, and codified industry best practices thatenable and support this large-scale deployment.Economic and regulatory spheres:Liability stemming from CCS operations must be reasonably definedand bounded. There must be general agreement thatthe risk of not addressing climate change outweighs therisk of deploying and operating CCS-enabled systems.KEY CCS R&D ANDKNOWLEDGE GAPSA significant challenge is how to move quickly fromtoday’s important but nonetheless modest CCS deployment to the massive global deployments needed tomake a substantive difference in addressing climatechange. The next decade represents a critical window with which to amass needed operational experience with CCS technologies in real-world conditions.Planned CCS field demonstrations, a handful of earlycommercial CCS projects and continued laboratorybased research are all needed to advance the stateof the art across a number of CCS-related areas suchas the following:R&D Needs for CCS Systems IntegrationObtain more experience with end-to-end CCSsystems in real-world conditions.Simply movingforward with the planned commercial and researchprojects listed at the beginning of this section andoperating these as systems under real-world conditions will be enormously beneficial and tell usmuch about where the key CCS R&D needs lie. Theplanned public-private FutureGen project, in itself,represents a significant and much-needed contribution to the technical knowledge likely to be gainedfrom these projects.Increase our understanding of the role of biomass-fired CCS energy systems in addressingclimate change.Developing a better understanding of the potential synergies and costs associatedwith integrated biomass energy systems that capture and store their CO2in deep geologic formationsis important, as the combination of these two technologies potentially holds the key to one of the fewways to remove CO2that has already been emittedto the atmosphere.The large-scale deploymentof CCS technologies dependsupon them becomingaccepted,trusted, economic and ordinarytechnologies.Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward56Section 457R&D Needs for CO2CaptureContinually improve capture technologies—notonly in terms of cost, energy penalty, and efficiency,but also in the percentage of the CO2stream that iseffectively captured. This effort to improve capturetechnologies should be seen as a process and not assomething that has a specific endpoint (i.e., the goalis not to reduce capture costs to some predefinedlevel and then abandon this area of research). Ifthe efficiency of capture systems is not continuallyadvanced, then the options are limited for addressing climate change and ensuring that economiescan continue to draw upon a diverse set of energyresources and technologies.Tune capture technologies to specific industrialapplications—for example, in the cement industry,capture systems will need to be developed and demonstrated for that specific application.R&D Needs for CO2Transport,Storage and InjectionSurvey global candidate CO2reservoirs.Sincethe availability and distribution of this CO2storage resource directly impacts the likely evolution ofmany nations’ future energy infrastructure, this isa near-term, high-priority task. This is particularlycrucial in rapidly developing nations such as Chinaand India. Helping developing nations site theirnew generation capacity while giving forethought topotential future deployment of CCS will allow themto avoid stranding those assets should CCS deployment become a reality.Increase our understanding of the behaviorof CO2in the subsurface.Improved and widelyaccepted reservoir models are needed to help examinecommercial-scale CO2storage scenarios and help predict CO2movement through deep geologic formations.Improve the resolution of data on candidategeologic reservoirs.Much of the data on CO2storage reservoirs and their potential capacities effectively treat very large geologic formations as if theywere uniform across an entire basin. We know thisis not the case. More detailed data at a finer scaleof resolution would likely provide a more detailedand precise CO2supply cost curve, and would allowus to understand the heterogeneities that will likelyimpact the deployment of CCS.Improve understanding of the production andcost dynamics of CO2-driven enhanced hydrocarbon recovery related to long-term CO2storage.Much of the analysis of CO2-driven enhanced hydrocarbon recovery assumes constant incremental oiland natural gas recovery rates (as well as constantrates of CO2injection) for all years of injection into adepleted oil field or deep coal seam. However, this isnot the case. In practice, production response to CO2injection is rarely immediate, but rather increasesover a number of years before peaking and thendeclining. This could have a significant impact onthe true costs of CO2storage options based on CO2-driven enhanced hydrocarbon recovery.Create innovative and cost-effective CO2transport and injection strategies.These strategies arenecessary to create systems for allowing CCS deployment in the widest set of possible circumstances. Thepotential deployment of CCS technologies is so largethat we will not have the luxury of selecting only themost ideal locations for CO2storage. For example,advances in the ability to link smaller storage fieldswould help tailor EOR- and ECBM-based storagestrategies to the needs of large CCS-enabled powerplants, which will require massive amounts of storagecapacity. Technologies for drilling horizontal wells orfor injecting into two or more vertically stacked reservoirs would help improve the overall economics ofCO2storage by reducing the costs of required capital,driving down the per-ton cost of storage.Craft a strategy for remediating CO2that doesnot remain in the target formation.Remediationoptions must be identified and prescribed for dealing with CO2that moves out of its target injectionformation and that presents a sufficient concern towarrant remedial steps. What works for one scenario might not necessarily be applicable to anotherscenario, implying a need to understand the suite ofremediation options available and the circumstancesunder which each would be used.R&D Needs for Measurement,Monitoring, and Verification of Stored CO2Continue to develop new MMV technologies.Offthe-shelf MMV technologies exist that can be appliedto ensure safe and effective storage of injected CO2incertain classes of formations and under specific circumstances. But a broader and much more advancedset of MMV technologies is required to meet theneeds of a potential future large-scale deploymentof CCS systems with CO2being stored in many different kinds of formations and circumstances. NewMMV technologies need to be invented and the cost,performance, and other operating characteristicsof existing MMV technologies need to be improved.In addition to this laboratory and field effort to create new and better MMV technologies, prospectiveindustrial users and regulators also need to createa shared vision of what it means in practice to measure, monitor, and verify CO2that has been injectedinto the deep subsurface.Begin to evolve a better understanding of tailoredsite-specific MMV systems that could be deployedto meet the needs of CCS-enabled facilities.Potential users of CCS systems will require a system-leveldescription of packaged MMV systems and how theywould deploy under a set of real-world scenarios. Forexample, what configuration of which set of technologies would be most appropriate for a 1,000 MW coalplant contemplating CO2storage in a deep saline formation 1,000 meters below the surface and with anaverage thickness of 100 meters? MMV systems canthen be brought into a larger decision frameworkabout the type and locations of specific facilities. Inaddition, different MMV packages could be more orless applicable during various stages of a CCS project’slifetime. Researchers need to answer these kinds ofoperational questions so that more informed and holistic decisions about CCS systems can be made.Establish a base of empirical data to facilitatethe development of MMV systems and regulations.Field data and direct experiential knowledgewill inform regulatory positions and attitudes aboutreasonable leakage rates from deep geologic CO2storage formations across a wide variety of formation classes and scenarios. These data will directlyimpact regulations that will drive how MMV systems are deployed in practice.The next decade representsa critical window with whichto amass needed operationalexperience with CCS technologies in real-world conditions.59APPENDIX1AcronymsandAbbreviationsbblBarrel, as in barrels of oilCCSCarbon Dioxide Capture and StorageCO2Carbon DioxideCTCombustion TurbineDSFDeep Saline FormationECAREast Central Area ReliabilityCoordination AgreementECBMEnhanced Coalbed Methane RecoveryEOREnhanced Oil RecoveryERCOTElectric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.ft bgsFeet Below Ground Surface,a measure of depthGHGGreenhouse GasGtCO2109tons (a gigaton) of CO2= 1015grams ofCO2(a petagram) = billion tons of CO2GTSPGlobal Energy Technology Strategy ProgramIGCCIntegrated Gasification Combined Cyclepower plantIGCC+CCSAn Integrated Gasification Combined Cyclepower plant that also includesall of the necessary systems needed forCarbon Dioxide Capture and StorageMMVMeasurement, Monitoring and VerificationMtCO2106tons (a megaton) of CO2= million tonsof CO2MWMegawattNGCCNatural Gas Combined Cycle power plantNGCC+CCSNatural Gas Combined Cycle power plantthat also includes all of the necessarysystems needed for Carbon Dioxide Capture and StorageNOxNitrogen Oxides (formed duringthe combustion of fossil fuels)O&MOperating and MaintenancePCPulverized Coal power plantppmParts Per MillionpsiPounds per square inchSCADASupervisory Control andData Acquisition SystemSERCSoutheastern Electric Reliability Council, Inc.SO2Sulfur Dioxide (formed duringthe combustion of fossil fuels)tCO2Ton of CO2UNFCCCUnited Nations Framework Conventionon Climate ChangeU.S.United States of America61The cover photos were taken by JJ Dooley during thespring of 2003 at the site of the Ohio River CO2Storage Project. This Battelle-led field research project—sponsored by the United States Department of Energy(DOE), American Electric Power (AEP), BP, Ohio CoalDevelopment Office, Schlumberger, Battelle, and PacificNorthwest National Laboratory—was the world’s firstgeologic CO2storage assessment conducted at a modernoperational coal-fired power plant, AEP’s Mountaineerpower plant. This project was designed to understandthe CO2storage potential at this power plant and in thegreater Ohio River Valley Region, which contains oneof the world’s largest concentrations of large CO2pointsources that could be candidates for adopting CCS technologies in the future. Project participants completed a9,108 ft. exploratory well, and in 2006 the data from thiswell are being used to conduct reservoir modeling andrisk assessment, and to prepare designs and plans for apotential field-scale injection and monitoring project. Tolearn more about the research conducted through thisproject, see N. Gupta and J.J. Dooley, “The Ohio RiverValley Storage Project,”Greenhouse Issues, no. 77 (Cheltenham, UK: International Energy Agency GreenhouseGas R&D Programme [IEA GHG], March 2005).This report adopts the conventions of the CCS technical community which expresses values in U.S. dollarsper ton of CO2($/tCO2) and in millions of tons of CO2(MtCO2) or billions of tons of CO2(GtCO2). Cost datacan be converted to dollars per ton of carbon ($/tC) bymultiplying by 3.644 and mass data can be convertedto the carbon (C) based units of the climate changetechnical community by dividing the mass expressedin CO2-based units by 3.664.APPENDIX2NotesandReferencesThis report makes frequent use of a very large measureof mass known as a “gigaton.” A gigaton of CO2(GtCO2)is a standard measure for scientists and policy makersfamiliar with carbon management, yet for other audiences the magnitude of this unit is sometimes hard tocomprehend. A gigaton is approximately equal to 77Empire State Buildings if they were made completelyof lead, 10,718 aircraft carriers the size of the USSEnterprise, or all of the iron ore annually mined in theworld. For more examples of how massive a gigaton isplease consult C.L. Davidson and J.J. Dooley, “A Gigaton Is...,” PNWD-3299 (College Park, MD: Joint GlobalChange Research Institute, Battelle Pacific NorthwestDivision, July 2003).Section 1 notes:As of early 2006, 189 nations, including the United States, have ratified the 1992 UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), which states as its goal, “stabilization ofgreenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere ata level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenicinterference with the climate system.” (For moreinformation on the UNFCCC, please see http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php).While there is general agreement that stabilization ofgreenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations is the best wayto frame decisions about addressing climate change,there is no scientific consensus yet regarding the ideallevels of atmospheric concentrations or the potentialimpacts associated with higher concentrations. CO2isthe most important GHG in terms of its contribution toclimate change. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution concentrations of CO2in the atmosphere wereapproximately 270 parts per million (ppm). Currently,CO2concentrations are around 370 ppm and rising.Whether the appropriate stabilization level is as lowas 450 ppm or as high as 750 ppm, the goal of stabilization carries with it requirements to produce andsustain deep reductions in GHG emissions over the6263course 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 CO2Concentrations,”Nature379, 6562 (1996): 240-243.Because the trapping mechanisms are different incoal-based CO2storage projects, CO2is not necessarilyinjected as a supercritical fluid, which means that thepressure, temperature, and depth criteria listed heredo not necessarily apply for coal-based CO2storageprojects. However, these criteria can still serve as usefulguidelinesfor coal-based CO2storage.The schematic of various candidate CO2storage formations has been used with permission from Dr. Peter Cook,Chief Executive of the Australian Cooperative ResearchCentre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC).The theoretical CO2storage capacities presented forthe world and the United States represent first-orderestimates based on available data. These estimates willlikely evolve over time as more research and a morethorough and consistent methodology is applied globally. The methodology and subsequent analyses thatled to these first-order geologic CO2storage capacityestimates can be found in the following publications:•J.J. Dooley, S.H. Kim, J.A. Edmonds, S.J. Friedmanand M.A. Wise, “A First-Order Global Geologic CO2Storage Potential Supply Curve and Its Application ina Global Integrated Assessment Model,” inGreenhouseGas 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 CO2Storage Capacity: Data and Assumptions,” PNWD-3431 (CollegePark, MD: Joint Global Change Research Institute,Battelle Pacific Northwest Division, May 2004).•R.T. Dahowski, J.J. Dooley, C.L. Davidson, S. Bachuand 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, “AFirst-Order Assessment of CO2Storage Capacityin U.S. Basalt Formations,” inProceedings of theFourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture andSequestration(Alexandria, VA: May 2-5, 2005) (alsoavailable as PNNL-SA-45124, Pacific NorthwestNational Laboratory, Richland, WA).Definitions of the principal trapping mechanisms associated with deep geologic CO2storage:•Hydrodynamic trapping: involves free-phase CO2being trapped beneath a caprock which has low permeability—that is, the CO2cannot flow through thecaprock, so it remains in place.•Dissolution trapping: occurs when the CO2dissolvesinto the formation fluids (oil, gas, and saline water).•Mineralization-based trapping: When this dissolvedCO2reacts with minerals in the rock, other solutesin the formation fluids, or the formation fluids themselves, it sometimes forms stable minerals calledcarbonates in a process called mineralization. This isthe most permanent form of trapping, since the CO2has been chemically incorporated into nonreactiveminerals, and can no longer enter the atmospherewithout undoing those chemical reactions.•Chemical adsorption in coals: The matrixed surfaceof coals is often covered with methane molecules,and because the chemical bonds holding the methane onto the coal would prefer to have CO2insteadof methane, the presence of CO2causes the methaneto be swapped out for the carbon dioxide molecules.The degree to which CO2is preferentially adsorbedonto the surface of the coal can vary, with some coalsaccepting several more CO2molecules for each methane molecule released.The three pictures showing microscopic thin sections ofrock core samples are taken from the AEP-1 deep welldrilled at AEP’s Mountaineer Plant during 2003 (seethe first note in this appendix). The images illustratethe nature of caprocks and storage reservoirs. Visiblepore 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 adepth of 7125 ft. The middle photo is of the Rose RunSandstone, a potential storage reservoir at a depth of7771 ft. with a moderate amount of pore space. Thebottom image is of a porous interval of the Rose RunSandstone at a depth of 7763.5 ft, that is considered anexcellent candidate for CO2storage. Details of the geology at this site can be found in N. Gupta, P. Jagucki,J. Sminchak, D. Meggyesy, F. Spane, R.S. Ramakrishnan and A. Boyd, “Determining Carbon SequestrationReservoir Potential at a Site-Specific Location with theOhio River Valley Region,” inGreenhouse Gas ControlTechnologies, Volume I, eds. E.S. Rubin, D.W. Keithand C.F. Gilboy (Elsevier Science, 2005).The schematic diagram depicting the geology andtest well design is from the AEP-1 deep well drilledat AEP’s Mountaineer Plant during 2003 (see thefirst note in this appendix). The schematic shows themajor geologic layers, including caprocks and potential injection zones, observed in the well. It also showsthe completion of the well down to a depth of 6285 ftusing multiple carbon steel casings and a combinationof regular and CO2-resistent cements. As of early 2006,the bottom 2800 ft. of this well are currently withoutcasing. This additional casing, injection tubing, andrelated equipment will be installed once a final decision to proceed with an injection and monitoring phaseis undertaken. Details of site assessment can be foundin Gupta et al., “Determining Carbon Sequestration.”For more on the screening analysis for CCS infrastructure seismic risk, please see C.L. Davidson, R.T.Dahowski and K.P. Saripalli, “Tectonic Seismicityand the Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Geologic Formations,” inGreenhouse Gas Control Technologies,Volume II, eds. M. Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale and K.Thambimuthu (Elsevier Science, 2005).Our most recent published work focusing on the economicconsiderations of leakage can be found in J.J. Dooley andM.A. Wise, “Potential Leakage from Geologic Sequestration Formations: Allowable Levels, Economic Considerations, and the Implications for Sequestration R&D,”inProceedings of the Sixth International Conference onGreenhouse Gas Control Technologies, eds. J. Gale andY. Kaya (Amsterdam: Pergamon, 2003).The example of a seismic survey showing deep-seatedfaulting in geologic formations has been provided byMr. William Rike, Consulting Geologist, Galloway,Ohio, and is taken from a survey in the subsurfacegeologic feature known as the Rome Trough in WestVirginia. The survey shows a deep normal faultthrough the Rome Trough structure, where sedimentary rock formations thicken to over 15,000 ft deep inthe Appalachian Basin.Section 2 notes:The worldwide regional estimates ofCO2storage capacity presented here are taken from arecent GTSP-supported review of the published literature. We see these estimates as a first-order global CO2storage capacity assessment and expect that as morefield research is conducted the precision of these estimateswill improve. See Dooley and Friedman, “A RegionallyDisaggregated Global Accounting.”The focus for the analysis is on sources that emit atleast 100,000 tons of CO2per year (100 ktCO2/yr),which represents a minimum size threshold belowwhich it is unlikely that the significant capital investments needed to employ CO2capture technologieswould prove to be economic.A much more detailed analysis of CO2storage capacityrequirements and availability for various countries canbe found in J.A. Edmonds, J.J. Dooley, S.H. Kim, S.J.Friedman and M.A. Wise, “Technology in an IntegratedAssessment Model: the Potential Regional Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage in the Context ofGlobal CO2Stabilization,” inHuman-Induced ClimateChange: An Interdisciplinary Perspective(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2006).Much of the data here on large CO2point sourcesand candidate geologic storage formations within theUnited States comes from a report that was coauthoredwith colleagues at other institutions and supported bythe International Energy Agency’s Greenhouse GasR&D Programme. Please see Dahowski, et al., “Building the Cost Curves.” Modifications made to the datafollowing publication of the report include significantlyreducing the estimated CO2emissions for all U.S. gasprocessing plants (based on indications that initialestimates were highly overstated) and halving the estimated storage capacity potential in U.S. deep unmineable coal seams as previous estimates appeared to befar too optimistic, given the state of development ofcoal seam storage and CO2-ECBM recovery. The estimates of the CO2storage capacity of North Americandeep basalt formations can be found in Davidson et al.,“A First-Order Assessment.”6465The data on the global distribution of CO2point sourcesincludes the modifications noted above for U.S. naturalgas processing facilities and is primarily based uponDahowski et al., “Building the Cost Curves” as well asperiodic updates to the following dataset: InternationalEnergy Agency’s Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,2002, Building the Cost Curves for CO2Storage, Part1: Sources Of CO2, Report Number PH4/9. Note thatsimilar adjustments to the non-U.S. gas processingCO2emissions estimates were not made and therefore the estimates shown here for other regions of theworld reflect higher than likely global emissions fromthis sector.Section 3 notes:More detailed information on ourresearch into the cost of CO2capture for various powerplants and industrial facilities can be found in:•N. Mahasenan and D.R. Brown, “Beyond the Big Picture: Characterization of CO2-Laden Streams andImplications for Capture Technologies,” inGreenhouse 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 Storagein Reducing Emissions from Cement Plants in NorthAmerica,” inGreenhouse 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 efficiency ofCO2capture can be found in M.A. Wise and J.J. Dooley,“Modeling CO2Capture Efficiency: Implications ofAlternative Specifications,” PNWD-3429 (CollegePark, MD: Joint Global Change Research Institute,Battelle Pacific Northwest Division, May 2004).Key publications examining the cost of CO2transportand storage, including the possible value from enhancedCO2-driven hydrocarbon recovery are Dahowski et al.,“Building the Cost Curves,” and the following:•R.T. Dahowski and J.J. Dooley, “Carbon ManagementStrategies for U.S. Electricity Generation Capacity:a Vintage-Based Approach,”Energy29, 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 UnitedStates,” inGreenhouse 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, “CO2Transport and Storage Costs and theirImpact on the U.S. Electric Utility Industry’s Carbon Management Investment Decisions,” presentedat EPRI’s Ninth Annual Global Climate ChangeResearch Seminar (Washington, DC: June 2, 2004),also available as Report No. PNWD-SA-6513, JointGlobal Change Research Institute, Battelle PacificNorthwest Division, College Park, MD).As noted in the body of the report, our work stronglysuggests that in an area like North America, whichhas a very large and widely distributed CO2storageresource base, over the course of this century thelongterm average costof CO2transport and storage shouldstay below the level of approximately $12–$15/tCO2.Some projects will surely experience higher transportand storage costs than this and others will undoubtedly face lower costs. But this $12–15/tCO2representsa realistic estimate of the upper bound on transportand storage costs that most firms will likely face.An estimate of the cost of measurement, monitoring and verification of CO2that has been stored indeep geologic formations can be found in our reportL. Smith, N. Gupta, B. Sass and T. Bubenik,CarbonDioxide Sequestration in Saline Formations—Engineering and Economic Assessment, Final TechnicalReport, prepared for DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, Contract No. DE-AC26-98FT40418.The net cost of employing CCS within the United Stateswas computed by employing the source-reservoir pairing method presented in Dahowski et al., “Buildingthe Cost Curves.” A series of pairwise cost calculationswas used to determine the levelized cost per ton of CO2capture, transport, and storage into geologic storageformations for existing large, stationary point sourcesof CO2. The crucial component of this analysis involvescalculating pairwise solutions matching each sourcewith its lowest cost, globally optimized storage option(i.e., finding the best option taking the entire systeminto account). Cost curves were computed by solvingfor the best option for each stationary source subject toa set of constraints, as follows:•First, due to the close proximity of the large majorityof CO2point sources in the United States to candidate storage reservoirs, a maximum 100-mile searchradius was imposed, such that each source was ableto consider selecting any potential storage reservoirswithin a distance of 100 miles. This resulted in a setof CO2storage options for each source for which thenet costs were determined by summing individualcapital and operating costs for capture, compression,dehydration, pipeline transport, and storage, including injection, infrastructure, and measurement,monitoring, and verification, less any revenue thatmight be generated by recovery of incremental oil orcoalbed methane as a result of CO2injection.•Costs for capture, compression, and dehydrationwere estimated based on key parameters such astype of plant, CO2emissions rate, and purity of theproduced CO2.•Transport costs are based on the distance betweeneach source and candidate storage reservoir andadjustments for differences in terrain and routingrequirements.•Storage costs vary for each individual reservoirand are based on a number of different parameters including type of reservoir, depth, and injectivity. For depleted oil fields that appear favorablefor enhanced oil recovery, or coal seams expectedto release methane as a result of CO2injection, therevenue associated with the hydrocarbon recoveryis estimated based on individual recovery rates foreach formation (in barrels of oil or cubic feet of methane recovered per ton of injected CO2), along withthe value of the recovered oil or gas.•Summing each of these resulting cost componentsand subtracting the value of any recovered oil or gasarrives at a total net CCS cost, which is then levelized by applying an appropriate fixed charge rate forthe project. Because each storage formation containsa finite amount of potential lifetime storage capacity, issues of reservoir filling and competition forlow-cost storage are also explicitly accounted for.Section 4 notes:The rationale for the particularaccounting of the CCS field demonstration projectspresented here is largely based upon our assessmentof whether the project’s primary motivation was theapplication of CO2storage technologies as a meansof addressing climate change. It is for this reasonalone that many commercial CO2-driven enhanced oilrecovery projects such as those in West Texas are notlisted. While these commercial projects might confersome incidental climate mitigation benefit, that is notthe primary motivation for these commercial efforts.Interested readers can consult C.L. Davidson and J.J.Dooley, “The State of CO2Capture and Storage FieldExperimentation and Deployment: Summer 2005,”PNNL-15296 (College Park, MD: Joint Global ChangeResearch Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, August 2005). The projections of possible globaland U.S. cumulative CO2storage volumes are takenfrom J.J. Dooley, C.L. Davidson, M.A. Wise and R.T.Dahowksi, “Accelerated Adoption of Carbon DioxideCapture and Storage within the United States ElectricUtility Industry: the Impact of Stabilizing at 450 ppmvand 550 ppmv,” inGreenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume I, eds. E.S. Rubin, D.W. Keith and C.F.Gilboy (Elsevier Science, 2005).The impact that the economics of electricity dispatchmight have on the deployment of CCS systems withinthe electric power sector and within specific regionsof the United States is a rapidly evolving focus of ourresearch. Further explanation regarding the electricity dispatch modeling follows, along with a list of ourinitial publications in this area.6667•The specific policy modeled here assumes a carbontax that begins in 2015 at $12/tCO2and increasesat a real, inflation-adjusted rate of 2.5% per year,reaching $25/tCO2in 2045. This carbon tax is applieduniformly across the three regions and results inelectric utility CO2emissions in 2045 approximatelyequal to 2005 levels.•Investment in new nuclear and renewable powergeneration is difficult to model based purely on optimal investment economics, as decisions to investin these systems often include a significant aspectof non-economic consideration (e.g., governmentpolicies, environmental concerns, or social considerations such as public acceptability) that affect theirdeployment. Therefore we have adopted what webelieve to be aggressive but realistic deploymentsfor nuclear and renewable energy technologies andassume explicitly that these critical technologies willplay major roles in responding to a CO2emissionspolicy. Specifically for this study, we assume thatnuclear growth is sufficient to maintain its share oftotal capacity in each region starting in 2015. Expansion of renewables is sufficient to reach a minimumof 10% of regional capacity by 2045 or to maintainits current share if higher. Different expansion ratesfor nuclear and renewables would certainly alter theCO2emissions paths, but the decision to invest inCCS for fossil power would still be based on the relative economics of the technology and emissions priceand would be relatively unaffected.•Fuel prices (gas, oil, and coal) for the period up to2025 were taken from EIA AEO 2005 (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency,AnnualEnergy Outlook 2005 with Projections to 2025,DOE/EIA-0383, 2005, January 2005). Fuel pricesfor 2025–2045 were extrapolated from the EIA AEO2005 data covering the period up to 2025. In this scenario, natural gas prices stay above $5/mmBtu formuch of the period and increase steadily beyond $6/mmBtu by 2015 (AEO 2005 Restricted Natural GasSupply Case). The assumed natural gas prices—while lower than recent peak spot prices—are muchhigher than the average gas price of the past decadeand are sufficiently high that the economic choicefor many electric generation regions is to build newcoal plants, even in the face of a carbon policy suchas this. As the carbon permit prices start to escalate,many older natural gas and oil steam plants begin toretire. IGCC+CCS only starts to deploy in earnest inthis scenario in the 2025–2035 period as the carbonpermit prices begin to escalate further. The largescale adoption of natural-gas-fired combined cyclepower plants with CCS (NGCC+CCS) would requirehigher carbon permit prices than assumed in thisscenario. Assumed coal prices are slightly higherthan those in 2005 and oil prices are assumed tostay at approximately $40/bbl or above during theentire period (AEO 2005 High Case B).•In building region-specific CO2storage supply curves,we have sought to account for the fact that somefacilities with higher-purity CO2streams (hence,with lower-cost options for CO2capture, e.g., natural gas processing facilities, ammonia plants) existin these regions and may likely begin capturing andstoring their CO2at an earlier date when carbonpermit prices are still relatively low. By deployingearlier, these lower-cost CO2capture facilities wouldtend to reduce the amount of EOR and ECBM-basedCO2storage options that new CCS-enabled powerplants are able to access when they begin capturing CO2. For the three regions modeled here, thisreduction in the amount of value-added CO2storagecapacity available for the electric utility industry ismost pronounced in the ERCOT region.Readers who are interested in the core methodologiesand tools used to perform this electric utility dispatchmodeling should consult Dooley et al., “AcceleratedAdoption”; and Dahowski et al., “Regional Differences.”Although they were not explicitly addressed in thisreport, we have looked at public attitudes regardingCCS deployment. The overwhelming conclusion fromthis work is that the public knows little about CCS andtherefore there is an opportunity to positively shapepublic opinion about the need for and benefits of thepossible large-scale deployment of CCS technologies.Readers interested in learning more may consult J.A.Bradbury and J.J. Dooley, “Who’s Talking? What Arethe Issues? The Media’s Portrayal of Carbon DioxideCapture and Sequestration in the United States,” inGreenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume II, eds.M. Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale and K. Thambimuthu(Elsevier Science, 2005).•The Battelle Memorial Institute•California Energy Commission•Electric Power Research Institute, Global Climate Research Area•Electric Power Research Institute, Nuclear Sector•Gas Research Institute•General Motors Corporation•Kansai Electric Power•National Energy Technology Laboratory•National Institute for Environmental Studies (Japan)•Pacific Northwest National Laboratory•Rio Tinto•The U.S. Department of Energy Office of ScienceGTSP PHASE 2 SPONSORSIn alphabetical ordercreative | www.thedesignfarm.comBattelle, Joint Global Change Research Institute8400 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201College Park, MD 20740 USAwww.battelle.org/gtsp