CCS: Present Research & Future Perspectives

Introduction

 In previous posts I explored the geological and economic viability of CCS and presented an in depth  CCS case study. Here I take a look at recent published literature in the field and where the future of CCS lies.

 I started this blog with a meagre view of CCS. Geologically, I found CCS made sense. But studying the Boundary Dam project and the economics of CCS, I'm now questioning whether CCS is the key to securing our climate future. Could this post lay out an alternative CCS pathway that changes my mind?

Perspectives from Britain

  Evidently, the British government had the same epiphany as me. In 2015 £1 billion earmarked for CCS projects in the UK was withdrawn by the government.

  Off the back of this decision planned CCS projects, such as Shell's Peterhead CCS project and the White Rose CCS project, have been cancelled.

 Some might say Shell should be forced to fund CCS projects themselves in order to limit their environmental impact, rather than relying on subsidies. Indeed, in 2011 (under sky high oil prices) Maersk planned to do just that; with plans to build integrated oil extraction > gas burning > electricity producing > carbon capturing > carbon sequestering > enhanced oil recovery facilities.

 With collapsing oil prices such projects will, unfortunately, not come to fruition. However, this editorial by Curtis Oldenburg projects a rosy outlook for CCS under low oil prices. Oldenburg suggests CO2 storage can be turned into an incentive for oil companies by allowing them to use the stored CO2 for EOR when oil prices recover.

 Other studies, such as this paper by Muriel Cozier, suggest that the future of CCS in the UK is bleak. I have to say, I think I agree.

BECCS - The saviour for CCS?

 If we are serious about limiting temperature rise to <2 degrees under the terms of the Paris Agreement, then there must be a paradigm shift in how we produce energy. The 2015 IPCC AR5 introduced the concept of cumulative carbon emissions:

Figure 1: From the summary for policymakers of IPCC WG1 AR5. Dependent on the relative concentration pathway (RCP) taken (a particular emissions scenario; see this blog for detailed explanation), limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees means limiting cumulative GtC output to <700-1000 GtC.

 Under 3 of the IPCC's 4 RCP's this threshold is passed before 2050. Beyond 2050, negative emissions of CO2 are required to limit warming to <2 degrees. With little viability in the direct atmospheric removal of carbon dioxide (see the Royal Societies 2009 geoengineering report) the only viable method for atmospheric CO2 removal is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).

 Biomass (e.g crops & trees) absorb CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. By using this biomass to produce biofuels (e.g wood & liquid fuels) and employing CCS to capture the emitted CO2, net CO2 emissions from energy production are negative. This 2016 review paper by V Mohan and this report from the Grantham Institute explain the process in depth.

Figure 2: From the Centre for Carbon Removal. The process of BECCS, graphically explained.

 Truong et al., 2016 modelled the global impact of BECCS on climate change. The study found that replacing coal fired power stations with BECCS facilities resulted in negative CO2 emissions and contributed significantly to reductions in global temperature rise by 2100. 

 Moreira et al., 2016 modelled the regional impact of BECCS deployment in Brazil. The study found BECCS had the potential to reduce Brazil's CO2 emissions by 5% and that economic benefits would be concentrated in rural agricultural communities - commonly those which suffer most from climate change. However, the study found that such an implementation would increase electricity costs by $3/MwH for consumers, and that a carbon tax would be needed to offset such a rise.

 The economic outlook of BECCS modelled by Muratori et al., 2016 is significantly rosier. This model found a world with widespread BECCS deployment limited increases in global food prices, by reducing the price of carbon, to which the price of food is known to be linked. 

Does the future of CCS lie in the developing world?

 China and India combined emit almost a third of global CO2. With growing populations and an increasing thirst for a western consumer lifestyle, could CCS make gains in the countries which will contribute the most CO2 over the coming decades?

Figure 3: From the US Department of Energy. Global CO2 emissions by country.

 Viebahn et al., 2014 assessed the viability of CCS in India. The study found that ~75Gt of CO2 could be captured by 2050 from coal fired power stations. However, the study cited a lack of investment in CCS in the developed world as hindering CCS efforts in India. The generally high costs of CCS in a country still plagued with poverty is also cited as a significant barrier to CCS roll out. This paper by Singh & Singh (2016) outlines CCS development in India.

 In China, less public backlash (and a more authoritative government) in response to large industrial projects improves the likelihood of CCS success. The Shenhua Ordos CCS facility, which operated between 2011 and 2014, captured 300,000 tonnes of CO2. Zhang et al., 2016 describes the success of the project and the outstanding safety record of the facility over its 3 year lifetime.

Conclusions

 In Britain, withdrawal of government funding and a lack of willingness from oil companies to invest in CCS has all but ended CCS development.

  If like me, you're sceptical the Paris Agreement can limit temperature rise to 2 degrees, then you might think that BECCS will be needed to contribute towards negative emissions. However, the ecological and environmental impacts of deforestation would likely be major barriers.

 In China and India, CCS could be vital in limiting future CO2 emissions. Like I have said in this blog previously however: why bother when renewables are just cheaper...

Figure 4: Zero emissions nuclear, geothermal and wind are all cheaper than CCS - why bother?