Carbon Dioxide Capture

Carbon Dioxide Capture

and Geologic Storage
A CORE ELEMENT OF A GLOBAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
STRATEGY TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
A TECHNOLOGY REPORT FROM THE SECOND PHASE OF
THE GLOBAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY PROGRAM
JJ Dooley (Lead Author), RT Dahowski, CL Davidson,
MA Wise, N Gupta, SH Kim, EL Malone
April 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE GLOBAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 4
TO THE READER ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
1
What Is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage? .................................................................................................................. 11
The Challenge—Climate Change, Technology, and Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage ............................................. 12
CCS Components and the State of the Art ........................................................................................................................ 14
Going Deeper: Candidate Geologic CO Storage Formations .......................................................................................... 16
2
What Does a CO Storage Reservoir Look Like? ............................................................................................................... 18
2
CO Injection into a Deep Geologic Storage Formation .................................................................................................... 19
2
CO Storage: the Issue of Permanence ............................................................................................................................. 20
2
2
Market Potential of CCS Systems ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Where in the World Are the Potential Storage Sites for Carbon Dioxide? .......................................................................... 24
Potential Geologic CO Storage Reservoirs in the United States ...................................................................................... 26
2
Who and Where Are the Potential Customers for CCS? .................................................................................................... 27
Potential CCS Customers in the United States .................................................................................................................. 28
3
Costs of CCS Components ................................................................................................................................................... 31
The Cost of CO Capture .................................................................................................................................................... 32
2
Costs of CO Transport and Storage .................................................................................................................................. 35
2
Pulling It All Together: the Net Cost of CCS ....................................................................................................................... 37
4
Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward ................................................................................................... 43
Today’s CCS Deployment Compared to Potential Mid-Century Deployment .................................................................... 44
CCS Deployment at the Regional and Sectoral Scale ....................................................................................................... 45
LEGAL NOTICE
CCS Deployment at the Plant Scale ................................................................................................................................... 50
To Enable the Large-Scale Deployment of CCS, Much Needs to Be Done ...................................................................... 54
This report was prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle) as an account of sponsored
research activities. Neither Client nor Battelle nor any person acting on behalf of either:
Key CCS R&D and Knowledge Gaps ................................................................................................................................ 55
MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, with
APPENDIX 1: Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 59
respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this
APPENDIX 2: Notes and References ...................................................................................................................................... 61
report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, process, or composition disclosed in this
report may not infringe privately owned rights; or
Assumes 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, trade-
mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by Battelle. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reﬂect those of Battelle.
Printed in the United States of America

THE GLOBAL ENERGY
problem. That is, a priori, there is no technological “sil-
TO THE READER
ver bullet.” Rather, the GTSP concluded that a variety
TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
of technologies and technology systems show prom-
The ﬁndings presented in this report stem from more
PROGRAM
ise for making substantially expanded contributions
than ten years of research at Battelle’s Joint Global
GTSP Phase II—
to the global energy system in a climate-constrained
Change Research Institute (JGCRI) to better under-
world. These include biotechnology, hydrogen energy
stand the signiﬁcant potential of carbon dioxide capture
Program Objective
and other advanced transportation technology sys-
The Global Energy Technology Strategy Program
and storage (CCS) technologies in addressing climate
tems, nuclear power, renewable energy technologies,
change. A central focus of this report is on actions that
end-use energy technologies, and carbon dioxide cap-
To articulate the cost and
(GTSP) began in 1998 with the goal of better
will allow CCS technologies to transition from their cur-
ture and storage.
rent status as potential solutions to climate change to
environmental performance
understanding the role that energy technologies
the point where these systems are deployed widely and
The ﬁrst phase of the GTSP produced ground-break-
have become safe, effective, and trusted cornerstones of
ing research, including many results that have made
targets for technologies and
might play in addressing the problem of global
the global energy system.
their way into the frequently cited literature. The ﬁrst
technology systems in a
phase of the GTSP successfully added to the dialogue
climate change. The GTSP is a unique, global,
CCS technologies are increasingly seen as critically
about responses to climate change a new, previously
important elements of a global portfolio of advanced
greenhouse-gas-constrained
missing, element—technology.
energy technologies needed to address climate
public and private sector research collaboration,
change. One sign of the signiﬁcant interest in CCS
world, and the institutional
But building productive, long-term, real-world tech-
technologies is the recent publication of the Intergov-
whose sponsors and research collaborators are
nology strategies to address climate change requires
ernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report
means of implementation.
a deeper understanding of technologies and their
on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (2005). While
drawn from around the world.
potential. Thus, the GTSP launched its second phase
acknowledging the signiﬁcant contributions being
in 2002. GTSP Phase 2 is pushing the frontiers of
made by many other research groups, national gov-
The completion of the ﬁrst phase of the GTSP in 2001
our knowledge to gain a much deeper understanding
ernments, state agencies, and private ﬁrms who are
of injected carbon dioxide storage. Market and economic
was marked by the release of a seminal report during a
of how these key carbon management and advanced
pushing forward the development and early commer-
cost analyses are presented to elucidate the potential
special session of the Sixth Conference of the Parties to
energy technologies will deploy in practice, and the
cial deployment of CCS technologies, this document
deployment of CCS technologies. Finally, the report
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
means for launching and sustaining a meaningful
is meant to summarize research performed under the
explores how the world—especially industries, such
Change. This report, A Global Energy Technology Strat-
global energy technology strategy. GTSP Phase 2 is
Global Energy Technology Strategy Program (GTSP),
as electricity generators—would make decisions about
egy Addressing Climate Change: Initial Findings from
in the process of distilling important lessons gleaned
and therefore principally focuses on CCS research
using CCS under a policy that places a value on carbon
an International Public-Private Collaboration, dem-
from research on the potential roles of six carbon man-
carried out at Battelle and JGCRI during the ﬁrst
dioxide emissions.
onstrated the importance of technology development
agement technology systems in the context of a com-
and second phases of the GTSP.
and deployment as key cornerstones of a broader set of
petitive future global energy system. These summaries
Our CCS research has been supported by numerous
activities designed to address climate change.
of key research insights will take the form of “capstone
Overall, this document fulﬁlls the GTSP objective of
ﬁrms, nongovernmental organizations, and government
reports” for each of the six technology areas. This is
articulating the cost and environmental performance
agencies. We are grateful for their support, which has
A central conclusion was that a robust “technology
the ﬁrst capstone report—on Carbon Dioxide Capture
targets for CCS, as well as the institutional means that
enabled us to pursue this important work. However,

strategy” required the development of a technology
and Geologic Storage. In addition, a set of overall con-
will enable its commercial deployment in a greenhouse-
JGCRI, GTSP and James J. Dooley, who leads JGCRI
portfolio. It found no evidence for a single technology
clusions will be drawn from the complete body of the
gas-constrained world. The report establishes that
and GTSP’s research related to CCS technologies, along
whose development promised to “solve” the climate
GTSP work and will be published in 2006.
CCS technologies can make a signiﬁcant contribution
with the other authors are solely responsible for the
to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report also
content of this report. Also, we would like to acknowl-
For more information about the GTSP, please contact
describes the cost, performance and other key character-
edge and thank the many peer reviewers who freely
Jae Edmonds
istics of the component technologies comprising a com-
gave their time to comment on earlier drafts of this doc-
Laboratory Fellow and Chief Scientist
plete CCS system. Included in this is an examination
ument. Their thoughtful review helped to signiﬁcantly
Battelle, Joint Global Change Research Institute
of deep underground geologic sites and the permanence
improve this document.
8400 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201
College Park, MD 20740 USA
For more information about the GTSP’s program on CCS,
jae.edmonds@battelle.org
please contact
A Note on Terms: CCS technologies, as used here,
do not include planting trees, increasing soil carbon,
James J. Dooley
or other bio-based activities. These activities are more
Senior Staff Scientist
commonly referred to as “carbon sequestration.” This
Battelle, Joint Global Change Research Institute
report will not use the term “sequestration” in order
8400 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201
to avoid any possible confusion.
College Park, MD 20740 USA
dooleyj@battelle.org
4
5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Role of Carbon
Dioxide Capture and Storage Technologies
in Mitigating Climate Change
THE CHALLENGE OF CLIMATE
Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technolo-
gies, which are the focus of this report, have the poten-
CHANGE AND THE TECHNOLOGY
tial to be central elements of this advanced energy
PORTFOLIO RESPONSE
technology portfolio. CCS technologies are capable of
deploying widely across the globe in many different
economic sectors and in many different locales. These
Addressing climate change is a large-scale, global
technologies are capable of delivering deep, cost-effec-
challenge to reduce and avoid the release of enormous
tive, and sustained emissions reductions. This report
amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) over the course
seeks to conclusively demonstrate the technical feasi-
of this century. Currently, the world’s economies annu-
bility and potential economic value of CCS in this
ally emit approximately 26 gigatons of carbon dioxide
broader portfolio of advanced energy and carbon man-
(GtCO ) to the atmosphere from the combustion of fos-
2
agement technologies.
sil fuels. In the absence of explicit efforts to address
climate change, rising global populations, higher stan-
dards of living, and increased demand for energy could
result in as much as 9,000 gigatons of cumulative CO
POTENTIAL TO DELIVER
2
being emitted to the atmosphere from fossil fuel com-
BENEFITS TODAY, TOMORROW,
bustion over this coming century.
AND WELL INTO THE FUTURE
However, to stabilize CO concentrations in the atmo-
2
sphere “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthro-
CCS systems offer several unique beneﬁts as part of
pogenic interference with the climate system” as called
a climate change mitigation portfolio:
for in the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, the cumulative amount of CO
2
• In the near term, CCS systems help the owners, opera-
released to the atmosphere over this century would
tors and beneﬁciaries of established, economic produc-
need to be held to no more than 2,600 to 4,600 GtCO —
2
tion methods—which lie at the heart of the modern
a substantial reduction and formidable challenge.
industrial economy—to ﬁnd a ﬁnancially viable path-
way forward into a world in which there are signiﬁcant
The Global Energy Technology Strategy Program
constraints on CO emissions. CCS may be pivotal in
2
(GTSP) has shown conclusively the value of developing
helping reduce the emissions from fossil fuel-ﬁred
an enhanced portfolio of energy technologies in meet-
electricity generation, steel and cement manufactur-
ing this challenge. Some aspects of this portfolio will
ing, reﬁning, and chemicals production. Without CCS
involve continued energy efﬁciency improvements in
technologies, many of these ﬁrms may see efforts to
homes, ofﬁces, and automobiles, as these technologies
address climate change as threats to their businesses.
not only reduce CO emissions but also help to improve
2
The potential cost savings from using CCS systems
economic efﬁciency, competitiveness, and local environ-
opens the dialog with these industries about how best
mental quality. Renewable energy, advanced bioenergy
to address climate change in the future.
and biotechnologies, advanced transportation includ-
ing hydrogen production and fuel cell technologies, and
• In the medium term, the implementation of CCS tech-
nuclear power have also been shown to be key aspects
nologies allows for a smoother transition of the global
of the broad portfolio of energy technologies needed to
economy to a low-GHG emissions future. Established
address climate change. GTSP research has demon-
production methods and existing infrastructure can
strated that all aspects of this portfolio need to be capa-
continue to be utilized, and the costs of transitioning
ble of delivering signiﬁcant and sustained reductions
to a lower-emitting energy system can be minimized.
in CO emissions over the course of this century.
2
7

• In the long term, CCS will help make valuable com-
CO STORAGE CAPACITY
ADOPTION AND DEPLOYMENT
large CO -emitting industrial facilities while giving
2
2
modities like electricity and hydrogen cheaper than
forethought to potential deployment of CCS will allow
WITHIN THE ELECTRIC POWER
they would otherwise be. This is the key merit;
them to avoid stranding those assets should there be
Our research and that of many other research groups
CCS technologies are not ends in themselves but a
a need to adopt CCS systems at those facilities at
demonstrate that potential deep geologic CO storage
INDUSTRY
2
means—a means of realizing abundant energy and
some point in the future.
sites exist around the world, although the distribution of
industrial production, without CO emissions.
2
these candidate storage sites is quite uneven (as is true
Early adopters of CCS systems will likely lie outside
• Develop a broader and more advanced set of mea-
for many other types of natural resources). Our prelimi-
the electric utility industry and will seek opportunities
surement, monitoring, and veriﬁcation (MMV) tech-
nary estimate of the potential global deep geologic CO
that move beyond today’s niche markets in CO -driven
2
2
nologies for stored CO than currently exists in order
CURRENT MARKET
storage capacity is nearly 11,000 GtCO . Assuming that
enhanced oil recovery. However, if there were an
2
2
to meet the needs of a potential future large-scale
other advanced energy technologies are developed and
explicit climate policy in place that called for substan-
DEPLOYMENT
deployment of CCS systems with CO being stored in
deployed along with CCS systems, this potential capac-
tial and sustained emissions reductions, the electric
2
many different kinds of formations and circumstances.
ity should be more than enough to address global CO
power industry would likely become the largest mar-
2
Many component technologies for CCS systems already
New MMV technologies need to be invented and the
storage needs for at least this century. In many places,
ket for CCS systems. GTSP research has shown that
exist, including CO capture, transportation via pipeline,
cost, performance, and other operating characteristics
2
candidate CO storage formations are near large group-
CCS systems will be most economic when deployed
2
and injection into geologic formations deep underground.
of existing MMV technologies need to be improved.
ings of power plants and other industrial facilities, which
with large baseload power plants. These plants oper-
However, both the scale of existing CCS systems and the
should lower the cost of deploying CCS systems.
ate around the clock with only occasional brief outages
number of CCS commercial and ﬁeld demonstration
• Obtain more experience with end-to-end CCS sys-
for routine maintenance. For these facilities, a key cri-
projects are very small compared to the scale necessary
tems in real-world conditions and make speciﬁc
terion for locating suitable storage reservoirs is that
for signiﬁcant and sustained CO emissions reductions.
efforts to utilize the opportunity presented by these
2
COST AND ECONOMIC VALUE
those reservoirs have sufﬁcient capacity to hold per-
The very newness of CCS systems and a lack of real-
early commercial and research demonstration
haps more than 50 years’ worth of the facility’s CO
2
world operational experience in essential markets such
CCS facilities to increase our understanding of the
plus some margin for growth. Because of this need for
as electric power generation are current impediments
For most applications, assuming the adoption of cur-
behavior of CO in the subsurface, develop a base of
large quantities of reliable CO storage, decade after
2
2
to the expanded adoption of CCS technologies.
rently available CCS component technologies, the cost
empirical data to facilitate the development of MMV
decade, CCS-enabled electric power plants will most
of employing CCS systems most likely lies below $50/
systems and their regulation, train and educate a
likely look to deep saline formations, which tend to offer
Globally, there are currently more than 8,100 large
tCO including capture, transport, injection, storage
2
larger cadre of individuals who are capable of run-
large storage capacities.
CO point sources (accounting for more than 60% of all
and monitoring. At this cost level, CCS systems are
ning commercial-scale CCS systems, garner public
2
anthropogenic CO emissions) that could conceivably
capable of reducing the costs of climate stabilization by
support for CCS deployment, and otherwise lay the
2
adopt CCS technologies as a means for delivering deep
trillions of dollars because these technologies allow for
foundation for the larger scale deployment to come.
THE VALUE OF CONTINUED R&D
and sustained CO emissions reductions. These 8,100
the continued use of fossil fuels and enable the deploy-
2
large CO point sources are predominantly fossil-fueled
ment of other key mitigation technologies such as
2
electric power plants, but there are also hundreds of
large-scale, low-emissions hydrogen and synfuels pro-
The next ﬁve to ten years constitute a critical window
THE EFFORT REQUIRED FOR
steel mills, cement kilns, chemical plants, and oil and
duction. GTSP research also conﬁrms that the costs of
in which to amass needed operational experience with
gas production and reﬁning facilities. A very small
CCS systems should be competitive with—and in some
CCS technologies in real-world conditions. Planned CCS
LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL
number of these facilities are already capturing and
cases signiﬁcantly less costly than—other potential
ﬁeld demonstrations, a handful of early commercial
DEPLOYMENT
selling CO , suggesting that in certain niche applica-
large-scale CO emissions reduction and abatement
CCS projects, and continued laboratory-based research
2
2
tions it is already proﬁtable to deploy some CCS com-
technologies.
are all needed to advance the state of the art across a
Fulﬁlling the potential that the large-scale use of CCS
ponent technologies. However, the vast majority of
number of CCS-related areas, so that CCS technologies
technologies could hold will take signiﬁcant effort.
these existing facilities have not adopted CCS systems.
can deploy safely and effectively in as many locales and
Despite recent technical successes and growing bud-
Moreover, the vast majority of the new power plants
SAFETY AND
conﬁgurations as needed to meet the challenge of stabi-
gets for the development and critical ﬁeld demonstra-
and other large industrial CO point sources that are
lizing atmospheric CO concentrations. Important areas
2
2
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICACY
tion of CCS technologies, much hard work remains to
now being built or that are in various stages of early
of research identiﬁed by GTSP include the following:
transition them—perhaps quickly—from their current
development are also not planning to adopt CCS sys-
status as potential solutions to climate change to safe,
tems. This reveals an important point; the deployment
At a properly designed and well-managed CCS facility,
• Continually improve CO capture technologies and
2
effective, and trusted cornerstones of the global energy
of CCS technologies is almost exclusively motivated by
the chance of appreciable CO leakage from the deep
ensure that they are being developed and tuned to a
2
system. If the world can do this, then our research
the need to signiﬁcantly reduce greenhouse gas emis-
geologic storage formation is very small. The principal
wide array of industrial sectors that can potentially
suggests that CCS systems hold promise to be an eco-
sions, and, therefore, their large-scale adoption depends
task for the measurement, monitoring, and veriﬁcation
beneﬁt by adopting CCS systems.
nomic, cost-effective means for facilitating the stabiliza-
upon explicit efforts to control such emissions.
of stored CO centers on how to demonstrate the long-
2
tion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as part of
term retention of stored CO to regulators and the pub-
• Survey global candidate CO reservoirs so that we
2
2
a portfolio of technologies to address climate change.
lic. New and improved measurement and monitoring
can better understand the nature and distribution of
techniques and standards for their use need to be devel-
the world’s deep geologic CO storage reservoirs. This
2
oped to provide proof of public and environmental safety
is particularly crucial in rapidly developing countries
and of each CCS project’s effectiveness in mitigating
such as China and India. Helping developing nations
climate change.
site new long-lived electricity generation or other
8
9

What
is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?
1
A complete end-to-end CCS system is a dedi-
Their depth and the conﬁ ning layers of dense
cated assemblage of various technologies and
rock (often called caprocks) that lie above
components—many of which are already used
them serve to isolate the candidate CO stor-
2
in other settings—working together to prevent
age reservoirs and provide the principal means
CO from entering the atmosphere. This sec-
of trapping the injected CO in the deep sub-
2
2
tion opens with an overview of the technolo-
surface over the long term.
gies that would comprise a fully functional
This chapter also discusses the issue of verify-
CCS system, along with an assessment of the
ing permanence; that is, how will operators of
current state of the art for each of them.
future CCS facilities demonstrate that the CO
2
A principal focus of this section is to describe
that they have injected into the deep subsur-
candidate CO storage reservoirs and the pro-
face is staying in the target injection zones?
2
cess by which CO is injected and stored in
Further information about technical terms and
2
these formations. These candidate reservoirs
concepts introduced in this section can be
are located thousands of feet below the surface.
found in the appendices.
11

THE CHALLENGE—CLIMATE
Assuming continued economic, population and techno-
logical growth, including the continued development
CHANGE, TECHNOLOGY, AND
and deployment of cleaner and more efﬁcient energy
CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE
technologies, global CO emissions could rise to as much
2
The need to avoid the release
as 5 times their current level by the year 2050 and then
AND STORAGE
double from that level by 2100. Thus, in the absence of
of thousands of gigatons of CO
explicit efforts to address climate change, total cumula-
2
tive emissions from fossil fuel combustion over this com-
to the atmosphere over the
Addressing climate change is a challenge at the
ing century could reach as high as 9,000 GtCO .
2
coming century implies a
global scale. The amount of greenhouse gases
However, to stabilize CO concentrations in the atmosphere
2
“at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
signiﬁcant change in the way
emitted to the atmosphere is enormous—mea-
interference with the climate system” (consistent with the
that energy is produced and
overarching goal of the United Nations Framework Con-
sured in gigatons. Since the start of the Indus-
vention on Climate Change, which has been ratiﬁed by
consumed around the globe.
189 nations) would necessitate that global CO emissions
2
trial Revolution in the mid-1700s, humans
over the course of this century total no more than 2,600 to
4,600 GtCO . The need to avoid the release of thousands
2
have released to the atmosphere slightly more
of gigatons of CO to the atmosphere over the coming cen-
2
tury implies a signiﬁcant change in the way that energy
Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) represents
is produced and consumed around the globe.
another candidate component of this larger portfolio
than 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide (GtCO ),
2
of advanced energy technologies and climate policies
There is a broad consensus in the technical literature
needed to bring about the stabilization of atmospheric
the most important greenhouse gas. Currently,
that the key to making this large-scale transition in the
CO concentrations. CCS systems are speciﬁcally
2
energy economy will be the development and deploy-
designed to remove CO from the ﬂue gases and vari-
the world’s economic systems annually emit
2
ment of a broad portfolio of advanced energy tech-
ous process streams of large power plants and indus-
nologies. Part of this portfolio will involve continued
trial facilities and safely deposit the CO in secure
approximately 26 GtCO to the atmosphere
2
2
improvements in energy efﬁciency in homes, ofﬁces,
storage sites deep underground—thus keeping it out
and automobiles, as these technologies not only reduce
of the atmosphere. At present, there are more than
from the combustion of fossil fuels.
CO emissions but also help to improve economic
8,100 large CO point sources on Earth comprising
2
2
efﬁciency, competitiveness, and local environmental
primarily large fossil-ﬁred power plants and other
quality. Renewable energy, advanced bioenergy and
large industrial facilities. These facilities collectively
biotechnologies, advanced transportation including
emit approximately 15 GtCO annually. Many of these
2
hydrogen production and fuel cells, and nuclear power
power plants and industrial facilities are believed to be
have also been shown to be core aspects of this broad
near suitable candidate CO storage reservoirs.
2
global portfolio of energy technologies.
CCS technologies, the focus of this report, have the
To have a meaningful impact on climate change, each
potential to prevent many hundreds to thousands of
core element of this portfolio must be capable of deploy-
gigatons of CO from reaching the atmosphere over the
2
ing at a scale that matters. One way to think about
course of this century and thus they clearly pass this
whether a given advanced energy technology can meet
“gigaton or more per year” test.
this criteria is to ask whether commercial deployment of
the technology has the potential to cost-effectively reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by a gigaton or more per year.
12
What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?
Section 1
13

CCS COMPONENTS
AND THE STATE OF THE ART
CO Capture
2
For some CO emissions mitigation applications, ﬁrst-generation CO capture systems already exist and can be pur-
2
2
chased from commercial vendors. There are even a few operational coal- and natural gas-ﬁred power plants that apply
CO capture systems to a small portion of the plants’ emissions to serve niche industrial CO markets, and there are
2
2
natural gas processing plants that routinely capture and separate CO and sell it for various industrial uses.
2
But the cost, performance, and other operating characteristics of these ﬁrst-generation CO capture systems need to
2
be improved in order to enable CCS systems to deploy to their full market potential. The scale of today’s CO capture
2
systems is also considerably smaller than the scale needed to address climate change concerns. CO capture is and
2
will likely remain an area of intense CCS research.
Ancillary Systems
CO compressors, booster pumps, surge tanks, and other equipment are all off-the-shelf technologies that can be con-
2
sidered routine aspects of future commercial CCS operations.
CO Transport
2
Transporting CO is an established practice. Currently, more than 3,000 miles of dedicated CO pipeline exist in the United
2
2
States alone. Modern control technologies help to ensure pipeline integrity and safety—a pipeline section that is damaged
can be quickly shut down, limiting the loss of CO . The principal issue for CO transport is not research and development
2
2
but rather potential obstacles in the siting and placement of potentially large CO pipeline networks that would likely be
2
needed as CCS systems begin to deploy at a signiﬁcant scale.
CO Injection into Deep Geologic Formations
2
The most likely CO storage sites are deep geologic formations. The technologies to inject CO into these forma-
2
2
tions exist today and are routinely used in the oil and gas industries. In this sense, CO injection can be considered
2
an established technology, although ways to optimize injection, such as using lateral wells and injecting into multiple
vertically stacked reservoirs, still need to be better understood. The continued development and ﬁeld demonstration of
these more advanced drilling and CO injection techniques could facilitate the use of CCS in a much broader range of
2
locales, 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 technolo-
gies.” Some off-the-shelf MMV technologies can be applied to ensure safe and effective storage of injected CO in
2
certain classes of formations and under speciﬁc circumstances (e.g., seismic imaging of CO that has been injected
2
The Whole System
into a deep saline formation or a depleted oil ﬁeld). But that alone is not sufﬁcient to meet the MMV needs of a future
Global experience with complete end-to-end CCS systems is at present quite limited. When compared to the kinds of CCS
large-scale deployment of CCS in many varied locales and circumstances. MMV is, and will continue to be, an active
systems needed to deliver signiﬁcant CO reductions—a gigaton or more per year—the CCS systems that exist today are very
2
area of intense research; new MMV technologies need to be developed and the cost, performance, and other operating
small, and many of the individual system components can be viewed as ﬁrst-generation technologies. In particular, a strong
characteristics of existing MMV technologies need to be improved. In addition to this laboratory and ﬁeld research effort
focus on CO capture and MMV will help bring about successive generations of more effective, economical and reliable tech-
2
to create new and better MMV technologies, prospective industrial users and regulators also need to create a shared vi-
nologies. But even when component technologies work well, they need to work well within an integrated CCS system—and at a
sion of what it means in practice to measure, monitor, and verify CO that has been injected into the deep subsurface.
2
scale far larger than any of the systems in operation today. The challenge of moving from today’s limited experiential knowledge
base to the massive CCS systems that would be needed to contribute to climate mitigation is the focus of this report.
14
What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?
Section 1
15

In most cases, CO is injected as a supercritical ﬂuid,
2
PRINCIPAL CANDIDATE GEOLOGIC CO STORAGE RESERVOIRS
GOING DEEPER:
2
which means that it is dense like a liquid, but has
(see appendix for sources and assumptions)
CANDIDATE GEOLOGIC CO
2
a gas-like viscosity that allows it to ﬂow very easily
STORAGE FORMATIONS
through pipelines and into the target storage forma-
Principal
Theoretical
Theoretical
tion. Maintaining the CO as a supercritical ﬂuid in
2
Type of
Trapping
Global Capacity U.S. Capacity
the storage formation typically can be accomplished in
The deep geologic formations identiﬁed as candidates for
Reservoir
General Characteristics
Mechanism
(GtCO )
(GtCO )
2
2
reservoirs that are at depths greater than 800 meters
long-term CO storage were deposited tens to hundreds
2
(0.5 miles) below the surface of the Earth.
Deep Saline
Sandstone and carbonate (limestone or dolo-
Hydrodynamic, 9,500
3,630
of millions of years ago. Similar deep geologic formations
Formations
mite) rocks with void spaces inhabited by salty
dissolution,
have been used for oil and gas production and for ﬂuid
Candidate CO storage reservoirs are separated from
water. Injection of waste ﬂuids into deep saline
mineralization
storage for more than a century. But only recently have
2
the surface and from sources of fresh water by thou-
formations (DSFs) is a common practice in many
researchers understood the potential value of these for-
sands of feet of layered rock. Some layers are very per-
parts of the world.
mations as tools in addressing climate change.
meable and porous, allowing the CO to be injected and
2
stored in the empty spaces between grains in the rock.
Depleted Natural
Once the formation has been stripped of its natu-
Hydrodynamic, 700
35
Like nearly all other natural resources, CO storage
2
Other layers are denser, effectively isolating the CO
Gas Reservoirs
ral gas, it essentially behaves like a DSF in terms
dissolution,
reservoirs are highly heterogeneous in quantity, qual-
2
storage reservoirs from the shallower groundwater res-
of CO storage. Depleted natural gas formations
mineralization
2
ity, and distribution (see the maps on pages 25 and 26).
are often used for natural gas storage.
ervoirs. These intervening dense rock layers (often
The ﬁgure below and table on the next page describe
called caprocks) provide the principal means of trapping
some the key characteristics of those classes of geologic
Depleted Oil
Once the recoverable oil has been produced
Hydrodynamic, 120
12
the CO in the deep subsurface over the long term.
formations that are being examined as candidates for
2
Reservoirs
from the formation, CO may be stored in the
dissolution,
2
long-term CO storage.
2
available pore space. CO injection can also
mineralization
2
be used to recover additional oil that was left
behind during primary production. Oil producers
have 30+ years of experience using CO -driven
2
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in areas of North
America, but there has been little focus on
demonstrating the retention of CO or the use
2
of these depleted oil ﬁelds as a long-term means
of isolating CO from the atmosphere.
2
Deep Unmineable
Methane is found on the surfaces of coal. How-
Primarily
140
30
Coal Seams
ever, those surfaces have a chemical preference
chemical
for CO , which when injected induces the coal to
adsorption
2
release its methane while adsorbing the injected
CO instead. At present, CO -driven enhanced
2
2
coalbed methane recovery (ECBM) with simulta-
neous CO storage is an emerging technology.
2
Deep Saline-Filled
Permeable, porous “interﬂow” zones provide
Hydrodynamic, Unknown
240
Basalt Formations
storage capacity while impermeable “massive”
dissolution,
zones separate interﬂows and keep CO from
mineralization
2
migrating out of the storage zones. Although
these formations are similar to DSFs, basalts are
rich in iron and other elements that allow for the
inclusion and permanent storage of CO in car-
2
bonate minerals, so the mineralization potential
in these formations tends to be much higher.
Other (Salt
Salt caverns, organic shales, methane hydrate-
Various
Unknown
Unknown
Caverns, Organic
bearing formations and other geologic media
▲
Shales, etc.)
may provide novel niche CO storage options.
Candidate geologic reservoirs for storing CO lie deep below the surface of the Earth at varying depths.
2
2
(FIGURE COURTESY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CO2CRC).
16
What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?
Section 1
17

WHAT DOES A CO STORAGE
CO INJECTION INTO
drawn from technologies, techniques and industrial
2
2
best practices that are routinely used in the oil and
RESERVOIR LOOK LIKE?
A DEEP GEOLOGIC STORAGE
natural gas production industries. While CO injection
2
FORMATION
can be considered an established technology, the large-
A key mechanism for storing CO in deep geologic for-
2
scale deployment of CCS systems as a central compo-
mations and ensuring that it stays there is a system
nent of a global climate change mitigation response
As can be seen from the schematic below, CO injection
of layered, deeply buried, permeable rock formations
2
is potentially so large that it requires the continued
constitutes a highly engineered system. A CO injection
that serve as the CO storage reservoir, overlain by
2
2
development and ﬁeld demonstration of more advanced
well is actually composed of several casings that help to
impermeable caprocks which serve to keep the injected
drilling and CO injection techniques, to allow for the
ensure that the CO only enters the intended injection
2
CO in place. A thorough evaluation of these forma-
2
2
greatest possible utilization of available CO storage
zone or zones (in this graphic, the yellow bands at left
2
tions and their ability to accept and retain injected
capacity, and to allow a wider range of CO storage res-
are candidate injection zones) and does not interfere
2
CO must be an essential component of site assess-
2
ervoirs to be pressed into service if needed.
with sources of drinking water, which are much shal-
ment before any CO is injected. Here we take a closer
2
lower than candidate CO storage formations.
look at these formations.
2
The schematic also shows clearly that the CO injec-
2
tion well traverses many thousands of feet of various
Many of the technologies needed to safely inject CO
2
geologic strata before reaching the target CO storage
into these deep geologic formations exist today and are
2
formations, the yellow bands in the ﬁgure. The rocks
that make up these formations
are ancient and deeply buried.
Microscopic view of a caprock. The grains making up this rock are
For example, the Cambrian-age
densely packed with few interconnected pore spaces. The low perme-
sandstone (the lowermost yellow
ability of these rocks makes them ideal barriers to prevent the migration
band)—a potential CO storage
2
of CO out of the target storage formation. Examples include shale and
2
reservoir nearly two miles below
dense carbonates.
the surface—was deposited about
500 million years ago as life on
1 mm
our planet was transitioning from
single-celled organisms to a more
diverse set of biota. The sandy
beach that eventually became part
of the Ordovican sandstone (the sec-
ond-lowest yellow band) predated
Microscopic view of a medium-grained sandstone that would serve
the emergence of terrestrial plants
as a good CO storage reservoir. The individual grains making up this
2
by at least ten million years. Over
rock are much less tightly packed than in the caprock. The blue areas
hundreds of millions of years these
are voids in the rock that are ﬁlled with water that is not suitable for drink-
ing or irrigation because of high concentrations of salt and other miner-
loose, sandy beaches have been
als. Injected CO would move into and reside in these void spaces, over
compacted under enough younger
2
time dissolving in the formation water and reacting with the water and
sediment to turn them into con-
surrounding rocks to form stable compounds called carbonates.
solidated rock formations capable
1 mm
of storing CO over the long term.
2
Microscopic view of a coarse-grained sandstone that would serve as
an excellent CO storage reservoir. Note that here the individual grains
2
making up this rock are even less tightly packed than in the previous
sample. This looser packing means that all of the voids are well connect-
ed to each other, allowing the injected CO to more easily move through
2
the host formation. Thus, more CO can be injected and at a higher rate
2
than in a formation composed of a medium-grained sandstone.
▲ CO injection wells are engineered systems designed to ensure that
1 mm
2
injected CO only reaches the appropriate storage formation.
2
18
What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?
Section 1
19

CO STORAGE: THE ISSUE
CO storage sites can be designed against sudden
Measuring, monitoring, and veriﬁcation (MMV) systems
2
• Sudden releases of CO are unlikely. To the extent
2
2
large releases by avoiding areas with signiﬁcant risk
will be needed to ensure that injected CO remains in the
that leakage does occur, the most likely pathways are
OF PERMANENCE
2
of seismicity and by mitigating leakage pathways such
target formation. Some technologies needed to monitor
transmissive faults and unsecured abandoned wells.
as faults and abandoned wells. Seismic surveys can
certain aspects of CO storage are commercially avail-
2
In order to migrate back to the surface, a molecule
At a properly designed and well-managed CO stor-
2
be undertaken at candidate sites to assess whether
able. However, the large-scale deployment of CCS tech-
of CO would have to ﬁnd its way through many lay-
2
age site, the chance of CO leakage should be small;
2
there are any faults that might allow injected CO
nologies will depend in part on developing a much more
2
ers of low-permeability rock, through which it might
thus, concerns about catastrophic release are likely
to migrate out of the target injection zone. Seismic
robust and accurate suite of MMV technologies. Sites
move only centimeters per century. Finding its way
unfounded. Properly-designed sites will have one or
surveys, however, are just one aspect of a comprehen-
will draw from this suite to create tailored, site-speciﬁc
to the surface by moving upward through thousands
more injection zones that can accept and store large
sive pre-injection site evaluation that would need to
MMV systems that will be designed to detect potential
of meters of solid rock could take millennia.
quantities of CO , overlain by suitable caprocks, and
2
be performed at each prospective CO storage site.
leaks long before they pose any danger to drinking water
2
will not be located in areas that have a high incidence
This pre-injection site evaluation would also need to
supplies or surface ecosystems.
• CO leakage from deep geologic formations is there-
2
of seismic activity. The features and attributes of stor-
identify the extent and condition of any abandoned
fore not principally about human health and welfare
age formations and caprocks were discussed in the pre-
wells (e.g., decades-old oil and gas production wells).
While the issue of leakage from CO storage in deep
2
today. The concern relates to slow, undetected leak-
vious section. Here we focus on the issue of seismicity
Adequate sealing of abandoned wells that penetrate
geologic formations remains a subject of debate and
age and how that might impact the climate for future
and the permanence of the stored CO .
2
the storage zone would need to be assured to prevent
intense research, several points are worth stressing:
generations.
these man-made structures from becoming pathways
Fortunately, within the United States there are relatively
for CO to migrate back to the surface.
• Because the majority of any potential large-scale CCS
2
• Discussions of leakage should also be paired with
few areas where seismicity would be a signiﬁcant concern
deployment is still likely decades away, we can use
discussions of possible remediation measures, their
(as the map shows), allowing for CCS deployment across
the next decade’s worth of planned ﬁeld experiments
strengths and weaknesses, and how these measures
a wide range of locales. This type of assessment has not
and potential early commercial CCS deployments to
would be applied in the event that some CO does
2
been completed for other regions of the world.
fundamentally improve our knowledge base about
escape from the storage formation.
this key issue. There is a pressing need to amass ﬁeld
data to better bound likely leakage rates.
• Tools and data exist that allow potential CO storage
2
project operators to assess candidate sites and the pres-
Cascadia
Subduction
ence of any potential natural or manmade pathways
Complex
that might allow CO to migrate out of the target deep
2
geologic storage formation. Although not foolproof,
these tools and industrial best practices will help to
greatly minimize potential issues with CO storage.
2
• The likelihood and extent of any potential CO leak-
2
age should slowly decrease as a function of time
Basin and
after injection stops. This is because the formation
Range
pressure will begin to drop to pre-injection levels,
as more of the injected CO dissolves into the pore
2
New Madrid
ﬂ uids and begins the long-term process of forming
Western
Fault Zone
chemically stable carbonate precipitates.
California
▲ Seismic imaging of the deep subsurface would be
a routine step in the early evaluation of a proposed
CO storage formation. The black lines (emphasis
2
has been added) reveal deep-seated faulting that
▲
is truncated hundreds of feet below the surface
By translating raw data about historic rates of seismic activity into a more meaningful measure of potential seismic
and therefore does not present a direct pathway
risk to CCS infrastructure, we can see that relatively few regions of the United States have even moderate risk to
to the surface.
CCS surface infrastructure.
20
What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage?
Section 1
21

Market
Potential of CCS Systems
2
CCS systems must work well and efﬁciently—
around the world. The capacity of these forma-
but that is not enough for them to play a role in
tions is likely more than enough to meet con-
addressing climate concerns. To play this role,
ceivable CO storage needs from industry for
2
CCS systems must ﬁll a market need; they must
a century or more.
help industry curtail greenhouse gas emissions
This section presents a market analysis which
while simultaneously delivering the products
shows that these candidate deep geologic
and services that customers want and expect.
CO storage formations exist in close proxim-
In addition, CCS systems—including veriﬁed
2
ity to many power plants and industrial facilities
suitable geologic storage reservoirs—must
throughout the world. Thus, it is conceivable
also be available both when and where needed.
that thousands to tens of thousands of CCS
Large CO -emitting industrial facilities exist all
2
systems could deploy, if needed, providing the
over the world; most belong to the electricity
likely scale of deployment required (a gigaton
generation sector, but others support a wide
or more per year of CO emissions reductions)
range of other important industrial sectors.
2
for CCS to be a signiﬁcant component of the
There also appears to be an abundance of large
global climate change mitigation portfolio.
potential geologic CO storage sites distributed
2
23

While there remains a signiﬁcant amount of ﬁeld vali-
Substantial CO storage capacity within a nation could
2
WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE
• The United States, Canada, and Australia likely have
dation to be performed surrounding global geologic CO
be viewed as a very valuable domestic natural resource.
2
more than enough theoretical CO storage capacity to
2
THE POTENTIAL STORAGE
storage potential, and while debate persists within the
For example, regions that have an abundance of CO
2
meet their needs for this century and perhaps beyond.
scientiﬁc community about the methodologies used to
storage capacity can likely rely on a broader mix of
SITES FOR CARBON DIOXIDE?
compute these theoretical storage capacities, our ﬁrst-
fuels to power their economies and avoid the prema-
• Countries such as Japan and Korea will likely see
order estimates of theoretical geologic CO storage
ture retirement of fossil-ﬁred capital stock to meet
2
their future use of fossil-energy technologies—and
capacity suggest a resource base that could potentially
tighter emissions constraints in the future.
therefore the mix of energy technologies they can
Candidate geologic CO storage reservoirs
2
accommodate nearly 11,000 GtCO worldwide. One
2
use—more constrained under future greenhouse
way to understand the immense size of this potential
However, even nations that do not have substantial CO
2
gas policies than if they had more onshore geo-
exist across the globe, and in many key regions
resource is to realize that, across a wide range of pos-
storage resources can beneﬁt from CCS technologies
logic CO storage capacity than they are currently
2
sible future energy and economic scenarios and across
through the purchase of lower-cost emissions credits
thought to possess.
they appear to be in the right places to meet
hypothetical scenarios used to model CO stabiliza-
made possible by CCS use in other nations.
2
tion from 450 to 750 ppm, the demand for CO stor-
2
Whether the rest of the world has sufﬁcient storage
current and future demand from nearby CO
2
age space is estimated to not exceed 2,220 GtCO over
The important issue is not whether a given country has
2
capacity depends on how much of their theoretical stor-
the course of this century. In a world in which there
more or less storage capacity than another country, but
age capacity can be used. At this point in time, there is
emissions sources. In fact, there is likely more
is a broad portfolio of complementary carbon manage-
rather whether it has enough CO storage capacity to
2
a lack of high-quality data upon which to base state-
ment technologies that can be drawn upon (e.g., energy
meet its needs. This depends upon what other mitigation
ments about how much usable CO storage capacity is
2
than enough theoretical CO storage capac-
efﬁciency, renewable energy, nuclear power), it would
options are available to that country, as well as economic
2
available in rapidly developing, fossil fuel-rich regions
appear that the deployment of CCS systems will not
and demographic trends over the course of this century
of the world like China and India, as well as other
ity in the world to meet projected needs for at
be constrained by a lack of overall storage capacity.
and the stringency of future greenhouse gas regimes—
regions that would appear to be candidates for CCS
Therefore, these technologies should be able to deploy
not a simple comparison of one country’s theoretical
deployment. Therefore, one near-term, high-priority
least the next century.
to the extent that deployment makes eco-
storage capacity with that of another country. GTSP
research task is to survey global candidate CO reser-
2
nomic sense in fulﬁlling a given
research indicates that:
voirs, since the availability, quality and distribution of
climate stabilization goal.
these reservoirs directly impact the future evolution of
the energy infrastructures in many nations.
▲ Initial assessments of theoretical global CO storage capacity reveal an important and encouraging result: there
2
is more than enough theoretical CO storage capacity in the world to meet likely storage needs for at least
2
a century, and in many key regions the storage capacity is in the right places to meet current and future demand
from nearby CO sources.
2
24
Market Potential of CCS Systems
Section 2
25

POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC CO
• 240 GtCO in onshore saline-ﬁlled basalt formations
WHO AND WHERE
2
2
STORAGE RESERVOIRS
ARE THE POTENTIAL
• 35 GtCO in depleted gas ﬁelds
2
IN THE UNITED STATES
CUSTOMERS FOR CCS?
• 30 GtCO in deep unmineable coal seams with poten-
2
tial for enhanced coalbed methane (ECBM) recovery
The United States is fortunate to have an abundance
In a carbon constrained future, a global market for
of theoretical CO storage potential, well distributed
CCS technologies will likely exist across a number of
2
across most of the country. Our preliminary and ongo-
• 12 GtCO in depleted oil ﬁelds with potential for
2
different industrial sectors. Although the fossil-ﬁred
enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
The United States is fortunate
ing assessment of candidate geologic CO storage for-
power market (and perhaps future fossil-based syn-
2
mations reveals that the formations studied to date
fuels or hydrogen production markets) would undoubt-
to have an abundance of
Together, these candidate CO storage reservoirs within
contain an estimated storage capacity of 3,900+ GtCO
2
edly be the largest market for CCS technologies, other
2
the United States represent a valuable and very large
within some 230 candidate geologic CO storage reser-
sectors of the economy will see that adopting CCS sys-
2
theoretical CO storage
natural resource that may play a potentially critical
2
voirs (see map below):
tems could represent a cost-effective and robust means
role in cost-effectively bringing about deep and sus-
of achieving deep and sustained emissions reductions
potential, well distributed
tained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These
• 2,730 GtCO in onshore deep saline formations
while simultaneously serving their customers’ needs.
2
candidate CO storage formations underlie parts of 45
(DSFs), with perhaps close to another 900 GtCO of
2
across most of the country.
2
states and two-thirds of the land mass of the contiguous
storage capacity in offshore deep saline formations
In the year 2000, there were more than 8,100 docu-
48 states. In total, these formations may be capable of
mented large CO point sources in the world, each of
2
storing the United States’ current CO emissions from
2
which emitted more than 100,000 tons of CO to the
2
large stationary point sources for hundreds of years to
atmosphere.
come. The highest capacity of the U.S. candidate CO
2
storage formations is found DSFs, and some individual
• Collectively, these large CO point sources emit-
2
DSFs can store hundreds of gigatons of CO .
2
ted approximately 15 GtCO into the atmosphere,
2
which is more than 60% of all global anthropogenic
CO emissions in that year.
2
▲ More than 8,100 power generation and industrial facilities in the world each emit more than 100,000 tons of CO 2
▲ Early estimates of CO storage capacity in the United States reveal a very large, widely distributed and perhaps
to the atmosphere each year. The sheer size of the potential market and its geographic scope says much about
2
extremely valuable resource with which to cost effectively address climate change.
the potential for CCS technologies to contribute to climate change mitigation.
26
Market Potential of CCS Systems
Section 2
27

• Fossil fuel-ﬁred power plants accounted for the largest
POTENTIAL CCS CUSTOMERS
Within the United States, the potential application of
fraction (60%) of these CO point sources and accounted
CCS systems to the 500 largest CO point sources could
2
IN THE UNITED STATES
2
for an even larger share of the emissions (71%).
potentially yield substantial CO reductions, since fully
2
95% of these sources are within 50 miles of a candidate
Fully 95% of the largest
The United States represents a critical prospective
• Natural gas processing plants accounted for less
CO reservoir. Those 500 facilities represent trillions of
2
market for CCS technologies. As was the case with the
than 10% of the estimated emissions, while cement
dollars of productive industrial infrastructure (power
U.S. point sources are within
preceding global snapshot of CO point sources, the
plants (6%), reﬁneries (5%) and steel mills (5%)
2
plants, reﬁneries, and other facilities). This demon-
large CO point sources in the United States represent
accounted for smaller but still signiﬁcant shares.
2
strates the potential leverage that CCS can provide
50 miles of a candidate CO
a highly heterogeneous set of potential CCS opportuni-
2
when applied to a relatively manageable subset of large
ties. As can be seen from the ﬁgure at right, the con-
• Roughly speaking, high-purity CO source streams
point sources.
reservoir.
2
tiguous United States has approximately 1,715 large
exhibiting a low cost of CO capture (e.g., ammo-
2
CO point sources that collectively emit more than
nia, ethanol, ethylene oxide, natural gas processing
2
2.9 GtCO /per year.
units and hydrogen production facilities) combined
2
to account for 11% of both total sources and annual
CO point sources that produce a high-purity carbon
emissions.
2
dioxide stream are often seen as potential early adopt-
ers for CCS deployment. This is because, as the next
• The 500 largest CO point sources on the planet con-
2
section details, the cost of capturing CO from a given
tributed 42% of all emissions from the 8,100 large
2
source is a function of the concentration of CO in the
stationary sources. These 500 largest emitters are
2
facility’s emissions. Roughly speaking, large high-
overwhelmingly coal-ﬁred power plants and they
purity (and low cost of capture) CO sources within
and the other fossil-ﬁred power generation units
2
the United States total 349 (20% of the sources) and
combined to represent 78% of total emissions from
account for 6% of the total emissions.
these largest sources.
One of the principal beneﬁts associated with the poten-
• As can be seen from the map on the previous page,
tial deployment of CCS technologies relates to its abil-
these large CO point sources are heavily concen-
2
ity to deliver deep emissions reductions when applied
trated in a few regions of the world: the United
to the largest CO point sources. For example, in the
States (20% of CO emissions), OECD Europe (12%),
2
2
United States:
China (18%) and India (4%). These four regions
alone account for 54% of the emissions and 52% of
• The 100 largest CO point sources (6% of all facilities)
the existing large CO point sources in the world.
2
2
account for 39% of total annual CO emissions; 79% of
The last two regions—China and India—are partic-
2
these are power plants—all of them coal-ﬁred.
ularly important future markets for CCS technolo-
gies given their rapid growth.
• The 500 largest CO point sources (29% of total)
2
account for 82% of annual emissions; 78% of these
are power plants, most coal-ﬁred.
▲ The large CO point sources in the contiguous United States (each emitting more than 100,000 tons of CO per year)
2
2
are spread throughout the country and originate from a number of different industrial sectors. The signiﬁcant
diversity across these large CO point sources speaks to the many differing deployment options that exist for
2
CCS technologies within the U.S.
28
Market Potential of CCS Systems
Section 2
29

Costs
of CCS Components
3
Next to questions like, “Will CCS really work?”
the costs of transporting it to a suitable reser-
and, “Is there enough CO storage capacity in
voir, injecting it into the deep subsurface, and
2
the world to make this worthwhile?” the most
maintaining it there. Each of these site-speciﬁc
common question about CCS technologies
factors will play a critical role in determining
relates to the cost of constructing and operat-
whether CCS technologies will be adopted by
ing these systems.
existing CO sources as well as power plants
2
and other industrial facilities that will be built
In addition to the technical considerations
in the coming decades. This section focuses
presented in the previous section, ﬁrms must
on what is known about the cost of deploying
consider whether CO capture is technically
2
CCS technologies.
and economically feasible for a speciﬁc power
plant or other large industrial source, as well as
31

requires relatively less processing and compres-
THE COST OF CO CAPTURE
THE COST OF CO CAPTURE FOR VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
2
2
(see appendix for sources and assumptions)
sion before it is ready to be introduced into a CO
2
For the vast majority of CCS applications, the cost
Cost Estimates for
Factor(s) Driving Cost of
pipeline. The table on the facing page presents
Plant Type
Capture Process(es)
Capture & Compression
Capture and Compression
of CO capture is the largest contributor to over-
2
Steam
Chemical Absorption
$25–$60/tCO
CO content in ﬂue gas stream, capital cost
an overview of CO capture technologies and
2
2
2
Rankine Power
(amines)
and energy requirements for solvent cycling
all CCS system cost and thus should be a focus
costs described by the technical literature for
IGCC Power
Physical Absorption
$25–$40/tCO
CO content in ﬂue gas stream, capital cost
of cost reduction efforts. The cost of CO capture
2
2
2
a variety of large anthropogenic CO sources
2
depends in large measure on the pressure and
that could be considered candidates for adopt-
Reﬁnery
Chemical Absorption/
$35–$55/tCO
CO content in ﬂue gas stream and capital
2
2
concentration of CO in the ﬂue gas or process
Flue Gas
Flue Gas Recycling
cost, energy requirements for solvent cycling
2
ing CCS technologies in a greenhouse gas-con-
(if applicable)
stream from which the CO is being separated. As
2
Steel
Flue Gas Recycling/
$20–$35/tCO
CO content in ﬂue gas stream and capital
strained world. As the table shows, the cost of
2
2
Chemical Absorption
cost, energy requirements for solvent cycling
a general rule, it is cheaper to capture CO from
(if applicable)
2
CO capture varies considerably across these
2
a purer and higher-pressure CO stream, as it
Cement
Flue Gas Recycling/
$35–$55/tCO
CO content in ﬂue gas stream and capital
2
2
2
various types of large CO point sources.
Chemical Absorption
cost, energy requirements for solvent cycling
2
(if applicable)
Ethanol
NA
$6–$12/tCO
No capture cost for pure CO stream;
2
2
(Fermentation)
compression cost only
Ethylene Oxide
NA
$6–$12/tCO
No capture cost for pure CO stream;
2
2
(Process Stream)
compression cost only
Ammonia
NA
$6–$12/tCO
No capture cost for pure CO stream;
2
2
(Reformer Gas)
compression cost only
CO capture costs also vary considerably within tech-
The costs in the table assume that commercial (off-the-
2
nology classes. Therefore, when considering the cost of
shelf) or near-commercial technologies are utilized.
deploying CCS systems, decision makers must under-
Ongoing research is designed to bring forward advanced
stand the speciﬁc circumstances under which the CCS
and less costly CO capture technologies. There is wide-
2
unit will be deployed. For example, they would need
spread agreement that such advancements will help
to know not only whether a coal-ﬁred power plant is a
accelerate CCS deployment, and that deployment will
pulverized coal (PC) or Integrated Gasiﬁ cation Com-
push the cost of CO capture down through a process
2
bined Cycle (IGCC) power plant but also what the
known as “learning by doing.” There is signiﬁcant
plant’s vintage and efﬁciency are, whether SO , NO
value in efforts designed to continually improve CO
2
x
2
and other emissions controls are already in place, and
capture systems in terms of lowering the cost of employ-
whether the CO capture system will be mated to an
ing them in the real world. Technologies that are capa-
2
existing plant or designed for a plant that has yet to
ble of lowering the cost of CO capture systems will not
2
be built, before being able to estimate the cost of CO
only lower the cost of deploying CCS systems at speciﬁc
2
capture for any given facility.
32
Costs of CCS Components
Section 3
33

facilities but will also lower the overall societal cost of
plant-based CCS applications given the large size of
COSTS OF CO TRANSPORT
addressing climate change by as much as one-third if
these facilities and their collective emissions contri-
2
large-scale deployment of CCS technologies occurs dur-
bution. Currently available technologies are likely to
AND STORAGE
ing this century. This equates to potentially hundreds
capture approximately 90% of the inlet CO , while the
2
Already, approximately
of billions, if not trillions of dollars in potential savings.
remaining 10% is released to the atmosphere. In a car-
As described previously, the geologic CO storage
2
bon-constrained world, any CO released to the atmo-
resource is vast, and in many parts of the world this
2
3,000 miles of dedicated CO
In addition to lowering the cost of CO capture it is also
sphere would be taxed like any other greenhouse gas
storage resource appears to be advantageous in its geo-
2
2
important to continually increase the capture efﬁciency
emission. As carbon permit prices rise, which would be
graphic distribution with many large CO point sources
2
pipeline deliver CO to com-
2
or percent of CO captured from the target ﬂue gas or
necessary for stabilizing CO concentrations, this seem-
in close proximity to candidate geologic CO storage
2
2
2
process stream. This may be most important for power
ingly small amount of CO released to the atmosphere
reservoirs. However, the characteristics of these can-
mercial CO -EOR projects
2
2
could have a profound impact on fuel choice and genera-
didate CO storage reservoirs in terms of their qual-
2
tion technology selection. Because power plants are very
ity, quantity, capacity, and value varies tremendously
within North America.
long-lived, proposals to build CCS plants that would cap-
across the globe and even within speciﬁc regions, just
ture only a modest fraction of a plant’s emissions might
as the distribution of other natural resources varies—
not prove economic in the long term.
for example, gold, oil, coal, or sunshine.
Therefore, the cost to access CO storage capacity
2
The cost also depends upon the diameter of the pipe-
will also vary from region to region. The key factors
line (which is a function of how much CO the pipeline
2
in determining the cost of CO transport and storage
2
must carry, i.e., its design mass ﬂow rate), with larger
are the proximity of the CO source to the selected CO
2
2
pipelines experiencing some economies of scale. Recent
storage reservoir and the characteristics of the reser-
history of natural gas pipeline land construction costs,
voir that is selected for CO injection.
2
while highly variable, suggest that capital costs for
these transport pipelines are on the order of $40,000/
There is a general consensus within the technical
mile per inch of pipeline diameter. So, assuming a
community that most CO will be transported from
2
large CCS-enabled power plant produces 10 million
its point of capture to a suitable deep geologic storage
tons of CO per year, the main trunk pipeline (approxi-
2
reservoir via land-based pipelines. Already, approxi-
mately 26 inches in diameter) used to carry the CO to
2
mately 3,000 miles of dedicated CO pipeline deliver
2
its reservoir would cost roughly $1.2 million per mile
CO to commercial CO -EOR projects within North
2
2
to construct. Circuitous routing or challenging terrain
America, in areas such as the Permian Basin of West
could signiﬁ cantly increase the cost.
Texas and southeastern New Mexico, the Rocky Mountain
Region of Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, and to the
For CO storage, one of the most signiﬁcant charac-
2
Weyburn Field in Saskatchewan. The longest of these
teristics impacting overall economics revolves around
dedicated CO pipelines, the Cortez pipeline, delivers
2
whether the storage reservoir is capable of producing a
CO over a distance of 500 miles.
2
valuable hydrocarbon—oil or methane—in response to
CO injection. These reservoirs, which include matur-
2
This operational experience with CO pipelines and
2
ing oil ﬁelds and certain classes of unmineable coal
the similarity in terms of construction and operational
seams, are often referred to as “value-added reser-
costs between CO pipelines and natural gas pipeline
2
voirs.” Other types of reservoirs, such as deep saline
networks provides a robust set of data that can be
formations, deep saline-ﬁlled basalt formations, and
used to estimate future CO transportation costs. CO
2
2
depleted natural gas ﬁelds, typically would not provide
transport costs via pipeline are a function of the distance
value-added hydrocarbon recovery.
between the CO source and its geologic storage reservoir.
2
34
Costs of CCS Components
Section 3
35

also require extensive and separate infrastructure for
PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER:
handling recovered oil and gas from the host storage
formation; separating and recycling co-produced CO ;
THE NET COST OF CCS
2
and handling produced waste water. All of this infra-
…our research tells us that
structure requires additional ﬁ nancing to construct and
So far, this section has discussed the range of expected
operate and also requires core competencies that are
costs for individual CCS system components, but society
the greatest impact associated
unlikely to reside within most electric utility, cement,
is most concerned with the total cost of CCS (including
iron and steel ﬁrms and other potential adopters of
capture, transport, injection, and monitoring) applied to
with CO storage in value-added
2
CCS technologies.
a real power plant or other industrial facility. On the
next page is a cost curve for the net cost of employing
reservoirs could well relate to
Although gigatons of low-cost CO storage opportunities
CCS within the United States, given current technolo-
2
their ability to produce more
may be associated with value-added reservoirs in North
gies, for the 1,715 existing large CO point sources and
2
America alone, the long-term challenge presented by
all of the candidate CO storage reservoirs we have been
2
domestic oil and gas…
the need to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO
able to identify to date. The model used to compute this
2
indicates that, because the storage capacity available in
cost curve, the Battelle CO -GIS, was speciﬁcally built
2
oil- and gas-bearing reservoirs is dwarfed by capacity in
to gain understanding of the potential for CCS technol-
reservoirs that do not bear saleable products, over the
ogies to deploy across North America in a competitive
long term, CO storage in value-added reservoirs may not
marketplace for cost-effective emissions reductions.
In North America, where we have been able to model
2
represent as signiﬁcant a portion of total CO stored as
in detail the complex interplay among the thousands
2
is widely believed. Our research suggests that all classes
Each point on the curve represents the levelized cost
of large CO sources and the large—but nonetheless
2
of CO storage reservoirs are valuable and will be needed
(in $/tCO ) for a speciﬁc existing large CO point source
ﬁnite—candidate CO storage formations in the region,
2
2
2
• Next in the cost curve are perhaps a few hundred
2
once CCS technologies begin their expected large-scale
to employ CCS: capture its CO and ready it for trans-
our research tells us that the greatest impact associ-
2
million tons per year of relatively inexpensive full
commercial deployment. For the rest of the larger econ-
port; transport the captured CO via pipeline to a suit-
ated with CO storage in value-added reservoirs could
2
end-to-end CCS opportunities. This region of the
2
omy and over the course of this century, our work sug-
able candidate storage reservoir; inject the CO into
well relate to their ability to produce more domestic oil
2
cost curve is dominated by high-purity (and there-
gests that the long-term average cost of CO transport
the reservoir; and measure, monitor and verify that
and gas and not because of their ability to reduce the
2
fore low cost of capture) CO point sources such as
and storage should stay below the level of approximately
the injected CO remains within the target reservoir.
2
cost of CO transport and storage.
2
natural gas processing facilities seeking to store
2
$12–$15/tCO for a region like North America, due
In addition, for injection into value-added storage
2
their CO in nearby oil ﬁelds—and perhaps in the
largely to the abundant capacity offered by deep saline
reservoirs, any revenues from resulting CO -driven
2
The large-scale deployment of CCS systems hinges upon
2
future as ECBM technology matures, in unmineable
formations.
hydrocarbon recovery are also incorporated in the net
proving that CCS technologies can be integrated with
coal seams—where there may be some potential for
costs. This represents an attempt to capture the full
fossil-ﬁred electricity production (and perhaps in the
offsetting revenues associated with CO -driven EOR
Current estimates of the cost of employing the tech-
end-to-end cost of employing CCS technologies, given
2
future fossil-derived hydrogen production). There are a
and ECBM production. Although these are relatively
nologies needed to measure, monitor, and verify the
the inherent heterogeneity of the potential market for
number of issues related to CO storage in value-added
low cost options, they still have positive net costs,
2
fate of CO injected into deep geologic formations sug-
CCS technologies across the United States.
reservoirs that suggest the possibility of a signiﬁcant
2
implying that society is unlikely to target these
gest that these costs will be small when measured on
mismatch between the nearly continuous need to store
options in the absence of a requirement to reduce
a per-ton-of-CO -stored basis, perhaps as low as a few
This “net cost of employing CCS” cost curve has four
large quantities of CO from a CCS-enabled power
2
greenhouse gas emissions.
2
pennies per ton. Planned and future CCS ﬁeld dem-
distinct regions that are worth commenting on:
plant and the more limited and episodic need for CO
2
onstrations and early commercial CCS deployments
in CO -driven EOR and ECBM projects. Such projects
• The cost curve next transitions into a long, relatively
2
should help to validate these assumptions about the
• At the far left end of the curve are a few CO capture
2
ﬂat region which is the domain of the large fossil-
cost of MMV.
and storage opportunities that appear to be so cheap
ﬁred power plants seeking to dispose of their CO
that they fall below the x-axis, indicating that ﬁ rms
2
emissions in the nation’s abundant, high-capacity
could make money today by exploiting these opportu-
deep saline formations, depleted gas ﬁelds, and deep
nities even in the absence of any explicit climate pol-
basalt formations. Here is the potential for giga-
icy requiring a reduction in CO emissions. This “low
2
tons (that is, thousands of millions of tons) of stably
hanging fruit” can be seen in the real world today as
priced, long-lived CO storage. The advent and adop-
the few tens of millions of tons of anthropogenic CO
2
2
tion of advanced CCS-enabled fossil-ﬁred power pro-
that are currently being used in EOR projects. While
duction technologies, such as IGCC with CCS, would
these represent potential negative-cost CCS deploy-
lower this region of the cost curve and therefore has-
ment opportunities, such opportunities are relatively
ten the large-scale adoption of CCS systems in the
limited and most are likely already being exploited.
United States. The slight increase in per-ton cost of
CCS on this part of the curve results largely from
sources becoming smaller and more distant from
their best available storage reservoir.
36
Costs of CCS Components
Section 3
37

THE NET COST OF EMPLOYING CCS WITHIN THE
• Finally, the tail end of the curve represents an accel-
reservoir. For example, the ﬁrst point on the curve
UNITED STATES—CURRENT SOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY
eration of this escalating cost trend with mostly low-
represents a high-purity ammonia plant that is able
The ten marked points on the curve are characterized below the graph by their different circumstances related to use of CCS technologies.
purity sources of decreasing size and purity (e.g.,
to separate and compress CO at a very low cost and
2
small natural gas-ﬁred power plants), able to access
store it in a nearby mature oil ﬁeld where the CO is
2
increasingly more distant storage reservoirs.
injected to increase incremental oil recovery via EOR.
These points show how the characteristics of the CO
2
The numbers along the curve and the associated table
sources, along with the storage reservoirs they are
below the graph serve to further illustrate the nature
coupled with and the distance between them, change
and signiﬁcance of how site-speciﬁc factors and the
across the economy and impact the net cost of employ-
inherent heterogeneity in the marketplace for CCS
ing CCS technologies.
will impact the adoption of this class of technologies.
These ten points have no special signiﬁcance and are
The chart below offers further insight into the dynamic
simply presented here to highlight how CCS technolo-
composition of net CCS costs. For each of the ten sam-
gies might deploy across the entire economy, as repre-
ple points highlighted above on the cost curve, the indi-
sented by the entire CCS cost curve. For each sample
vidual capture, compression, transport and net injec-
point, the text in the table states the type of large CO
tion cost components are presented. This ﬁgure helps
2
point source from which CO is being captured, the
to more clearly illustrate the impact individual source
2
type of CO storage reservoir that it has selected as its
and reservoir characteristics have in deﬁning the total
2
available lowest-cost storage option, and the required
cost for deploying CCS in a wide variety of settings
pipeline distance needed to reach the target storage
THE NET COST OF EMPLOYING CCS: EXAMPLE COMPONENT COSTS BREAKOUT
1
High purity ammonia plant / nearby (<10 miles) EOR opportunity
2
High purity natural gas processing facility / moderately distant (~50 miles) EOR opportunity
3
Large, coal-ﬁ red power plant / nearby (<10 miles) ECBM opportunity
4
High purity hydrogen production facility / nearby (<25 miles) depleted gas ﬁeld
5
Large, coal-ﬁred power plant / nearby (<25 miles) deep saline formation
6
Coal-ﬁred power plant / moderately distant (<50 miles) depleted gas ﬁeld
7
Iron & steel plant / nearby (<10 miles) deep saline formation
8
Smaller coal-ﬁred power plant / nearby (<25 miles) deep saline basalt formation
9
Cement plant / distant (>50 miles) deep saline formation
10
Gas-ﬁred power plant / distant (>50 miles) deep saline formation
38
Costs of CCS Components
Section 3
39

and circumstances. For instance, note that the capture
The injection costs shown here represent the cost of
For all but the highest purity sources, the largest cost
• Second, while the fossil-ﬁ red power sector represents
costs for these ten sources range from $0/tCO for the
injecting the CO into the selected reservoir, including
is related to separation of CO from the ﬂue or process
2
2
2
the largest potential demand for CCS, other, higher-
very high-purity CO sources up to $57/tCO for the
all necessary capital and operating costs for wells and
stream. In fact, for the example curve points shown
2
2
purity large CO point sources are likely to adopt
2
small and very low-purity NGCC source. Compression
distribution pipeline, as well as monitoring equipment
here, the cost of capture alone represents roughly 60%
CCS systems before electric power plants do and in
cost estimates vary also, depending again on the size
and procedures. In addition, for value-added CO injec-
of the total estimated net CCS cost for the low-purity
2
doing so might lock up much of the remaining value-
of the CO stream and other characteristics, roughly
tion for EOR or ECBM, the value of the anticipated
sources. This is signiﬁcant, as reducing the cost of CO
2
2
added CO storage opportunities.
2
between $6 and $12/tCO . Transport costs are driven
incremental recovered oil or gas is then subtracted,
capture from these low-purity sources (and from power
2
by the mass ﬂow rate of CO to be transported, but
thereby allowing for this net injection cost to be nega-
plants in particular) would provide a signiﬁcant boost
2
• Third, even under very conservative assumptions
also the distance between the source and its selected
tive (i.e., resulting in a net proﬁt) in some situations.
to the economic viability of geologic CO storage.
2
such as those used here (e.g., power plants and other
reservoir. Here, they range from about $0.20/tCO for
For these ten sample points, the net injection costs
2
large industrial CO point sources use existing CO
2
2
the very large coal-ﬁred power plant requiring mini-
vary from about $-18 to $12/tCO , based largely on the
While the above analysis focuses on modeling the
2
capture technologies), CCS technologies appear to
mal pipeline length, to nearly $10/tCO for the very
type and characteristics of the selected reservoir (e.g.,
potential adoption of CCS technologies within the
2
have great potential to cost-effectively reduce green-
small gas-ﬁred power plant that is over 65 miles from
depth, injectivity, oil/gas recovery potential) and the
United States, it also reveals a few key points about
house gas emissions.
its target reservoir.
value of any recovered oil and gas.
the cost of employing CCS systems that are likely to
hold true in other parts of the world:
• First, there is likely some potential for very low and
even negative cost (and therefore perhaps already
proﬁtable) CCS opportunities, but these opportuni-
ties represent only a small portion of the emissions
mitigation potential to be exploited. Many are likely
already being utilized by the marketplace, albeit
often without application of MMV systems, which
would be required to demonstrate the long-term
retention of the injected CO if the primary purpose
2
of these projects was climate protection.
40
Costs of CCS Components
Section 3
41

Future
4
Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward
The GTSP’s research on CCS afﬁrms that this
what will be needed. This raises the question of
class of technologies could play a signiﬁcant
how to expand the use of CCS technologies by
role in societal efforts to stabilize atmospheric
orders of magnitude over the coming decades.
concentrations of greenhouse gases. The
The expansion of a new technology at that rate
scale of CCS deployment needed to make
is not impossible, but it certainly is challenging.
this signiﬁcant contribution will likely require
This concluding section explores the factors
thousands of CCS-enabled plants deployed
inﬂuencing regional, sectoral, and plant-level
over the course of this century, beginning early
implementation of CCS systems, factors that
enough so that gigatons of CO per year are
2
must be addressed to allow deployment at a
routinely being stored in deep geologic forma-
scale large enough to greatly reduce the costs
tions around the world by mid-century.
of reducing global CO emissions. Also, a num-
2
However, the current state of CCS commercial
ber of key R&D and institutional needs must be
deployment and even early stage ﬁeld research
pursued in order to allow CCS technologies to
deployment represents a very small fraction of
deploy across a range of economic sectors.
43

TODAY’S CCS DEPLOYMENT
Even the largest project on the list, which hopes to inject
CCS DEPLOYMENT
oil will remain higher than historical levels. Under this
0.026 GtCO over its lifetime, will only inject one-tenth
scenario, there could be approximately 150 large, coal-
COMPARED TO POTENTIAL
2
as much CO as a 1,000 MW IGCC plant would need to
AT THE REGIONAL AND
ﬁred IGCC+CCS power plants operational by 2045 in
2
MID-CENTURY DEPLOYMENT
inject over its 50-year projected lifetime.
SECTORAL SCALE
just these three regions of the United States. Together
these advanced coal-ﬁred power plants would be cap-
However, the challenge is to deploy, not a single 1,000
turing and storing nearly 900 MtCO per year by 2045
To illustrate CCS deployment at a scale that would
2
MW plant, but potentially hundreds or thousands
and would have cumulatively stored over 6 GtCO in
This page is too small to show the full extent of
signiﬁcantly reduce CO emissions, we have modeled
2
2
of such facilities worldwide. Indeed, the cumulative
regional geologic storage formations by 2045.
the hypothetical adoption of CCS systems within three
amount of CO that would need to be stored in geologic
2
fossil-fuel-intensive electricity generation regions in
the difference between CCS deployment today
formations over approximately the next half century
To accurately model the potential adoption of CCS tech-
the eastern United States in response to a hypotheti-
under a hypothetical 550 ppm stabilization policy could
nologies within these three power production regions
cal emissions constraint. The map below shows the
and its potential deployment.
be nearly 20 GtCO in the United States and more
of the United States, we included each region’s unique
2
regions, major sources of CO , and potential storage
2
than 100 GtCO across the world. The challenge is not
attributes: (1) the existing electricity generating capac-
2
sites. The speciﬁcs of the scenario being modeled here
The ﬁgure below shows 21 currently operational or
a matter of doubling or tripling or even quadrupling
ity—efﬁciency, fuel costs, operating and maintenance
are discussed in the appendix but key attributes of the
planned CCS projects as of late 2005. Ranging from
current deployment, but of increasing current deploy-
(O&M) costs, emissions; (2) electricity demand—both
scenario include a carbon tax that starts at $12/tCO
2
projected lifetime injection volumes of 1,000 tons of CO
2
ment by 3 to 4 orders of magnitude. The next sections
the varying nature of the electricity load proﬁle (from
in 2015 and rises at 2.5% per year, and oil and natu-
(or 0.000001 GtCO ) to 26 million tons of CO (0.026
2
2
explore how the needed scale-up might occur.
baseload to peaking) and future demand growth; (3)
ral gas prices that, while not as high as current prices,
GtCO ), these 21 projects represent a critical test bed to
2
competing technologies for new generating capacity—
reﬂect current thinking that future prices for gas and
fundamentally advance our knowledge about how CCS
systems will operate under real-world conditions.
▲ Current and future global deployments of CCS technologies—The small circles on the map show the location and
scale of current global CCS activities. In contrast, the large circle at the bottom of the legend is drawn to the same scale
and represents the cumulative CO storage needs of a single large coal power plant over a 50-year projected lifetime.
2
▲ 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.
44
Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward
Section 4
45

capital costs, efﬁciency, O&M costs, emissions; (4) other
not be taken ofﬂ ine or rebuilt as IGCC+CCS; instead,
market factors—fuel prices, emissions policies, cost of
the most efﬁcient of these existing plants would con-
ﬁnancing, reserve margin requirements; and (5) the
tinue to operate as baseload units while others become
characteristics of candidate CO storage reservoirs.
key resources in the region’s intermediate load capac-
2
ity generation portfolio (see the top ﬁgure at right).
When all of these factors and the heterogeneous com-
position of different geographic regions are taken into
SERC: In the Southeastern United States (the South-
account, a highly nuanced picture of CCS deployment
eastern Electric Reliability Council, or SERC), coal-
across different regions emerges, which we will brieﬂy
ﬁred power plants also make up the majority of cur-
discuss before focusing on the larger issues that this
rent (2005) electric generation capacity, but the region
analysis reveals about how CCS technologies might be
is home to substantially more nuclear and hydroelec-
adopted by the electric power sector.
tric power than ECAR. Moreover, the region also has
a signiﬁcant amount of natural gas-ﬁred generation
ECAR: The U.S. region located in the industrial upper
capacity, most of which has come online very recently.
Midwest (the East Central Area Reliability Coordina-
Similar to ECAR, this region’s CO storage opportuni-
2
tion Agreement, or ECAR) has an electricity system
ties are heavily dominated by deep saline formations;
that has historically been dominated by conventional
however, on average these deep saline formations (both
coal plants. The region’s geologic CO storage oppor-
sedimentary and basalt) are farther away from today’s
2
tunities are dominated by deep saline formations,
fossil-ﬁred power generation units than is generally
although there is some potential for value-added CO
the case in the ECAR region, implying slightly higher
2
storage. Under this scenario the deployment of CCS-
costs for CO transport in this region. Under this CO
2
2
enabled IGCC units could clearly be a key to decarbon-
emission reduction scenario, SERC’s baseload electric-
izing baseload electricity generation in this region by
ity generation is characterized by 2045 principally by
2045. In the early years of this scenario, when carbon
nuclear and IGCC+CCS, along with some renewable
permit prices are relatively low, increased demand
energy. A relatively small amount of conventional PC
for electricity is met mainly through new coal- and
and IGCC without CCS is built in the post-2005 period
natural gas-ﬁred generation units. The coal plants
and continues to operate in 2045 as a part of SERC’s
are IGCC units which eventually adopt CCS systems
intermediate capacity load generation. Existing (pre-
(thus becoming IGCC+CCS) as carbon permit prices
2005) PC plants continue to operate but at reduced lev-
rise. The new natural gas-ﬁred units—that is, those
els as these units move over time out of their former role
built after 2005—continue to operate during the period
as baseload units and transition to serve intermediate
to 2045 although their utilization rate drops, moving
loads (see the middle ﬁgure, at right).
farther out in the dispatch curve as carbon and natural
gas prices rise. Contrary to conventional wisdom, most
ERCOT: The region that encompasses much of the
of the existing (pre-2005) pulverized coal plants would
state of Texas (the Electric Reliability Council of Texas,
Inc., or ERCOT) is home to signiﬁcantly more value-
added CO storage potential than either of the other
2
regions discussed above. However, like the other two
regions (and much of the United States), the majority
of the region’s CO storage potential is in deep saline
2
formations. This third region has historically been
dominated by gas and oil steam electricity production
capacity. Conventional coal also fuels a substantial
portion of the region’s current generation capacity,
The electric utility industry’s
adoption of CCS-enabled
fossil-ﬁ red generation units
will vary from region to region
as a function of a broad set of
region-speciﬁ c factors. Note
that all regions build natural-
gas-ﬁ red units early in the
modeled period; these units
are still operating in 2045.
46
Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward
Section 4
47

and there has been a recent boom in new natural gas-
The major lesson is that CCS technologies are really
In this scenario, there is a need to deploy over 150 CCS-
ﬁred capacity. Here, the principal means for reducing
focused on baseload power production. The greatest
enabled power plants in just these three regions of the
the region’s electric utility emissions in 2045 is again
amount of CO emissions mitigation via the application
United States. These units would be capable of capturing
2
a mix of nuclear, renewables and IGCC+CCS. How-
of CCS technologies in the electric power sector can
and storing more than 6 GtCO in regional formations by
2
CCS systems must be able
ever, in ERCOT, some new conventional coal capacity
be achieved at the least cost by focusing on fossil-ﬁ red
the middle of this century, as shown in the graph below.
is built in the ﬁrst decade under this scenario, even
baseload capacity. It will be relatively more expensive
But, at this point in time, we lack the physical, human
to work in more than just
though its emissions will be taxed. The higher future
to reduce CO emissions from intermediate and peak-
and regulatory infrastructures needed to enable CCS
2
gas and oil prices mean that some new coal capacity
ing generation units because of their lower utilization
deployment and CO storage at this scale.
ideal settings.
2
will be economic, as it would earn a sufﬁcient margin
rates. Therefore, CCS-enabled baseload power plants
in this gas-dominated electricity market to compen-
should be designed so that they can capture nearly
Moreover, these are not the only regions that will
sate for its higher emissions. In addition, the carbon
all of their emissions. This is a more robust long-term
deploy CCS systems, nor is this a particularly aggres-
permit price is not high enough in the early years to
strategy than the alternative of capturing closer to
sive CCS deployment scenario. Thus, another key
make investment in IGCC+CCS the economic choice.
50% of a unit’s emissions, sometimes discussed in an
ﬁnding of GTSP’s CCS research is that an important
These new post-2005 conventional fossil-ﬁred units
effort to control the costs of CO capture and the result-
dimension of CCS R&D and early ﬁeld deployments is
electric utilities will depend to some degree upon the
2
continue to operate in 2045 by transitioning over time
ing electric power. In the long term, units that cannot
to develop tools and techniques to allow CCS to deploy
continued development of innovative technologies to
from baseload to intermediate load. Here again, rather
capture the vast majority of their emissions are likely
in a wide variety of circumstances. CCS systems must
allow CO storage to be deployed at signiﬁcant scale
2
than being scrapped, existing conventional coal plants
to become unproﬁtable, stranded assets.
be able to work in more than just ideal settings. The
where needed, increasing effective storage capacities
can continue to deliver value to their owners by transi-
potential large-scale adoption of CCS systems by the
and CO injection rates.
2
tioning from baseload generation to intermediate load
The potential for CCS deployment in the electric power
(see bottom ﬁgure, previous page).
sector to be centered on decarbonizing high-capacity
factor baseload plants has important implications for
the possible evolution of the market for CO storage
2
and the kinds of CO storage reservoirs that will likely
2
be most relevant for this industry’s needs.
Our research indicates that the overwhelming criteria
for siting a CCS-enabled power plant will relate more to
The major lesson is that CCS
allowable CO injection rates and total reservoir capac-
2
technologies are really focused
ity than to potential buyers for CO . Knowing whether
2
a region has more or less potential for value-added CO
2
on baseload power production.
storage than any other region is only one of many pieces
of information needed to understand the deployment of
CCS-enabled electric generation systems.
Because the cost of CO capture in the electric power
2
sector—even including state-of-the-art IGCC+CCS—
will likely be higher than the cost to capture CO from
2
some industrial sources, much of the value-added CO
2
storage capacity in a given region could already be
spoken for before CCS systems begin their expected,
signiﬁcant deployment within the electric power sector.
Large, deep saline formations will therefore likely be the
CO storage workhorse for the electric utility sector.
2
▲ Analysis like this can also help to shed light on where the most intensive deployment of CCS technologies might
occur in the future and the timing and possible scale of that deployment.
48
Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward
Section 4
49

• An assessment of how a proposed CCS-enabled
• The need to acquire permits and rights-of-way for any
These and other factors will need to be integrated into
power plant will impact the utility’s ability to address
needed CO transport pipelines.
planning for a CCS-enabled plant. The timeline on the
2
next pages gives an overview of how various aspects
increasingly stringent local and regional environ-
mental regulations (e.g., regulations to address acid
• An assessment of the kinds of measurement, moni-
of this type of planning and decision making for CCS-
rain or mercury emissions) across the utility’s gen-
toring, and veriﬁcation technologies that are avail-
enabled power plants may play out over the lifetime of
eration ﬂeet.
able, required by regulations, and that will work
the power plant and beyond.
with the speciﬁc geologic reservoirs likely to be used
• The likelihood that the utility will be able to recover
to store the power plant’s CO .
2
some of the costs for the more capital-intensive CCS-
enabled power plant in the rate base.
• The likely market price for baseload power in the
region and the generation costs for the CCS-enabled
plant. That is, will the CCS-enabled plant produce
competitively priced electricity in the near to mid term
CO pipeline and injector wells
2
when CO permit prices likely are relatively low?
2
used during the subsequent
decades of full plant operations
• The probable scenarios for CO permit prices, espe-
2
cially the price path for CO permits over the life of
2
the CCS-enabled power plant.
CCS DEPLOYMENT
• The availability of competencies in operating a CCS-
enabled power plant, either within the utility itself
AT THE PLANT SCALE
or from trusted vendors.
Each utility planning new capacity is faced with com-
• The kinds of CO separations processes that exist,
2
plex decisions about which fuels and technologies
the ability to scale them to the needed plant capac-
to invest in. Building a new, long-lived capital asset
ity, and the compatibility of the capture units to
such as a power plant with the expectation of future
perform reliably around the clock and day after day
CO emissions constraints will add new criteria to the
consistent with being mated to a high-availability
2
already complex processes of siting, construction, and
baseload power plant.
operation of such facilities. New elements involved in
a decision to build a CCS-enabled power plant would
• The additional time and budget requirements for
likely include the following:
assessing candidate geologic CO storage reservoirs
2
CO pipeline and injector wells
2
at prospective power plant sites. This would need to
used during the ﬁ rst decade of
include an assessment of the size, capacity, and phys-
Initial CO pipeline and injector
full plant operations
2
ical properties of candidate CO storage reservoirs as
2
well used during plant start up
well as modeling to begin assessing such practical
and validation phase
issues as the number of CO injector wells required
2
to handle the plant’s output and whether multiple
injection ﬁelds will be needed over the lifetime of the
power plant (see the drawing on the next page).
▲ Planning for a CCS-enabled power plant must include a robust CO storage plan for all phases of the plant’s
2
operations over its entire half-century operational lifetime.
50
Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward
Section 4
51

PHASES DURING THE LIFETIME OF A CCS-ENABLED POWER UNIT
Pre-Operational Phase (~10 years)
Operational Phase (~40–60 years)
Post-Operational Phase
Decision to
Expand or Replace
Site and Power
Plant Decommissioning and
Generation
Generation System
Initial Plant
Full Plant
Post-Injection Monitoring of
Capacity
Selection
Pre-construction
Construction
Operations
Operations
Injected CO2
Business,
Initiate process to begin Begin and sustain dialogue with shareholders,
Regulatory oversight
Power plant and its associated CO
Periodic need to communicate and
Stakeholder education about
2
Regulatory, and
considering various
regulators, local communities about the decision
of construction and
storage system begin to generate
demonstrate via various ﬁlings with
post-injection safety and monitoring.
Stakeholder Issues
power system options
to proceed with construction of a CCS-enabled
veriﬁcation of compli-
electricity and revenue.
regulators and stakeholders that CCS
(e.g., IGCC, NGCC,
power plant. Permitting begins.
ance with environmen-
systems are working as expected.
Records maintenance regarding
nuclear, wind, etc.) and
tal and engineering
CO that has been injected into deep
2
candidate locations for
requirements.
geologic storage formations.
new plant.
Compliance with regulation to
periodically monitor stored CO .
2
Power
Down-select to a
Select vendors for
Footprint established,
Individual power production trains /
All power production units operational.
Power plants are taken ofﬂine, and plant
Production
handful of candidate
power plant systems
ﬁrst unit and support
units are brought online as they are
facilities are rehabilitated or removed.
vendors for the power
and construction.
facilities / infrastructure
completed.
production system.
constructed.
CO Storage
Begin early analysis
Site characterization
Injection site wells are
Small-scale CO storage likely begins
Large-scale, continuous CO injection for
CO injection ceases.
2
2
2
2
System
of site-speciﬁ c CO
and injection planning
complete with wells
at the ﬁrst few injection sites to validate
many decades. As the storage capacity
2
storage system design.
need to begin. Because drilled and supporting
CO storage system, allow plant staff to
of any given reservoir is consumed, that
Surface CO injection facilities such as
2
2
there are no current
above-ground infra-
gain familiarity with systems and allow
reservoir and its injector wells need to be
pipelines and wellheads are removed.
Consult existing geo-
vendors offering off-the-
structure such as
local public and other stakeholders to
safely decommissioned and new storage
logical expertise to see
shelf CO storage sys-
storage tanks, CO
become more comfortable with CO
reservoirs need to be brought online.
2
2
2
CO injector wells are plugged and
2
if any candidate sites
tems, utilities will need
pipeline, and wellhead
storage at this site.
prepared for long-term closure.
can be quickly ruled out to assemble a team
facilities in place.
due to known subsur-
of consultants and
face issues.
vendors to create and
implement CO storage
2
system’s infrastructure.
Measurement,
Solicit and incorporate
Subsurface charac-
Construct MMV systems
Routine MMV begins with the ﬁrst CO
Continued monitoring of active injection
Implementation of long-term post-injection
2
Monitoring and
feedback from stake-
terization performed
and perform baseline
injected into deep storage reservoirs.
sites. Post-injection monitoring of
monitoring phase begins.
Veriﬁcation (MMV)
holders and regulators
to determine optimum
characterization for
decommissioned (i.e., ﬁlled) storage ﬁelds.
to inform design of
injection zones and
system calibration and
MMV system.
help decide what kind
later comparison.
of MMV system is
appropriate and how it
should be sited.
52
Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward
Section 4
53

TO ENABLE THE LARGE-SCALE
If large-scale deployment does happen, the following
CCS Systems Will Be Trusted
KEY CCS R&D AND
elements will need to be in place.
DEPLOYMENT OF CCS, MUCH
Social and political spheres: The general public
KNOWLEDGE GAPS
will need to understand and accept that each technology
NEEDS TO BE DONE...
CCS Systems Will Work and Be Accepted
employed to address climate change has strengths and
A signiﬁcant challenge is how to move quickly from
Social, political, and technical spheres: From gover-
weaknesses.
today’s important but nonetheless modest CCS deploy-
Utilities and other potential users of CCS systems
nance structures to popular opinion, there will need to be
ment to the massive global deployments needed to
could be caught between the potential of CCS technolo-
agreement that climate change concerns warrant a limit
Technical sphere: CCS technologies, including those
make a substantive difference in addressing climate
gies to cost effectively deliver signiﬁcant and sustained
on cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases, and that
used for MMV, must have an established track record
change. The next decade represents a critical win-
CO emissions reductions as described in numerous
2
a broad portfolio of options is needed.
of success in the ﬁeld that clearly demonstrates their
dow with which to amass needed operational experi-
technical papers and reports like this one and the reali-
ability to meet safety and efﬁcacy standards.
ence with CCS technologies in real-world conditions.
ties of today where CCS deployment is quite small. The
Regulatory sphere: Governments will need to establish
Planned CCS ﬁeld demonstrations, a handful of early
real-world knowledge gained by operating dozens of
climate policies, legislation, and regulations that recog-
Regulatory sphere: Regulations must contain accepted
commercial CCS projects and continued laboratory-
CCS-enabled facilities will be critical to transforming
nize CCS technologies on an equal footing with other
protocols and standards for geologic site characterization
based research are all needed to advance the state
CCS technologies from their current status as areas of
mitigation strategies.
and selection and for the safe and effective operations of
of the art across a number of CCS-related areas such
intense cutting-edge research with tremendous poten-
CCS systems, including the frequency of measurement
as the following:
tial to accepted technologies that are capable of deliv-
Economic and corporate spheres: Decision-mak-
and monitoring for stored CO . Computer models and
2
ering results in numerous conﬁgurations and settings
ers will require a stable planning environment. They
simulation tools will need to be developed and accepted
around the world. In order to realize a future in which
will need to know that climate policies are here to stay
by industry, regulators, and other stakeholders as valid
R&D Needs for CCS Systems Integration
CCS technologies are accepted, trusted, economic and
and that the value of carbon will rise to a level that
means for qualifying prospective CO storage sites and
2
ordinary technologies, institutions must evolve in a num-
requires investment in capital-intensive emissions-

for predicting the movement of stored CO .
Obtain more experience with end-to-end CCS
2
ber of spheres: social, political, technical, regulatory,
abatement technologies such as CCS systems.
systems in real-world conditions. Simply moving
economic, and corporate.
Economic sphere: Financial markets and investment
forward with the planned commercial and research
banks must understand CCS systems well enough to
projects listed at the beginning of this section and
CCS Systems Will Make Economic Sense
provide ﬁnancing for CCS-enabled infrastructure at
operating these as systems under real-world con-
ditions will be enormously beneﬁcial and tell us
Social, political, and technical spheres: Consumers
rates comparable to those extended to other large-
much about where the key CCS R&D needs lie. The
must be willing to purchase products that come from
scale emissions-abatement options.
planned public-private FutureGen project, in itself,
CCS-enabled systems, and the technology works well
represents a signiﬁcant and much-needed contribu-
and efﬁciently.
Corporate sphere: Companies will need to either
The large-scale deployment
evolve a set of internal CCS core competencies or be
tion to the technical knowledge likely to be gained
from these projects.
Regulatory sphere: In emissions trading systems,
able to work with vendors to construct and operate the
of CCS technologies depends
CCS-derived credits will need to be equivalent to other
CCS aspects of their plants.
Increase our understanding of the role of bio-
upon them becoming accepted,
emissions offsets, including their ability to be banked
mass-ﬁred CCS energy systems in addressing
and traded.
trusted, economic and ordinary
CCS Systems Will Be Ordinary
climate change. Developing a better understand-
ing of the potential synergies and costs associated
Economic sphere: CCS technologies must be eco-
Social and political spheres: CCS installations
with integrated biomass energy systems that cap-
technologies.
nomically competitive with other strategies for meeting
must draw no more attention than any other large-
ture and store their CO in deep geologic formations
corporate emissions reduction targets, including suit-
2
scale emission abatement installation.
is important, as the combination of these two tech-
ability for use with the corporate business models and
nologies potentially holds the key to one of the few
industry-speciﬁc market circumstances such as regional
Technical sphere: CCS-enabled power plants, hydro-
ways to remove CO that has already been emitted
power production.
2
gen production facilities, and steel mills must safely oper-
to the atmosphere.
ate around the clock at hundreds or thousands of facilities
Corporate sphere: Companies will need to understand
in the United States and thousands or tens of thousands
CCS technologies and the likely future regulatory envi-
of facilities globally. There will need to be standardized
ronment well enough to see a prospective CCS-enabled
parts, a cadre of trained professionals, established rules
unit as being proﬁtable over a signiﬁcant period of its
and regulations, and codiﬁed industry best practices that
operational lifetime, thus justifying the investment
enable and support this large-scale deployment.
and acceptance of any risk.
Economic and regulatory spheres: Liability stem-
ming from CCS operations must be reasonably deﬁned
and bounded. There must be general agreement that
the risk of not addressing climate change outweighs the
risk of deploying and operating CCS-enabled systems.
54
Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward
Section 4
55

R&D Needs for CO Capture
Increase our understanding of the behavior
Craft a strategy for remediating CO that does
2
2
of CO in the subsurface. Improved and widely
not remain in the target formation. Remediation
2
Continually improve capture technologies—not
accepted reservoir models are needed to help examine
options must be identiﬁed and prescribed for deal-
only in terms of cost, energy penalty, and efﬁciency,
commercial-scale CO storage scenarios and help pre-
ing with CO that moves out of its target injection
2
2
but also in the percentage of the CO stream that is
The next decade represents
2
dict CO movement through deep geologic formations.
formation and that presents a sufﬁcient concern to
2
effectively captured. This effort to improve capture
warrant remedial steps. What works for one sce-
a critical window with which
technologies should be seen as a process and not as
Improve the resolution of data on candidate
nario might not necessarily be applicable to another
something that has a speciﬁc endpoint (i.e., the goal
geologic reservoirs. Much of the data on CO stor-
scenario, implying a need to understand the suite of
to amass needed operational
2
is not to reduce capture costs to some predeﬁned
age reservoirs and their potential capacities effec-
remediation options available and the circumstances
level and then abandon this area of research). If
tively treat very large geologic formations as if they
under which each would be used.
experience with CCS technolo-
the efﬁciency of capture systems is not continually
were uniform across an entire basin. We know this
advanced, then the options are limited for address-
is not the case. More detailed data at a ﬁner scale
gies in real-world conditions.
ing climate change and ensuring that economies
of resolution would likely provide a more detailed
R&D Needs for Measurement,
can continue to draw upon a diverse set of energy
and precise CO supply cost curve, and would allow
2
resources and technologies.
Monitoring, and Veriﬁcation of Stored CO
us to understand the heterogeneities that will likely
2
impact the deployment of CCS.
Continue to develop new MMV technologies. Off-
Tune capture technologies to speciﬁc industrial
the-shelf MMV technologies exist that can be applied
applications—for example, in the cement industry,
Improve understanding of the production and
to ensure safe and effective storage of injected CO in
2
capture systems will need to be developed and dem-
cost dynamics of CO -driven enhanced hydrocar-
certain classes of formations and under speciﬁc cir-
about the type and locations of speciﬁc facilities. In
2
onstrated for that speciﬁc application.
bon recovery related to long-term CO storage.
cumstances. But a broader and much more advanced
addition, different MMV packages could be more or
2
Much of the analysis of CO -driven enhanced hydro-
set of MMV technologies is required to meet the
less applicable during various stages of a CCS project’s
2
carbon recovery assumes constant incremental oil
needs of a potential future large-scale deployment
lifetime. Researchers need to answer these kinds of
R&D Needs for CO Transport,
2
and natural gas recovery rates (as well as constant
of CCS systems with CO being stored in many dif-
operational questions so that more informed and holis-
2
Storage and Injection
rates of CO injection) for all years of injection into a
ferent kinds of formations and circumstances. New
tic decisions about CCS systems can be made.
2
depleted oil ﬁeld or deep coal seam. However, this is
MMV technologies need to be invented and the cost,
Survey global candidate CO reservoirs. Since
2
not the case. In practice, production response to CO
performance, and other operating characteristics
Establish a base of empirical data to facilitate
2
the availability and distribution of this CO stor-
2
injection is rarely immediate, but rather increases
of existing MMV technologies need to be improved.
the development of MMV systems and regula-
age resource directly impacts the likely evolution of
over a number of years before peaking and then
In addition to this laboratory and ﬁeld effort to cre-
tions. Field data and direct experiential knowledge
many nations’ future energy infrastructure, this is
declining. This could have a signiﬁcant impact on
ate new and better MMV technologies, prospective
will inform regulatory positions and attitudes about
a near-term, high-priority task. This is particularly
the true costs of CO storage options based on CO -
industrial users and regulators also need to create
reasonable leakage rates from deep geologic CO
2
2
crucial in rapidly developing nations such as China
2
driven enhanced hydrocarbon recovery.
a shared vision of what it means in practice to mea-
storage formations across a wide variety of forma-
and India. Helping developing nations site their
sure, monitor, and verify CO that has been injected
tion classes and scenarios. These data will directly
2
new generation capacity while giving forethought to
Create innovative and cost-effective CO trans-
into the deep subsurface.
impact regulations that will drive how MMV sys-
2
potential future deployment of CCS will allow them
port and injection strategies. These strategies are
tems are deployed in practice.
to avoid stranding those assets should CCS deploy-
necessary to create systems for allowing CCS deploy-
Begin to evolve a better understanding of tailored
ment become a reality.
ment in the widest set of possible circumstances. The
site-speciﬁc MMV systems that could be deployed
potential deployment of CCS technologies is so large
to meet the needs of CCS-enabled facilities. Poten-
that we will not have the luxury of selecting only the
tial users of CCS systems will require a system-level
most ideal locations for CO storage. For example,
description of packaged MMV systems and how they
2
advances in the ability to link smaller storage ﬁelds
would deploy under a set of real-world scenarios. For
would help tailor EOR- and ECBM-based storage
example, what conﬁguration of which set of technolo-
strategies to the needs of large CCS-enabled power
gies would be most appropriate for a 1,000 MW coal
plants, which will require massive amounts of storage
plant contemplating CO storage in a deep saline for-
2
capacity. Technologies for drilling horizontal wells or
mation 1,000 meters below the surface and with an
for injecting into two or more vertically stacked res-
average thickness of 100 meters? MMV systems can
ervoirs would help improve the overall economics of
then be brought into a larger decision framework
CO storage by reducing the costs of required capital,
2
driving down the per-ton cost of storage.
56
Future Scale of CCS Deployment and the Path Forward
Section 4
57

APPENDIX 1 Acronyms and Abbreviations

bbl
Barrel, as in barrels of oil

MMV Measurement,
Monitoring
and
Veriﬁcation

CCS
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

MtCO 106 tons (a megaton) of CO = million tons
2
2

of
CO

CO Carbon
Dioxide
2
2

MW Megawatt

CT Combustion
Turbine

NGCC
Natural Gas Combined Cycle power plant

DSF
Deep Saline Formation
NGCC+CCS
Natural Gas Combined Cycle power plant

ECAR
East Central Area Reliability
that also includes all of the necessary

Coordination
Agreement
systems needed for Carbon Dioxide Cap-

ECBM
Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery
ture and Storage

EOR
Enhanced Oil Recovery

NO
Nitrogen Oxides (formed during
x

ERCOT
Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.

the combustion of fossil fuels)

ft bgs
Feet Below Ground Surface,

O&M Operating
and
Maintenance

a measure of depth

PC
Pulverized Coal power plant

GHG Greenhouse
Gas

ppm
Parts Per Million

GtCO 109 tons (a gigaton) of CO = 1015 grams of
2
2

psi
Pounds per square inch

CO (a petagram) = billion tons of CO
2
2

SCADA Supervisory
Control
and

GTSP
Global Energy Technology Strategy Program

Data
Acquisition
System

IGCC
Integrated Gasiﬁcation Combined Cycle

SERC
Southeastern Electric Reliability Council, Inc.

power
plant

SO
Sulfur Dioxide (formed during
2
IGCC+CCS
An Integrated Gasiﬁcation Combined Cycle

the combustion of fossil fuels)
power plant that also includes

tCO Ton
of
CO
all of the necessary systems needed for
2
2
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
UNFCCC United
Nations
Framework
Convention

on
Climate
Change

U.S.
United States of America
59

APPENDIX 2 Notes and References
The cover photos were taken by JJ Dooley during the
This report makes frequent use of a very large measure
spring of 2003 at the site of the Ohio River CO Stor-
of mass known as a “gigaton.” A gigaton of CO (GtCO )
2
2
2
age Project. This Battelle-led ﬁeld research project—
is a standard measure for scientists and policy makers
sponsored by the United States Department of Energy
familiar with carbon management, yet for other audi-
(DOE), American Electric Power (AEP), BP, Ohio Coal
ences the magnitude of this unit is sometimes hard to
Development Ofﬁce, Schlumberger, Battelle, and Paciﬁc
comprehend. A gigaton is approximately equal to 77
Northwest National Laboratory—was the world’s ﬁrst
Empire State Buildings if they were made completely
geologic CO storage assessment conducted at a modern
of lead, 10,718 aircraft carriers the size of the USS
2
operational coal-ﬁred power plant, AEP’s Mountaineer
Enterprise, or all of the iron ore annually mined in the
power plant. This project was designed to understand
world. For more examples of how massive a gigaton is
the CO storage potential at this power plant and in the
please consult C.L. Davidson and J.J. Dooley, “A Giga-
2
greater Ohio River Valley Region, which contains one
ton Is…,” PNWD-3299 (College Park, MD: Joint Global
of the world’s largest concentrations of large CO point
Change Research Institute, Battelle Paciﬁ c Northwest
2
sources that could be candidates for adopting CCS tech-
Division, July 2003).
nologies in the future. Project participants completed a
9,108 ft. exploratory well, and in 2006 the data from this
Section 1 notes: As of early 2006, 189 nations, includ-
well are being used to conduct reservoir modeling and
ing the United States, have ratiﬁed the 1992 United
risk assessment, and to prepare designs and plans for a
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
potential ﬁeld-scale injection and monitoring project. To
(UNFCCC), which states as its goal, “stabilization of
learn more about the research conducted through this
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at
project, see N. Gupta and J.J. Dooley, “The Ohio River
a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
Valley Storage Project,” Greenhouse Issues, no. 77 (Chel-
interference with the climate system.” (For more
tenham, UK: International Energy Agency Greenhouse
information on the UNFCCC, please see http://unfccc.
Gas R&D Programme [IEA GHG], March 2005).
int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php).
While there is general agreement that stabilization of
This report adopts the conventions of the CCS techni-
greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations is the best way
cal community which expresses values in U.S. dollars
to frame decisions about addressing climate change,
per ton of CO ($/tCO ) and in millions of tons of CO
there is no scientiﬁc consensus yet regarding the ideal
2
2
2
(MtCO ) or billions of tons of CO (GtCO ). Cost data
levels of atmospheric concentrations or the potential
2
2
2
can be converted to dollars per ton of carbon ($/tC) by
impacts associated with higher concentrations. CO is
2
multiplying by 3.644 and mass data can be converted
the most important GHG in terms of its contribution to
to the carbon (C) based units of the climate change
climate change. At the beginning of the Industrial Rev-
technical community by dividing the mass expressed
olution concentrations of CO in the atmosphere were
2
in CO -based units by 3.664.
approximately 270 parts per million (ppm). Currently,
2
CO concentrations are around 370 ppm and rising.
2
Whether the appropriate stabilization level is as low
as 450 ppm or as high as 750 ppm, the goal of sta-
bilization carries with it requirements to produce and
sustain deep reductions in GHG emissions over the
61

course of this century. See, for example, T.M.L. Wigley,
• C.L. Davidson, H.T. Schaef and R.T. Dahowski, “A
Sandstone, a potential storage reservoir at a depth of
geologic feature known as the Rome Trough in West
R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds, “Economic and Environ-
First-Order Assessment of CO Storage Capacity
7771 ft. with a moderate amount of pore space. The
Virginia. The survey shows a deep normal fault
2
mental Choices in the Stabilization of Atmospheric CO
bottom image is of a porous interval of the Rose Run
through the Rome Trough structure, where sedimen-
2
in U.S. Basalt Formations,” in Proceedings of the
Concentrations,” Nature 379, 6562 (1996): 240-243.
Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture and
Sandstone at a depth of 7763.5 ft, that is considered an
tary rock formations thicken to over 15,000 ft deep in
Sequestration (Alexandria, VA: May 2-5, 2005) (also
excellent candidate for CO storage. Details of the geol-
the Appalachian Basin.
2
Because the trapping mechanisms are different in
available as PNNL-SA-45124, Paciﬁ c Northwest
ogy at this site can be found in N. Gupta, P. Jagucki,
coal-based CO storage projects, CO is not necessarily
J. Sminchak, D. Meggyesy, F. Spane, R.S. Ramakrish-
Section 2 notes: The worldwide regional estimates of
2
2
National Laboratory, Richland, WA).
injected as a supercritical ﬂuid, which means that the
nan and A. Boyd, “Determining Carbon Sequestration
CO storage capacity presented here are taken from a
2
pressure, temperature, and depth criteria listed here
Deﬁnitions of the principal trapping mechanisms asso-
Reservoir Potential at a Site-Speciﬁ c Location with the
recent GTSP-supported review of the published litera-
do not necessarily apply for coal-based CO storage
Ohio River Valley Region,” in Greenhouse Gas Control
ture. We see these estimates as a ﬁrst-order global CO
2
ciated with deep geologic CO storage:
2
2
projects. However, these criteria can still serve as use-
Technologies, Volume I, eds. E.S. Rubin, D.W. Keith
storage capacity assessment and expect that as more
ful guidelines for coal-based CO storage.
and C.F. Gilboy (Elsevier Science, 2005).
ﬁeld research is conducted the precision of these estimates
2
• Hydrodynamic trapping: involves free-phase CO 2
being trapped beneath a caprock which has low per-
will improve. See Dooley and Friedman, “A Regionally
The schematic of various candidate CO storage forma-
The schematic diagram depicting the geology and
Disaggregated Global Accounting.”
2
meability—that is, the CO cannot ﬂow through the
2
tions has been used with permission from Dr. Peter Cook,
caprock, so it remains in place.
test well design is from the AEP-1 deep well drilled
Chief Executive of the Australian Cooperative Research
at AEP’s Mountaineer Plant during 2003 (see the
The focus for the analysis is on sources that emit at
Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC).
• Dissolution trapping: occurs when the CO dissolves
ﬁrst note in this appendix). The schematic shows the
least 100,000 tons of CO per year (100 ktCO /yr),
2
2
2
into the formation ﬂuids (oil, gas, and saline water).
major geologic layers, including caprocks and poten-
which represents a minimum size threshold below
The theoretical CO storage capacities presented for
tial injection zones, observed in the well. It also shows
which it is unlikely that the signiﬁcant capital invest-
2
the world and the United States represent ﬁrst-order
• Mineralization-based trapping: When this dissolved
the completion of the well down to a depth of 6285 ft
ments needed to employ CO capture technologies
2
estimates based on available data. These estimates will
CO reacts with minerals in the rock, other solutes
using multiple carbon steel casings and a combination
would prove to be economic.
2
likely evolve over time as more research and a more
in the formation ﬂuids, or the formation ﬂuids them-
of regular and CO -resistent cements. As of early 2006,
2
thorough and consistent methodology is applied glob-
selves, it sometimes forms stable minerals called
the bottom 2800 ft. of this well are currently without
A much more detailed analysis of CO storage capacity
2
ally. The methodology and subsequent analyses that
carbonates in a process called mineralization. This is
casing. This additional casing, injection tubing, and
requirements and availability for various countries can
led to these ﬁrst-order geologic CO storage capacity
related equipment will be installed once a ﬁnal deci-
be found in J.A. Edmonds, J.J. Dooley, S.H. Kim, S.J.
2
the most permanent form of trapping, since the CO
2
estimates can be found in the following publications:
has been chemically incorporated into nonreactive
sion to proceed with an injection and monitoring phase
Friedman and M.A. Wise, “Technology in an Integrated
minerals, and can no longer enter the atmosphere
is undertaken. Details of site assessment can be found
Assessment Model: the Potential Regional Deploy-
• J.J. Dooley, S.H. Kim, J.A. Edmonds, S.J. Friedman
without undoing those chemical reactions.
in Gupta et al., “Determining Carbon Sequestration.”
ment of Carbon Capture and Storage in the Context of
and M.A. Wise, “A First-Order Global Geologic CO
Global CO Stabilization,” in Human-Induced Climate
2
2
Storage Potential Supply Curve and Its Application in
• Chemical adsorption in coals: The matrixed surface
For more on the screening analysis for CCS infra-
Change: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Cambridge:
a Global Integrated Assessment Model,” in Greenhouse
of coals is often covered with methane molecules,
structure seismic risk, please see C.L. Davidson, R.T.
Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Gas Control Technologies, Volume I, eds. E.S. Rubin,
and because the chemical bonds holding the meth-
Dahowski and K.P. Saripalli, “Tectonic Seismicity
D.W. Keith and C.F. Gilboy (Elsevier Science, 2005).
ane onto the coal would prefer to have CO instead
and the Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Geologic For-
Much of the data here on large CO point sources
2
2
of methane, the presence of CO causes the methane
mations,” in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies,
and candidate geologic storage formations within the
2
• J.J. Dooley and S.J. Friedman, “A Regionally Disag-
to be swapped out for the carbon dioxide molecules.
Volume II, eds. M. Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale and K.
United States comes from a report that was coauthored
gregated Global Accounting of CO Storage Capac-
Thambimuthu (Elsevier Science, 2005).
with colleagues at other institutions and supported by
2
The degree to which CO is preferentially adsorbed
2
ity: Data and Assumptions,” PNWD-3431 (College
onto the surface of the coal can vary, with some coals
the International Energy Agency’s Greenhouse Gas
Park, MD: Joint Global Change Research Institute,
accepting several more CO molecules for each meth-
Our most recent published work focusing on the economic
R&D Programme. Please see Dahowski, et al., “Build-
2
Battelle Paciﬁ c Northwest Division, May 2004).
ane molecule released.
considerations of leakage can be found in J.J. Dooley and
ing the Cost Curves.” Modiﬁcations made to the data
M.A. Wise, “Potential Leakage from Geologic Sequestra-
following publication of the report include signiﬁcantly
• R.T. Dahowski, J.J. Dooley, C.L. Davidson, S. Bachu
The three pictures showing microscopic thin sections of
tion Formations: Allowable Levels, Economic Consider-
reducing the estimated CO emissions for all U.S. gas
2
and N. Gupta, Building the Cost Curves for CO
rock core samples are taken from the AEP-1 deep well
ations, and the Implications for Sequestration R&D,”
processing plants (based on indications that initial
2
Storage: North American, Technical Report 2005/3
drilled at AEP’s Mountaineer Plant during 2003 (see
in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
estimates were highly overstated) and halving the esti-
(Cheltenham, UK: IEA GHG, 2005).
the ﬁrst note in this appendix). The images illustrate
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, eds. J. Gale and
mated storage capacity potential in U.S. deep unmine-
the nature of caprocks and storage reservoirs. Visible
Y. Kaya (Amsterdam: Pergamon, 2003).
able coal seams as previous estimates appeared to be
pore space in the rock thin sections is shown in blue.
far too optimistic, given the state of development of
The top photo shows the Well Creek Shale, an imper-
The example of a seismic survey showing deep-seated
coal seam storage and CO -ECBM recovery. The esti-
2
meable caprock with essentially no pore space, at a
faulting in geologic formations has been provided by
mates of the CO storage capacity of North American
2
depth of 7125 ft. The middle photo is of the Rose Run
Mr. William Rike, Consulting Geologist, Galloway,
deep basalt formations can be found in Davidson et al.,
Ohio, and is taken from a survey in the subsurface
“A First-Order Assessment.”
62
63

The data on the global distribution of CO point sources
The net cost of employing CCS within the United States
is estimated based on individual recovery rates for
2
• R.T. Dahowski and J.J. Dooley, “Carbon Management
includes the modiﬁcations noted above for U.S. natural
each formation (in barrels of oil or cubic feet of meth-
Strategies for U.S. Electricity Generation Capacity:
was computed by employing the source-reservoir pair-
gas processing facilities and is primarily based upon
ane recovered per ton of injected CO ), along with
a Vintage-Based Approach,” Energy 29, 9-10 (2004):
ing method presented in Dahowski et al., “Building
2
Dahowski et al., “Building the Cost Curves” as well as
the value of the recovered oil or gas.
1589-1598.
the Cost Curves.” A series of pairwise cost calculations
periodic updates to the following dataset: International
was used to determine the levelized cost per ton of CO
2
Energy Agency’s Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
• R.T. Dahowski, J.J. Dooley, C.L. Davidson and N.
capture, transport, and storage into geologic storage
• Summing each of these resulting cost components
2002, Building the Cost Curves for CO Storage, Part
formations for existing large, stationary point sources
and subtracting the value of any recovered oil or gas
2
Mahasenan, “Regional Differences in Carbon Diox-
1: Sources Of CO , Report Number PH4/9. Note that
of CO . The crucial component of this analysis involves
arrives at a total net CCS cost, which is then level-
2
ide Capture and Storage Markets within the United
2
similar adjustments to the non-U.S. gas processing
ized by applying an appropriate ﬁxed charge rate for
States,” in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies,
calculating pairwise solutions matching each source
CO emissions estimates were not made and there-
with its lowest cost, globally optimized storage option
the project. Because each storage formation contains
2
Volume II, eds. M. Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale and K.
fore the estimates shown here for other regions of the
a ﬁnite amount of potential lifetime storage capac-
Thambimuthu (Elsevier Science, 2005).
(i.e., ﬁnding the best option taking the entire system
world reﬂect higher than likely global emissions from
into account). Cost curves were computed by solving
ity, issues of reservoir ﬁlling and competition for
this sector.
low-cost storage are also explicitly accounted for.
• J.J. Dooley, R.T. Dahowski, C.L. Davidson and M.A.
for the best option for each stationary source subject to
Wise, “CO Transport and Storage Costs and their
a set of constraints, as follows:
2
Section 3 notes: More detailed information on our
Section 4 notes: The rationale for the particular
Impact on the U.S. Electric Utility Industry’s Car-
research into the cost of CO capture for various power
accounting of the CCS ﬁeld demonstration projects
2
bon Management Investment Decisions,” presented
• First, due to the close proximity of the large majority
plants and industrial facilities can be found in:
presented here is largely based upon our assessment
at EPRI’s Ninth Annual Global Climate Change
of CO point sources in the United States to candi-
2
of whether the project’s primary motivation was the
Research Seminar (Washington, DC: June 2, 2004),
date storage reservoirs, a maximum 100-mile search
application of CO storage technologies as a means
• N. Mahasenan and D.R. Brown, “Beyond the Big Pic-
also available as Report No. PNWD-SA-6513, Joint
radius was imposed, such that each source was able
2
of addressing climate change. It is for this reason
ture: Characterization of CO -Laden Streams and
to consider selecting any potential storage reservoirs
2
Global Change Research Institute, Battelle Paciﬁ c
alone that many commercial CO -driven enhanced oil
Implications for Capture Technologies,” in Green-
Northwest Division, College Park, MD).
within a distance of 100 miles. This resulted in a set
2
recovery projects such as those in West Texas are not
house Gas Control Technologies, Volume II, eds. M.
of CO storage options for each source for which the
2
listed. While these commercial projects might confer
Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale and K. Thambimuthu
As noted in the body of the report, our work strongly
net costs were determined by summing individual
some incidental climate mitigation beneﬁt, that is not
(Elsevier Science, 2005).
suggests that in an area like North America, which
capital and operating costs for capture, compression,
the primary motivation for these commercial efforts.
has a very large and widely distributed CO storage
dehydration, pipeline transport, and storage, includ-
2
Interested readers can consult C.L. Davidson and J.J.
• N. Mahasenan, R.T. Dahowski and C.L. Davidson,
resource base, over the course of this century the long-
ing injection, infrastructure, and measurement,
Dooley, “The State of CO Capture and Storage Field
“The Role of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
term average cost of CO transport and storage should
monitoring, and veriﬁcation, less any revenue that
2
2
Experimentation and Deployment: Summer 2005,”
in Reducing Emissions from Cement Plants in North
stay below the level of approximately $12–$15/tCO .
might be generated by recovery of incremental oil or
2
PNNL-15296 (College Park, MD: Joint Global Change
America,” in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies,
Some projects will surely experience higher transport
coalbed methane as a result of CO injection.
2
Research Institute, Paciﬁ c Northwest National Labo-
Volume I, eds. E.S. Rubin, D.W. Keith and C.F. Gilboy
and storage costs than this and others will undoubt-
ratory, August 2005). The projections of possible global
(Elsevier Science, 2005).
edly face lower costs. But this $12–15/tCO represents
• Costs for capture, compression, and dehydration
2
and U.S. cumulative CO storage volumes are taken
a realistic estimate of the upper bound on transport
were estimated based on key parameters such as
2
Our research on the need to improve the efﬁ ciency of
from J.J. Dooley, C.L. Davidson, M.A. Wise and R.T.
and storage costs that most ﬁrms will likely face.
type of plant, CO emissions rate, and purity of the
2
CO capture can be found in M.A. Wise and J.J. Dooley,
Dahowksi, “Accelerated Adoption of Carbon Dioxide
produced CO .
2
2
“Modeling CO Capture Efﬁ ciency: Implications of
Capture and Storage within the United States Electric
2
An estimate of the cost of measurement, monitor-
Alternative Speciﬁ cations,” PNWD-3429 (College
Utility Industry: the Impact of Stabilizing at 450 ppmv
ing and veriﬁcation of CO that has been stored in
• Transport costs are based on the distance between
2
Park, MD: Joint Global Change Research Institute,
and 550 ppmv,” in Greenhouse Gas Control Technolo-
deep geologic formations can be found in our report
each source and candidate storage reservoir and
Battelle Paciﬁ c Northwest Division, May 2004).
gies, Volume I, eds. E.S. Rubin, D.W. Keith and C.F.
L. Smith, N. Gupta, B. Sass and T. Bubenik, Carbon
adjustments for differences in terrain and routing
Gilboy (Elsevier Science, 2005).
Dioxide Sequestration in Saline Formations—Engi-
requirements.
Key publications examining the cost of CO transport
2
neering and Economic Assessment, Final Technical
and storage, including the possible value from enhanced
The impact that the economics of electricity dispatch
Report, prepared for DOE’s National Energy Technol-
• Storage costs vary for each individual reservoir
CO -driven hydrocarbon recovery are Dahowski et al.,
might have on the deployment of CCS systems within
and are based on a number of different param-
2
ogy Laboratory, Contract No. DE-AC26-98FT40418.
“Building the Cost Curves,” and the following:
the electric power sector and within speciﬁc regions
eters including type of reservoir, depth, and injec-
of the United States is a rapidly evolving focus of our
tivity. For depleted oil ﬁelds that appear favorable
research. Further explanation regarding the electric-
for enhanced oil recovery, or coal seams expected
ity dispatch modeling follows, along with a list of our
to release methane as a result of CO injection, the
2
initial publications in this area.
revenue associated with the hydrocarbon recovery
64
65

• The speciﬁc policy modeled here assumes a carbon
coal plants, even in the face of a carbon policy such
GTSP PHASE 2 SPONSORS In alphabetical order
tax that begins in 2015 at $12/tCO and increases
as this. As the carbon permit prices start to escalate,
2
at a real, inﬂation-adjusted rate of 2.5% per year,
many older natural gas and oil steam plants begin to
reaching $25/tCO in 2045. This carbon tax is applied
retire. IGCC+CCS only starts to deploy in earnest in
2
uniformly across the three regions and results in
this scenario in the 2025–2035 period as the carbon
electric utility CO emissions in 2045 approximately
permit prices begin to escalate further. The large-
2
equal to 2005 levels.
scale adoption of natural-gas-ﬁred combined cycle
• The Battelle Memorial Institute
power plants with CCS (NGCC+CCS) would require
• Investment in new nuclear and renewable power
higher carbon permit prices than assumed in this
• California Energy Commission
generation is difﬁcult to model based purely on opti-
scenario. Assumed coal prices are slightly higher
mal investment economics, as decisions to invest
than those in 2005 and oil prices are assumed to
• Electric Power Research Institute, Global Climate Research Area
in these systems often include a signiﬁcant aspect
stay at approximately $40/bbl or above during the
of non-economic consideration (e.g., government
entire period (AEO 2005 High Case B).
• Electric Power Research Institute, Nuclear Sector
policies, environmental concerns, or social consider-
ations such as public acceptability) that affect their
• In building region-speciﬁc CO storage supply curves,
2
• Gas Research Institute
deployment. Therefore we have adopted what we
we have sought to account for the fact that some
believe to be aggressive but realistic deployments
facilities with higher-purity CO streams (hence,
2
• General Motors Corporation
for nuclear and renewable energy technologies and
with lower-cost options for CO capture, e.g., natu-
2
assume explicitly that these critical technologies will
ral gas processing facilities, ammonia plants) exist
• Kansai Electric Power
play major roles in responding to a CO emissions
in these regions and may likely begin capturing and
2
policy. Speciﬁcally for this study, we assume that
storing their CO at an earlier date when carbon
2
• National Energy Technology Laboratory
nuclear growth is sufﬁcient to maintain its share of
permit prices are still relatively low. By deploying
total capacity in each region starting in 2015. Expan-
earlier, these lower-cost CO capture facilities would
2
• National Institute for Environmental Studies (Japan)
sion of renewables is sufﬁcient to reach a minimum
tend to reduce the amount of EOR and ECBM-based
of 10% of regional capacity by 2045 or to maintain
CO storage options that new CCS-enabled power
2
• Paciﬁc Northwest National Laboratory
its current share if higher. Different expansion rates
plants are able to access when they begin captur-
for nuclear and renewables would certainly alter the
ing CO . For the three regions modeled here, this
2
• Rio Tinto
CO emissions paths, but the decision to invest in
reduction in the amount of value-added CO storage
2
2
CCS for fossil power would still be based on the rela-
capacity available for the electric utility industry is
• The U.S. Department of Energy Ofﬁce of Science
tive economics of the technology and emissions price
most pronounced in the ERCOT region.
and would be relatively unaffected.
Readers who are interested in the core methodologies
• Fuel prices (gas, oil, and coal) for the period up to
and tools used to perform this electric utility dispatch
2025 were taken from EIA AEO 2005 (U.S. Depart-
modeling should consult Dooley et al., “Accelerated
ment of Energy, Energy Information Agency, Annual
Adoption”; and Dahowski et al., “Regional Differences.”
Energy Outlook 2005 with Projections to 2025,
DOE/EIA-0383, 2005, January 2005). Fuel prices
Although they were not explicitly addressed in this
for 2025–2045 were extrapolated from the EIA AEO
report, we have looked at public attitudes regarding
2005 data covering the period up to 2025. In this sce-
CCS deployment. The overwhelming conclusion from
nario, natural gas prices stay above $5/mmBtu for
this work is that the public knows little about CCS and
much of the period and increase steadily beyond $6/
therefore there is an opportunity to positively shape
mmBtu by 2015 (AEO 2005 Restricted Natural Gas
public opinion about the need for and beneﬁts of the
Supply Case). The assumed natural gas prices—
possible large-scale deployment of CCS technologies.
while lower than recent peak spot prices—are much
Readers interested in learning more may consult J.A.
higher than the average gas price of the past decade
Bradbury and J.J. Dooley, “Who’s Talking? What Are
and are sufﬁciently high that the economic choice
the Issues? The Media’s Portrayal of Carbon Dioxide
for many electric generation regions is to build new
Capture and Sequestration in the United States,” in
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume II, eds.
M. Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale and K. Thambimuthu
(Elsevier Science, 2005).
66
67

.thedesignfarm.com
creative | www

Battelle, Joint Global Change Research Institute
8400 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201
College Park, MD 20740 USA
www.battelle.org/gtsp