Carbon Capture

Utilization and Storage

Towards Net-Zero

2021
Compiled by the Kearney Energy Transition Institute
Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage

Acknowledgements
The Kearney Energy Transition Institute wishes to acknowledge the following people for their review of this FactBook:
Kamel Bennaceur, CEO at Nomadia Energy Consulting, Former Director of Sustainable Energy Policies and Technologies
at IEA, former Minister of Industry, Energy and Mines of Tunisia; as well as Dr. Adnan Shihab-Eldin, Claude Mandil, Antoine
Rostand, and Richard Forrest, members of the board for the Kearney Energy Transition Institute.
Their review does not imply that they endorse this FactBook or agree with any specific statements herein.
About the FactBook: Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage
This FactBook seeks to provide an overview of the latest changes in the carbon capture, utilization and storage landscape.
It summarizes the main research and development priorities in carbon capture, utilisation and storage, analyses the
policies, technologies and economics and presents the status and future of large-scale integrated projects.
About the Kearney Energy Transition Institute
The Kearney Energy Transition Institute is a non-profit organization that provides leading insights on global trends in
energy transition, technologies, and strategic implications for private-sector businesses and public-sector institutions. The
Institute is dedicated to combining objective technological insights with economical perspectives to define the
consequences and opportunities for decision-makers in a rapidly changing energy landscape. The independence of the
Institute fosters unbiased primary insights and the ability to co-create new ideas with interested sponsors and relevant
stakeholders.
Authors
Romain Debarre, Prashant Gahlot, Céleste Grillet and Mathieu Plaisant

2
 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
1. The need for CCUS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
1.1 Order of magnitude .………………………………………………………………………………………………………..................... 12
1.2 Global CO2 emissions and carbon budget .……………………………………………………………………………...................... 13
1.2 CCUS scenarios and sectoral applications……………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
1.3 Main obstacles………………………...………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
2. Value chain and key technologies ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
2.1 Value chain overview………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24
2.2 Separation technologies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 25
2.3 Capture technologies ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29
2.4 Transport technologies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 37
2.5 Storage and Utilization technologies …………………………………………………………………………………...................... 39
3. Global overview of CCUS development …………………………………………………………………………………........................ 44
3.1 Global perspective…………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45
3.2 Geographic focus …………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48
4. Outlook of Carbon Capture development per sector …….…………………………………………………………………………….. 53
4.1 Sectoral overview…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..54
4.2 Natural gas processing………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
4.3 Power generation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 62
4.4 Cement and steel…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 74
4.5 Other sectors (chemicals, refining, blue hydrogen, marine vessels)………………………...............……….................................85
5. Outlook of Carbon Utilization and Storage……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 99
5.1 Global Storage capacity…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 100
5.2 Global Utilization perspectives…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 102
5.3 Sectoral overview (Oil & Gas, Chemicals, Clusters / Hubs, circular carbon economy)…………………………………………... 104
6. Economics, Policies and Regulations……..…………………….………………………………………………………………………... 116
6.1 Cancelled projects…….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 117
6.2 CCUS costs………………………………………………………………………………………………………………........................ 118
6.2 Business models…….…………………………………………………………………………………………...………………………. 128
6.3 Policies and regulations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 130
6.4 Public acceptance …….…………………………………………………………………………………………...…………………….. 140
7. Financing and key players……………………………………………………………….…....................................................................143
7.1 Financing…………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 144
7.2 Key players…………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 149
Appendix & bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 150

3
 Definition of Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage, or CCUS
Every energy CCUS, is an emissions reduction technology that can be applied across the energy system. CCUS technologies involve the
transition scenario capture of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fuel combustion or industrial processes, the transport of this CO 2 via ship or pipeline,
and either its use as a resource to create valuable products or services or its permanent storage deep underground in
requires CCUS to geological formations. CCUS technologies also provide the foundation for carbon removal or "negative emissions" when the
CO2 comes from bio-based processes or directly from the atmosphere. (IEA 2021)
achieve
climate-change CO2 atmospheric concentration has reached unprecedented levels
Between 1970 and 2000, total CO2 emissions rose by +0.3 GtCO2 per year and accelerated from 2000 to +0.7 GtCO2 per
targets year, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to a record high of 418 ppm in May 2021. This rise is mostly the result of
fossil-fuel consumption in heating/cooling, power generation, transport and industry. At current emission levels, the
remaining carbon budget corresponding to the +1.5°C target could be exhausted by 2030.

CCUS development is not on track to meet IPCC and IEA climate-change scenario targets
CCUS is needed to achieve the goal of net-zero emissions, according to the IPCC and the IEA. The global capture
capacity was about 50 MtCO2 per year in 2020. The ongoing pipeline of projects forecasts about 220 MtCO2 per year of
global capture capacity in 2030, a huge gap compared with the 800 MtCO 2 per year target of the IEA’s sustainable
development scenario (SDS).

CCUS could help decarbonize sectors that are responsible for more than 45 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions
CCUS is a key technology to decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors with few other decarbonization options, such as the cement,
The need for CCUS iron and steel, and chemicals industries. CCUS is expected to be developed for multiple industries and mainly combined with
storage solutions. Some technology solutions are being tested for marine vessels but have limited use in transportation
(pages 11–22) overall.
Fuel transformation should be the fastest CCUS adopter with more than 80% of CO2 emissions projected to be captured
by 2030. The cement industry has only recently started using CCUS technology and but is projected to scale up over the
next 10 years to capture almost 50% of all CO2 emissions created during the production process. Therefore, CCUS appears
to be among the most impactful solutions for reducing emissions from cement production. It is also emerging as the most
cost-effective approach in many regions to curb emissions in iron and steel and chemicals manufacturing.
By 2050, CCUS could represent more than 25% of the emission reduction for iron and steel and more than 60% for cement,
according to the IEA. The industry will remain the first for captured carbon emissions, bioenergy with carbon capture and
storage (BECCS) is expected to grow as a negative emission solution and will represent more than 20% of the captured CO 2
by 2070. Overall, the captured CO2 would most likely be stored rather than reused.

Executive summary The development of CCUS is generally perceived to be challenging because of four main obstacles
Unfavourable economics for industries, a challenging scale-up, the regulation gap, and the lack of public support are the
4 major obstacles for the development of CCUS.
 CCUS refers to a set of CO2 capture, transport, utilization, and storage technologies combined to abate CO2
The CCUS value emissions. CO2 is generally captured from large and stationary emissions sources (power or industrial plants), transported
chain includes three in a gaseous or liquefied state by pipelines or ships and stored in geological formations or reused to promote carbon
circularity.
main steps: carbon
The CO2 capture mainly consists of separating CO2 molecules from flue gases and relies on three technologies:
capture, carbon – Absorption and adsorption of the CO2 by a liquid carrier (solvent) or solid carrier (sorbent) and regeneration of the liquid
transport, and or solid by increasing the temperature or reducing the pressure
– Membranes (metallic, polymeric, or ceramic material) for gas separation, not suitable for post-combustion, most suitable
carbon storage or for high pressure and high CO2 concentration
– Cryogenic method using low temperature to liquefy and separate CO2 from other gases
utilization
Adsorption and absorption capture is the dominant technology, but membranes and cryogenic capture have great potential.

Four capture technologies occur at different steps of the combustion value chain:
– Post-combustion. CO2 is separated from flue gas after combustion with air and can be retrofitted to power and heavy
industrial plants with relatively high costs and energy penalty. This technology is the most broadly used outside oil and
gas.
– Oxy-combustion. Fuel is combusted in pure oxygen instead of air, producing a concentrated CO 2 stream in the flue gas,
which is almost ready to be transported. Oxy-combustion could be retrofitted to existing plants, though with significant
redesign.
Value chain and key – Pre-combustion. A hydrocarbon fuel source—coal, gas, or biomass – is gasified into shifted syngas (H2/CO2 mix), from
technologies which the CO2 is separated. The H2 is then used to fuel the power plant or to produce chemicals or synthetic fuels. In
power generation, the pre-combustion process is more energy efficient than post-combustion but requires new and
expensive plant design, such as an integrated gasification combined cycle.
(pages 23–43) – Natural gas sweetening. In this mature process, CO2 is separated from raw natural gas at a gas processing plant.

Three options exist to store or reuse captured carbon:

– Passive storage includes underground geological storage in deep saline aquifers or depleted petroleum reservoirs.
Underground CO2 injection is achieved by pumping compressed CO2 in fluid phase (supercritical) down to the formation
through a well, where it remains trapped. Monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) is needed before the start (to set
the baseline), during the injection, and after closure to ensure the CO2 remains in place.
– Beneficially reused involves injecting CO2 into a petroleum reservoir for enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) or into deep
un-mineable coal seams to recover methane (CO2-ECBM). Many operational CCUS projects in conjunction with CO2-EOR
Executive summary capture CO2 from natural gas processing rather than power production.
– Industry use is used to a lesser extent for greenhouses carbon concentration, mineral carbonation, chemicals, liquid fuel,
5 or food processing.
 CCUS appeared almost 50 years ago, but the number of projects has accelerated since the mid-2000s
CCUS development CCUS projects have been slowly developing since 1972. The United States welcomed the first five projects, all dedicated to
started in the 1970s enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which consists of injecting CO2 to enhance the oil recovery of natural reservoirs. Norway has
been the first European country to develop CCUS but for a storage purpose. Indeed, the Sleipner project was the first one to
and has been capture CO2 and store it into a dedicated geological storage site in the North Sea. In 2000, seven operational projects were
located in the United States and one in Norway.
accelerating in the The development of CCUS projects accelerated post-2000, with about 60 operational projects in 2020. The development
2000s of CCUS projects continued until 2020, but this period has also been characterized by a growing number of projects
terminated or cancelled. About 60% of CCUS projects have been terminated or cancelled among the more than 150
projects and pilots developed across the globe since 1972.

In 2020, the global CCUS capacity reached about 50 Mtpa. The current pipeline of projects should triple the global
capacity in the coming years, achieving about 170 Mtpa in 2030.

So far, CCUS development mostly occurred in OECD countries

Today, about 70% of operational CCUS facilities are in OECD countries. North America owns about 50% of the
worldwide facilities. China is now the second country with about 14% of the total facilities. Even if North America is currently
the main place for CCUS, Europe and Asia are planning to accelerate the development of CCUS (about 40 projects). In
Europe, projects are mostly being developed in the United Kingdom and in Norway. Australia has one of the largest
operating storage facility (Gorgon project). Other large projects are planned to occur in Europe, mostly because of the
Global overview of CCUS greater number of new CCUS hubs that aim to gather multiple local emissions sources of CO 2 emissions.
development
The Middle East is expected to catch up, leveraging a huge geological storage potential combined with EOR possibilities.
But so far, CCUS projects in GCC countries only represent 10% of the projects in non-OECD countries, with three CCUS
(pages 44–52) projects currently in operation, including two related to natural gas processing and one related to iron and steel production,
capturing a total of 2.1 Mtpa of CO2. GCC countries have an ambitious plan for CCUS hubs to promote carbon circularity in
the region. Other emerging countries such as Brazil, India, South Korea, Taiwan, and South Africa have also launched
CCUS projects in the past few years.

Executive summary

6
 Oil and gas along with power have been leading the CCUS development
The maturity of The oil and gas sector and the power sector have been leading CCUS development and are expected to remain as such at
CCUS applications least until 2030. These two sectors represent the vast majority of CCUS projects in 2020.
varies by industries The CCUS industry has entered a new development phase (“industrialization”), which is characterized by the development of
clusters grouping multiple sources of CO2 emissions from different applications (such as blue hydrogen production as well as
cement and steel applications) and thanks to the increasing regulatory pressure on CO 2 emissions (such as carbon pricing
or net-zero targets from multiple countries and companies).

In the next decade, the number of CCUS projects is expected to increase by more than 70%, with about 120 projects in
2030. The average size of the CCUS projects is also expected to grow, moving from below 1 Mtpa of CO 2 p to 5 Mtpa of
CO2 in the next decade, essentially triggered by large blue hydrogen production projects or hubs.

Blue hydrogen, steel, and cement industries are the newcomers investing in CCUS
For high-emitting sectors such as iron and steel and cement production, CCUS is listed as one of the best possibilities to
drastically reduce CO2 emissions. CCUS has been introduced recently for small commercial or pilot projects in the iron,
steel, and cement industries. The number of heavy industry large-scale facilities is going to increase from three in 2020 to
seven in 2030. Large-scale projects such as Lafarge-Holcim Cement added to eight industrial hubs in development with
either a cement or iron and steel plant. Despite this increase, heavy industries remain the least-efficient sector in capturing
GHG emissions with an average of less than 1 MtCO2 captured per year per project.

Outlook of carbon capture In the upcoming years, industries such as blue hydrogen production and chemicals production are going to see more and
development per sector more facilities. Hydrogen is even considered as the most ambitious field of application for CCUS with an average of almost 5
MtCO2 captured per year per project, more than any other industry. The trend is supported by the development of high-
(pages 53–98) capacity hydrogen energy projects and clusters, such as in United Kingdom with ambitious national plans to switch fuel for
domestic and industrial applications from natural gas to hydrogen combined with CCUS.

CCUS in power is interesting to retrofit coal or gas-fired and biomass power plants to abate their carbon emissions and
allow their continued operation. It has reached commercial scale with the opening in 2014 of the first large-scale CCUS
power plant in Canada: the Sask Power Boundary Dam.

Specific technologies are being developed per sector

Retrofits on power plants are mostly post-combustion chemical absorption capture, but advanced technologies such as
pre-combustion capture or carbonate fuel cells are under development. CCUS is applicable to natural gas processing,
Executive summary as in the Sleipner West project and to decarbonize refining activities, such as in Port Jérôme, where Air Liquid produces blue
hydrogen for oil refining with cryogenic carbon capture.
7
 Once captured, CO2 can be used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), stored in geological settings, or used to produce
Currently, CCUS is chemicals (including advanced carbon materials), plants, or minerals
mostly used for Today, captured CO2 is mostly used for EOR purposes representing more than 65% of the global captured capacity,
EOR(1), with with very few other utilizations. CO2–EOR projects now represent about 45% of all EOR projects (as opposed to thermal or
chemical EOR). Nevertheless, the CO2–EOR growth dynamic is strongly related to oil prices, which makes its perspectives
geological storage hardly predictable. The COVID-19 crisis and the sharp drop in oil price in March and April 2020 has generated further
uncertainties in the oil and gas market, jeopardizing the development of CCUS projects related to the oil and gas sector.
expected to become
the main CO2 Once captured, CO2 can be used for many other applications, including injecting in coal seam (CO 2-ECBM), chemicals (such
as biofuel, urea, alcohol, and baking soda), mineralization (such as calcium looping and concrete), or biological (such as
utilization plant cultivation). However, these applications are very minor compared with EOR. In 2020, such utilization projects
represented ~4% global capacity. But for most of the applications, CO2 is generally not captured and therefore is ultimately
released to the atmosphere.
Future CCUS growth relies on the development of hubs or clusters. Such projects composed of groups of emitters from
various industries aim to share infrastructure and capture CO2 from densely industrialized areas. CCUS is also part of the
circular carbon economy plan developed in Golf Cooperation Council countries.

Identified global geological storage capacity largely overcomes the need for storage

Global overview of Geological storage capacities of CO2 remain unexplored in many areas of the world. Asia and North America own the
biggest identified geological storage capacities. The estimated storage capacity of North America corresponds to hundreds
Utilization and Storage of years of their own emissions (about 350 to 3,200 years). But in many areas of the world, the storage capacity of the
sedimentary basins remained unexplored or not fully reported.
(pages 99 – 115)

Executive summary

8 (1) EOR - Enhanced Oil Recovery: processes related to improving the recovery of hydrocarbon trapped in geological reservoirs, commonly consists in injecting steam, solvent or CO2
 Relatively high capture costs and a lack of efficient policies prevent the industrialisation of CCUS development;
To achieve net-zero business models are still to be invented
objectives, The key element of comparison is the cost of one ton of CO 2 abated, which enables the comparison of CCUS technologies
with other decarbonisation solutions, including renewables. One of the main drawbacks related to CCUS is the cost that can
governments need be higher than 100$/t. Over the past eight years, 14 potentially large-scale projects have been cancelled, including 11 for
economics reasons. One of the main inconveniences related to CCUS is the high costs, which can easily go higher than
to develop CCUS $100/t. The capture part commonly represents about 75% of the total cost but can decrease with high-concentrated CO2,
policies and such as in natural gas processing, hydrogen, or fertilizers production. Transport and storage usually represent 25% of the
cost of the overall process. The most interesting storage option is direct use of CO 2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or
regulations to storage in onshore depleted oil and gas fields. Although CCUS has a strong CO2 abatement potential, it increases the
levelized cost of production for every sector. Thus, solutions to limit the investment risk need to be found to keep CCUS
incentivize growing.
companies to invest
Many countries have recently committed to net-zero objectives by 2050–2060
and to raise public At least 27 countries, representing more than 60% of the world’s economy, have already announced their goal to become
carbon neutral by 2050. Some have even put their objectives into law. These announcements represent around a third of the
awareness world CO2 emissions. Moreover, by 2060, this number rises to 65% of CO2 emissions. To achieve this objective, some
countries will increase the part of renewables in their energy mix; others are setting carbon taxes or tax credits such as the
US 45Q tax credit for carbon sequestration set in 2018. Major companies set CO 2 emissions reductions goals among their
scope of emissions (scope 1, 2, or 3). As all companies are different, the decomposition of the CO2 emissions according
scopes are different from one company to another, and objectives are also different.
Economics, Policies and
Regulations Carbon regulations and taxes are essential to the development of CCUS and the reduction of CO 2 emissions
Countries are considering policies or regulations to decrease CO2 emissions. Nordic countries have been the first ones to
introduce a carbon tax; they did it almost 30 years ago. Today, Sweden is the world’s top taxer with a price of $137/t. Even if
(pages 116 - 142) carbon taxes are a way to decrease emissions, some countries or regions also have emissions trade scheme (ETS) that
give allowances to companies to trade carbon emissions at trading-based prices, such as stocks. European Union have the
biggest ETS with around 1,7 GtCO2 covered (45% of EU emissions) and a price above $40/t. However, in some regions,
ETS doesn’t cover as much as in the EU, or the prices are three or four times lower than in EU ETS.

The broader population still misunderstands and fears CCUS

Even though CCUS has existed since the 1970s, few people know it. The most common fear is a failure inside the storage
process. Compared with other clean technologies, the CCUS reputation is quite low, even lower than natural gas or nuclear
energy, and is usually linked with fossil fuels but not perceived as a tool to decarbonize industries. Opponents also argue
Executive summary that CCUS is expensive. On the other side, supporters say CCUS is necessary to limit global warming to 1.5°C, and there
are a lot of current and future opportunities to reduce CO2 emissions.
9
 CCUS public funding appeared 15 years ago but remains relatively limited
The United States
remains by far the CCUS public R&D started to be significant in the early 2000’s and surpassed the $1 billion threshold between 2009 and 2013
before stabilizing at $650 million today. Global funding related to public energy R&D decreased between 2009 and 2017 and
main contributor to has stagnated since around $20 billion per year. The United States has always been the top financial contributor, except in
2012 and 2013. The country reached more than $500 million in 2009, but since 2014, the US contribution has reduced to
CCUS development, about $200 million. Behind the United States, Canada and Japan are fighting for the second spot; Canada was the top
but Asia and Europe contributor in 2012 and 2013, while Japan’s interest has grown back since 2017 after a slight decrease between 2013 and
2016. In 2019, European Commission / EU in addition to European countries represent more than $120 million, or 20% of
are investing the total contribution.

Although CCUS public R&D spending is quite low compared with other clean technologies, CCUS is ranked third behind
solar and wind energy but above hydrogen, geothermal energy, or biofuels.

After a rise in CCUS patents since 1996, 2014 was the start of a decline

Energy patents are a direct conclusion of the variation of public R&D funding and private research. The number of patents
for all kinds of low-carbon technologies rose between 1996 until 2011 and then decreased. Patents about CCUS had the
same variation with an increase since 1996 until 2014 and reached about 700 patents. As for public R&D funding, the United
States is the top patents provider and has always been since 2009. The country always maintains its patents production
above 180 patents a year, with almost 260 in 2012 and 2013. Japan is fighting for the second rank, and South Korea
Finance, R&D, and key overtook Japan in 2014 to become the second provider of CCUS patents in the world (92 patents in 2018). European
players countries arrived just after with a total of 70 patents.

The main aim of R&D is to improve capture technologies’ cost and energy efficiency, find suitable reservoirs, and understand
(pages 143–149) the behavior of CO2 underground, for which field demonstration is essential.

Executive summary

10
1. The need for CCUS

11 vgorai01
 Carbon and Carbon dioxide equivalence – 1 tCO2 in EOR allows the recovery of 2-3 additional
Orders of – 1 Gigatonne (Gt) = 1 billion tonnes barrels of oil
magnitude – 1 kg carbon (C) = 3.664 kg carbon dioxide (CO2) Size of CCUS projects
Energy-related CO2 emissions per year Largest global projects
– One passenger car: 3-6 tCO2 1) Shute Creek CCUS-EOR facilities (ExxonMobil, USA
- Wyoming)
– Average CO2 emissions/capita: ~4.5 tCO2
– Operational since 1986, extended in 2010
– New York City: 37 MtCO2
– Captures and stores 7 MtCO2/year from natural gas
– United Kingdom: 90 MtCO2
processing and refining
– US: 5.1 GtCO2
2) Century Plant CCUS-EOR facilities (Occidental
– World 31.5 GtCO2 Petroleum, USA - Texas)
What does 1 tonne of CO2 represent? – Operational since 2010
– CO2 captured by 25 trees grown for – Captures and stores 5 to 8 MtCO2/year from natural
10 years gas processing
– One economy class air travel from Paris to New York 3) The Alberta Carbon Trunck Line (Canada)
– Worldwide average CO2 emissions per capita in 3.6 – Operational since March 2020
months
– The highest CO2 transport capacity infrastructure,
– 1.35 MWh of electricity produced in a supercritical with 14.6 MtCO2/year (currently processing
pulverized black-coal power plant; approximately 5 1MtCO2/year)
seconds of emissions of a large unit (~1GW)
Standard coal power plant (mineral carbonation) without
Financial indicators for CO2 emissions CCUS
– Environmental carbon taxes are generally below – Nominal capacity: 500MW
$20/tCO2
– Average load factor: 0.85
– Market prices for EOR reached $30/tCO2 when the oil
– Produces 3,500 GWh of electricity per year
price was averaging $100/bbl.
– Emits 3.4 MtCO2/yr
– Each tonne of CO2 avoided by using CCUS in a coal
power plant is likely to cost $50-$150/tCO2 Coal power plant with post-combustion CCUS (20 MW,
– If an offshore wind farm replaces a coal fired power- 400tCO2/d)
plant, the cost of 1 ton of CO2 avoided is negative, as – Produces 3,600 GWh per year (CCUS energy
they have the same LCOE, but coal emits about 150 penalty: .8%)
times more CO2 per MWh. – CO2 emissions captured efficiency 85%
Orders of magnitude
– Developed economies generate $2,000-$6,000 of – Avoids 90,000 tCO2/yr
GDP per tonne of CO2 emitted (carbon-emissions
12
intensity)
Fossil-fuel use is Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions Atmospheric CO2 concentration since 2005
(1850–2011)
responsible for
about 80% of
anthropogenic
CO2 emissions, 418 ppm
and atmospheric in May 2021

CO2 concentration
reached a record
high in 2021

The Earth’s greenhouse

effect is reinforcing, and
oceans are acidifying – Since 1970, global GHG emissions (including CH4 and N2O) have been increasing by 0.4 Gt of CO2-eq per year
worldwide. This on average but have accelerated since 2000 to 1 Gt of CO2-eq on average per year.
phenomenon is called – Fossil-fuel consumption has increased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. These carbon-intensive
anthropogenic climate primary energy sources are the main component of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
change and has a variety of – Annual average CO2 emissions reached about 40Gt per year compared with about 3Gt per year during the pre-
negative consequences. industrial era.
– About 40% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions have remained in the atmosphere since 1750. The rest was
removed by land and ocean sinks. This has led to increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which has now
breached 400 ppm.
Global CO2 emissions
and carbon budget
Note: ppm is parts per million. Coal also includes solid fuels derived from biomass such as wood.
13 Sources: “AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
At current GHG emissions Remaining carbon budget
(2018, GtCO2eq per year) (2018, GtCO2eq)
emission levels,
the remaining
carbon budget
corresponding to 60
Carbon GHG Other GHG
4.500 33 percentile
50 percentile
the +1.5°C target 55 53 67 percentile

could be 50
Already emitted
(1850–2017)

exhausted in 45
43
4.000 +2080

43
about 10 years 40
Others

LUC(1) +1500
3.500
35
66% of global GHG
emissions come from end- 30
Gas
use combustion of coal, oil
and gas (~35/53 GtCO2eq 25 3.000
+840
over) 20 Oil
+1.170
+580
15
2.500
+420
10
Coal 2.200
5

0 0
CO2 CH4 N2O F-gases Total 2.0°C target 1.5°C target

Global CO2 emissions

and carbon budget 1 LUC : deforestation and other land use change; CO2 emitted by LUC is very approximate due to high uncertainties related to its assessment
2 CH4: the conversion of CH4 GHG impact in terms of CO2 equivalence depends on the time horizon used for the conversion. An equivalent quantity of methane would entail 84 and 28 more radiative forcing than
CO2 over 20- and 100-year horizons, respectively. The change over time is due to methane being short-lived into the atmosphere – it converts to CO2 over decadal timescales
14 Sources: Global Carbon Budget 2018; IPCC (2018) “SR5–Chapter 2”; BP (2015) “Statistical review”; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
CCUS technologies are required to achieve +1.5°C

Possible CO2 emission pathways and required carbon dioxide removal - CDR(1) capacities for 1.5°C target
(GtCO2 per year)

~3.1 GtCO2 ~5.0 GtCO2 ~7.8 GtCO2 ~14.9 GtCO2

per year per year per year per year

– LED, S1, S2 and S3 (also referred to as P1, P2, P3, and P4) are four illustrative IPCC scenarios
1.5°C-consistent pathway archetypes. CDR technologies are integrated into all possible CO2
emission pathways, except LED
– S1 and S2 require, among other measures, a decrease of final energy demand of 15% and 5% in
2030 relative to 2010, thus limiting the need of CDR technologies to an average of ~3.1 and ~5.0
GtCO2 per year (from 2020 to 2100) respectively
– S3 also relies on a high share of renewables in the electricity mix (48%) and big reductions in coal
(-75% compared to 2010) in 2030. However, oil consumption is only reduced 3% and gas even
increases 33%. With a final energy demand increase of 17%, an average of ~7.8 GtCO2 per year
should be captured by CDR technologies from 2020 to 2100
Depending on future energy efficiency and mix, CCS and – The resource and energy intensive scenario S4 predicts an overshoot of the 1.5°C target,
negative emission technologies should represent between 3.1 followed by massive implementation of non-land CDR technologies (average ~14.9 GtCO2 per year
and 14.9 GtCO2 per year. from 2020 to 2100)
(1) Carbon dioxide removal, also called “negative emissions technologies” (pls refer to the Negative Emissions Technologies FactBook) are anthropogenic activities removing CO2 from the atmosphere and durably
storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential anthropogenic enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture and storage but excludes
natural CO2 uptake not directly caused by human activities (IPCC). BECCUS: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCUS)
15 Sources: IPCC (2018) “SR1.5 – Summary for Policymakers” and “Chapter 2” – figure 2.5
CCUS must be Global energy sector CO2 emissions reductions by measure in the sustainable
deployed with development scenario relative to the stated policies scenario, 2019–70
(GtCO2 per year)
other solutions to
decarbonize the % contribution CCUS can play four crucial roles in
energy sector in emission
reduction
the transition to net zero:
Annual reductions (2070) ▪ Tackling emissions from existing
energy assets
▪ As a solution for sectors where
emissions are hard to abate
▪ As a platform for clean hydrogen
production
▪ Removing carbon from the
atmosphere to balance emissions
that cannot be directly abated or
The IEA’s sustainable avoided
development scenario, in
which global CO2 emissions 15% The CCUS contribution to emissions
from the energy sector fall to reductions grows over time as the
zero on a net basis by 2070 technology progresses, costs fall, and
worldwide compared with the other cheaper abatement options are
stated policies scenario, exhausted.
which considers current IEA forecasts stocking more than 2
national energy- and climate- GtCO2 per year until 2060 to follow the
related policy commitments Paris agreement.
CCUS scenarios and sectoral
applications
Note: CCUS will contribute to the top three drivers of emission reduction, contributing 19% of the CO2 emission reduction in 2070.
16 Sources: IEA (2020) “CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions”; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Ongoing CCUS Potential CO2 capture capacity of the current announced projects
developments are Total capture capacity since 1972 (MtCO2 per year)
far below the 800
800

required targets to 700

achieve net zero 600
500 580

400
300
200
100 220

0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2030
Years Total CCUS capacity Pipeline of projects Gap to IEA SDS objective

Even if the CO2 capture capacity is expected to deeply increase from 2022-2023, the global capacity
remains quite low compared to IEA objectives and the sustainable development scenario (SDS). The SDS,
been created by the IEA, is a roadmap with guidance and advices in order to follow the energy transition
and to respect the Paris Agreement, to keep temperatures well below 2°C above pre-industrial era. The
capture capacity of the current pipeline of projects need needs to be multiplied by ~4-fold by 2030.

CCUS scenarios and sectoral

applications
(1) According to the latest IEA report (Net Zero by 2050 - A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector), CCUS should reach 1670 Gt/year in 2030 to match the Net Zero scenario in 2050
17 Sources: GCCSI and NREL databases, IEA Energy Technology Perspective 2020 (2020); Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
CCUS could help Gross estimate of greenhouse gas emissions by segment
decarbonize (2019, %, GtCO2eq per year)
sectors that are
responsible for Direct CO2 Indirect application
Use case
~53 capture of CCUS
more than 45
5.0 (9%)
percent of the Others

world’s CO2
Agriculture,
emissions 12.7 (24%) forestry, and other
land use1

3.4 (6%) Building

2
7.4 (14%) Transportation
– Use of CCUS for the
production of synthetic
fuels and hydrogen
Industry
11.1 (21%) (including steel, cement, and
fuels
refining)

– Use of decarbonized
3.8 (7%) Electricity and heat electricity and heat
Oil and gas, others leveraging CCUS

Maturity of Commercial stage Research stage 9.9 (19%)

technologies: Pilot stage Not an option Coal

CCUS scenarios and sectoral

applications 1Includes land use and emissions from cattle; Land-use change emissions are highly uncertain, with no clear trend in the last decade
2Under development for marine vessels
18 Sources: IPCC, International Energy Agency, Food and Agriculture Organization; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
CCUS is a CCUS substitution matrix
particularly
relevant option for
Maturity of potential application of other decarbonisation
hard-to-abate technologies (2030+ time horizon)
Potential role of CCUS

heavy industries Overall score for

2019 CO2 Biomass Electrification
for which there are Industries emissions (Bio-fuels and (renewables +
Hydrogen
applications
decarbonisation CCUS current Opportunity for
solutions maturity CCUS
(GtCO2) biogas) storage)
few alternative (other than CCUS)

solutions Cement 2,4 +++ ▲

Cement, Iron & Steel, and ++
Chemical sectors emit
Chemicals 1,4 ▲
carbon due to their industrial Iron & Steel 2,6 +++ ▲
inter-wined processes and
high temperature heat Oil and gas
1,6 ++ ►
refining
requirement (that powered
technologies cannot
Power
14,0 +++ ►
generation
achieve). CCUS
Transport 8,1 +++ ▼
technologies are therefore
essential to decarbonize Maturity of technologies: Scoring criteria: Maturity CCUS Opportunity
those hard-to-abate sectors. Commercial stage +++ At least one Commercial stage ▲ High
commercial option
Pilot stage Pilot stage
Research stage ++ At least one pilot project Research stage ► Medium

Not an option + Ongoing R&D investment Not an option ▼ Low

CCUS scenarios and sectoral

applications
Sources: Kearney Energy Transition Institute ; IEA - website and Energy Technology Perspective (2020) ; Goldman Sachs - Carbonomics (2020) ; IPC AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
19 (2015)
CCUS covers a Main CCUS pathways
Concrete curing
broad range of
solutions to either Mineralization Bauxite treatment
Use (CCU) or
Store (CCS) Biological Algae cultivation
Conversion
carbon dioxide
Chemical Liquid Fuels
Utilization Alcohol (methanol,
(CCU) ethanol)
Greenhouse
Gas (methane)
Non- Food processing
Conversion & packaging
CCUS Acetic acid

Dedicated geological Polymers

storage
Storage
Fertilizer
(CCS) EOR(1)
Advanced materials
(Carbon fibber)
EOR – with storage
Baking soda
Enhanced
geothermal

Enhanced Coal-Bed-
CCUS scenarios and sectoral Methane Recovery
applications
20 (1): EOR - Enhanced Oil Recovery; “EOR – with storage” allows to inject larger quantities of CO2 compared to traditional EOR
CCUS is expected
to be developed CO2 capture forecasts for 2030, 2050, and 2070 CO2 utilization forecasts for 2030, 2050, and 2070
for multiple
industries and GtCO2 captured per annum
mainly combined 13 12,6
Industry CO2 emissions stored
with storage 12
Power generation
6%
5%
Iron and steel
Chemicals CO2 emissions reused
solutions 11 Other fuel transformation 2,7
11% Cement
10 BECS
8% Coal
9
In 2050, industry will remain 9% Natural gas
the first sector of CO2 8 4,1
emissions captured, with the 7 6,3 15% Biomass
cement industry accounting 6 6%
for half of these emissions. 7% 92%
2,0
5 19%
However, in 2070, among 2,9 23%
Other fuel
the 12.5 Gt of captured CO2, 4 14%
transformation
a third come from power 1,9 10%
3
6%
generation (and 50% of it 93%
2 Bioenergy +
from biomass). Even if 0,9 1,6 25%
2,9 21%
CCS
CCUS utilization increases 1
0,8 13% Direct air
through the years, the 0 2%
capture
captured CO2 is most likely 2030 2030 2050 2050 2070 2070
to be stored rather than 77% 8%
23% 7%
being used. 0,1 0
0,2 0,2 0,1
0,2 2030 2050 2070
0,0
0,5 0,0
CCUS scenarios and sectoral 0,2 0,2 0,3

applications
21 Sources: IEA CCUS in clean energy transition (2020); Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
The development Unfavorable economics for industries Challenging scale-up
of CCUS is The development of CCUS requires important CCUS technologies are mature, and CCUS
generally upfront investments that significantly impact the facilities have been operating for decades in
profitability of industries (not compensated by certain industries but at relatively small scale
perceived to be sufficient carbon pricing mechanisms). At (pilot). CO2 storage capacities are huge in many
challenging present, CO2 is most valuable for oil and gas geographies, but the deployment of CCUS at
because of four (EOR), but its application to other heavy industrial scale lacks dedicated infrastructure
industries (such as cement and steel) is more and clear incentive mechanisms.
main obstacles challenging. Hence, CCUS development is an
economic challenge in many industries. Reaching the industrial scale requires
developing clusters (group of emitters) to reach
However, the global cost to achieve +2°C could scale that is sufficient to support the
more than double without CCUS deployment, development of massive infrastructures and
according to the IPCC. make the case for geological storage.

CCUS cost should be Regulation gap Lack of public support

compared to the cost of
other means to avoid CO2 CCUS development is highly dependent on CCUS development faces headwinds due to
release policy support, but current regulations lack weak momentum in public and NGO support
scope and clarity. Governments have a vital role forums. Key reasons for limited support include:
to play through policies that establish a – Less awareness of CCUS benefits
sustainable and viable market for CCUS: – Less experience in technology application
– Create conditions for investment in CCUS – Fears around storage, NIMY (not in my
projects. backyard)
– Coordinate and underwrite the development of – Unfavourable perception of the technology in
industrial hubs with shared CO2 infrastructure. general due to an association with fossil fuel
Main obstacles – Develop adequate guidelines for monitoring, (environmental groups oppose CCUS as it
verification, and accounting extends late life coal plants for example)
22 Source: IEA – “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage, 2020”, Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
2. Value chain and key
technologies

23 Sedlarova, Lenka
CCUS refers to a CCUS Value Chain
set of CO2 capture, CO2 Sources Separation & Capture Transport Utilization & Storage
transport,
utilization, and Oil & Gas
Gas
Pipeline Storage
sweetening
storage – Natural gas processing CO2/CH4 separation – Dedicated
technologies – Oil refining geological storage
– Enhanced Oil
combined to abate Post- Recovery (EOR)
Chemicals – Enhanced coal-
CO2 emissions combustion Ships
bed methane
– Fertilisers production CO2/N2 separation recovery (ECBM)
– Biomass-to-liquid
– Enhanced
geothermal
Heavy industry Pre-
combustion Utilization
Non-Exhaustive
– Cement production Gasification or reformers Railcars
– Iron & Steel production CO2/H2 separation Biological
– Greenhouse
Power – Algae growth
generation Oxy-fuel
combustion Mineralisation
– Coal, Oil, Gas
– Biomass O2/N2 air separation unit Chemical
Oxy-fuels boiler Trucks – Baking soda
Blue Hydrogen – Bioethanol
– Carbon fibres
– Steam methane – Ethanol
reforming – Fertilisers
– Liquid fuel
Value chain overview Not covered in this FactBook – CO2 methanation

Non-Conversion
24 Sources: Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis, Global CCUS Institute (2019)
– Food processing
The separation of
CO2 molecules
contained in Carbon separation technologies
exhausting gases
can be realized
through four main
technologies (1/3)

Absorption Adsorption Liquid or Novel

Membranes
(solvents based) (sorbents based) supercritical CO2 technologies
Key CO2 separation
technologies Chemical: Physical: alumina, Polymer based: Dry ice formation at Microbial and algal
Ethanolamine (MEA), zeolite, activated Polyphenylene oxide, low temperature; systems
caustic, ammonia carbon, CaO, MgO, Polyethylene oxide separation affected
solution, etc. Li2ZrO3, Li4SiO4 Poly ionic liquid by a series of Electrochemical
compression, pumps
Physical: SelexolTM, Inorganic cooling, and
Rectisol, Fluorinated Chemical looping
membrane: expansion steps
solvents, N-Methyl-2- ceramic based, Molten carbonate
Pyrrolidone zeolite based fuel cell
(Purisol®)etc.
Mineral carbonation

Require to be regenerated: pressure swing,

Separation technologies temperature swing, moisture swing, or a
combination thereof
25 Source: Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
 Brief description of key separation technologies
The separation of
CO2 molecules Absorption refers to the dissolution of CO2 from a gas phase into a liquid phase called solvents.
CO2 removal from the solvent often requires energy on the form of heat or steam. Solvent-based CO2
contained in Absorption
capture involves chemical or physical absorption of CO2 into a liquid carrier and regenerating the
absorption liquid by increasing the temperature or reducing the pressure to break the absorbent-CO2
exhausting gases bond. The absorbent should have a suitable capacity for CO2 absorption, high kinetic rate for CO2
can be realized absorption, negligible vapor pressure, and high chemical and thermal stability.

through four main Adsorption refers to the accumulation of CO2 on the surface of a sorbent, often very porous and
technologies (2/3) with a large surface-to-weight ratio. Sorbent-based CO2 capture involves the chemical or physical
Adsorption adsorption of CO2 using a solid sorbent. Like solvents, solid sorbents are usually regenerated by
increasing temperature or reducing pressure to release the captured CO2. Solid sorbents may have
lower regeneration energies compared with solvents because of lower heat capacities.

Gas separation using membranes is a pressure-driven process. Because of the low pressure of flue
gases, driving force is too low for membrane processes in post-combustion (low pressure and low CO2
Key CO2 separation concentration). Membrane processes offer increased separation performances when CO 2 concentration
technologies Membranes in the feed mixture increases. Membrane designs include metallic, polymeric, or ceramic materials
capable of operating at elevated temperatures and that use a variety of chemical and/or physical
mechanisms for separation.

Liquid or The Liquid or supercritical CO2 method uses low temperatures for condensation, separation, and
purification of CO2 from flue gases. (The freezing point of pure CO2 is 195.5 K at atmospheric pressure.)
supercritical CO2 It enables direct production of liquid CO2 that can be stored or sequestered at high pressure via liquid
(Inherent CO2 capture) pumping.

Novel technologies (experimental stage) for post-combustion capture include hybrid systems that
combine attributes from multiple technologies (such as solvents and membranes) as well as alternative
Novel technologies and processes such as electrochemical pumps and chemical looping. Electrochemical
pumps include carbonate and proton conductors and molten carbonate and aqueous alkaline fuel cells
technologies have been studied for use in separating CO2 from both air and flue gases. Research is conducted on
Separation technologies
biological fixation (from natural photosynthesis) and mineral carbonation to transform CO2 into carbon
material.
26
Sources: “Carbon Dioxide Separation from Flue Gases: A Technological Review Emphasizing Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (2014); Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
The separation of Amine-based absorption technology Pressure swing absorption technology
CO2 molecules
contained in
exhausting gases
can be realized
through four main
technologies (3/3)

Membrane separation technology Liquid or supercritical CO2 (cryogenic)

distillation

Separation technologies

27 Sources: CO2CRC; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis

 Comparison of key separation technologies
Absorption is the
most mature
technology for Advantages Disadvantages Scale Applications
CO2 separation
– Reacts rapidly – Suitable for flue
– Equipment corrosion – Industrial gases from post-
Absorption – Flexible
– High energy requirements combustion
– High capacities possible capture

– Low energy
consumption
– Suitable for flue
Flue gas properties (mainly – Lower cost of CO2 – Low adsorption capacities – Pilot gases from post-
concentration of CO2, Adsorption capture (in flue gases conditions) combustion
temperature, and pressure) – Suitable for separating
capture
are the most effective factors CO2 from dilute stream
for selecting a suitable – Not suitable for
process for CO2 separation. Membrane post-combustion
– Require high energy for – Pilot / Industrial capture
– Continuous, steady-
separation state technology
post-combustion CO2
capture – Works with oxy-
fuel combustion
capture

– Efficient for gas

Liquid or streams with high
– Liquid CO2 production
– Experimental CO2
supercritical – Not requiring solvents or – Require a large amount of concentration (for
CO2 other components energy pre-combustion
(Inherent CO2 and oxy-fuel
– Can be scaled up
capture) combustion
capture)
Separation technologies

28 Sources: “Carbon Dioxide Separation from Flue Gases: A Technological Review Emphasizing Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (2014); Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Several CO2- Technology Separation technology Technological maturity
separation Normal Commercial
Service

technologies are Traditional amine solvents

Research Development Demonstration

already mature Physical solvent (Selexol, Rectisol)

Benfield process and variants
Sterically hindered amine
Chilled ammonia process
Water-Lean solvent
Liquide Solvent Phase change solvents
Amino acid- based solvent / Precipitating solvents
Encapsulated solvents
Ionic liquids
Enzyme Catalysed Absorption

Pressure Swing Adsorption/ Vacuum Swing Adsorption

Temperature Swing Adsorption (TSA)
Solid absorbent Sorbent-Enhanced Water Gas Shift (SEWGS)
Electrochemically Mediated Adsorption
Technological maturity of
CO2 separation Gas separation membranes for natural gas processing
technologies. Polymeric Membranes
Electrochemical membrane integrated with MCFCs
Membrane Polymeric Membranes / Cryogenic Separation Hybrid
Polymeric Membranes/ Solvent Hybrid
Room Temperature Ionic Liquid (RTIL) Membranes

Calcium Looping (CaL)

Solid-looping Chemical Looping Combustion

Allam-Fetvedt Cycle
Inherent CO2 capture
Capture technologies Calix Advanced Calciner

29 Sources: GCCSI (March 2021) - Technology Readiness and Costs od CCS

CO2 capture Post-combustion
systems may be Thermal power plants burn fuel with air to produce heat and
classified into four emit flue gases that generally consist of a hot gas at standard
pressure, with 80% N2, 10% CO2, some oxygen, vapor, and other
N2
categories (1/2) Flue O2
pollutants (such as NOx). The CO2 is then separated from the flue
gases. Additional drying, purification and compression are required
Coal, oil, Combustion gas before transportation.
CO2
gas, (power and CO2 Post-combustion systems are the most mature capture technology
separation
biomass heat) (late demonstration stage) and are expected to be retrofitted to
modern and efficient thermal power plants: SPC and NGCC. Post-
Low partial combustion capture can be retrofitted to almost any existing plant
pressure of CO2
Air with a large and steady source of CO2 by adding the capture
process to the exhaust-gas circuit. Post-combustion is the only
system that does not require an additional oxygen-production
plant. However, the process is still highly inefficient, given the low
partial pressure of CO2 in the flue gas.

Main carbon capture Pre-combustion

processes The pre-combustion process includes industrial
processes that transform hydrocarbon sources
Air Air separation N2 to generate ‘syngas’ as an intermediate step.
O2 H2O Water gas shift is then applied to the syngas,
CO2
providing a shifted syngas mostly composed of H2
Gasifier
Coal, oil, Water Combustion and CO2 with concentration of 17% to 38%.
(coal, oil) CO2
gas, gas (power and Advantages are the relative ease with which CO2
Reformer separation
biomass Syngas shift Shifted H2 heat) N2 can be separated from H2, compared with flue
(gas)
(CO, syngas O2 gases, and the versatility of potential end-products
CO2, H2) (CO2, H2) Air H2O from hydrogen beyond electricity. Drawbacks lie
mostly in the high capital cost and complexity of the
IGCC plant.

Capture technologies

30 Note: SPC is supercritical pulverized coal; NGCC is natural gas combined cycle.
Source: GCCSI (2021), Technology Readiness and Costs of CCS; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
CO2 capture Oxy-combustion
systems may be Thermal power plant burners are modified to burn fuel with
nearly pure oxygen instead of air. As a result, concentration in
classified into four N2 flue gas varies between 80% to 98% CO2, mixed with vapor,
resulting in a stream almost ready to transport. Additional drying,
categories (2/2) Air Air separation
(cryogenic) purification and compression are also needed before transportation.
O2 Burning fuel in pure oxygen instead of air produces a pure stream
Flue of CO2 and avoids the difficult process of CO2/N2 separation.
Coal, oil, Combustion gas Another benefit is greater energy efficiency than in post-
gas, CO2 combustion. The main hurdle is the very large stream of oxygen
(power and CO2
biomass separation required, and extremely high temperature reached in the oxy-
heat)
combustion chamber. Another important issue is the insufficient
purity of CO2 in flue gases, which was problematic in early
Flue gas mainly consists of CO2 and H2O demonstration projects.
which are separated by condensing water

Inherent CO2 capture technologies such as

Main carbon capture Liquid or supercritical CO2: Allam- Fetvedt Cycle the Allam-Fetvedt Cycle are specific oxy-
processes fuel technologies that use produced
N2 supercritical CO2 (~1000°C to 1,200°C,
Air Air separation 200 to 400 bar) as a working fluid to drive
(cryogenic) a turbine enabling CO2 capture,
O2 Hot-high-pressure flue gas: compression, dehydration, and
97.3% CO2 elimination of NOx and SOx gases. This
2.7% water technology is the first CO2 spined power
Natural Condens
Combustion Turbine H2O turbine developed. While it produces
gas ation
Heat electricity, the technology provides flue gas
Exchan CO2 with CO2 concentration above 97%, ready to
ger be transported, as it does not require
Compres additional work or energy to separate CO2.
Recycle CO2 CO2 This technology could combine power
Capture technologies sion
(Lower the need for O2 for the combustion) generation and steam methane reforming to
produce cost-competitive blue hydrogen
31 Note: SPC is supercritical pulverized coal; NGCC is natural gas combined cycle. production.
Source: GCCSI (2021), Technology Readiness and Costs of CCS; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Depending on the Natural gas sweetening process (natural gas processing)
geological and
reservoir Gas sweetening process:
– CO2 is removed through amine absorption using methyl-diethanolamine (MDEA) as solvent.
Some gas may fields may
contain more than 50% CO2
condition, natural – Resulting CO2 stream with 98% concentration is transported and used or stored.
gas may contain About half of the raw natural
gas produced worldwide
CO2 at different contains more than 4% CO2 by
levels that needs volume, which is above
Sweetened natural gas specifications for its transport
to be removed (2% for pipelines and 0.2% for
(2.5% CO2) Concentrated CO2
prior to (98%)
LNG).
transportation and Natural gas processing facilities
consumption includes a “gas sweetening” step,
which separates and removes
CO2. It is the lower-cost
opportunity to create a large flow
of CO2 ready to be stored: CO2
Absorber flow rate can be very high;
Stripper
separation is inherent to the
Heat process of natural gas production
Exchanger
Heat
and operates at already high
pressure, reducing
Natural gas further cost of compression.
CO2 lean amine
The first large-scale integrated
CO2 rich amine CCS projects were gas processing
facilities, and CO2/CH4 separation
Capture technologies system is already commercialized
and mature.
32 Sources: GCCSI 2017, Equinor; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Sleipner West Combined gas sweetening and carbon storage project: Sleipner West CCS
project combines Country: Norway
Operational date : 1996
gas extraction and CAPEX: 90 M$
processing with CO2 savings : 0,9 Mt/year
Project leaders: Equinor, ExxonMobil, Lotos, Kufpec
CO2 removal Sleipner is a producing gas field, since the Utsira reservoir has been used
followed by direct as a CO2 storage reservoir (deep saline aquifer) by Equinor as operator
and a group of partnering companies. This is the longest ongoing project
injection and on CO2 storage in the world with about 1 Mt CO2 / year. 4D seismic
surveys were run at different times to monitor the movement of CO2 in the
storage reservoir during the injection.
"For over 20 years we have had a first-hand experience of safe
storage of CO2 in a reservoir. We believe this insight can be valuable for
both our industry, research communities, and others working on making
CO2 storage a central part of the ongoing energy transition into the low
carbon future," says Torbjørn F. Folgerø, chief digital officer and senior
vice president in Equinor.

Project characteristics Details

Business type CO2 removed from natural gas processing

CO2 capture capacity 0,9 Mt/year

Government funding None – motivated by Norwegian carbon tax

CAPEX 90 M$ - 82% on the compression system, 16% on the injection well

Planning Started in 1996, 25 years lifetime

Capture type Amine solvent (MDEA) absorption

Transport type None – direct injection

Capture technologies Storage type Utsira aquifer geological formation

33 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute; GCCSI; Equinor https://www.equinor.com/en/news/2019-06-12-sleipner-co2-storage-data.html

 Characteristics of the four main capture processes and their separation technologies
If gas sweetening
solely applies to
gas processing, Post-combustion Pre-combustion Oxy-combustion Gas sweetening
other capture
technologies can Main application and
Power and
Power and cement industrial Power and steel Gas processing
be used in sector
hydrogen
multiple sectors
Main separation CO2/N2 CO2/H2 O2/Air CO2/CH4

Pressure swing
Main separation Cryogenic air Membranes
technology Amine solvents adsorption
separation units solvents
sorbents
– Solvents – Solvents – Air separation – Solvent
– Sorbents – Sorbents units – Membranes
– Flue gas – Membranes – Chemical
recirculation – Process looping-
– Carbonate integration – Direct oxy-
Main axis of R&D
Looping – Hydrogen combustion
– Cryogenic CO2 turbine – turbine
capture – Air separation – Oxyfuel retrofit
– Fuel cells CO2 units – Allam-Fetvedt
capture Cycle
Capture technologies

34 Source: Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis

Post-combustion Distribution of CO2 capture technologies per sector
and pre- (selection of operating projects in 2020, % of capacity)
production
capture 100
technologies are
90
the most broadly
80 Pre- and post-combustion
used solutions capture are the two main
70 capture types used in large-
scale CCUS facilities. Oxy-
60 combustion technologies are
less mature but are being
50 50 implemented in new projects.
40
Non-Exhaustive
30
The oil and gas industry uses
pre-combustion technologies,
20 notably for projects related to
gas processing.
10

0
Chemicals Power Heavy Hydrogen Oil and Clusters Total
generation industries gas

Oxy-combustion
Pre-combustion
Post-combustion

Capture technologies
Notes: Some facilities can do several CO2 capture methods, such as both pre- and post-combustion.
35 Sources: GCCS and NREL databases; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
 Most of separation Maturity curve of CO2 separation and capture technologies
technologies are
still in the
demonstration Oxy-fuelling

Capital requirement x Technology risk

(Allam- Fetvedt Cycle)
phase Oxy-fuelling
Polymeric membranes Calcium looping
Direct reduced iron physical absorption
Direct separation Physical absorption
Direct Air Capture
Physical adsorption Ammonia physical adsorption
Bioethanol with Methanol physical absorption and adsorption
Hydrogen from coal with Chemical looping CO2 capture
CO2 capture combustion
Chemical absorption
Membrane separation
Chemical absorption

Direct reduced iron chemical absorption

Methanol chemical absorption
Separation technologies
Capture Technologies Physical absorption Ammonia physical absorption
Electrolyser-based
cement production Hydrogen from gas Natural gas
Biomass industry with CO2 capture processing
Cement industry Amine absorption process absorption
Chemical industry Ammonia chemical absorption
Iron and steel industry
Power generation
Fuel production Research Demonstration / Development Commercial service
Cross industries
First-of-a-kind commercial projects
Lab work Bench scale Pilot scale Widely deployed
with ongoing optimization
Maturity

Separation & Capture Technologies

Note: The maturity of Capture Technologies (Post-combustion, Oxy-combustion, Pre-combustion) varies with their associated separation technologies, from early lab work to commercial deployment – see next
slide
36 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute ; IEA - ETP Clean Energy Technology Guide (2020)
For long-distance Pipeline Ship Railcars Trucks
transportation of
high volumes,
pipelines are
mature, and
shipping is being
studied
Volumes: cost
Volumes: cost Volumes: technically Volumes: cost-
effective for very small
effective for large feasible to transport effective for small and
volumes, low capex,
volumes, high large volumes, low medium volumes, low
CAPEX, low OPEX CAPEX, high OPEX capex, high opex high opex

Distances: traveling
Distances: long Distance: long Distances: over long
short distances
distances distances distances
Transformation for
Transformation for Transformation for Transformation for
transport:
transport: transport: transport:
liquefaction1
Compression under liquefaction1 Liquefaction1
the form of
supercritical fluid

– CO2 transportation is already well-established and poses no greater risk than natural gas transportation, with compression of CO2 being a
mature technology
– 50 CO2 pipelines, with a combined length of 6,600 km, already operate in North America, transporting more than 60 MtCO2 annually, mostly
for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) purposes. The technical challenges presented by CO2 pipelines differ from those associated with natural gas
and include impurities in the CO2 stream and managing corrosion and pressure (both much higher than in natural gas pipelines).
– Maritime transportation of CO2 is already in use at a small scale in the drinks industry and could be a promising and flexible transport option
for the bulk transportation of CO2 in CCUS, in large vessels similar to those used to transport liquefied petroleum gas.
Transport technologies
– Truck and rail transport are unlikely to play a significant role in CCUS deployment.
1Requires the construction of a liquefaction facility at the point of origin
37 Sources: The Costs of CO2 Transport: Post-Demonstration CCUS in the EU, Zero Emission Platform 2011; The Costs of CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage, 2021; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Transport Maturity curve of CO2 transport and storage technologies
technologies are
mainly already
used at a large-

Capital requirement x Technology risk

scale level
CO2 shipping (port to offshore) CO2 shipping (port to port)

Truck, rail
Pipeline

Pipelines

Transport technology
First-of-a-kind commercial projects
Lab work Bench scale Pilot scale with ongoing optimization Widely deployed

Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature Technology

Maturity

Transport technologies
*Technology Readiness Level
38 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute ; IEA - ETP Clean Energy Technology Guide (2020)
 The Storage and utilization of CO2
Main storage risks are generally related to leaks
characteristics of CO2 storage from wells (completions) or formation sealing
CO2 geological
storage vary by Geological Depleted oil and gas
storage reservoir
Deep saline aquifer Coal bed methane Basalt /ultra-mafic rocks
type of reservoir Underpressurized Vast open structures Coal beds display Basalt and ultra-mafic
porous reservoirs where CO2 can spread fractures that greatly rocks with high porosity and
can store CO2 in slowly upward are limited improve permeability permeability provide ideal
structural or by the cap rock. CO2 is of the media and allow medium for CO2 injection
stratigraphic traps hydrodynamically trapped CO2 to migrate and storage. Injected CO2
Reservoir
description without risking over- in micro pores during throughout the coal reacts with in situ glass and
pressurization. migration. seams and be alteration minerals and
physically adsorbed by replicates natural
coal micro pores. crystallization in pore spaces
in a few years (for example,
calcite).
Very localized Seismic monitoring of the CO2 replaces methane Pilots consisted of injecting
storage is easy to slow spread of CO2, results adsorbed in coal micro water and CO2 separately
monitor and proven in a diffuse storage. The pores, allowing for with proportions insuring the
Monitoring leakproof. additional risk of over- enhanced coal bed complete dissolution of
and safety pressurization can be methane recovery. CO2 in water at depth.
mitigated by careful
monitoring.

CO2 utilization:
– Oil and gas industry for enhanced oil recovery or enhanced coal bed methane recovery
– Chemical industry for food processing, bio-ethanol, fertilizers
Storage and utilization technologies – Biological for green houses
– Mineralization
39 Sources: Kearney Energy Transition Institute
 Captured CO2 can Utilization and storage options for CO2
be stored in
appropriate
geological
formations or
used in the
industry

Storage and utilization technologies

Sources: Meeting the Dual Challenge: A Roadmap to At-Scale Deployment of CCUS, “Ch. 2: CCUS Supply Chains and Economics; The Costs of CO2 Transport Post-Demonstration CCUS in the EU,” Zero
Emission Platform 2011, CO2 Underground Sequestration, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Strogen, Dominic, Opportunities for Underground Geological Storage of CO2 in New Zealand, Report CCS
40 08/7, Onshore Taranaki Neogene reservoirs; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
 Beyond geological storage, CO2 could also
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) principles
be reused for various revenue-generating
purposes
Options for carbon use

CO2–EOR
Injection of CO2 into nearly depleted petroleum reservoirs acts as a solvent that
reduces the viscosity of the oil and allows enhanced oil recovery of the reservoir.
Once the field is depleted, it can be utilized to store additional CO2 permanently.

Enhanced coal bed methane (ECBM)

Injection of CO2 in coal seams adsorbs and captures CO2 while releasing methane.
This process is unproved on a commercial scale but has the potential to utilize diluted
CO2 in flue gas and avoids capture and compression costs.

Urea yield boosting

Production of urea (a fertilizer) through the reforming of natural gas requires more CO2
than obtained in the reforming process. It is a proven technology.

Algae fixation
The engineered capture of CO2 by photosynthesis, where algae are fed with a pure
stream of CO2 to convert them directly into liquid fuels is still in the early stage of
demonstration.

Mineralization – 1 ton CO2 injected leads to the recovery of an additional 2–3 barrels of oil.
CO2 is stored in the form of limestone or other calcium carbonates and integrated
within concretes and cements. – CO2 is recycled in the reservoir as part the injected volumes when they go back to the
surface with the produced oil
CO2–EGS: this alternative to enhanced geothermal systems uses CO2 as working
fluid in place of water.

Storage and utilization technologies

41 Sources: IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Program (IEA GHG), “CO2 Storage in Depleted Oilfields: Global Application Criteria for Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery”; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
 In Enhanced Principle of ECBM ECBM schematic
coalbed methane – When CO2 is injected in the coalbed layer, both the
gaseous and adsorbed-state of CH4 and CO2 will exist
(ECBM) process, in equilibrium. However, since the coalbed has a
CO2 is injected much stronger adsorption capacity for CO2 than CH4,
the injection of CO2 will make the adsorbed CH4
into a CBM well to desorb, thus enhancing the CH4 recovery
enhance recovery – A proportion of the injected CO2 will be stored in the
coalbed formation, making it difficult for it to leak to
of methane whilst the surface
storing CO2 – The successful injection of CO2 to enhance coalbed
methane recovery has been proved by many
underground experimental and numerical studies but large-scale
commercial plants are absent
Compared to other storage
media, it is much more
difficult to provide estimates
of the realistic (or matched)
global storage capacity Advantages Challenges
potential due to the
complexity of the CO2-coal- – Methane recovery from existing wells can be In theory, CO2 is highly suited for injections in coal
methane-water system increased from below 50% to over 95% seams, but in practice, the situation is more complex
– CO2 can be stored in the methane-depleted coal – As the CO2 adsorbs to the coal surface it causes
seams localized swelling and reduced permeability–issues
resulting in lower or even halted production rates
– Revenue could be obtained from both increased gas
production as well as from greenhouse gas funding – Potential solutions include alternating CO2 injection
mechanisms with N2, by using flue gas, by allowing resting periods
between injections, or by performing different drilling
approaches, but all these options add complexity and
Storage & Utilization Technologies cost to a project making it economically unviable
– Lack of proper monitoring, verification, and accounting
(MVA) guidelines and technologies
42 Source: IEA CLEAN COAL CENTRE (2015) “Potential for enhanced coalbed methane recovery”, Press search, Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
 Only a few new Maturity curve of CO2 utilization technologies
CO2 applications
are in
development

Capital requirement x technology risk

Hydrogen from biomass Synthetic methane
Advanced monitoring technologies Methanol
Synthetic liquid hydrocarbons Saline formation
Supercritical CO2 cycle Depleted oil and gas reservoir
Concrete

Mineralization

Enhanced coal bed methane (ECBM) recovery

Other geological formations (e.g. Basalt)

CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
Mineral storage
Storage technologies

Utilization technologies
Power generation
Fuel production Urea
Cement industry
First-of-a-kind commercial projects
Lab work Bench scale Pilot scale with ongoing optimization Widely deployed

Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature technology

Maturity

Storage & Utilization Technologies

43 Sources: IEA–ETP Clean Energy Technology Guide (2020); Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
3. Global overview of
CCUS development

44
About 60(1) CCUS Overview of global CCUS projects
projects were Operational and
operational in (or Total In Development
projects projects
advanced
220 60
development 200 55
phase) in 2020 180
Operational projects 50
Project in development
160 45
Total developed projects
140 40
Cancelled and completed projects
35
120
30
100
25
80
20
60
15
40
10
20
5
Since about 2000, the 0
number of CCUS projects in 0
-20
operation have taken off, but -5
about 60% of developed -40 -10
projects have been -60 -15
terminated or cancelled. -80 -20
-100 -25
1972 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025f 2030f
Cancelled and
Completed
projects
Global perspective
(1) All types of projects included: pilot, demonstration, single-industry application, and clusters (CO2 captured from multiple sources).
45 Sources: GCCSI and NREL databases, IEA (2020); Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
 Sleipner In Salah Air Products SMR Coffeyville North West Redwater
– Statoil – BP, Sonatrach, Partnership
project – Coffeyville Resources
Most integrated – Gas processing
– 0.85 MtCO2 per year
Statoil
– Onshore
– Air product
– Hydrogen production
Nitrogen Fertilizers
– Alberta Carbon Trunk
Line (ACTL)
LLC – Oil refining
projects in – Carbon tax – Gas processing
– 1 MtCO2 per year
– 1 MtCO2 per year
– EOR revenues and
– Fertilizer
– 1 MtCO2 per year
– 1.4 MtCO2 per year
– EOR revenues
(injection – public grant
operation are currently suspended)
– CERs
– EOR revenues

associated with
the oil and gas Great Plains Synfuel Lost Cabin
– Conoco Phillips
Lula Oil Field
– Petrobras
Abu Dhabi CCUS Nutrien CO2 Stream
– Alberta Carbon Trunk
– Dakota gasification, – Abu Dhabi National
industry Cenovus, Apache
– Synthetic natural gas
– Gas processing
– 0.9 MtCO2 per year
– Gas process.
– 0.7 MtCO2 per year
Oil Company
– Iron and steel
Line (ACTL)
– Fertilizer production
– EOR revenues – EOR revenues – 0,8 MtCO2 per year – 0.6 MtCO2 per year
– 3 MtCO2 per year – EOR revenues
– EOR revenues
– EOR revenues

1996 2000 2004 2013 2016 2020

1986 1999 2003 2007 2010 2014 2015 2017 1999

Val Verde Snøhvit Boundary Dam Quest Gordon CO2 injection

Project name – Sandridge Energy, – Statoil – SaskPower – Shell – Chevron,
Occidental Petroleum – Gas processing – Coal power plant – Hydrogen production ExxonMobil, Shell…
– Plant owner – Gas processing – 0.7 MtCO2 year – 1 MtCO2 year for oil sand upgrader – Gas processing, LNG
– 1.3 MtCO2 per year – Carbon tax – 1.1 MtCO2 per year – 4 MtCO2 per year
– Plant type – EOR revenues
– EOR revenues and
public grant
– Public grant – Capex support from
– CO2 storage rate the Government

– Rationale for investment

Oil and gas processing plant
Shute Creek Great Plains Synfuel Century plant Uthmaniyah Petra Nova
EOR storage – ExxonMobil, – Dakota gasification, – Occidental petroleum, – Gas processing – NRG Energy, JX
Chevron, Anadarko Cenovus, Apache Sandridge – 0.8 MtCO2 year Nippon Oil
– Gas processing – Synthetic natural gas – Gas processing – EOR revenues – Coal power plant
– 7 MtCO2 per year – 3 MtCO2 per year – 5 MtCO2 year (8.4 Mt – 1.4 MtCO2 year
– EOR revenues – EOR revenues – max capture – EOR revenues
capacity)
– EOR revenues
Global perspective
Note: CERs are certified emissions reductions (Kyoto Protocol).
46 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
The USA houses
most of the CCS
projects and
facilities
worldwide

CCUS is mostly being

developed in North America,
then Europe followed by
APAC. Middle East and
Brazil are ramping up.

According to the GCCSI

definition of commercial
facilities(2) in 2020:
– 26 were in operation
– 2 were suspended
– 3 were under construction
– 24 were in early or
advanced development Commercial CCUS Facilities :
– CO2 captured for permanent storage as part of an ongoing commercial operation;
– Storage may be undertaken by a third party or by the owner of the capture facility;
– Generally, have economic lives similar to the host facility whose CO2 they capture;
– Must support a commercial return while operating and/or meet a regulatory requirement.
Pilot and demonstration facilities :
– CO2 captured for testing, developing or demonstrating CCS technologies or processes
– Captured CO2 may or may not be permanently stored
– Generally short life compared to large commercial facilities – determined by the time required to
complete tests and development processes or achieve demonstration milestones
Global perspective – Not expected to support a commercial return during operation

47 Source: GCCSI – Global Status of CCS 2020

 Overview of global CCUS projects (1972–2020)
Most CCUS
facilities are in Number of CCUS projects
100
OECD countries, 90 Considered as the pioneer of CCUS projects, North
but many projects 80 America, especially the United States, remains the
most important place for CCUS by having almost
have been 70
half of the current operational CCUS projects.
60
terminated or 50
Although the region has more than 40 in-
development projects, more than 35 projects have
cancelled (1/2) 40 been cancelled in the past, mostly for economic
30 reasons and lack of public acceptance.
20
Europe was the second continent to see CCUS
10 projects appearing (in Norway in 1996) and stay the
0 second-largest CCUS place, thanks to North Sea
In 2020, about 60 (1) projects -10 storage area.
are operational and about 60 -20
The current pipeline is expected to double the
are in development. CCUS -30 number of projects in the coming years in OECD
has been a risky business as -40 countries.
illustrated by the roughly 90 -50
Australia, China, and Japan lead the APAC CCUS
projects terminated or -60 development and are catching up with Europe
cancelled since 1972, -70 either in numbers of operational or in-development
essentially for economic -80 projects but have less completed projects so far.
reasons and lack of public -90 Unlike in Europe and in North America, where
acceptance. -100 several projects have been cancelled, APAC seams
Africa South Middle Europe Asia North
Non- OECD
to be proportionally less concerned by such issues.
America East Pacific America OECD countries
countries Despite oil and gas legacy the Middle East and its
huge EOR application potential there has been little
In development Operational Completed Cancelled
CCUS development so far.
Geographic focus (1): Operational: currently running projects; in development: early development, advanced
development, or in construction projects; terminated: pilots projects successfully over; cancelled:
expected projects cancelled. Both facilities and hubs are taken into account.
Sources: GCCSI database, IEA (2020); Our World in Data: CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
48 (2020); Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Most CCUS Overview of global CCUS projects (1972–2020)
facilities are in Sum of CO2 capture capacity (Mtpa)
OECD countries, 150

but many projects 140

130
In 2020, the global CCUS capacity reached
have been 120
about 50 Mtpa. The current pipeline of projects
should more than quadruple the global capacity in
terminated or 110 the coming years, targeting about 170 Mtpa.
100
cancelled (2/2) 90
OECD countries have about five times more
operational CO2 capture capacities than the rest of
80
the world. Europe and North America are expected
70 to capture almost three-fourths of the future
60 capacity development.
50
Most of non-OECD projects are Chinese projects
40 (60% of the projects and 50% of capture
30 capabilities). Middle East represents 10% of the
20 projects and more than 25% of capture capabilities.
10 Other emerging countries such as Brazil, India,
0 South Korea, Taiwan, or South Africa also have
-10 launched CCUS projects in the past few years.
-20
-30
-40
-50
Africa South Middle Europe Asia North Non- OECD
OECD countries
America East Pacific America countries

In development Operational Completed Cancelled

Geographic focus Notes: Operational: currently running projects; in development: early development, advanced
development, or in construction projects; terminated: pilots projects successfully over; cancelled:
expected projects cancelled. Both facilities and hubs are taken into account.
Sources: GCCSI database, IEA (2020); Our World in Data: CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
49 (2020); Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
The size of CCUS Median of CO2 capture of projects
projects is (in Mtpa)
The size of CCUS projects has been increasing over the
expected to more 4,0 +421% years. Initial projects, either operational, terminated, or
In development cancelled, generally had a storage capacity bellow 1
than double in the 3,5 +1.322% Operational Mtpa of CO2. Projects under development often are two
to four times bigger in terms of storage capacity.
coming years Completed
3,0 Cancelled Operational CCUS projects commonly range between
0.5 to 1 Mtpa. Project under development show larger
2,5 +118% capacity than operating ones, with median capacity
ranging from about 2 to 4 Mtpa across most regions,
+211% except in APAC, where median of project averages 1
2,0
Mtpa. The operating Gordon project (natural gas
processing facility in Australia) is expected to reach 4
1,5 Mtpa at full scale. Targeting a storage capacity of 20
+180%
Mtpa (by 2035), the “H21 North of England” is the
1,0 largest CCUS project under development (operational in
+161% 2028). The second ongoing project “Prairie State
0,5 Generating Station Carbon Capture” target between 10
Mtpa in 2021 (retrofit of a 816 MWe coal power plant).
0,0 If North America is leading the CCUS development
sector thanks to EOR. the development of large clusters
-0,5 in the Middle East and Europe may rebalance the
importance of CCUS capacity development globally.
-1,0 With hubs and clusters, Europe is going to gather
emissions form industrial areas and mostly store it into
the North Sea.
-1,5
Africa South Middle Europe Asia North Non- OECD The high range of South America relies on one single 3
America East Pacific America OECD countries Mtpa project: Petrobras Santos Basin Pre-Salt Oil Field
countries CCS in Brazil).

Geographic focus Notes: Operational: currently running projects; in development: early development, advanced development, or in construction projects; terminated: pilots projects successfully over; cancelled: expected projects
cancelled. Both facilities and hubs are taking into account. This chart bar has been made in median of CO2 capture capacity to avoid bias generated from few huge CCUS clusters (for example, the 200 Mtpa CCUS
cluster to be developed in the Gulf of Mexico resulting from the aggregation of several small hubs).
Sources: GCCSI database, IEA (2020); Our World in Data: CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2020); Full-Scale Feed Study for Retrofitting the Prairie State Generating Station with an 816 MWe Capture Plant
50 Using Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of America Post-Combustion CO2 Capture Technology; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
North America is Leading CCUS countries in 2020
Capture Capacity Number of operational
Type of storage

leading the global (Mtpa) projects EOR Geological storage Utilisation

CCUS United States 27,2 24 95% 4%

development Australia 4,3 5 93% 7%

Canada 4,3 8 72% 28%

Brazil 3,0 1 100%

China 2,3 12 85% 15%

Norway 1,7 3 100%

Saudi Arabia 1,3 2 100%

United Arab Emirates 0,8 1 100%

Croatia 0,6 2 100%

Sweden 0,5 1 100%

Rest of the world Not available 9 100%

North America is by far the current main place for CCUS projects. 60% of the current operational projects
take place either in Canada or in the United States, but they mostly represent 84% of the current
operational worldwide capture capacity of CO2 emissions. By adding Brazil in the stats, the last number
increases to ~90%. Asia have currently 7 ongoing projects (including 6 in China) for a total capture
capacity of 2,6 Mtpa. 4 projects are operational in Europe which capture almost 2,8 MtCO2 per year.
Finally, there are 3 operational projects in Middle East with a total capture capacity of 2,1 Mtpa.
Geographic focus Even if these numbers are quite low, many more projects and clusters are in development, mostly in
Europe, North America. These projects are starting in the next few years.
Note : only countries with a capture capacity greater than 0,5 Mtpa are reported
51 Source : Kearney Energy Transition Institute based on GCCSI and NETL databases
GCC countries GCC countries have huge potential for CCUS projects in GCC countries in
have great CCUS 2020 3

potential and 2
ambition in CCUS – Up to 30 Gt of CO2 can be stored
underground in the region. 1
development
– The Middle East emits 1.9 GtCO2 in 2018
Saudi Arabia UAE Qatar
(~5% of global emissions).
Advanced development Operational
– The Middle East benefits from large
geological storage capacities, possibly linked
to EOR opportunities. – Three CCUS projects are in application: two in
natural gas processing and one in iron and steel
production capturing a total of 2.1 Mtpa of CO2.

CCUS is in governments’ minds in their Capture capacity in the GCC region

way to decrease CO2 emissions (MtCO2 per year) 100.0

– CCS is a strong component of the GCC 14.4

countries low-carbon plans. x4
– Capturing CO2 will permit replacing natural
gas used for EOR.

3.7
Geographic focus
Sources: GCCSI Global Status Report 2020, Our World in Data Annual CO2 emissions (2018);
52 Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis 2020 2025 2040
4. Outlook of carbon
capture development
per sector

53 Image by rrinch01
Oil & Gas and Size of carbon capture projects per industry application
Power Generation (1972-2030, max capacity in Mtpa)
The graph represent the main CCUS projects developed
and sectors have and planned to be developed, since the first CCCS
been leading the CCUS project
capacity
project (Terrell Natural Gas Processing Plant ) was
developed in 1972 in the United States.
CCUS 55 Clusters are CCUS projects that capture CO2
development emissions from at least two different types of industrial
sources, by opposition to single industry projects (Heavy
Industries, Oil & Gas, Chemicals, Hydrogen and Power
50 Generation) that capture CO2 emissions from a single
type of industry. Hydrogen has been treated as a
specific entity but could in fact be included in the Oil &
Gas category, as Hydrogen projects results from the
processing of fossil fuels, generally operated by the Oil
15
& Gas industry.
The Oil & Gas industry developed the first CCUS
project in 1972, capturing CO2 from natural gas
10 processing and reinjecting it in petroleum reservoir for
Enhanced Oil Recovery.
The emerging blue hydrogen industry is accelerating
5
the need for CCS projects, with 3 dedicated operating
projects. Although Hydrogen projects are treated as a
specific industry, they also rely to the Oil & Gas industry
as they generally result from the processing of natura
0 gas.
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 The power generation started developing CCUS
project in 1976 (in the US) capturing CO2 from coal-fired
Operation year
boiler and was used for soda production.
Clusters Hydrogen
Heavy Industries Oil & Gas
Sectoral overview Chemicals Power Gen.
: currently running projects; 2In development : “early development”, “advanced
1Operational

development” or “in construction” projects

54 Source: GCCS; NETL; Kearney Energy Transition Institute
Application of CCUS projects dedicated to industry
CCUS projects is (1972–2020)1
Chemicals applications (such as fertilizers or biofuels
extending to other production) of carbon capture is gaining momentum, with
several projects being under development. The purpose of
Number of projects
large emitting most projects is to combine the production of bio-energies
with CCS (BECCS) or recombine the CO2 captured with low-
50
sectors, including carbon hydrogen to produce synthetic fuels (bio-jet fuels).
(See the Biomass to Energy FactBook.)
heavy industries, 40
Other heavy industries (such as cement production or iron
blue hydrogen, 30
and steel) only show a few CCUS project development,
mostly because of both high technological and financial
and chemicals barriers to make CCUS a standard in the industry. CCUS
20 projects related to heavy industries are expected to increase
four times their current capture capacity.
10 The largest growth should come from the power generation
industry with about 20 CCUS projects under development.
However, the power sector has developed then cancelled
0
and terminated many projects in the past, which illustrates a
high level of abandonment of CCUS projects in that sector.
-10
CCUS projects related to blue hydrogen development are
currently relatively limited but generally trigger the largest
-20 project capacities, comprise between 4 to 5 Mtpa each.
Europe, and especially the United Kingdom, have started
-30
several H2 production as a vector of energy projects to
become a strong place. The projects under development are
expected to catch almost 5 MtCO2 per year. The largest
-40 CCUS project in development (H21 North of England) targets
Chemicals Heavy Power Hydrogen Oil and Clusters 20Mtpa capacity by 2035.
industries generation gas
Oil and gas operational CCUS projects capture on average
In development Operational Terminated Cancelled
1.3 MtCO2 per year and are going to slightly increase to 1.7
Mtpa. Chemicals projects are also expected to increase their
carbon capacity in order to reach 1 Mtpa. Blue hydrogen
1. New clusters and hubs (such as Exxon’s GoM project to capture 50 MT CO2 / year ) are not
production is likely to significantly increase the size of CCUS
Sectoral overview included as they have been announced recently and are in the planning stage.
Notes: Operational: currently running projects. In development: early development, advanced
project in oil and gas.
development, or in construction projects. Terminated: pilots projects successfully over. Cancelled:
expected projects cancelled. Hubs serving multiple industries were not included.
55 Sources: GCCS; NETL; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
BECCS Description Overview of technology
(Bioenergy and – BECCS involves the utilisation of biomass as an
Carbon capture energy source and the capture and permanent
storage of CO2 produced during the conversion of
and storage) is a biomass to energy
– CCS used in the framework of bioenergy represents
group of both a negative carbon solution and a way of
technologies to producing sustainable energy.
– CO2 is captured during bioenergy combustion or
produce energy in the manufacture of biofuels and can be then
from biomass and stored or used.
– A few pilot plants of BECCS are already producing
store the CO2 electricity while storing carbon, but mostly at small
scale

Fact card: BECCS Key features estimates

Cost ($ per t-CO2) $100 to $200
Pros Cons
Potential (Gt-CO2 per year) 0.5–5
– Mature technology – High cost Water Consumption (km 3 per Gt-CO2) 60
– Provides both – Land competition
Risk of reversal Dependent on storage
sustainable energy – Competitiveness on energy
and negative price Verifiability Yes
carbon emission – Significant efficiency Thermal Energy (GJ per t-CO2) <0
penalties cause the failure of
many projects Electrical Energy (MWh per t-CO2) <0
Land use (m² per t-CO2 per year) 310–580
Sectoral overview
Advantage Drawback
56
Sources: "Technology Roadmap Delivering Sustainable Bioenergy,” IPPC “SR1.5 – chapter 3 and 4” (2018); Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
CCUS deployment Stage of CCUS development
has entered an
industrialization Development of
CCUS Possibly mature industry
stage that is Industrialization 2020 IEA target CCUS represents 14% of
characterized by IEA 2030 forecast: 840 MtCO2 captured
carbon emissions reduction in 2050
Early stage
the execution of (pilot and demonstration) per year

larger projects and

Generalization of CCUS clusters
clusters gathering multiple emitters
– Clean H2 production
Development of first CCUS clusters – Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and
– Shared transport infrastructures Storage (BECCUS
– Common storage site – Cement production
Testing and commercializing – Cost improvement (effect of scale) – Steel production
components in separate industries – Waste treatment
– Capture: CO2 and gas separation used in First CCUS projects associated to
upstream oil and gas and power generation new applications
– Transport: CO2 pipelines for EOR Increase of CCUS project size
– Blue H2 production
– Storage: Commercial EOR and aquifer trials – Bioenergy with CCUS (BECCUS)
(CO2 Mtpa)
– Chemicals
Demonstration projects – Heavy industries: cement and steel Mature transport network and
Integrate “gen 1” technology storage infrastructures
– Direct public funding Increasing regulatory pressure for
– Demonstrate various combinations of CCUS CO2 emissions reduction Mature regulation enabling
– Define and reduce system costs – Increase in carbon pricing (not yet economic viability of
sufficient in many regions) application in all sectors
– Net-zero targets deployed in many
regions an sectors

First large project (Shute

Creek) and in aquifer 2005–2010 CCUS competitive with other 2030–2040 2050: objective of 2070+
low-carbon energy technologies net-zero emissions
(Sleipner)

Sectoral overview
Note: Large projects refers to integrated CCUS projects larger than 0.6 MtCO2 per year.
57 Sources: IEA and GCCSI reports; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Global CCUS Number of operational CCUS projects Total capture operational CCUS projects
capacity is Number of large-scale projects Capture capacity (Mtpa)
expected to more 150 200
than double in the +70% +230%
next decade, with 150
the emergence of 100
larger projects and
100
clusters
50
50

0 0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025f 2030f 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025f 2030f

Chemicals Hydrogen Power generation

Heavy industries Oil and gas Clusters

Power plants with CCUS is the sector with more large-scale facilities than any other industries (17 new
projects between 2015 and 2030). Those facilities are expected to capture a total of 64 MtCO2 per year.
The chemicals industry plans to develop eight new large-scale facilities by 2030, capturing almost 8 MtCO2
(on average 1 MtCO2 per project).
In contrast, the blue hydrogen industry is expected to increase its capture capacity from 2 to 46 MtCO2 (on
Sectoral overview average 5 MtCO2 per project).
Note: CCUS clusters projects (serving multiple industries and applications) have been included for the realization of the graphs.
58 Sources: GCCS, NETL; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
CCUS facilities Context Challenges
have been ▪ Natural gas deposits can contain large amounts of CO2 – ▪ Location dependency i.e. a large-scale gas processing
even up to 90% – which, for technical reasons, must be
operating for removed before the gas is sold or processed for liquefied
plant requires near-by gas fields (for gas supply) and CO2
transport infrastructure (for ease in utilization ex: pipeline
decades in natural natural gas (LNG) production connectivity to EOR storage sites)
▪ Till 2000s, almost all the CO2 captured globally at large- ▪ Natural gas processing requires very high capture rates to
gas processing scale facilities was captured from gas processing plants, but meet product gas specifications for pipeline transport
now make up about two-third of the total typically less than 0.5% CO2 by volume) and liquefaction
sector ▪ Relatively mature application area where CO2 can be (0.005% CO2 by volume)
captured at relatively low cost and high concentration.
Captured CO2 can be reinjected into geological formations
or used for EOR.

Physical separation is currently the main capture method used in natural gas processing with most of the large-scale gas processing
plants using proprietary solvents

Key technologies Description

Physical Physical absorption uses a liquid solvent to absorb CO2 from flue gases that have high CO2 partial pressures, without a chemical
CCUS is the only solution to reaction occurring. Common physical solvents include Selexol (dimethyl ethers of polyethylene glycol) and Rectisol (methanol).
address CO2 emissions from adsorption
natural gas processing which Physical In physical adsorption, molecules are captured on the surface of selective materials called adsorbents. Desorption of the CO 2
assumes importance given (release from the surface) may be achieved using pressure swing adsorption (PSA), performed at high pressure, or vacuum swing
the projected high share of absorption adsorption (VSA), which operates at ambient pressure. A hybrid configuration also exists, known as Vacuum Pressure Swing
Adsorption (VPSA)
natural gas across energy Cryogenic separation is a commercial process that takes place at very low temperature, where the component of feed gas starts to
systems over the next few Cryogenic
liquefy. Cryogenic process for separation involves cooling of the gas to a very low temperature so that CO 2 can be liquefied and
decades Separation separated. The cryogenic distillation method is commonly used in sweetening of natural gas, it separates and liquefies CO 2 in the
natural gas stream. The main advantage of the cryogenic distillation is the capability of the process to produce liquid CO 2 ready for
transportation.
Membrane Membrane separation uses a semi-selective membrane (a polymeric membrane that allows some gases to pass through but not
others) to concentrate CO2 on one side of the membrane, thus separating it from a stream. In natural gas processing, this
separation technology is at the demonstration stage currently
Natural Gas Processing

59 Sources: “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” International Energy Agency 2020, Press search,Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
 Shute Creek Gas Plant, La Barge, Wyoming Century Plant, Pecos County, Texas
Globally, the
biggest
commercial CCUS
plants in operation
are in natural gas
processing sector

Operator ExxonMobil Operator Occidental Petroleum

Start date 1986 Start date 2010

Size 7 Mtpa Size 8.4 Mtpa

CO2 Source Natural gas stream from fields in Wyoming, CO2 Source Nearby fields in the Val Verde sub-basin
including LaBarge field
Separation Physical separation using solvents
Separation Cryogenic Separation
Transport 100-mile pipeline
Transport 142-mile pipeline
Oil Field EOR Permian Basin Fields
Oil Field EOR A series of fields in Wyoming, Colorado, and Storage Site
Storage Site Montana
Key Highlights The largest single industrial source CO2
Key Highlights A concentrated acid gas stream of about 60% capture facility in North America. Since 2010,
hydrogen sulfide and 40% CO2 is injected into the plant has supplied CO2 for enhanced oil
a section of the same reservoir from which it recovery operations via a 100-mile pipeline
was produced, safely disposing of the linking the facility to the CO2 distribution hub in
hydrogen sulfide and CO2. In 2008, an Denver City, Texas. The plant was designed in
expansion of the CO2 capture facility brought 2008 with a maximum capacity of 5 Mtpa and
the capacity up to 7 Mtpa. brought online in 2010. An expansion in 2012
Natural Gas Processing increased capacity to 8.4 Mtpa
Source: MEETING THE DUAL CHALLENGE, APPENDIX C – CCUS PROJECT SUMMARIES,
60 National Petroleum Council report (2020), Carbonbrief.org, Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Natural gas Natural Gas Processing combined with CCUS projects
processing Non-exhaustive

pioneered the CCS

application in CNPC Jilin
1972, but really Abu Dhabi Phase II
took off forty
years later Lost Cabin Gas Plant
Halten CNPC Jilin

Bell Creek

In Salah
Century Plant Petrobras Santos Basin

Sleipner
Terrell
Gorgon
Snøhvit

Shute Creek Uthmaniyah QP Ras Laffan

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Operational Year
Natural Gas Processing = 1 Mtpa Capture Capacity

Natural Gas Processing

Note: some Pilots and Demonstration CCS facilities are not included in this graph when their capture capacity remains unknown
61 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, WEO (2019), International Energy Agency (2019), The Future of Hydrogen, Seizing today’s opportunities, GCCSI Global Status of CCUS 2019
Several Context Barriers
technology ▪ Globally, the power sector is the largest emitter of CO2 ▪ Relatively young age of many fossil fuel-fired power plants,
solutions are today, at about 40% of global energy related CO2
emissions and is expected to witness robust growth with
in particular coal plants, notably in China
▪ Integrating increasing amounts of variable renewables into
applicable to the electricity demand almost tripling over the period to 2070. power systems is a major task in the transition to clean
▪ Carbon capture is projected to contribute about 20% to electricity
power generation the cumulative decarbonization efforts of the powers
sector over the period to 2070.
sector ▪ CCUS development for fossil fuel power generation could
help provide dispatchable power sources and therefore
support the development of intermittent / renewable power
sources

Key technologies Description

Chemical At a coal-fired power plant with post-combustion capture using chemical absorption, the carbon dioxide is separated from the
combustion flue gas by using a chemical solvent (such as amine-based). The CO2 is released at elevated temperatures, the
absorption solvent regenerated and recycled back for further operation.

Physical In an integrated gasification combined-cycle coal power plant, coal is gasified into a synthesis gas, consisting of hydrogen and
carbon monoxide. The synthesis gas is shifted in a water-gas-shift (WGS) reaction to produce additional hydrogen and convert the
CCUS can allow existing absorption carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is then captured from the shifted syngas using physical separation
plants to continue operations processes, such as adsorption, and afterward, the remaining hydrogen (H2) is combusted in a combined-cycle gas turbine that
generates power.
after CO2 capture retrofits
Oxy-fueling An oxy-fueling coal-fired power plant involves the combustion of coal using nearly pure oxygen instead of air, resulting in a flue gas
and lifetime extensions composed of CO2 and water vapor, which can be dehydrated to obtain a high-purity CO2 stream.

Membranes At a coal-fired power plant with post-combustion capture using chemical absorption, the carbon dioxide is separated from the
combustion flue gas by membranes, which are polymeric films and act as a selective barrier able to separate CO 2 from a stream.
polymeric
Chemical looping Chemical looping systems use small particles of metal (such as iron and manganese) to bind oxygen from the air to form a metal
oxide (first reactor), which is then transported to the other reactor where it releases the oxygen for the combustion of the fuel, thus
combustion generating energy and a concentrated stream of CO2 (second reactor).
Supercritical CO2 While in conventional power plants flue gas or steam is used to drive one or multiple turbines, in supercritical CO 2 (sCO2) cycles
supercritical CO2 is used (CO2 at or above its critical temperature and pressure, where liquid and gaseous phases of CO 2 are
Power Generation cycle indistinguishable). sCO2 cycles offer many potential advantages, including higher plant efficiencies, lower air pollutant emissions,
lower investment costs and high CO2 capture rates.
62 Sources: “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” International Energy Agency 2020; Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
 Overview of key carbon capture technologies in power generation
Not exhaustive
Chemical Chemical Physical
Oxy-fueling Membranes Chemical looping
absorption is the absorption absorption
Stage Post combustion Pre combustion Oxy-fuel Post combustion Oxy-fuel
most mature
carbon capture Capture rates ~90% ~90% 90% 80–90% Up to 98%

technology option Operating 120°–150°C 120°–150°C High High 600°–900°C

in power temperature (°C)
generation Importance for net
zero
High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Key countries United States, China, Japan, Australia, Spain Australia, Brazil, NA
Canada, United United States Norway, United
Kingdom, Japan States
Key projects – Boundary Dam – In Japan, CO2 – Coal-fired – Membrane- – No major large-
Carbon Capture capture tests Callide power based scale
Project, Canada started end of station (30 MW) separation of demonstration
– Petra Nova 2019 at an in Australia carbon dioxide projects but
Carbon Capture, oxygen-blown – Circulating has been around 40 pilot
United States, IGCC power fluidized bed performed at plants with
largest post- plant (160 MW) coal-fired boiler demonstration varying
combustion – In Belgium, a 20 (30 MW) in and large scale capacities (0.2
carbon capture MW pilot plant Spain (respectively in kW to 3 MW)
system installed tested pre- (Compostilla Australia and have operated
on a coal-fired combustion project) Brazil ) for chemical looping
power plant (can capture at the natural gas combustion
– Schwarze
capture up to 1.4 253-MW processing. under various
Pumpe lignite
MtCO2 per year Buggenum Moreover, the conditions
power station
for use in IGCC power Polaris relevant for
(30 MW) in
enhanced oil plant between membrane is combustion of
Germany
recovery and May 2011 and available coal, gas, oil,
received $163 October 2013 commercially for and biomass
million (2008) CO2
Power Generation Technology readiness level
High Low
63 Sources: “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” International Energy Agency 2020; Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
Carbonate fuel cell Conventional gas power plant Gas power plant with molten carbonate fuel cell capture
is a promising with CCS unit
technology
10%
innovation in the 0.3 CO2 + 6 H2O + air
10%
CO2
power sector that 90%
storage
produces MCFC
2.7 CO2
Additional
4CO2 + 8H2O + air 3CO2 + 6H2O + air
electricity while power output
increasing the Power Power
concentration of plant plant 4H2 + CO2 90% CO2
storage
CO2 in the flue gas 3.7 CO2 + 4H2O

Higher CO2
4CH4 + 4O2 + air 3CH4 + 3O2 + air CH4 + 2H2O concentration

CO2 is concentrated by a Power output: 400MW for a 500MW plant Power output: +50% to + 200% (depending on CO2 capture intensity)
fuel cell process as a side Estimated carbon intensity: ~60g CO2/kWh Estimated carbon intensity:~40 to 25g CO2/kWh
reaction of power
generation. For example, a • A conventional combined cycle gas • Conventional cycle gas turbine produces power from methane combustion
500 MW plant would turbine (CCGT) produces power • Exhausted gases are cleaned from 90% of their CO2 by the molten
produce an additional 120 from methane combustion. carbonate fuel cell, which is powered by methane (reformed into hydrogen).
MW using MCFC instead of • About 20% of the power generated is • The molten carbonate fuel cell produces additional decarbonized power
consuming 50 MW for consumed by the CO2 storage during the electrochemical reaction of capturing CO2.
conventional capture. process (90% CO2 captured).
• Exhausted gases release CO2 in the
atmosphere.
Power Generation Note: Cost analysis for SureSource technology in a 550MW coal-fired plant equippedforty90% CCUS
Sources: CCUS Talks: The Technology Cost Curve, GCCSI, 2020; Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Performance for CO2 Capture from Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Flue Gas, Journal of the Electrochemical Society,
2020; Exxon Mobil Advanced Carbonate Fuel Cell Technology in Carbon Capture and Storage, FuelCell Energy: Carbon Capture with Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Power Plants, 2017; Kearney Energy Transition
64 Institute analysis
Chemical Overview Two-stage flash model
innovations are – U.S. DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL) – along with partners from Fluor Corp and the
helping reduce Electric Power Research Institute – are using the Clean gas
cost in extracting unique properties of a solvent, known as EEMPA (N- CO2

(2-ethoxyethyl)-3-morpholinopropan-1-amine), that
CO2 from post- allow it to sidestep the energetically expensive Trim Cooler
demands incurred by traditional solvents
combustion gas.
– The method demonstrated 90% CO2 capture and
release from power plant flue gas for $47.10 per Flue gas
Cross
metric ton (vs $58.30 per metric ton for current Absorber Exchanger HP Flash LP Flash
commercial solutions)
Rich solvent
– Pivoting to plastic equipment (from steel) further
optimizes the costs (by $5 per metric ton)
PNNL team has also
identified the ideal rock and
process (time efficient) of
injecting captured carbon in
it to transform it into a Advantages R&D roadmap
carbonate rock i.e.
mineralisation – Reduces costs by 19% and requires 17% less – In 2022, PNNL team will produce 4,000 gallons of
energy compared to commercial counterparts EEMPA to test in the facilities (0.5-megawatt scale) at
(aqueous amines-based absorption solutions) the National Carbon Capture Center in Shelby County,
Since this process Alabama, in a project led by the Electric Power
transforms CO2 from gas to – Captures carbon without high water content, so it's
Research Institute in partnership with Research
solid state, it is stable for water-lean
Triangle Institute International
geologic time and would not – Much less viscous than other water-lean solvents
hence no diluent needed – Key research areas would be to test increasing scales
cause earthquakes and further refine the solvent's chemistry, with the aim
– Low solvent volatility to reach the U.S. DOE’s goal of deploying
– Can be used in existing infrastructure commercially available technology that can capture
Power Generation CO2 at a cost of $30 per metric ton by 2035

Source: DOE/PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY, Techno-economic comparison of various process configurations for post-combustion carbon capture using a single-component water-lean solvent
65 (Jian et all 2021), Press search, Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
CCUS use has Power generation combined with CCUS projects
been introduced to Non-exhaustive

retrofit biomass,
natural gas, or Gerald Gentleman Station
coal-fired power
plants and abate
their CO2
emissions ZEROS Project Tundra
Boundary Dam

Korea CCS 1&2

Dry Fork Drax BECCS
In 2019, 60% of the Petra Nova GreenGen
electricity generation relied
on coal or natural gas use, Cal Capture
and the global electricity
Sinopec Shengli
generation is forecasted to Caledonia Clean Energy
grow by 23% from 2019 to
2030. In the World Energy Eemshaven Ervia Cork
Prairie State
Outlook 2020 Stated Policies
Scenario, CCUS will be
needed to mitigate the
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
additional emissions.
Operational Year
Natural Gas Biomass Coal Coal/biomass Waste to Energy = 1 Mtpa Capture Capacity

Power Generation
Note: some Pilots and Demonstration CCS facilities are not included in this graph when their capture capacity remains unknown
66 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, WEO (2020), International Energy Agency (2019), The Future of Hydrogen, Seizing today’s opportunities, GCCSI Global Status of CCUS 2019
The first Saskpower Boundary Dam CCUS Project
large-scale CCUS After more than six years in planning, CCUS
power plant began for power generation has finally become
a reality with the opening of the SaskPower
operation in Boundary Dam, the first large-scale CCUS
power plant in operation.
October 2014 in
After initial start-up hiccups, the plant
Canada, marking a appears to be running “exceptionally well” as
landmark in clean of Q1 2016, and has captured 0.75MtCO2
since operational start-up
fossil-fuel power 1 MtCO2 year Capture Plant This project illustrates the substantial
generation upfront costs required by each large
integrated CCUS project: $640 million in
pure capture costs excluding pipelines (~$20
Project characteristics Details million for 100 km), storage site
characterization and storage facilities (up to
Power capacity with CCUS 115 MW, 90% CO2 emissions captured, a dozen injection wells, depending on
1 MtCO2 per year (more than 4 Mt CO2
cumulatively has been captured by March 2021,
reservoir quality).
including 0.73 Mt in 2020) Although of commercial-scale, Boundary
Dam is not a commercial initiative:
Total capital costs $1.42 billion (8% over budget)
SaskPower, a state-owned utility monopoly,
Carbon capture unit cost $620 million has received public grants and increased
electricity tariffs to finance the project.
Government funding $314 million
Other facilitating factors for SaskPower
Capture type Post-combustion by Cansolv (Shell) include low-cost local fuel (lignite), CO2 sales
for EOR, and the absence of transport costs,
Transport type Pipeline (built and owned by Cenovus) as Cenovus is building and owns the related
transport pipeline.
Storage type EOR (sold to Cenovus)
Saskpower CEO estimates the LCOE for
Planning Plan start: February 2008 Boundary Dam to be similar to that of a new-
Power Generation Construction start: April 2011 build gas combined cycle plant in the region.
Operation status: Fully operational in Q1-2016
67 Sources: BNEF “Operational CCUS in Canada: Blueprint or One-Hit Wonder?” (2014); picture credit: adapted from SaskpowerCCUS.com; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Post-combustion Caledonia Clean Energy Project
capture in a
natural gas-fired Country: United Kingdom
power plant for Operational date: 2025
low carbon Capex: around £50M for pre-feed
electricity
CO2 savings: 3.1 Mt year
Project leaders: Summit Power Group

Project characteristics Details

Capacity 1.3 GW of low carbon power

CCUS efficiency 90% of CO2 emissions

Caledonia Clean Energy Government funding $4.2 millions
Project is a natural gas
power plant using post- CO2 capture capacity Up to 3.1 MtCO2 per year
combustion carbon capture Business type Natural gas power plant
technology to remove up to
90% of CO2 emissions. The Planning 2014: project announcement
2017–2020: pre-FEED phase
captured CO2 is then stored 2024: expected operational start
into the North Sea for
geological storage. Capture type Post-combustion type

Transport type Pipeline

Utilization type Geological storage

Power Generation

68 Sources: Steelanol, LanzaTech, Cordis Europa; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
CCUS combined Drax BECCUS Plant
with bioenergy at
Drax biomass- Country: United Kingdom
fired power plant Operational date : 2027
to reach negative Investment : £400,000 for the pilot project
emissions CO2 savings: Currently 300 kg per day
Project leaders: Drax Group and Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries Group

Project characteristics Details

Capacity 4 660 MW biomass units

Drax Group wants to add Government funding Project is concerned by a £800 millions envelope of subsidies of the UK government.
carbon capture facilities to its
CO2 capture capacity Pilot: 300 kg per day, aim of 8 MtCO2 per year by 2024 and 50 MtCO2 per year by 2050
current biomass power plant
in North Yorkshire. The Business type Biomass power with carbon capture
power plant would become Planning 2018–2019: first pilot
one of the first bioenergy 2020: second pilot
carbon capture and storage 2020–2027: development of CCUS-technology on one biomass unit
(BECCUS) facilities in 2030: installation on a second unit
Europe. The project is part of 2035: installation on all four units
Zero Carbon Humber. Capture type Post-combustion

Transport type Pipeline

Power Generation Utilisation type Geological storage + works to turn CO2 into fish food

69 Sources: Drax; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis

First NET Power – Allam-Fetvedt Cycle
demonstration of
Allan-Fetvedt Country: United States / Texas
Cycle gas-power Operational date : March 2016
plant Investment : $ 150M
CO2 savings: n.a.
Source: NET Power, https://netpower.com/technology/ Project leaders: NET Power, 8 Rivers Capital

Project characteristics Details

Capacity 50 MWth (25 Mwe), natural gas-fired power demonstration plant

Net energy efficiency 55% (potentially up to 59%)

CO2 capture efficiency 100%

NET Power has developed a
semi-closed loop Allam- Ramp-up-rate 2% to 5% per minute from warm to hot start
Fetvedt Cycle leveraging Government funding $44 M from USDOE, potential leverage of 45Q carbon capture tax credit
oxy-combustion technologies
to produce emissions-free Business type Power generation combined with carbon capture, utilization, and/or storage
power, burning methane with Planning 2018: First-fire reached at the La Porte Project (50-MWth, Texas)
pure oxygen in an industrial 2019: Pre-FEEDs of Allam Cycle plants (280-300 MW) USA
process involving turbine, 2020: Pre-FEED for a 300 MW power plant in Teesside area, United Kingdom
heat exchanger, and 2021: Announcement of 2 initial commercial facilities in progress in CO and IL (280 MW) USA
2025: Expected commercial operation of first 280 MWe gas-power plant, USA
compressor.
Capture type Post-combustion, providing high pressure CO2 (30 to 300 bar)

Transport type TBD

Power Generation
Utilisation type Large range of potential uses including storage
70 Sources: NET Power; powermag.com (link); Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Retrofitting coal Potential CO2 emissions reduction from CCUS on thermal power plants
and gas-fired Emission intensity1,2 Total CO2 emissions per year for energy production from fossil
( gCO2eq/kWh) power plants and potential emissions reductions with CCUS
power plants with retrofit
1.200
90% CCUS would (Mt of CO2)
save 11 Gt of CO2
1.001
emissions per 1.000
15.000
-84%
year 13.050
800
2.880

10.000
600

469

400
5.000 10.170
-49%
200
2.060
740 1.050
48
12 1.320 560
0 0 490
Coal Natural Solar PV Wind CO2 emissions CO2 emissions CO2 emissions
gas with 90% CCS with 99% CCS
Emision intensity Natural gas Coal
Emission intensity with 90% CCS
Emission intensity with 99% CCUS
Power Generation
1. For conventional subcritical power plant units
2. 90% CCUS and 99% CCUS are more efficient on coal emissions since they are mostly direct emissions and natural gas emissions also have a significant share of indirect emissions not tackled with CCUS..
71 Sources: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
CCUS equipment Timeline of power plants projects
or retrofitting 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

thermal plants is Boundary Dam

starting and Cal Capture Elk Hills Power Plant

expected to Caledonia Clean Energy

strengthen in the CarbFix Project Hellisheidi

next few years Chongqing Hechuan

Drax BECCS Plant

Dry Fork

Eemshaven Power Plant

Gerald Gentleman Station

GreenGen IGCC

Haifeng
Huntington Beach Plant
(Carbon SAFE Project)
Korea-CCS 1&2

Petra Nova

Prairie State

Project Tundra

Sinopec Shengli CCS

ZEROS Project
Power Generation
Pilot phase Development phase Operational phase
72
Recent coal power Age structure of coal capacity per region
plants built in GW, world, 2019
China and India 800

provide huge
potential for CCUS 600
Others
Southeast Asia
development India
China
Europe
400
United States

200

0
Less than 10–20 20–30 30–40 40–50 50+
10 years

• 2,080 GW of coal-fired power plants are in operation in the world, accounting for about 38% of the electricity
production.
• Almost 60% of the world’s coal fleet is 20 years old or younger, and a coal power plant design lifetime is 50 years.
• Over the past 20 years, Asia accounted for 90% of all coal-fired capacity built worldwide: China (880 GW), India
(173GW), and Southeast Asia (63 GW)
• Modern coal plants (ultrasupercritical, supercritical, and combined heat and power) are more efficient than old
generation (subcritical plants), in terms of carbon emissions intensity.
• Subcritical plant represent 40% of the coal fleet emissions and more than half of them are under 20 years of age.
Power Generation

73 Sources: WEO 2019; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis

In the cement Context Challenges
industry, CO2 ▪ Because of its size and the inherent characteristics of its ▪ High reliance on coal for high temperature heat
capture can be production process, the cement sector is one of the main
sources of anthropogenic CO2, accounting for 8% of
▪ Large share and quantity of process emissions
▪ Low-margins
accomplished global emissions.
▪ Need to locate capacity relatively near to the point of use
▪ Carbon footprint depends on the ratio of clinker to cement,
using post- and the manufacturing process (dry or wet method), the level of
heat recovery, the fuel used, the moisture content of the
oxyfuel raw materials, and the capacity of the plant, among other
Process emissions results from the conversion of limestone
combustion factors. Process emissions account for approximately
65% of the direct CO2 emissions, whereas fuel to calcium oxide: CaCO3 → CaO + CO2
combustion is responsible for the remainder.

Key technologies Description

Application to
cement Chemical Chemical absorption of CO2 is a common process operation based on the reaction between CO2 and a chemical solvent (such as
amine-based). It can be applied to kilns, the main unit producing clinker for cement production.
absorption
Calcium looping In the first reactor, lime (CaO) is used as a sorbent to capture CO2 from a gas stream to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3). The
CaCO3 is subsequently transported to the second reactor where it is regenerated, resulting in lime and a pure stream of CO 2. The
Post-combustion lime is then looped back to the first reactor.
technologies are assessed Oxy-fueling Oxyfuel CO2 capture involves combusting a fuel using nearly pure oxygen instead of air. The flue gas will be composed of CO 2 and
as easier to retrofit than the water vapor, which can be dehydrated to obtain a high-purity CO2 stream. The technology can be applied to kilns, the main unit
producing clinker for cement production.
integrated oxy-fuel
Direct separation Direct separation involves indirectly heating limestone for clinker production in a calciner using a special steel vessel. This enables
technologies pure CO2 from limestone (process emissions) to be captured as it is released since fuel combustion emissions are kept separate.

Physical The adsorbents are made from new classes of materials such as functionalized-silica or metal-organic frameworks, which can
catch and release CO2 at very rapid rates.
adsorption
Membrane Membrane separation uses a semi-selective membrane (a polymeric membrane that allows some gases to pass through but not
others) to concentrate CO2 on one side of the membrane, thus separating it from a stream. This remains in a development stage.
separation
Novel approaches Electrochemical process to convert calcium carbonate into calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH) 2) in an electrolyzer, producing a
Cement, Iron and Steel concentrated CO2/O2 steam (to which CO2 capture could be applied) and hydrogen (that could be used in subsequent stages of
production). The calcium hydroxide can then be converted to calcium silicates needed for cement in a kiln.
74 Sources: “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” International Energy Agency 2020; Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
 Overview of key carbon capture technologies in cement1 Not exhaustive
Chemical Chemical Physical
Calcium looping Oxy-fueling Direct separation
absorption is absorption adsorption
Stage Post combustion Oxy-fuel Oxy-fuel Post combustion Post combustion
currently the most
mature carbon Capture rates ~90% Up to 98% 90% 80—90% Being evaluated

capture Operating 120°C to 150°C 600°C to 900°C High High 1000°C

technology option temperature (°C)
for the cement Importance for
net zero
Very high Very high High Moderate Moderate

sector Key countries USA, China, Germany, Italy, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Canada, United Belgium
Norway, Canada, Chinese Taipei Germany States
India
Application to
Key projects – A commercial- – A pilot-scale – In Dania, Denmark, – The CO2MENT – A successful
cement scale post- demonstration oxy-fuel capture was project in pilot-scale
combustion was completed successfully piloted Canada demonstration of
CCU facility by CEMCAP at in a kiln precalciner launched trials in the technology,
opened in the University of (cooperation 2019 of Svante’s developed by
2014 at Capitol Stuttgart between Airliquide (formerly Calix, occurred
Aggregates (Germany). and FLSmidth) Inventys) CO2 at the
plant in Texas. – Taiwan Cement – “Westküste 100” capture Heidelberg
– A pilot plant has been testing project—green H2 technology at a Cement plant in
(50 kt CO2 per calcium looping and decarbonization LafargeHolcim Lixhe, Belgium
year) began capture at its on an industrial scale cement plant by LEILAC
operation in Heping Plant in (Germany) and has project in 2019.
2018 by Anhui Hualien, Taiwan successfully
– A special focus area
Conch in since 2017, with captured CO2.
is industrial gas
China. successful pilot- producers such as
scale trials Air Liquide, Air
completed. Products, Linde,
Praxair.

Cement, Iron and Steel Technology readiness level

1
High Low
Membrane based separation and electrolyzer-based process for decarbonating calcium carbonate not profiled due to low technological readiness level
75 Sources: “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” International Energy Agency 2020; https://www.westkueste100.de/, Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
CCUS can be an Context Challenges
important ▪ Globally, the sector’s direct CO2 emissions amounted to ▪ High reliance on coal for high temperature heat and iron
decarbonization 2.6 Gt in 2019, or 7% of total energy sector emissions
and 28% of industrial emissions. When indirect
reduction
▪ Limits to the availability of scrap for steel recycling
lever for the iron emissions from electricity and heat generation are
included, the total emissions amount to around 3.6 Gt.
▪ Globally traded commodity with relatively low margins
and steel sector ▪ The CO2 intensity of steel production is high, with ~1.4
ton of direct CO2 emissions per ton of crude steel, or 2.0 t
when including indirect emissions from imported electricity
and heat generation. CO2 is emitted by consumption of
coal or natural gas that act as a reducing agent in the DRI
(Direct Reduced Iron) necessary to process iron ore.

Key technologies Description

Application to
Steel Chemical Direct reduced iron plants—in which iron ore is reduced to iron without melting typically using natural gas or coal—could be
equipped with chemical absorption-based CO2 capture.
absorption
Physical Direct reduced iron plants—in which iron ore is reduced to iron without melting typically using natural gas or coal—could be
equipped with physical adsorption-based CO2 capture, in which molecules are captured on the surface of selective materials called
Energy efficiency and adsorption adsorbents.
material efficiency are the Recycling of Recycling of waste gases from steel plants (such as blast furnace gas and coke oven gas) into synthetic fuels, thus using the CO2
top two biggest waste gases to
twice and delaying its release
decarbonization levers for fuel
the sector.
Recycling of Recycling of waste gases from steel plants (such as blast furnace gas and coke oven gas) into chemicals, thus using the CO 2
twice and delaying its release
waste gases to
chemicals
Smelting A new oxygen-rich smelting reduction technology for producing steel is being developed, consisting of a reactor in which iron ore is
injected at the top while powder coal at the bottom. The use of pure oxygen makes the new smelting reduction process well-suited
reduction to integrate CCUS as it generates a high concentration of CO2 off-gas and emissions are delivered in a single stack compared with
a standard steel mill plant with multiple emission points.
Cement, Iron and Steel

76 Sources: ” International Energy Agency “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” (2020); Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
Chemical Overview of key carbon capture technologies in iron and steel Not exhaustive
absorption is the Chemical Waste gases to Waste gases to Smelting Physical
absorption fuel chemicals reduction adsorption
most mature Stage Post combustion Post combustion Post combustion Post combustion Post combustion
carbon capture
technology option Capture rates ~90% NA NA NA 80—90%

Operating 120°C to 150°C NA NA NA High

temperature (°C)
Importance for net Very high Moderate Moderate Very high Very high
zero
Key countries Mexico, United Belgium, China Germany Netherlands NA
Application to Arab Emirates, and
Venezuela
Steel
Key projects – Two operating – A large-scale – The – A pilot plant is – None. The
plants of demonstration Carbon2Chem located at existing
Ternium in plant is under initiative led by Ijmuiden, commercial DRI
Mexico have construction in Thyssenkrupp Netherlands, natural gas
captured 5% of Ghent, Belgium aims to developed by project with CCS
emissions (0.15- under the commercially Tata Steel, with uses chemical
0.20 Mt per year Steelanol project demonstrate the testing having absorption
combined) since by Arcelormittal production of been completed. technologies, but
2008 for use in and Lanzatech, chemicals (such The plant now it is possible and
the beverage is to be as ammonia and produces 60kt of would likely be
industry, with completed by methanol) from steel (carbon less costly to use
planning under early 2021 with a steel WAG in capture and (vacuum
way to upscale capacity of 80 Europe. storage not pressure swing
capture capacity. million liters of implemented adsorption)
ethanol. yet). VPSA. This CCS
technology has
been proven in
other
Cement, Iron and Steel applications.
Technology readiness level
77 High Low
Sources: International Energy Agency “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” (2020); Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
CCUS has been Cement, iron and steel productions combined with CCUS projects
introduced Non-exhaustive

recently for small

commercial or Beijing Shougang
pilot projects in Longship CCS
the iron and steel
industry while
cement-related
Steelanol
CCUS projects are
expected for 2024 Swayana Mpumalanga
Brevik Norcem Net Zeero Teesside
TBD COURSE 50
The cement, iron, and steel Athos
industries are still new in the
CCUS business. The first TBD LEILAC
TBD
project appeared in 2017, CO2MENT
but more are likely to come 3D Project
Abu Dhabi CCS
in the next few years, Lehig’s Edmonton Plant
including three clusters LafargeHolcim Cement
(Athos, Longship, and Net
Zero). However, the projects
have a low carbon capture 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
capacity (average of 0.7
Operational Year
Mtpa). Cement Iron & Steel 1 Mtpa Capture Capacity

Cement, Iron and Steel

Note: some Pilots and Demonstration CCS facilities are not included in this graph when their capture capacity remains unknown – for example the operating Leilac project in Belgium
78 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, WEO (2019), International Energy Agency (2019), The Future of Hydrogen, Seizing today’s opportunities, GCCSI Global Status of CCUS 2019
CCUS for the iron Timeline of the projects
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
and steel industry
is emerging while LEILAC

Cement projects
the speed of
CO2MENT
development is
expected to Longship CCS
increase in the
cement industry LafargeHolcim Cement

over the next few 3D Project

years with large-
scale projects Iron and steel projects
Steelanol

Abu Dhabi CCS

Beijing Shougang

Swayana Mpumalanga

Athos

COURSE 50

Cement, Iron and Steel Pilot phase Development phase Operational phase

79
The largest SkyMine® process integrated in San Antonio cement plant
demonstration
plant of CCUS in
the cement sector
is based on the
chemical
absorption
process

Description Pros Cons

– Conditioned flue gas is fed to a multicolumn chemical absorption system, where a Additional CO2 High energy
concentrated NaOH solution reacts counter currently with the CO2 from the flue savings by demand, mostly
gas in two packed absorbers working in parallel to form Na2CO3. product driven by the
– The SkyMine® process produces marketable by-products, such as baking soda, displacement solvent
hydrochloric acid, and bleach. regeneration
– Key reactions:
– 2NaOH(aq) + CO2 (g) → Na2CO3(aq) + H2O(l)
Cement, Iron and Steel – Na2CO3 (aq) + H2O(l) + CO2 (g) → 2NaHCO3(s)

80 Sources: “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” International Energy Agency 2020, Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
New capture LEILAC: direct separation calcining technology
technology to
lower emissions in Country: Belgium
cement production
Operational date: 2025
plant
Capex: €20.7 million (pilot)
CO2 savings: 185t per day
Project leaders: Calix, HeidelbergCement, and Imperial
College

Direct separation technology Project characteristics Details

uses indirect heating in
Technology features Captures CO2 directly at the release of the limestone; no additional energy or chemical
which the process CO2 and products needed
furnace combustion gases
do not mix, resulting in the CCUS efficiency 95% of produced CO2 during calcination
simple capture of high- Government funding €11.9 million of the €20.7 million (Europe H2020)
quality CO2. This innovation
requires minimal changes to CO2 capture capacity 185 tCO2 per day
the conventional processes Business type CO2 from cement facility is captured thanks to direct separation calcining technology.
for cement, replacing the
Planning 2016–2021: pilot project
calciner in the preheater-
calciner tower. Capture type Direct separation calcining theory

Transport type None

Cement, Iron and Steel Storage type

81 Sources: LEILAC, Horizon 2020; Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis

A commercially ADNOC’s Al Reyadah facility
self-sustaining L i u e fa c tio n, fac tory , indus try

project in iron & CO2

steel industry with

no government 1 2 3
subsidies 800,000 tons of CO2
capture from
CO2
transferred to Al
Metered and
exported through a
Emirates Steel Reyadah plant for 43km buried pipeline
manufacturing compression & for EOR to
complex (3.2 Mtpa dehydration ADNOC’s NEB (Al
steel) Rumaitha)
and Bab onshore
oilfields

Description Unique project Future plan

The plant can help create a
CO2 network & hub in order • Al Reyadah was a joint venture of ADNOC and Masdar. However, • World’s 1st fully- ADNOC plans to expand
to achieve flexibility between ADNOC bought out Masdar share in January 2018 commercial CO2 capture the capacity by over 500
CO2 supply and injection – Seed capital (USD 15 billion) for Masdar city project was provided from iron & steel Industry percent capturing CO2
requirements by government of Abu Dhabi. EPC contract for the facility and • Middle-East’s 1st from its own gas plants,
pipeline was worth $122 million commercial-scale CO2 with the aim of reaching 5
capture plant, started in million tonnes of CO2
• Key objectives: 2016 every year by 2030
– Supply on-spec CO2 for EOR • Operating highest pressure
– Free-up critical natural gas for power generation (240 bar) CO2 transfer
– Reduce carbon footprint pipeline in the world

Cement, Iron and Steel

82 Sources: CSLF, GCSSI, ADNOC, Pres search, Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
Post-combustion Steelanol–LanzaTech’s CarbonSmartTM
treatment of steel Country: Belgium
industry’s waste Operational date: 2025
gases fermented Capex: €14.5 million (pilot); €215 million (total)
into ethanol and Capture cost: €30–€40/t
chemicals
CO2 savings: 0.35 Mt per year
Project leaders: ArcelorMittal, Primetals
Technologies, and LanzaTech

Project characteristics Details

Technology features Industrial waste gases are compressed and then cooled, cleaned, and injected into a vessel
for fermentation with microbes and a liquid media. The microbes consume the gases to make
CarbonSmartTM has the ethanol and chemicals.
ambition to transform CO2 CCUS efficiency Up to 90% of CO2 produced
emissions from recycles Production of 25 000 t of ethanol per year (2.5 Mt if fully deploy)
wastes into fuels dans
Government funding €10.1 million of the €14.5 million for the pilot test (Europe H2020)
chemicals. The process is
based on microbial CO2 capture capacity 0.35 MtCO2 per year
fermentation. The microbes Business type Carbon is captured from ArcelorMittal steel plant and then used to make bioethanol.
grow on the gases and
transform them into Planning 2015–2021: pilot project
2022: operational project
chemicals and fuel
Capture type Post-combustion

Transport type None

Cement, Iron and Steel
Utilisation type LanzaTech to produce bio-ethanol
83
Sources: Steelanol–LanzaTech–Cordis Europa; Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
New post- 3D Project–DMXTM Technology
combustion
capture Country: France
technology to Operational date: 2025
lower emissions in Capex: €19.3 million (pilot)
iron and steel
Capture cost: €30–€40/t
facilities
CO2 savings: 1.0 Mt per year
Project leaders: IFPEN, ArcelorMittal, Total, and Axens

Project characteristics Details

The project aims to show the Technology features Separation uses a demixing solvent (made of two amines) to absorb CO2. This technology
efficiency of a new amine- will lead to 30% cost reduction (price between €30 and €40 per ton).
based solvent, which CCUS efficiency At least 90% of emissions from steelworks or coal-fired power plant with a 99.7% CO2 purity
decreases the capture cost
of 30%. This solvent has a Government funding €14.7 million of the €19.3 million for the pilot test (Europe H2020)
highly cyclic capacity and CO2 capture capacity 0.5 tCO2 per hour for the pilot test; more than 1.0 MtCO2 per year for the industrial unit
decants in two phases. It
also makes possible to save Business type Carbon capture from steel plant and geological storage in the North Sea
two compressions stages Planning 2019–2021: pilot test for DMXTM technology
compared with other 2021–2025: development of the industrial unit at ArcelorMittal site
separation process 2025: operational phase with ambition to create a North Sea storage cluster by 2035

Capture type DMXTM solvent

Transport type Ship or pipeline

Cement, Iron and Steel
Storage type Geological storage in the North Sea. Possible link to Steelanol project for ethanol production
84
Sources: ArcelorMittal–IFPEN–Project 3D; Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
CCUS is projected Context Challenges
to be the single ▪ The chemical subsector is the third-largest industrial ▪ The large share of process emissions makes it difficult to
largest emissions- source of CO2 emissions.
▪ Oil and natural gas are the primary feedstocks for
decarbonize.
▪ Fossil fuels used as feedstock are difficult to fully
reduction lever in producing chemicals, with coal also being used to a lesser substitute with bioenergy or electrolytic hydrogen.
extent. The share of hydrocarbons in the overall ▪ Globally traded commodities have highly complex supply
chemicals sector’s energy use is very high at 85%. chains.
production, ▪ The energy intensity of production varies considerably
from product to product. It is particularly energy intensive
ahead of fuel to produce primary chemicals (accounting for two-thirds of
the chemicals sector’s energy consumption) vs. secondary
switching chemicals.

Key technologies Description

Chemical Chemical absorption of CO2 is a common process operation based on the reaction between CO2 and a chemical solvent (such as
amine-based).
absorption
Physical Physical absorption uses a liquid solvent to absorb CO2 from flue gases that have high CO2 partial pressures, without a chemical
reaction occurring. Common physical solvents include Selexol (dimethyl ethers of polyethylene glycol) and Rectisol (methanol).
A large proportion of absorption
the carbon in the energy Physical In physical adsorption, molecules are captured on the surface of selective materials called adsorbents. Desorption of the CO 2
inputs ends up in the final (release from the surface) may be achieved using pressure swing adsorption (PSA), performed at high pressure, or vacuum swing
adsorption adsorption (VSA), which operates at ambient pressure. A hybrid configuration also exists, known as vacuum pressure swing
product adsorption (VPSA).

Other Sectors: Chemicals

85 Sources: International Energy Agency “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” (2020); Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
 Overview of key carbon capture technologies in chemicals
Chemical Not exhaustive
absorption is the Chemical Physical Physical
absorption absorption adsorption
most mature Stage Post-combustion Post-combustion Post-combustion
carbon capture
technology option Capture rates ~90% ~90% 80–90%

Operating 120°C–150°C 120°C–150°C High

temperature (°C)
Importance for net High High High
zero
Key countries Malaysia, Japan, United States, China
India, United Arab Canada, and China
Emirates, Pakistan,
and Vietnam

Key projects – Multiple – In 2019, Wabash – Xinjiang Dunhua

commercial Valley 100,000 t/a CO2
fertilizer plants Resources capture project
are using the announced using PSA
Mitsubishi KS-1 plans to convert relaxation gas
amine-based a gasification from a methanol
solvent CO2 plant in Indiana plant, was
capture process to an anhydrous commissioned in
in Malaysia ammonia 2016.
(Petronas) and production plant
India (Indian with CSS
Famers Fertilizer (expected
Co-Operative capacity 1.5-1.75
plant). Mt per year
CO2).

Other Sectors: Chemicals

Technology readiness level
86 High Low
Sources: International Energy Agency “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” (2020); Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
CCUS application Context Challenges
to refineries looks ▪ Globally, the other energy transformation sector (excluding ▪ There are high energy penalty and equipment
challenging with the power sector) accounts for annual emissions of 1,400
MtCO2, or around 4% of total energy sector emissions,
requirements for the application of CCS technologies in
refineries. It is important to note that the CO2 produced in
limited technical mostly from refineries and oil and gas production. the refineries come from several different units such as
FCC, hydrogen production, sulfur recovery plants in
▪ The oil and gas industry is utilizing this captured CO2, either
options by selling it to industrial facilities or by injecting it into the addition to boilers and process heaters (combustion-
subsurface to boost oil recovery. related CO2 sources).
▪ CCUS-based solutions would allow reduction of CO2
emissions from 50% to 70% (theoretical)

Key technologies Description

Chemical In FCC post-combustion capture, the CO2 in the flue gas can be captured using an amine scrubbing method. Post-combustion
technology to capture the CO2 from the flue gas with a volumetric CO2 concentration of 10–20% is available but has not yet been
absorption demonstrated in a refinery context.

Oxy-fuelling High-purity oxygen is used in the regenerator to produce a flue gas consisting of mainly CO 2 and H2O. Due to the flue gas
compression, partial bypass to the stack is not required, which gives oxyfuel combustion an inherent boost on CO 2 recovery
The fluid catalytic cracking compared to post combustion capture. A pilot scale demonstration of the oxy-FCC process was performed at a Petrobas refinery in
(FCC) unit is responsible for the CO2 Capture Project. The test showed that it is technically feasible to operate an oxy-FCC unit.
20–55% of total CO2 Chemical looping The chemical looping combustion process is based on oxygen transfer from an air reactor to fuel reactor using a solid oxygen
carrier. The main advantage of the CLC process compared to conventional combustion is that CO 2 is not diluted with N2 in the
emissions from a typical combustion combustion gases, and so highly concentrated CO2 is obtained without any extra energy needed.
refinery.

Other Sectors: Refining

87 Sources: “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” International Energy Agency 2020, Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
Multiple technical Context Challenges
CCUS options can ▪ Current hydrogen production (~75 Mt H2 annually chiefly ▪ Blue hydrogen might seem necessarily more expensive
from fossil fuels) produces 800 MtCO2, corresponding to
apply to blue the combined total energy sector CO2 emissions of
with end-use CCUS, because the additional step of
methane reforming entails capital, energy, and operating
Indonesia and the United Kingdom.
hydrogen ▪ Unabated production of hydrogen from fossil fuels results
costs to produce the hydrogen
▪ The cost of electrolytic Hydrogen is expected to come
production in emissions of 9 tCO2/t H2 in the case of natural gas (76%
share of H2 production) and 20 tCO2/t H2 in the case of
down substantially in the long term driven by declining
prices of renewable electricity and scaling up of
coal (23% share of H2 production).
electrolysers
▪ Pre-combustion carbon capture technologies can be
applied to capture CO2 before combustion takes place to
produce blue hydrogen
Key
Description
technologies
Steam Steam methane reformation is a catalytic reaction in which CH4 reacts with high temperature (800°C) steam to generate H2 and CO
(syngas). This process requires an input of heat, which leads to lower efficiencies and a diluted CO 2 stream which is costly to capture.
methane The reforming process is followed by a water gas shift process in which the CO reacts with water at lower temperatures to generate
reforming more H2 and CO2. Then, CO2 is captured and a stream of high-purity H2 is obtained. (H-Vision and Magnum projects in the
Netherlands)
Natural gas Autothermal reformation is a variation of SMR in which the methane reacts in an O2-deficit atmosphere instead of using high
Around 40% of low-carbon temperature steam, avoiding the need for an external input of heat. Once the syngas is produced, the rest of the process is similar to
hydrogen supply can be autothermal SMR with the difference that the H2–CO ratios are different and the operating and designing conditions of downstream processes have
linked to CCUS in 2070 reforming to be adapted. (HyNet and H21 projects in the United Kingdom)

Natural gas The combination of autothermal reforming (ATR) with a Gas Heated Reformer (GHR) is an improved design of ATR that allows
achieving higher efficiencies, lower CO2 production and lower oxygen consumption. The ATR and GHR are in series and the GHR acts
autothermal both as a pre-heater and cooler of the inlet/outlet of the ATR. The GHR benefit is that it pre-reforms the gas going to ATR using the heat
reforming with from the exhaust gases of the ATR and performs part of the reforming that would otherwise take place in the ATR. The main technical
challenge for GHR is carbon deposition (metal dusting) on the shell side (high temperature from the ATR outlet at around 1100C to 600-
gas heated 800C). This can be solved by either material selection that can withstand the conditions and thermal cycling (cost) or by either
reforming decreasing the operating pressure or adding more steam, both of which come with penalty in process efficiency.
Gasification Gasification is a thermochemical process in which a solid feedstock (coal / biomass / waste) is transformed into a gas mixture of H2,
CO, CO2 and other light hydrocarbons (called syngas), along with other byproducts (char and tars). The gaseous fraction is treated to
maximize H2 and CO proportions. Following treatment, the gas is passed through a water gas shift reactor in which steam reacts with
CO in the presence of a catalyst to generate H2 and CO2. Then, CO2 is captured and a high-purity H2 stream is obtained (99.9and% vol
Other Sectors: Blue H2 if Pressure Swing Adsorption is used).
Methane Methane pyrolysis (or splitting) is an emerging technology. It involves splitting methane at high temperatures, for example in a plasma
generated by electricity, to produce hydrogen and solid carbon, but no CO2. Monolith Materials operates a pilot methane pyrolysis plant
88 Splitting in California and a commercial demonstration plant in Nebraska.
Sources: “Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage” International Energy Agency 2020, Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis
 Steam Methane Reforming with Carbon capture 1,2
Blue hydrogen is
derived from the
fossil fuel-based
production
processes as CO2
emissions are
captured, utilized,
and stored

Currently only about 1% of

hydrogen production from
fossil fuels includes carbon Description Pros Cons
capture and storage (CCS)
• Steam methane reformer converts feedstock and steam to syngas • Existing infrastructure can • Implementation may
(mainly hydrogen and carbon monoxide) at high temperature and be used with retrofitting involve technical
moderate pressure. Water-gas shift reaction then converts this • Less costly than shifting issues (higher water
carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide which is captured in the next toward green hydrogen consumption and
step. This leaves behind hydrogen which proceeds for purification • Can be a bridge toward more costly than grey
and compression to achieve the final product.
green hydrogen hydrogen)
• Production of clean hydrogen from biomass through anaerobic • Social acceptability
digestion, fermentation, gasification, or pyrolysis (all with CCS) are
at earlier stages of commercialization. due to concerns
Other Sectors: Blue H2 around CCS
1. SMR = Steam Methane Reforming, WGS = Water-gas shift, NG = Natural gas
Sources: GCCSI – Blue Hydrogen (April 2021), SINTEF CSLF WORKSHOP STATUS OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION WITH CO2 CAPTURE (Nov 2019), Kearney Energy Transition institute analysis, For more
89 details on Blue Hydrogen pls refer to the latest Hydrogen factbook (2020) published at https://www.energy-transition-institute.com/insights/hydrogen
 CCUS is being Hydrogen production combined with CCUS projects for energy and industries
developed to Non-exhaustive
Net Zero Teesside
produce blue
hydrogen for
multiple industrial
applications
Bonanza BioEnergy
H2morrow
ACTL Sturgeon
Ervia
Quest
PC Nitrogen Wabash
Today, hydrogen is produced Karamay Dunhua
at 98% from fossil resources Arkalon H21 NoE
and represent 830Mtpa of
Great Plains Synfuel Port Arthur
CO2 emissions, CCUS is a H2 Magnum
solution to decarbonize this Port Jérôme Acorn
economical production Illinois Industrial CCS H-Vision
pathway, retrofitting existing Enid
Sinopec Qilu
facilities and developing new H21 LCG
projects to produce ACTL
hydrogen from natural gas. H2H Saltend
HECA
HyNet

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Other Sectors: Blue H2 / fertilizers /
refining Chemicals Hydrogen Energy Methanol Operational Year
= 1 Mtpa Capture Capacity
Fertilizer Oil refining Ethanol
90 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, International Energy Agency (2019), The Future of Hydrogen, Seizing today’s opportunities, GCCSI Global Status of CCUS 2019
Fossil fuels with Estimated levelized cost of hydrogen from different sources
CCUS are $/kg, World, 2019
competitive to 2019 2050
decarbonize 8
hydrogen
production even
with the reduction
6
of low carbon
electricity prices

+6%
+30%
2

0
SMR SMR + CCS Coal Coal Green SMR + CCS Coal Green
gazification gazification Hydrogen gazification Hydrogen
+ CCS + CCS

Other Sectors: Blue H2

SMR: Steam Methan Reforming
91 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, The role of CCUS in low-carbon power systems, IEA, 2020
Hydrogen Timeline of the projects
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
utilization for HyNet North West
energy projects is H21 North of England
expected to come

Hydrogen for energy

H21 Leeds City Gate

onstream in the H2H Saltend

next few years, Humber Zero

whereas its use in H-Vision

Magnum
fertilizer industries
Ireland Gas Network
and oil refining is
ACT Acorn
already mature H2morrow
Net Zero Teesside
Coffeyville
Hydrogen for
Enid
fertilizers

Development phase ACTL Agrium

Operational phase Wabash
HECA
Sinopec Qilu
Hydrogen for oil

Port Jerome
Port Arthur Refinery
refining

Quest
Tomakomai
Other Sectors: Blue H2 Great Plain Synfuels

92 North West Redwater Refinery

There is strong HyNet North H21 North of H21 Leeds City H2H Saltend
momentum in the West England Gate
United Kingdom to H2 capacity: H2 capacity: H2 capacity: H2 capacity:
890 MW 12.15 GW 1 GW 600 MW, 3GW by
develop H2 CO2 reduction: CO2 reduction: CO2 reduction: 2030
clusters and 1.1 Mt/year N.A. 1.5 Mt/year CO2 reduction:
switch fuel from CAPEX: CAPEX: CAPEX: 0.9 Mt/year
£0.92 billion £1.34 billion £2 billion CAPEX: N.A.
natural gas for
domestic and Description:
industrial Description: Description: Description: Fuel switching
applications Produce hydrogen Produce low Power Leeds from natural gas to
combined with carbon hydrogen urban area with hydrogen
CCUS and blend it from natural gas hydrogen and combined with
with natural gas to with CCUS, to fully replace natural CCUS to power
supply homes or supply industries gas. industries and
All the projects are based on
pre-combustion carbon use it as transport and blend it for decarbonize
capture, transport by pipeline fuel. home supply. domestic heat.
and geological storage.
Planning: Planning: Planning: Planning:
• Start: 2018 • Delivery: 2028– • Feasibility study: • Project matured:
• Government 2034 2016 2021–2023
funding: 2020 • Delivery: 2023 • Engineering and
• Construction: • Extension to construction:
2021 North of England: 2024–2026
• Deliverable: 2026 2035 • Production:
Other Sectors: Blue H2
2026–2027
Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, H21 NoE Report 2018, Report – Cadent Your Gas Network, HyNet North West Delivering Clean Growth, HyNet North west from Vision to reality, Equinor Saltend
93 https://www.equinor.com/en/what-we-do/h2hsaltend.html
Hydrogen as an Quest
industrial resource
Country: Canada
CAPEX: $1,35 billion
OPEX: $41 million/y
CO2 savings: 1,2 Mt/y captured
Partnership: Shell Canada, Chevron
Canada and Marathon Oil Sands

Project characteristics Details

Production technology SMR hydrogen production

CCUS Around 80% of CO2 is captured

Government funding $865 million (both Canada and Alberta governments)

CO2 storage capacity 1,2 MtCO2 per year

Business type Captured carbon from hydrogen production facility and then stored into 2km deep aquifers.

Planning 2009 : Launch of the project

2015 : First capture of carbon

Capture type Amine type solvent

Transport type Pipeline

Storage type Geological storage (saline aquifer)

Other Sectors: Blue H2 Current Status Operational, the facility reached 5Mt of CO2 stored in dedicated geological storage till July 2020

94 Source: Shell - CCUS Technologies@ MIT, GCCSI Database

Hydrogen Port Arthur Refinery
production to
provide a refinery Country: USA
combined with Capacity: 240 000 Nm3/h
carbon capture CAPEX: $431 million
used for EOR CO2 savings: 1,0 Mt/y captured
Project leader: Air Products

Project characteristics Details

Production technology Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) Hydrogen production

CCUS 90% of CO2 is captured

Government funding DOE : $284 million (2/3 of the total costs)

CO2 storage capacity 1 MtCO2 per year

Business type Hydrogen production with carbon capture used for EOR

Planning 2011 : start of the construction

Q1 2013 : start of the operations

Capture type Post-combustion

Transport type Pipeline

Storage type EOR

Other Sectors: Blue H2
Current Status Operational, the facility had cumulatively captured and stored over 6Mt of CO2 by April 2020
95 Source: CCUS Technologies@ MIT, GCCSI Database
Hydrogen Port Jérome
production Country: France
capture to provide Capacity: 50 000 Nm3/h
a refinery
CAPEX: 60 M€
combined with
cryogenic carbon CO2 footprint: 0,1 Mt/y captured
Partnerships: Air Liquide and
ExxonMobil

Project characteristics Details

Production technology Low carbon hydrogen from natural gas via autothermal reforming units

CCUS 60 to 90% of CO2 is captured (99% purity)

Government funding NA

CO2 storage capacity 0,1 MtCO2 per year

Business type Hydrogen production with carbon capture to store and sell captured liquefied CO2 to Air Liquide
clients (like agricultural producers, food industry or also retailers to maintain the cold chain)

Planning 2002 : signature of partnership between Air Liquide and ExxonMobil

2011 : start of the project
2015 : inauguration of Cryocap technology at Port-Jerome

Capture type Cryocap technology (separate CO2 from gas mix by cryogenic process)

Transport type Air Liquide trucks

Storage type Commercial use

Other Sectors: Blue H2
Current Status Commercial scale demonstration is operational currently

96 Source: Air Liquide press release

Hydrogen as an Great Plains Synfuel
industrial resource
to produce Country: USA
ammonia Capacity: 160 million cubic ft/ per day
combined with CAPEX: $2.1 billion
carbon capture for CO2 savings: 3,0 Mt/y
EOR Project leader : Dakota gas

Project characteristics Details

Production technology Methanation

CCUS 50% of the CO2 produced is captured

Government funding $1.3 billion

CO2 storage capacity 3,0 MtCO2 per year

Coal-to-liquid facility which produces synthetic natural gas. CO2 is produced during the
Business type
methanation process, CO2 is then captured and then sent to Canada for EOR.

Plant is operational since 1984

Planning
CO2 injection started in 2000

Capture type Pre-combustion

Transport type Pipeline

Storage type EOR in Canada

Other Sectors: Blue H2
Current Status Operational, the facility produces 1300 tonnes per day of hydrogen (2020)
97 Source: ZEROCO2.NO - NETL
Industrial CCS First Marine-based CO2 Capture System
technology is
being transposed
to marine vessels Description: Carbon-capture system for vessels
(diesel or LNG based engine) are being
developed, promising to reduce ship emissions
by 85% to 90%. The pilots consist in converting
and installing existing design CO2 capture system
of onshore power plants to vessel.

Conceptual drawing of the CO2 recovery demo plant

Challenge: The CO2 captured would be much heavier than the carried fuel, requiring additional fuel
to join destination and additional space for onboard CO2 storage.

Opportunity: This CCS solution would enable the retrofitting of existing vessels, without modifying
their propulsion systems or switching to decarbonized fuels such as biodiesel or low-carbon
hydrogen.

Cost: Some ongoing designed solutions estimate minimal cost of CO2 captured around €100 per ton
of CO2 (€1.8 million e uipment for a 3,000 kW engine ship).
Other Sectors: Marine Vessels
Source: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/worlds-first-carbon-capture-at-sea-set-for-shipping-trials/; Mitsubishi (link); M. Feenstra et al., Ship-based carbon capture onboard of diesel or
98 LNG-fueled ships (International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 85, June 2019)
5. Outlook of carbon
utilization and storage

99 Image by Itung01
The geological Global geological storage (GtCO2)
storage capacities
of CO2 are Confidence Level
unexplored in 200 to 403
200
(North Sea)
many areas of the
300 1 210 to 4 130
world 2 000 to 21 000
100

140
1 to 5 5 to 25
100
5 to 30 12
9
140
23
47 to 63
7
2 to 228
2 000

16
150
220 to 410

Asia and North America own

the biggest identified
geological storage
capacities. The IEA forecasts stocking more than 2 GtCO2 per year until 2060 to follow Paris agreement. For the
IPCC, 1200 GtCO2 need to be stored by 2100. In total, the currently identified world storage capacity is
from 6,800 GtCO2 to almost 30,000 GtCO2.
There are a lot of uncertainties in the Middle East because only two countries are reported (Saudi Arabia
and United Arab Emirates) whereas the region is known for its oil fields. Most Southeast Asian countries
seem to have geological storage capacities; however, they did not announce any CCUS projects.
Global Storage Capacity
The map above has been made from several national reports and gathered by the Global CCUS Institute.
100 Sources: Global CCUS Institute : 2019 Report (2019) – IEA (2020)
More mature Annual regional CO2 emissions (Gt) from power generation and industries(1), and
areas, like North corresponding storage capacity (years)
16,8
6850
America, already
Range of storage capacity in years of current emissions
show huge 2019 CO2 emissions (GtCO2)
geological storage
capacities, 4200
corresponding to 9,3

hundreds of years
under current
emissions levels 1750
2000
3,1
2,5
1,3 580 1100
490 0,5
200 700
50 0,7 400
230 0,2
Storage capacity is not a 180
constraint Middle East Europe Asia Africa Worldwide Oceania South North
America America

The worldwide total geological carbon storage capacities are important, and in some regions the estimates
are uncertain as they remain unexplored at this stage.
Middle East and Europe have large unexplored geological storage capacities. But North and South
Americas would have already identified enough storage capacities for hundreds of years of current
emissions. On the basis of the current knowledge, the distribution of storage capacities looks unequal
Global Storage Capacity between the regions
(1) CO2 emissions from industries, power and heat generation were estimated to represent 46% of national emissions on average
Note : this analysis is made with GCCSI storage capacities estimation (from previous slide) and the CO2 data of “Our World is data”; some actual storage areas may not have been shown
101 Sources: Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis based on GCCSI 2019 Report (2019) – Our World is Data
CCUS potentially Order of magnitude of CO2 storage and utilization
covers a broad (CO2 Mtpa, 2020) Concrete curing

range of solutions 0,3

Mineralization Bauxite treatment 0,3
to either use or
store carbon Biological Algae cultivation
Conversion
dioxide 1,2
Chemical Liquid Fuels
Utilization Alcohol (methanol,
(CCU) ethanol) 0,7
1,5 Greenhouse
Gas (methane)
Non- Food processing
Conversion & packaging
CCUS Acetic acid
44
8 Dedicated geological Polymers
storage
Storage
36 Fertilizer
(CCS) EOR(1)
Advanced materials
(Carbon fibber)
EOR – with storage
Baking soda 0,5
Enhanced
geothermal

Enhanced Coal-Bed-
Global Utilization Perspectives Methane Recovery
(1): EOR - Enhanced Oil Recovery; “EOR – with storage” allows to inject larger quantities of CO2 compared to traditional EOR
Note: global CO2 capture is estimated to ~50Mtpa in 2020, which higher than the value tracked in the figure, some storage and applications of CO2 capture could not be properly tracked, which explain the
102 difference.
Once captured, Operational CO2 capture capacity per utilization and storage
CO2 is mostly (including cancelled projects, in MtCO2 per year)
used for enhanced
oil recovery, but 250
Other
+355%
geological storage Geological Storage
EOR
should become 200

the main
application around 150
2030
100

50

0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E 2024E 2025E 2026E 2027E 2028E 2029E 2030E

Currently, the captured CO2 is mostly used for EOR purposes, but by 2030, geological storage is expected
to become the main CO2 utilization pathway and should reach more than 85 MtCO2 per year around 2030.
Intention to develop additional large clusters (a 200 Mtpa capture capacity in the Gulf of Mexico (no
confirmed date) may complement this projection.
Several projects have been announced with supposed starting date in 2025 (assuming a five-year project
Global Utilization Perspectives development phase). Some of them may actually not be developed.
1Otherincludes commercial purposes, urea production, biofuels, mineralisation etc…
103 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis based on GCCSI database
Weak oil prices Oil price scenarios and associated US CO2-EOR production forecasts
may undermine EOR production (mb/year) CO2 % total EOR

demand for CO2– 1.800 40%

EOR in the future 1.600 35%

1.400
30%

1.200
25%
1.000
20%
800
15%
600

10%
400

200 5%

0 0%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
CO2-EOR Chemical CO2 % of total EOR
Thermal Other1

CO2-EOR almost represents ~50% of all EOR projects, it currently produces 200 million of barrels per day,
which is only 24% of the total EOR production. This part is expected to grow and to reach 35% by 2035 but
mainly due to the increase of CO2-EOR projects.
The COVID-19 crisis and large oil price uncertainties and fluctuations has generated further uncertainties
on the oil and gas market, jeopardizing the development of CCUS projects related to the Oil and Gas
sector.
Sectoral Overview:
Oil & Gas (EOR)
*before COVID-19 pandemic
1. Other = other gas injections (like CO2-EOR), combustion EOR, microbial EOR
104 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis; IEA (2018) ‘Whatever happened to enhanced oil recovery?, US EIA “Short-term energy outlook” (October 2020)
CO2 can be reused Multiple chemical pathways from CO2
through multiple
chemical Methanol
Formic acid
Hydrocarbons, O
pathways e.g. Kerosene, diesel Me-OH H C
OH Carboxylic acids
H3C ( CH2
) n CH 3
R C
O

OH

urea
Methane O
CH3-H NH2 C
O=C=O NH2

O
M-CO3 R1NH C
Inorganic carbonates Substituted ureas NHR2
These routes offer an
opportunity for the chemical O
industry to reduce its O
R1O C
dependence on fossil fuels, N R
) RO C
to reduce industrial CO2 n OR R
NH Organic carbamates
emissions as well as to Cyclic Carbonates Organic carbonates )
n
recycle and valorize emitted
CO2. Cyclic Carbamates
O O
[ R
)
O n
[ [ R
)
O n
[
Sectoral Overview:
Chemicals Poly(carbonate) monomers Poly(carbamate) monomers

105 Source: Carbon capture and utilization in the green economy (Styring, Jansen et all 2011)
Reacting CO2 with Comparison of hydrogen based low-carbon synthesis routes
hydrogen, derived
using low carbon
electricity, can be Product Electricity (MWh) CO2 as feed (t) Avoided CO2 (t) Costs (€) Avoided CO2 as kg
an alternative to Chemicals per ton of product per MWh1 per €2
fossil carbon
Ammonia 12.5 - 1.71 700-800 137 2.1-2.4
feedstocks for
producing Urea 8.1 0.73 2.05 450-550 253 4.1-4.5
chemicals and Methanol 11.02 1.373 1.53 300-650 139 2.4-5.1
synthetic fuels
Olefins 26.6 3.2 1.89 670-1900 71 1-2.8

BTX 48.9 5.9 1.7 1300-2800 34 0.6-1.3~

However, the energy
Fuels per ton of product per L per MWh per €
demand of these low-carbon
synthesis routes is very high
Diesel 18.4 3.15 2.3a) 1.2-1.5 125 1.3-1.6

Kerosene 18.4 2.85 1.85a) 1.2-1.5 100 1-1.2

SNG 26.9 2.7 1.31 2000-3500 49 0.4-0.7~

Sectoral Overview:
Chemicals 1. Expressed as a function of required electricity
2. Expressed as a function of production costs
a. Well-to-wheel
106 Source: Low carbon energy and feedstock for the European chemical industry (Bazanella and Ausfelder 2017)
CO2-based Different CO2-based products and the current status of deployment
chemical product
formation Compounds1 Products
pathways are at
Salicylic acid (29 kt) Aspirin
various stages of
maturity Cyclic carbonates (40 kt) Solvents, Electrolytes, Intermediate for polymer synthesis
Urea (115 Mt) Fertilizer, Resins
Methanol Acetic acid, Ethylene, Propylene, Polymer precursor
Formic acid Preservatives, Adhesives, Substrates in fuel cells
Polycarbonate etherols Polyurethane foam
An integration of CO2- Inorganic carbonate Mineral fillers, Cement, Soil stabilization
emitting industrial
technologies with CO2- Polypropylene carbonate Packing foils/sheets
converting systems (such as
biological system using Alcohols Solvents, Detergents
algae, photo bacteria, and
enzymatic catalysts) can be Aldehydes Polymers, Solvents, Dyes, Cosmetics
helpful in achieving DME Fuel additives, LPG substitute
sustainable value-added
products. Organic acids Surfactants, Food and Pharma industry products
Organic carbamates Pesticides, Polymer precursor, Isocynate, Agrochemicals, Cosmetics
Sectoral Overview: Commercial Lab-scale Demonstration
Chemicals
1. Quantity of CO2 utilized per annum globally to produce the compound
Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, CO2 Catalysis (Kleji, North and Urakaw 2017), Advanced Routes of Biological and Bio-electrocatalytic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Mitigation Toward Carbon Neutrality
107 (2020), Low carbon energy and feedstock for the European chemical industry (Bazanella and Ausfelder 2017)
Covestro has Using CO2 as a raw material for plastics
developed an Sleeping on CO2
innovative Flexible foam for mattresses
technology that CO2
enables carbon Fit with CO2
capture and Binder for sport floorings
utilization
by partly
substituting
+ Dress with CO2
Elastic fibers for the textile
Up to 20% CO2
oil-based raw In new material
industry

materials cardyon®
with CO2
Use CO2
Save crude oil
Projects in the pipeline
Building, driving, cooling, washing with
CO2

Cardyon® is manufactured with an innovative method that uses a new catalyst, which causes the CO2 to
react with propylene oxide to produce certain plastic components known as polyols. This results in a new
type of polyols with a CO2 share of up to 20 percent substituting crude oil feedstock completely.
Covestro has been manufacturing the new material in a production plant in Dormagen, Germany since
Sectoral Overview: 2016. Up to 5,000 tons of polyols can be produced there each year. This broadens the resource base and
Chemicals supports a circular economy in the chemicals and plastics industry.
108 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, https://www.covestro.com/
Bio-electrochemical Bio electrochemical generation of solvents and biofuels from CO2 under various
systems (BES) operational and nutritional conditions
offers benefits of Reactor Substrate Operational Dominant catalyst Products
synthesizing value- condition
added chemicals H-type double Calcium carbonate Batch type; anaerobic Clostridium Sporogenes Butanol, Ethanol,
chamber fermentation BE1 Fatty acids
from CO2 via
electrogenic Double Butyraldehyde + TRIS- Batch type; enzymatic Alcohol dehydrogenase Butanol
fermenting cathode chamber fuel HCI buffer fuel cell enzymes
cell
microbes H-type double P2 electron carrier Batch type; anaerobic Clostridium beijerinckii Acetone, Butanol
(biocathode) chamber medium + Glucose fermentation IB4

Two CAB medium with Batch type; Clostridium Acetone, Butanol

compartment electron carrier in buffer electrochemical cell Acetobutylicum ATCC
cell 4259
H-type double CO2 injection + DSMZ Continuous mode Sporomusa, Geobacter Acetate, Formate,
chamber medium operation Clostridium, Morella Butyrate, Propanol

H-type double CO2 Batch type; Clostridium species + Ethanol, Butanol,

chamber electrochemical cell Carboxydotropic mixed Acetate, Butyrate
culture
H-type double Modified P2 medium + Batch type; C. Pasteurianum Butanol and by-
chamber SMM medium electrochemical cell products

Sectoral Overview: Double CO2 Batch type; NA Methane

Chemicals chamber electrochemical cell

109 Source: Advanced Routes of Biological and Bio-electrocatalytic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Mitigation Toward Carbon Neutrality (2020)
Europe and North Upcoming new CCUS clusters
America are Non-exhaustive

expecting to
develop cross-
industries CCUS Exxon GoM1
clusters in the Project Tundra

next few years

Net Zero Teesside
Carbon Connect Delta
Longship CCS

Integrated Midcontinent
Stacked Carbon Storage Hub
Athos
ACT Acorn
CCUS hubs will gather CO2 Abu Dhabi CCS Antwerp@C
emissions from industrial Porthos
areas and stock it or use it ACTL Wabash CarbonNet
without building new facilities CarbonSAFE Illinois – Macon County
and searching for new Humber Zero
storage areas. Ervia Cork

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

5 Mtpa
North America Europe Middle East Oceania Operational Year
Sectoral Overview:
Clusters / Hubs
1. The proposed project would cost $100 billion and the hub could draw up to 50 million mt of CO2 from the air by 2030, and 100 million mt by 2040
110 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute – GCSSI (2019), Press search
The development CCUS hubs and clusters
Advantages Challenges
of CCUS clusters
and hubs is
– Catch CO2 emissions from an area with – Lack of supportive public policies, especially
gaining several high-emitting facilities. CCUS-specific laws, are needed to keep
prominence, – Permit the capture of small CO2 volume by developing these kind of initiatives.
especially in gathering it with other CO2 sources. – Financial support from governments are
– Reduce storage costs thanks to economies of requested to completely fill the gap between
Europe costs and revenues.
scale.
– Create possible commercial synergies that – Complexity of shared pipelines can increase
lower the risk of investment for the the time of the project.
development of CCUS installations.
– Use shared infrastructure to transport and
Clusters store CO2.
Geographic concentration of
related businesses, facilities,
factories, etc. Europe North America Asia and Pacific Middle East South America

Hubs
Central CO2 points from # of hubs 9 6 2 1 1
capture clusters or
distribution CO2 points to Sum of capture
storage clusters 84,8 119 8,0 5,0 3,0
capacity (Mtpa)

Average capacity
Sectoral Overview: 9,4 19,8 4,0 - -
(Mtpa)
Clusters / Hubs

111 Source: GCCSI – Global Status of CCS 2019 (2019) & Understanding Industrial CCS Hubs and Clusters (2016)
 Maximum CO2 Capture Operational
# Project Name Country Industries
capacity (Mtpa) Year
CCUS hubs in
Europe 1 ACT Acorn 16 2023 H2

2 Antwerp@C 9 2030

Biomass 3 Athos 6 2027 H2

Cement production
4 Carbon Connect Delta 6,5 2030
Chemicals industry Ervia Cork, Ireland Gas
5 2,5 2030
Network
Ethanol production
6 Longship CCUS 5 2024 H2
Fertilisers production
7 Net Zero Teesside 10 2024 H2
H2 Hydrogen production
8 Porthos 10 2023 H2
Natural gas production

Iron and steel production 9 Zero Carbon Humber 18,3 2024 H2

Industrials applications
6

EOR 6
6

Power plant (coal) 5

7
9
3
8
4
Power plant (gas) 2

Waste incineration
Sources : Kearney Energy Transition Institute – GCCSI Report (2019)
112 Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (2020)
 Maximum CO2 Capture Operational
# Project Name Country Industries
capacity (Mtpa) Year
CCUS hubs in
1 ACTL 14,6 2020 H2
Americas
CarbonSAFE Illinois Macon
2 15 2018
County

3 Gulf of Mexico CCUS hub 35 TBD H2

Biomass
Integrated Midcontinent
Cement production 4
Stacked Carbon Storage Hub
19,4 2025 H2
Chemicals industry TBD
5 Petrobras Santos Basin 3
(Pilot ongoing)
Ethanol production Project Tundra
6 17 2023
(North Dakota CarbonSafe)
Fertilisers production
7 Wabash CarbonSafe 18 2022 H2
H2 Hydrogen production

Natural gas production

Iron and steel production

Industrials applications 1

6 5
EOR 2

Power plant (coal) 4 7

Power plant (gas) 3

Waste incineration
Sources : Kearney Energy Transition Institute – GCCSI Report (2020)
113 Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (2020)
 Maximum CO2 Capture Operational
# Project Name Country Industries
capacity (Mtpa) Year
CCUS hubs in the
Middle East and 1 Abu Dhabi Cluster 5 2025 H2
APAC 2 CarbonNet 5 2025 H2

Biomass 3 Xinjiang Junggar Basin CCUS Hub 3 TBD H2

Cement production
Chemicals industry

Ethanol production 3

Fertilisers production
H2 Hydrogen production
Natural gas production

Iron and steel production

Industrials applications 1

EOR

Power plant (coal)

Power plant (gas)

Waste incineration
2
114 Sources : Kearney Energy Transition Institute – GCCSI Report (2020) – Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (2020)
Circular carbon Circular Carbon Economy Concept
economy in the
The circular carbon economy is based on the
Golf Cooperation four Rs :
Council
• Reduce: energy efficiency, non-bio
renewables, nuclear
• Re-use: carbon utilization
• Recycle: bioenergy
• Remove: carbon capture and storage, direct
air capture Distinction between:
• Living carbon (plants and soil)
Cross-cutting: hydrogen, policies • Fugitive carbon (such as methane and CO2 gases)
• Durable carbon (for example, locked in plastics)

DAC1 CO2 Photosynthesis

GCC potential for CCE
Reuse
- Great geological storage capacity
available for CO2 or hydrogen
Geo Carbon Natural
Storage Capture CCE Sinks
- Unparalleled solar resources, natural gas,
and oil resources that can be used in
Energy efficiency industrial carbon storage clusters to
produce blue hydrogen
Sectoral Overview:
Circular Carbon Economy Hydrocarbons Nuclear Renewables Bioenergy - Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah Petroleum
1. Direct Air Capture
Sources : GCCSI – Global Status Report 2020 (2020), CCE Guide Overview, KAPSARC ‘2020)
Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC)
115
interest for CCE in the GCC region
6. Economics, policies,
and regulations

116 van de Voorde, Denis

Some CCUS Promising CCUS projects cancelled in advanced stage of planning
projects have not Project (Date) Project Type & Grants Reason For Cancellation
reached a final Barendrecht (2010)
Store up to 400,000 t of CO2 Local public opposition : Citizens of the town feared of the storage of CO2 in a former
from Shell’s oil refinery gas tank located under the city.
investment Coal & passive storage Economics: Horizontal multi-frac well technology is delaying the needs for CO2-EOR in
Pioneer (2012)
decision despite $782 million granted Alberta’s mature oil fields.
Steel & passive storage Economics: Project withdrew its candidacy for EU NER300 €1.5 B grant scheme despite
large public grants ULCOS (2012) Potentially large grant winner being the only remaining candidate, amid economic turmoil in Europe's steel sector.
Trailblazer, Taylorville Coal & possibly EOR Economics: Regulatory uncertainties, low natural gas prices, and the continuing decline in
(2013) $400 million tax credit the cost of renewables.

Most projects were cancelled Mongstadt (2013) Refinery, CO2 fate unknown Economics: Government dropped support due to cost overruns and delays.
for economical reasons,
Coal & passive storage, Economics: Lack of funding, lack of interest from oil & gas companies for CO2 storage
such as a lack of funding Belchatow (2013) €180million granted contracts, and public opposition to onshore storage.
from the companies involved Power & passive storage, Local public opposition and difficulties in achieving closure for the financial structure of
in the projects or a lack of Porto Tolle (2014) €100million granted the project.
subsidies from the related Methanol plant & EOR Economics: Methanol market was becoming crowded, and methanol-production costs
Lake Charles (2014)
governments or states. $261million granted were uncompetitive, despite government support & EOR.
Coal & passive storage Economics: FutureGen1.0 cancelled in 2004 due to rising costs. FutureGen2.0 funding
FutureGen (2015) $1 billion granted from DOE cancelled in 2015 due to delays and inability to raise private financing.
However, some projects
have been cancelled White Rose CCUS, Power generation & passive Economics: Projects cancelled after the UK announced the suspension of the $1bn UK
Peterhead (2015) storage CCUS Competition
because of local public Economics : In March 2015 E.ON announced the cancellation of the project because gas-
opposition, including E.ON Ruhrgas Large-scale IGCC Plant with fired power stations market is extremely difficult and without support from the Supplemental
Killingholme IGCC (2015) storage under North Sea. Balancing Reserve (SBR) contract
government bans on
onshore storage in Germany AEP Mountaineer (2015)
Power generation &
geological storage
Climate policy : Phase II of the project has been cancelled due to unknown climate policy.
and the Netherlands.
Power generation & EOR, Project delays led to the expiration of funds granted by the US. DOE. While the
HECA (2016) $800m grants & tax credits company hopes to resurrect HECA, it remains unclear when that might happen.
EOR Project with capture Economics : The project was abandoned because due to oil prices decrease, it is
Liaohe EOR Project (2016) facility expected not to be economical and sustainable for the company.
Cancelled Projects

117 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute

Capture usually Cost range for capture, compression & dehydration, transport, storage and monitoring
represents the & verification of CO21, 2, 3, 4
$2020 per t CO2
largest cost in
600
CCUS, while
transport and
300
storage share the
250
remaining 25%
equally 200

150

100

50

0
Direct Air Capture Compression Transport Storage Monitoring & CCS cost
Capture / Dehydration Verification range

– Capture cost represent about 75% of the total cost for CCUS but can drastically decrease for applications
with high concentrations of CO2 (95–100%) where only a compression step is needed. Cost of CO2 capture is
expected to decline by 50% from 2010 to 2025 for some applications.

– Transport and storage costs represent about 25% of the total CCUS cost. Transport cost is influenced by
the technology used (pipelines, ship, trucks, rails) and by the volume transported (pilot-scale vs. large scale).
Storage cost is driven by the nature of the reservoir (saline aquifer vs. depleted oil and gas field), its
accessibility (onshore vs. offshore), the existence of legacies (wells, infrastructures) and its physical
characteristics (size, porosity, permeability, pressure).
CCUS Costs 1 The capture cost is adjusted according to the prices of feedstock in the United States. All costs (except capture) have been converted to US Gulf Coast basis.
2 Transport costs include liquefaction costs.
3 Typical range of capture cost: 10 (natural gas processing) – 300 (aluminium smelting) $/t
4 Low estimates are the sum of low values of range and high estimates are the sum of high values of range and are indicative.

118 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, , Zero Emission Platform, IEAGHG, The Costs of CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage, 2011, GCCSI - Technology Readiness and Costs of CCS (March 2021)
CO2 capture cost Levelized cost of CO2 capture for key sectors
depends on the $ per ton, 2019
industry and the CO2
concentration
CO2 concentration
DAC1 0,04%
of the stream or
flue gas Power Generation 4-13%

Cement 14-33%

Iron and Steel 26%

Hydrogen (SMR) ~45%

Cost depends on CO2 partial Ethylene oxide 95-100%

pressure in the flue gas (and
therefore to its CO2 Ethanol 95-100%
concentration assuming
atmospheric pressure): high Ammonia 95-100%
concentration enables direct
separation and cheap Coal to chemicals NA
capture whereas low
concentrations require an Natural gas processing 95-100%
additional expensive
concentration step. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Low CO2 concentration Direct Air Capture
CCUS Costs High C02 concentration

1. DAC = Direct Air Capture, negative technology

Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, IEA Levelized cost of CO2 capture by sector and initial CO2 concentration, 2019, Meeting the dual challenge: A Roadmap to At-Scale Deployment of CCUS, Ch. 2 –
119 CCUS SUPPLY CHAINS AND ECONOMICS, Energy Futures Initiative and Stanford University, 2020
Offshore pipelines Cost estimates for long-distance CO2 transport
are competitive for € per t of CO2, 2011
large volumes and
55
relatively short Pilot Project (2.5 Mtpa)
Large Scale Project (20 Mtpa)
distances, while 50

shipping is 45
preferred for pilot 40
projects and very
35
long distances
30

25

20

15

10

0 km
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Ship (including liquefaction)1 Offshore pipeline Onshore pipeline Liquefaction costs

CCUS Costs
1. Li uefaction costs are evaluated at 5.3€/ ton of CO2
120 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, The Costs of CO2 Transport : Post-demonstration CCUS in the EU, Zero Emission Platform 2011
Storage in Geological storage cost comparison with uncertainty range1
onshore depleted € per ton of CO2 stored, EU, 2011
oil and gas fields
SA NL
is the cheapest, DOGF NL Offshore
especially if
DOGF WF
existing wells are
reusable but their SA NL

storage capacity is DOGF NL Onshore

limited DOGF WL

0 5 10 15 20

DOGF = Depleted Oil and Gas Fields WL = With Legacies2

SA = Saline Aquifers NL = No Legacy
The variability in the price
range depends on local
parameters such as the – Onshore storage is cheaper than offshore storage (for both depleted oil and gas fields and saline aquifers).
available knowledge on the
reservoir, its capacity, and – Depleted oil and gas fields are cheaper than deep saline aquifers.
quality. – Larger reservoirs are cheaper than smaller ones; high injectivity is cheaper than poor injectivity.
– Cheapest storage reservoirs (large onshore DOGF) are also the least available.

CCUS Costs
1Does not include any fee (such as tax) for storage from host government.
2. “With Legacies” means existing wells that are re-usable for the storage process
121 Source: Kearney Energy Transition institute, Zero Emission Platform, IEAGHG, The Costs of CO2 Storage, 2011
CCUS offers Costs of CO2 abatement by CCUS for different sectors
opportunities for ($/tCO2 avoided, based on current costs estimates) CCS applications

CO2-abatement at 600
Negative Emissions Low-carbon Power Sources CCS to Industries CCS to Power
a moderate cost, 250 Technologies
especially in
industrial 200

applications where
150
CO2 separation is
already inherent to 100
the process
50

0
Local conditions (e.g. wind,
solar sources, geological -50
storage, transport…)
& agro-forestry

Cement CCS
Soil Carbon

CROPS

Solar thermal
DACCS

PC CCS
Chemicals CCS

Blue Hydrogen

CCS
Re/Afforestation

NGCC CCS
Solar PV

Ethanol CCS
weathering

Biochar

Geothermal

Hydropower

Iron & Steel CCS

BECCS

processing CCS
Biofuels

IGCC CCS
Sequestration

Wind onshore

Wind offshore
Nuclear

Fertilise /

Natural Gas
Enhanced

Natural Gas Power

significantly impact the
overall cost of the
decarbonisation solution,
which explains high range of
costs.
CROPS: Crop Residue Ocean Permanent Sequestration; BECCS: Bioenergy with CCS; DACCS: Direct Air Capture combined with CCS; PC: Pulverized Coal Power; IGCC: Integrated Coal Gasification Combined
Cycle Power; NGCC: Natural Gas Combined Cycle Power; Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
The Coal, IGCC and Natural Gas Power are for Post-Combustion Capture, Fertilizer is the production of ammonia, Hydrogen cover Steam Methane Reforming, Autothermal Reforming and Coal Combustion,
Cement covers Calcium Looping, partial and full Oxy-Fuel as well as Post-Combustion for Coal and Natural Gas. The cost for transport and storage when not included was set to 11$/t CO2 according to the GCCSI
CCUS costs study from 2017.
Source: GCCSI Global Costs of Carbon Capture and Storage (2017); IEA Transforming Industry through CCUS (2019); Grantham Institute, A Systematic Review of Current Technology and Cost for Industrial
Carbon Capture (2014); Columbia, Levelized Cost of Carbon Abatement: An Improved Cost-Assessment Methodology for a Net-Zero Emissions World (2020); NBER, The Cost of reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (2018); IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (2005) (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_chapter8-1.pdf); National Petroleum Council, Meeting the dual
challenge - A roadmap to At-Scale Deployment of Carbone Capture, Use, and Storage (2019); Goldman Sachs, Carbonomics - 10 key themes from the inaugural conference (2020); K. Gillingham and T. H. Stock,
122 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2018); Kearney Energy Transition Institute
CO2 for EOR is at Storage cost curve for the US (onshore and offshore)
negative costs, $/t of CO2, US, 2017
and most Onshore storage
EOR 60
of the onshore 50
storage capacity 40
in the United 30

States is available 20

for less than $10 10

0 in %
per tCO2
-10
-20
-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Offshore storage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 in %
-10
-20
CCUS costs
-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
123 Source: Kearney Energy Transition, Energy Technology Perspectives 2020 Chapter 3. CCUS technology innovations, 2020, IEA, US EPA 2018, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2017
Gas combined LCOE of electricity for different sources1
with CCUS is $/MWh, World, 2019 Global weighted average LCOE estimates (2030)
Advanced nuclear plant entering service (US, 2026)
within the range of
Fossil sources Other low carbon sources
other low carbon
electricity sources 200

and has an
advantage to be
dispatchable 150

Lower range of the current

estimates cover LCOE drop
100

50

0
Coal Coal Gas Gas Nuclear Onshore Offshore PV Geoth3 Biomass Hydro Hydro
CCUS CCGT2 CCUS wind wind (reservoir) (river)
CCUS costs 1. Boxes indicate the central 50% of values i.e. the second and third quartile
2. CCGT = Combined Cycle Gas Turbine, Onshore wind (for > 1MW plants), PV (utility scale)
3. Geothermal
Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, Projected Cost of Generating Electricity 2020, IEA, Global renewables outlook 2020 (IRENA), Levelized Costs of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy
124 Outlook 2021 (EIA)
Applying CCUS to Increase in levelized cost of production for CCUS power plants
Levelized cost of energy production for different CO2 capture rate
power plants $/MWh, 2019
greatly increases
the levelized cost Coal (USC1, post-combustion) Natural gas (CCGT1, post-combustion)
of production, but
120
an increase in the 120 +8%
+69%
capture rate has a 100
104 +7%
97 100 +47%
moderate impact 100
88
92
86
on the cost
80 80

57 60 59
60

Normal process
40 40
Process with CCUS

20 20

0 0
0 90% 95% 99% 0 90% 95% 99%
Capture rate Capture rate

CCUS costs
1. USC = Ultra Super Critical; CCGT = Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
2. BF-BOF = blast furnace basic oxygen furnace; ISR = innovative smelting reduction; Gas DRI = natural gas-based direct reduced iron/electric arc furnace (EAF) route; H2 DRI = 100% electrolytic hydrogen-based
3. NG = natural gas; Elec = electrolytic;
125 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, Energy Technology Perspectives 2020 Chapter 2. CCUS in the transition to net-zero emissions, 2020, IEA, The role of CCUS in low-carbon power systems, IEA, 2020
CCUS technology Levelized cost of CO2 capture for large-scale post-combustion at coal-fired power plant
can expect cost $2017/ t of CO2
reductions from
learnings and 120
Previously studied facilities Currently operating Recently proposed and new
gains accrued in Porto Tolle
technology Boundary Dam
deployment 100
Project Pioneer

Betchatow
Antelope Valley
Mountainer
The cost reduction comes 80
from solvent improvements
(lower energy use, lower Kingsnorth
degradation), new non- Petra Nova
solvent based capture Massvlakte
60 Linde/BASF Oase
technologies, improved CO2 Longannet
compression strategies,
Shand Surat HE
economies of scale, and Trailblazer Project Tundra
standardization of the San Juan
40
process. ION C3DC

FuelCell MCI
20
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028

CCUS costs Various Amine solvent technologies Kansai Mitsubishi CDR Cansolv Carbon capture technology learning rate

126 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, CCUS Talks: The Technology Cost Curve, GCCSI, 2020, Is CCUS Expensive ? : Decarbonization costs in the net-zero context, GCCSI, 2020
Applying CCUS to Increase in levelized cost of production for industrial processes combined with CCUS.
industrial Levelized cost of production
processes $/t, 2019
Cement Steel
increases the 150 1000
+58%
levelized cost of
production +8%
100
+8%
500

50

0 0
Unabated CO2 Capture BF-BOF1 ISR1 Gas DRI1 Gas DRI H2 DRI1
CCS1
Normal process Methanol
Process with CCUS 1500 Ammonia
Other low carbon process

1000
+24%
+20%
500

0
NG2 NG Elec2 NG NG Elec
CCUS costs
1. BF-BOF = blast furnace basic oxygen furnace; ISR = innovative smelting reduction; Gas DRI = natural gas-based direct reduced iron/electric arc furnace (EAF) route; H2 DRI = 100% electrolytic hydrogen-based
2. NG = natural gas; Elec = electrolytic;
127 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, Energy Technology Perspectives 2020 Chapter 2. CCUS in the transition to net-zero emissions, 2020, IEA, The role of CCUS in low-carbon power systems, IEA, 2020
Such integrated Business models for integrated projects
projects also face
Capture Transport Storage
planning and
coordination – Single integrated project owner:
difficulties that do Self-built model
O&G majors Govt
high level of control, no
coordination issues
not affect CCUS (integration) – Limited to oil and gas majors or
very large utilities only
projects related to
oil and gas
– Several project owners sharing
costs and risks
Partnership Transport O&G – Risk of cancellation if a partner
Power utility pulls out
(JV, consortium) operator companies
– Difficulties in managing differing
industrial cultures and paperwork

EOR producer 1 – Business model easy to implement

EOR contractual
Transport – Shields storage risks from public
agreement Emitter EOR producer 2
operator opposition or long-term liabilities
(pay-at-the-gate) – Limited to EOR
EOR producer 3

Emitter 1 – Shared infrastructure for transport

and storage reduces up-front
New models - Publicly supervised common capex
Emitter 2 – Involvement of public authorities
cluster approach venture
facilitates public acceptance
Emitter 3 – Not for early demonstration phase
Business Models

128 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute Project owner (potentially eligible for emissions reductions) Secondary stakeholder
New business Business models for projects
models for CCUS
Capture Transport Storage
clusters have been
proposed in the – Give more certainties to investors
Transport and
United Kingdom Storage Fee Govt License
Private companies
(governmental subsidies and
secured ROI).
(Regulated Asset Base – Final customers will pay the price
Model) set by the company.

– Strike price: generator costs and

transportation and storage fee
Govt Agreement
Contract For – Transportation and storage fee
Difference (CFD) Power utility payable regardless of generation
– Strike price to come down for
individual projects as they link up

– No funding required until the

Govt Subsidies operationalization of the project
Carbon Tax
(based on US 45Q) Industrial applications – Tax credit when carbon is either
used or stored

Total cost of hydrogen to include :

– CO2 capture and separation costs
Hydrogen Transport & Storage
Hydrogen facility – CO2 transport and storage fees
Production
– The link up with transmission or
distribution networks for hydrogen
Business Models
1. Transport & Storage
129 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute – UK CCUS Cost Challenge Taskforce Report (2018) Project owner (potentially eligible for emissions reductions) Secondary stakeholder
As of August 2020, Status of net-zero CO₂ policy implementations and relative share of global carbon
more than 125 emissions
Pledged
Under
countries have towards Paris
discussions agreement Proposed legislation Political
agreement
In law
2,0 1,0 0,1 64,6
committed to or 65

3,9 0,7 0,1 0,1 0,1

0,9
were considering 60

1,8 0,1 1,1

0,2 0,1
55
implementing net- 1,3

Share of 2018 global energy-related CO2

3,1 0,1 0,0
50 27,0 0,0 0,0
zero targets 45

40

emissions (%)
35

30

Some countries include 25

1,5
all GHG emissions in their 20 1,2 0,9 0,1
14,5 0,0 0,5
targets; others only include a 15
subset of GHG emissions.
10

5
1,3 0,0 0,0
0,2 0,3
0

Uruguay

Hungary
Norway
United States1
Fiji

Germany
Argentina

Panama
Japan

South Korea
Chile

France

Sweden
Total
Nepal

Brazil

Canada

South Africa
Costa Rica
Ethiopia
Singapore

Australia

Rest of EU
Austria

Spain

Denmark
Colombia

Finland
Mexico

China

United Kingdom
New Zealand
Kazakhstan

Switzerland
Targeted

2050

2045
2050

2050

2050

2050

2030

2050

2060

2060

2050

2060

2050

2030

2050

2030

2050

2050

2050

2050

2040

2035

2050

2050

2050

2050

2050

2050

2050

2050
year for

?
?

carbon-
Policies & Regulations neutrality

1. Unites States have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement but new President-Elect J.Biden announced that the USA will join back the agreement once in charge.
130 Sources: Our World in Data - Annual CO2 emissions ; Climate Home News - Which countries have a net zero carbon goal? (last update : Jan 8th 2021)
Most key countries have announced plans
to become carbon neutral by at least 2060

Emission reduction targets

2018 CO2 RES1 Target GHG reduction vs 2005

emissions Carbon neutrality objective Carbon policies
(% of global) 2030 2050 2030 2050
Soon back to Paris Agreement at
United 5,42 GtCO2 (14,5%) -11% to -14%2 -68 %to -76%3
national level Carbon tax and/or
24% 30% California aims to be carbon neutral by ETS at state level
States
2045

Carbon neutral by 2050

EU ETS and several
Countries like Finland, Austria, Sweden
EU + UK 3,44 GtCO2 (9,2%) 40 to 50% 40 to 100%4 -55% -71% to -94%
have set the objective sooner (2035 –
carbon taxes among
the countries
2040 – 2045)

Local ETS pilots

China 10,06 GtCO2 (27,0%) 35% - -65% - Zero carbon footprint objective for 2060
undergoing

No national objective
Australia 0,42 GtCO2 (1,13%) 50% - -26% to -28% - But states aims to be carbon neutral by ETS at national level
2050

ETS and carbon tax at

Japan 1,92 GtCO2 (5,2%) 24% - -22% -81% Carbon neutral by 2050
national level

1Renewable Energy Sources ; 2Current policies projections ; 3Obama Administration Mid-Century Strategy ; 4Range of all scenarios
131 Sources: Kearney Energy Transition Institute ; World Bank – State and Trends of Carbon Pricing (2020) ; Our World in Data - Annual CO2 emissions
GHG emissions Overview of GHG disclosure and scopes
reduction – Under certain conditions, which vary
pressure on per country, companies are now
corporations has required to ensure that their
subsidiaries and suppliers respect
been increasing human rights and the environment,
with the including their carbon footprint
across the value chain.
development of – In 2016, at least 92% of Fortune
corporate GHG 500 companies responding to the
emissions CDP used the GHG Protocol directly
or indirectly through a program
disclosure based on the GHG Protocol.
covering scopes 1, – Upstream and downstream (scope
2, and 3 3 emissions) can constitute up to
90% of large corporations’ overall
emissions, with variable distribution
across the sources. For example, in
the automotive industry, about 98%
of scope 3 emissions are
downstream (see next slide). The
most emitting category is the fuel
combustion during usage,
representing almost all downstream
emissions.

Policies & Regulations

132 Sources: GHG Protocol, Kearney Energy Transition Institute

Scope 3 emissions Estimated ratio of scope 1, 2 and 3 per sector (%GtCO2 , GtCO2)
are the most CO2 emissions from scope 1 only (GtCO2/yr)
important ones 1,4 2,4 2,6 5,9 1,6 7,1
5%
14,0 14,8 18,5
1%
even if they are 16% 15%
not always 7%
54%
considered in CO2 56% 28%

emissions 89% 89%

98% 95%
reduction 94% 1%
78%
objectives 25% 57%
45%
Scope 1 (direct emissions from owned 1%
or controlled sources) 19% 3%
8% 10%
1% 1% 3% 2%
Scope 2 (indirect emissions from the Food Agriculture
generation of purchased electricity, steam, Chemicals Car processing Electricity and Coal Oil and Gas*
heating and cooling consumed) Cement manufacturers Food production heat production
Iron & Steel CO2 emissions by
Scope 3 (other indirect emissions occurring power source
in downstream or upstream in value chain) CO2 emissions by sector

In most industries, scope 3 CO2 emissions are the most important ones because of the pollutive
characteristic of sold products, especially for automotive or oil and gas companies. Sectors that belong to
heavy industries have bigger scopes 1 and 2 because of the CO2 emissions in their process of fabrication.
Note: This graph has been made by averaging the distribution of CO2 emissions among the scopes 1-2-3
of the five biggest companies of each sector. However, there is no consensus on the definition of each
Policies & Regulations scope.
Some emissions can be counted twice by being in several sectors e.g : the electricity generated by plant (scope 3) used to produce cement (scope 2)
*Global CO2 emissions related to Oil and Natural Gas from IEA - CO2 emissions by energy source, World 1990-2018 (2020)
133 Sources: Kearney Energy Transition Institute ; Carbon Disclosure Project ; Companies websites and CSR report ; Our World in Data ; FAOSTAT - CO2 emissions from agriculture (2020); IEA ETP 2020
Policies CCUS Political Attractiveness Curve ?
supporting CCUS ?
development are EU ETS carbon
gaining price(1) reached
30€/tCO2

momentum US announces 72M$ in

CCUS grant
UK commits 130M$ for

Positive support of policies for CCUS

DAC research

Petra Nova coal plant

suspends CCUS due to low oil
prices
Public opposition to
onshore storage in Europe COVID 19 crisis
Economic crisis deepens in Europe
COP 19 conference in IEA Multiple
Copenhagen postpones global CCUS included in Clean Development
Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol Reports on CCUS
climate-change mitigation plans to
2015 Shale revolution makes cheap natural gas
available in the US: various coal CCUS
projects cancelled US generous 45Q
tax credit for
IEA CCUS Roadmap EU ETS carbon price CCUS
collapses

EU CCUS Directive UN COP 21 on Climate Change

China increases focus on CCUS

under its 5-year plan First CCUS power plant
begins operation
NER 400 and EU 2030 energy
IPCC Special & climate policy announced1
Report on CCUS IPCC new report confirms CCUS as
critical part of least-cost mitigation US and China issue joint
portfolio statement on climate change2 and
First large-scale project announce CCUS collaboration
in aquifer (Sleipner) initiative
Large methanol project with CCUS &
EOR cancelled for economic reasons
1996 2010 2015 2020

Policies & Regulations

(1) In 2020, carbon price fluctuated between ~16 to ~30€/tCO2 on the EU ETS market, and further increased in 2021, exceeding 50€/tCO2 in May 2021
COP: United Nation Conference of the Parties. NER: New Entrant Reserve fund for climate mitigation in Europe. EU ETS: European Emission Trading Scheme; 1. EU GHG reduction goal: 40% by 2030; 2. US
GHG reduction goal: 26-28% by 2030. China’s reduction goal: from 2030 onwards.
134 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute, IEA CCUS in clean energy transition, 2020
 Carbon policies are not new - key countries have enacted regulatory frameworks to enable the
CCUS development at both regional and federal levels Non-Exhaustive
Name of the program Description of the program Date of implementation Carbon price* CO2 emissions covered

Tax credit for the first 12 years following opening for new: Start in 2008 By 2026, tax credit of (per t) : Total of 63 MtCO2 concerned by
– Power plants capturing at least 500,000 t Review in 2018 – $20 → $50 for storage May 2019
US 45Q – Industrial facilities not emitting more than 500,000 t and capturing at least – $10 → $35 for EOR
Tax Credit 25,000 t – $10 → $35 for other uses Some facilities also benefits from the
– Direct Air Capture and other facilities that capture 100,000 t California low-carbon fuel standard
(LCFS)

Canada GGPPA The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is divided in two parts : Start in 2018 2020 : $30/t N/A
(for provinces that – Fuel charge for fuel producers and distributors Review in 2020 2023 : $50/t
doesn’t have their – Output-Based Pricing System for facilities emitting more than 50,000 t of 2030 : $170/t
own regulation) CO2

China Trade system of emissions allowances covering coal- and gas-fired power Phases 1 & 2 (2017-2020) Launch price of ¥30/t (around $4,6/t) CO2 emissions from power plants
National ETS plants. Phase 3 (2021 – 2025) (about 3,5 GtCO2 in 2017)

Cap and trade system of emissions allowances covering heavy energy-using Phases 1 & 2 (2005-2012) Price determined by trading : $30,65/t as of Around 45% of global EU CO2
EU ETS installations (power stations & industrial plants) and all airlines operating in Phase 3 (2013 – 2020) Aug. 1st emissions
Investment Fund Europe. Clean H2 and CCS (funding) Phase 4 (2021 – 2030) (about 1,7 GtCO2 in 2018)
NextGen EU EU framework for carbon
removal

Emissions from power units, motor and heat fuels that are not covered by EU Start in 1991 Price increase year by year 87% of Sweden emissions are
Swedish ETS (both industry and general level). $137/t as of Aug. 1st covered by either EU ETS or
Carbon Tax national carbon tax (about 30,4
MtCO2 in 2018)

To meet Paris commitment of emissions reductions of 50–55% by 2030, the Start in 1991 (new stricter Proposal to raise carbon tax to about 2000 This proposal covers emissions
Norwegian Norwegian government proposes a gradual increase in carbon tax on GHG proposal in 2021) NOK (ca. € 190) per tonne CO2 equivalent by under EU-ETS as well as non-ETS
Carbon Tax emissions 2030 from the current NOK 590 per tonne emissions (for example, transport,
– Carbon tax raise will be offset by reducing other taxes correspondingly CO2-e uivalents (ca. € 55) waste, agriculture, and certain other
sources)

System to replace EU ETS and based on it with allowances of CO2 emissions. Start in 2021 TBD 5% below UK former ETS cap
UK ETS Same emissions as EU ETS are covered plus domestic flight inside the UK (following the Brexit) Minimum of £15/t (around $20/t) Forecast of 155 MtCO2 in 2021

135
*As of August, 1st 2020 from the World Bank
Source: European Commission - EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) ; Eurostats – Greenhouse gas emissions statistics (2020) ; Government Offices of Sweden – Carbon Taxation in Sweden (2020) ; Global
CCUS Institute - The US Section 45Q Tax Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration (2020) ; The Tax Credit for Carbon Sequestration (Section 45Q)
 World ETS map (2020) – illustrative carbon prices
Regulating carbon
EU ETS : $30/t
prices has gained Québec ETS : $17/t
Alberta ETS : $22/t

more acceptance South Korea ETS : $33/t

in OECD countries
California ETS : $16/t Beijing ETS : $12/t
Massachusetts ETS : $8/t Shenzhen Pilot ETS : $2/t

More and more countries are

adopting a carbon tax or an
ETS or even both. Europe
has had it own ETS system
since 2005. The United Australia ETS : $8-9/t
States and China, the two
major carbon emitters, don’t New Zealand ETS :
yet have a national ETS or $24/t

carbon tax. Only 16 US

states have started
something.
Operational ETS Scheduled ETS

Number of countries 38 11

Sum of CO2 emissions from countries 6,01 GtCO2 18,58 GtCO2

% of global CO2 emissions 16,1% 49,9%

Policies & Regulations World CO2 emissions covered by ETS 10,7% 8,0%

Note: in February 2021, the carbon price reached 40€/t as a result of cold weather and recent announcement of new carbon reduction emission target in the EU (-55% objective by 2030)
136 Source: World Bank (2020) - State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020 (2020) & Carbon Pricing Dashboard
ETS policies ETS policies in Canadian provinces ETS policies in US states
remain a state- Name of the Status of
Name of the
level decision in initiative
Provinces Status of ETS Year Price ($/t)* initiative
States
ETS
Year Price ($/t)*

Canada and in the California CaT California Operational 2012 16,89

Alberta TIER Alberta Operational 2007 22,38
US Massachusetts
ETS
Massachusetts Operational 2018 8,26

British Oregon ETS Oregon Scheduled TBC TBD

BC GGIRCA Operational 2016 Unknown
Columbia Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Scheduled TBC TBD
ETS

Manitoba ETS Manitoba Scheduled TBC TBD Connecticut

Delaware
New
New
Brunswick Scheduled TBC TBD Maine
Brunswick
ETS
Maryland
Newfoundland
Newfoundland
and Labrador Operational 2019 ± 20 Massachusetts
and Labrador
PSS
Regional Operational 2009
Greenhouse New Hampshire
5,94
Nova Scotia Gas Initiative
Nova Scotia Operational 2019 Unknown (RGGI) New Jersey
CaT

New York
Stopped in
Ontario CaT 2017 14,65
2018 Rhode Island
Ontario
Vermont
Ontario ETS Scheduled TBC TBD
ETS Virginia
ETS Scheduled Pennsylvania Scheduled 2022
Quebec CaT Quebec Operational 2013 16,89

Virginia ETS Virginia Operational 2020 10,77

Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan Operational 2019 Unknown Washington
Policies & Regulations OBPS
CAR
Washington Suspended 2017 Unknown

*Carbon prices from World Bank – Carbon Pricing Dashboard (as of Aug. 1st 2020)
137 Source: World Bank (2020) - State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020 (2020) & Carbon Pricing Dashboard
The new US Climate change plan Clean energy plan
administration is – Creation of a new cross-agency focused on – Achieve “largest-ever investment in clean
eager to leverage climate: Advanced Research Projects Agency energy research and innovation” by investing
(ARPA-C) $400 billion over 10 years.
CCUS in reaching
their low carbon – Decarbonizing industrial sectors such as – Use CCUS in existing power plants and either
objectives steel, concrete, and chemicals store or use the CO2.

– Decarbonizing food production sector and use – Aim to double research investments and tax
agriculture to remove CO2 from the air and incentives for technologies that capture CO2
store under the ground and to lower cost of CCS retrofits on existing
power plants.

Energy and climate policy outlook

– Already rejoined the Paris Agreement

– Ambitious plan to transition away from fossil

fuels in favor of clean energies Picture to add…

– Aiming to eliminate emissions from power

plants by 2035 and be net-zero emissions by
2050
Policies & Regulations
Source: Joe Biden electoral program : Plan for Climate Change and Environmental Justice (2020) & The Biden Plan to Build a Modern, Sustainable Infrastructure and an Equitable Clean Energy Future (2020) ;
138 Forbes - Biden’s Energy Policy Outlook (2020)
Nordic countries Carbon price ($/t)

were the first ones 170

to have a carbon 160

price, with Sweden 150

having the highest 140

carbon tax 130

Alberta TIER 120

Quebec CaT
110
Beijing pilot ETS
Shanghai pilot ETS 100
Shenzhen pilot ETS
EU ETS 90
Denmark carbon tax
80
Finland carbon tax
Sweden carbon tax (general) 70
Sweden carbon tax (industry)
Norway Carbon tax 60
California CaT
50
Massachusetts ETS
RGGI 40

30

20

10
Policies & Regulations
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
139 Source: World Bank – Carbon Pricing Dashboard ;
The Global CCS Do you believe CCS is safe ? Do you support the US action to
Institute survey develop CCS ?
recommends 18% 13%
24% 25%
stronger public
outreach to 27% 38%
sensitize the 40% 38%
stakeholders 11%
14%
about benefits to 8% 12%
increase support 35%
27%
22% 17%
9% 8% 6% 8%
2017 2019 2017 2019
Definitely safe Undecided Not safe at all Strongly support Undecided Strongly oppose
Safe Not that safe Support Oppose

The GCCSI surveyed 100 US federal policy influencers (50 from private and 50 from public sector) about
CCS in January–February 2019:
• Key findings reveals that CCS is only seen as related to fossil fuels but having some benefits for the
environment. Moreover, most of the federal policy influencers agreed that government carbon policies
and increasing R&D funding are the best ways to support and develop carbon capture and storage.
• Finally, to increase public support and knowledge on CCS, the survey reports that there is a need to
Public Acceptance
explain “how CCS fits in to the set of tools and approaches to address climate change” and “the
importance of CCS in reaching carbon reduction goals.”
140 Source: Global CCS Institute - Federal Policy Influencers 2019 Survey (2019)
CCUS have limited Unknown and misunderstood Unfavourable perception
awareness and – Less awareness about CCUS and the – CCUS is usually linked with fossil fuels but
favorable public technology is misunderstood by them barely with industry
whereas its potential benefits for climate
opinion compared change are substantial. – BECCS (Bioenergy with CCS) is starting to be
with other low recognized but the public opinion prefer wind
– Less experience with CCUS and a strong fear and solar electricity despite BECCS’s strong
emission of a tragic failure in the storage process even credentials in achieving negative emissions
technologies though offshore storage appears less
– CCUS included in coal or gas plants is also
dangerous than onshore for local populations.
not as appreciate as renewable energy and
– However, communities with an industrial even lower than natural gas or nuclear
history are eager to welcome CCS projects.

Key challenges Need to focus on advantages

– High capex and opex in whole value chain – Necessary tool to limit temperature rise to
1.5°C
– No long-term knowledge about potential
effects – A way to safely store large amount of CO2
– Opportunities to transform CO2 through EOR
– Increase the use of fossil fuels and other activities (biofuels and urea etc.)
– CCUS should have been done long time ago – Only technology to reduce CO2 emissions in
and the focus need to be on renewable and some industrial sectors (cement, iron, and
Public Acceptance
clean energies options. steel)
Source: National Petroleum Council - Meeting the Dual Challenge a Roadmap To At-scale Deployment Of CARBON CAPTURE, USE, AND STORAGE (2020) ; Energy Procedia - Local acceptance and
141 communication as crucial elements for realizing CCS in the Nordic region (2016)
Despite lack of France Germany
awareness about – CCUS features prominently in debates as a – Under public pressure, federal states
CCUS, public solution to reduce CO2 emissions. prohibited carbon storage in certain regions,
and many German states have effectively
opinions differ – ADEME assesses that CCS would represent introduced a complete ban
from country to 15 MtCO2 captured in France per year.
country within – For Acatech, CCS is seen as a technology
– The main challenge is the lack of confidence with uncontrollable risks
Europe about the safety of the onshore storage of
CO2. “Germany’s citizens assess CCS as a high-risk
technology and do not perceive its benefits.”
Fraunhofer ISI institute

Nordic countries United Kingdom

– Norway is more familiar with CCS than – There is a huge lack of awareness of CCS in
Denmark or Sweden the UK, but more than half of the population
wouldn’t be worried
– Offshore storage in the North Sea can avoid
possible controversies – High level of acceptance and low level of
opposition.
“Low public awareness and acceptance have
been identified as one of the most important “CCS is a necessity not an option”
barriers for CCS deployment”
Public Acceptance J.K Haug & P. Stigson UK Committee on Climate Change

Sources : France : ADEME - Le Captage et Stockage géologique du CO2 (CSC) en France (2020) ; Germany : Fraunhofer ISI - Chancen für und Grenzen der Akzeptanz von CCS in Deutschland „CCS-Chancen“
142 (2015) & Acatech - CCU und CCS – Bausteine für den Klimaschutz in der Industrie (2018) ; Nordic Countries : Energy Procedia - Local acceptance and communication as crucial elements for realizing CCS in the
Nordic region (2016) ; UK : The University of Manchester Research - Public awareness and acceptance of carbon capture and utilisation in the UK (2017)
7. Financing and key
players

143 Image by Itung01

CCUS accounts Total public energy-related R&D spend
for a small portion ($ billion)
of the total public 25

R&D spend

20

After an increase following

the 2009 economical crisis,
total R&D budgets slightly 15
decrease until 2017. The
total level of R&D spend has
stabilized around $20 billion.
Renewables increased 10
through the years while fossil
fuels budgets have been
divided by four between
2009 and 2019. CCUS only
appeared in 2003, and after 5
being above $1 billion in
2009–2013, the budget has
declined to less than $650
million today. 0
1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2019

Energy efficiency CCUS Nuclear Other power and storage technologies

Financing Fossil fuels Renewables Hydrogen, fuel cells Cross-cutting, unallocated, other…

1Estimated

144 Sources : IEA - Energy Technology RD&D Budgets 2020 (2020)

R&D budgets Annual public R&D spending in CCUS (2005-2019) 2019 public R&D spending in CCUS and
$ billion renewables $ million
allocated to CCUS
rose until 2012-13 1,2
1,1
post which a 1,1 1,1
1,1 Solar 815
decline was
witnessed Wind 776

0,8 CCUS 641

0,8
However, they are still 0,7
greater than most of the 0,6 Hydrogen 455
spend on the new emerging 0,6
renewables technologies 0,5
Geothermal 193

0,4
Hydroelectricity 179
0,3 0,3
Biofuels 171
0,1
0,1
Marine 89

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2019

Financing
1. Public R&D refers to IEA member country only. CCUS R&D is defined in this report as all CCUS investments except those for Large Projects (integrated projects above 0.6 Mt/CO2year).
145 Source: IEA - Energy Technology RD&D Budgets 2020 (2020) & Energy Technology Perspective (2020) ; OECDiLibrary - IEA Energy Technology RD&D Statistics (data extracted on Jan. 6th 2021)
Since 2004, the Top 11 CCUS financial contribution1 from OECD countries
United States has 2004-2019, in $ million
been a key 1250
AUS
contributor to CAN
CCUS funding EU
FRA
1000 GER
JAP
KOR
NED
750 NOR
GBR
USA
The United States has been
a huge contributor to CCUS
development, but its 500
envelope has decreased to
stabilize around $200 million
(30% of the total). Japan and
Norway are among the few
250
countries that have
increased their budgets
since 2016 and have
become the second and third
highest contributors 0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Financing
1. only data labelled as “Capture or disposal of CO2 “ were taken into account
2. EU budget is given by the European Union itself and it is not the sum of the budgets from EU members
146 Source: OECD.Stat – Innovation in environment-related technologies (data extracted on Jan. 6th 2021)
The period of Annual number of patents filed for various low-carbon technologies
2004–2012 saw an (in absolute numbers of patents)
Between 1996 and 2006, fuel cells
acceleration in 30000 and solar photovoltaic panels were the
R&D efforts, but Biomass & waste two technologies with the biggest
CCUS numbers of patents filed each year.
CCUS never Biofuels & non-fossil fuels

claimed a top spot 25000 Fuel cells

Geothermal Solar thermal energy, wind energy and
among low-carbon Hydroenergy biofuels have accelerated their
technologies in Hydrogen
Marine
development from 2005 to 2010.
20000
terms of patents Nuclear
Solar1 Patents about CCUS technologies
Wind also have known a wave of increase
15000 between 2004 and 2012 (to reach
more than 700 patents in 2012),
before a decrease since that time.
10000
In 2018, solar panels technologies
remain the top patent producer with
fuel cells and wind at the second and
5000 third ranks.

0
1996 2000 2005 2010 2015 2018

Financing
1Solarincludes : “Solar Photovoltaic (PV)”, “Solar thermal” and “Solar hybrid PV + thermal”
147 Source: OECD.Stat – Innovation in environment-related technologies (data extracted on Jan. 6th 2021)
The United States Top 10 CCUS patents OECD country producer
leads in filing the 1996-2018, in absolute numbers of patents
most patents in 650
CCUS 600 USA
JAP
550
KOR
500 GER
FRA
450 CAN
CHN
400 GBR
The United States had a NED
350
head start of five years in AUS
working on CCUS R&D over 300
other countries and regions
and has become the 250
reference since 2000. Japan
200
and South Korea only
started to research in 2008, 150
while European countries
struggle to file patents. 100

50

0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Financing
Note : only data labelled as “Capture or disposal of CO2 “ were taken into account.
148 Source: OECD.Stat – Innovation in environment-related technologies (data extracted on Jan. 6th 2021)
Major global and
CO2 capture
Separation & Capture Transport
Transport Storage
Utilisation and Storage
national utilities or
oil and gas
companies are Equipment manufacturers: Alstom, EOR producers: Denbury Resources,

Key service providers

MHI,GE, Siemens, Babcock & Wilcox, Chaparral Energy, Enhance Energy,
National Grid
important in the Pall Corp
Gassco
Chevron
development of Industrial gas producers: Air Liquide,
Air Product, Linde, Praxair, Aker Maersk Tankers Passive storage service providers:
CCUS Chemicals producers: UOP, Lurgi, Dow, Kinder Morgan Schlumberger, Halliburton, Petrofac, C12
BASF, YARA company, Pond Technologies, Shell,
Larvik Shipping
Utilities and O&G companies: TAQA
Nippon Gases Europe AS
ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Equinor,
Vattenfall,
Utilisation technologies : LanzaTech,
Start-ups: Climeworks Carbon Cure, CarbonFree (Skyonic)

European utilities: Engie, Drax Power, E.ON, Enel, Endesa, Scottish and Southern Energy, Vattenfall, Veolia
Key project owners

American utilities: AES, Capital Power, SCS Energy, Southern Company, NRG Energy, SaskPower, Tenaska, TransAlta
Asia-Pacific utilities: Dongguan Power, GreenGen, Huaneng Group (China); KEPCO (South Korea) ; Masdar (Middle East)
Major O&G companies: Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, Total, Eni, Chevron, Equinor
National Oil Companies: Equinor, Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, Saudi Aramco, Sabic, ADNOC, Petrobras, Pemex, China
National Petroleum Corporation, Sinopec
Coal: Consol Energy, Peabody Energy, Rio Tinto, Xstrata Coal
Chemicals, fertilizers, synfuels: Archer Daniels Midland, Air Products, Koch Fertilizer, Shenhua Group, Sasol
Steel : Arcelormittal, Thyssenkrupp, Emirate Steel

Key Players

149 Source: Press search, Kearney Energy Transition Institute

Appendix &
Bibliography

150
Picture credit - Peschke, Kevin
 ▪ Acatech - CCU und CCS – Bausteine für den Klimaschutz in der Industrie (2018)
Bibliography (1/2) ▪ ADEME - Le Captage et Stockage géologique du CO2 (CSC) en France (2020)
▪ BNEF - Operational CCUS in Canada: blueprint or one-hit wonder? (2014)
▪ BNEF database (consulted in 2015)
▪ BP - Statistical Review (2015)
▪ CCUS Cost Challenge Taskforce Report - Delivering Clean Growth: (2018)
▪ Climate Home News - Which countries have a net zero carbon goal? (consulted in Jan. 2021) (link)
▪ Energy Procedia - Local acceptance and communication as crucial elements for realizing CCS in the Nordic region (2016)
▪ European Commission - EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)
▪ Eurostats - Greenhouse gas emissions statistics (2020)
▪ FAOSTAT - CO2 emissions from agriculture (2020)
▪ Food and Agriculture Organization (2020)
▪ Forbes - Biden’s Energy Policy Outlook (2020)
▪ Fraunhofer ISI - Chancen für und Grenzen der Akzeptanz von CCS in Deutschland „CCS-Chancen“ (2015)
▪ Fuelcell Energy - Exxon Mobil Advanced carbonate fuel cell technology in carbon capture and storage (2017)
▪ GCCSI (Global CCS Institute) - CCS Database (2020) (link)
▪ GCCSI (Global CCS Institute) - CCS Talks: The Technology Cost Curve (2020)
▪ GCCSI (Global CCS Institute) - Federal Policy Influencers 2019 Survey (2019)
▪ GCCSI (Global CCS Institute) - Global Status Report 2014 (2014)
▪ GCCSI (Global CCS Institute) - Global Status Report 2019 (2019)
▪ GCCSI (Global CCS Institute) - Global Status Report 2020 (2020)
▪ GCCSI (Global CCS Institute) - The US Section 45Q Tax Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration (2020)
▪ GCCSI (Global CCS Institute) Technology Readiness and Costs of CCS (2021)
▪ GCCSI (Global CCS Institute) - Understanding Industrial CCS Hubs and Clusters (2016)
▪ Goldman Sachs – Carbonomics : 10 key themes from the inaugural conference (2020) (link)
▪ Government Offices of Sweden - Carbon Taxation in Sweden (2020)
▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions (2020)
▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - Data & stats (2020)
▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - Energy Technology Perspective (2020)
▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - Energy Technology RD&D Budgets 2020 (2020)
▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - Projected Cost of Generating Electricity (2020)
▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (2020)
▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - The Future of Hydrogen, Seizing today’s opportunities (2019)
151
 ▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - The role of CCUS in low-carbon power system (2020)
Bibliography (2/2) ▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - Transforming Industry through CCUS (2019)
▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - Transport sector CO2 emissions by mode in the SDS, 2000-2030 (2019)
▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - Whatever happened to enhanced oil recovery? (2018)
▪ IEA (International Energy Agency) - World Energy Outlook (2019)
▪ International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control - Ship-based carbon capture onboard of diesel or LNG-fueled ships (2019)
▪ IOGP (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers) - Global CCUS projects (2020)
▪ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) - AR5 Climate change 2014 (2015)
▪ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) - Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (2014)
▪ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) - IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate
Change Mitigation (2011)
▪ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) - SR1.5 – Summary for Policymakers (2018)
▪ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) - SR5–Chapter 2 (2018)
▪ joebiden.com - Plan for Climate Change and Environmental Justice (2020)
▪ joebiden.com - The Biden Plan to Build a Modern, Sustainable Infrastructure and an Equitable Clean Energy Future (2020)
▪ Journal of the Electrochemical Society - Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell performance for CO2 capture from Natural Gas
combined-cycle flue gas, (2020)
▪ Kearney Energy Transition Institute - Bringing CCS to Market (2012)
▪ NASA - Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
▪ National Petroleum Council - Meeting the dual challenge: A Roadmap to At-Scale Deployment of CCUS (2020)
▪ OECD.Stat - Innovation in environment-related technologies (consulted in Jan. 2021)
▪ OECDiLibrary - IEA Energy Technology RD&D Statistics (2021)
▪ Our Word in Data - Annual total CO2 emissions, by world region (2019)
▪ The Scientific World Journal - Carbon Dioxide Separation from Flue Gases: A Technological Review Emphasizing Reduction
in Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2014)
▪ The University of Manchester Research - Public awareness and acceptance of carbon capture and utilisation in the UK
(2017)
▪ US DOE (Department Of Energy) - Internal Revenue Code Tax Fact Sheet (2019)
▪ US EIA (Energy Information Administration) - Short-term energy outlook (2018)
▪ US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) - Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2017 (2019)
▪ World Bank - State and Trends of Carbon Pricing (2020)
▪ Zero Emission Platform - The Costs of CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage (2011)
152
Acronyms. BECCUS: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and MtCO2/yr: million tonnes CO2 per year
Storage (CCUS) MVA: monitoring, verification and
CAPEX: capital expenditure accounting
CDR: Carbon dioxide removal, also called NER300: new entrants reserve
“negative emissions technologies” (pls refer to NGCC: natural gas combined cycle
the Negative Emissions Technologies FactBook)
are anthropogenic activities removing CO2 from OXY: oxy-combustion capture
the atmosphere and durably storing it in PCC: post-combustion capture
geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in
products. It includes existing and potential R&D: research & development
anthropogenic enhancement of biological or SNG: synthetic natural gas
geochemical sinks and direct air capture and Subcritical coal power plants: Subcritical
storage but excludes natural CO2 uptake not (SUBC) coal-fired power plants work by boiling
directly caused by human activities (IPCC). water to generate steam that activates a turbine.
CCUS: carbon capture utilization and storage Supercritical (SC) and ultra-supercritical (USC)
EOR: enhanced oil recovery power plants operate at temperatures and
pressures above the critical point of water, i.e.
ETP: Energy Technology Perspectives above the temperature and pressure at which
ETS: Emissions Trading Scheme the liquid and gas phases of water coexist
leading to higher efficiency. Subcritical power
EUA: European Union Allowance plants achieve thermal efficiency in the range
FID: final investment decision between 34% - 40% with the global average
IGCC: integrated gasification combined cycle efficiency around 36%, whereas supercritical
power plants reach efficiencies between 42% -
JV: joint venture 45%. Ultra-supercritical power plants employ
LCOE: levelized cost of electricity advanced metal alloys to withstand extreme
steam conditions and achieve even higher
Large Project: integrated CCUS projects of efficiencies (47.5%)
demonstration or commercial scale (above 0.6
MtCO2/year) US DOE: US Department of Energy
153 WEO: World Energy Outlook
O&G Majors and IOCs in Europe have announced carbon
neutrality targets, including scope 3 emissions
Carbon neutrality on scope 3 implies almost no gasoline or fuels sold in
some countries by 2050

Scope 1 + 2 -20% Net Zero -30% to -35% Net Zero (Upstream) - -

2030 Scope 3 - - -35% to -40% - - -

-30% (Absolute1)
Scope 3 -20% - >-15%
-15% (Intensity2)
-30% -15%

Scope 1 + 2 -40% Net Zero - Net Zero - -

2040 Scope 3 - - - - - -
Scope 3 -40% - - - - -35%
Scope 1 + 2 Net Zero Net Zero Net Zero Net Zero Net Zero Net Zero

2050 Scope 3 - Near Zero in Norway Net Zero - - Net Zero in Europe
-80% (Absolute1) -60% globally
Scope 3 Net Zero Net zero -50%
-55% (Intensity2)
-65%
Net zero (EU)

Scope 3 of energy produced

Scope 3 of energy sold to
costumers

154 Note : 1Absolute: reduction in net emissions from the entire life cycle of sold energy products – 2Intensity :X% of the emission intensity
The main aim of Main storage R&D axis Simplified behaviour of CO2 after injection
R&D in storage is 1. Assess country-wide storage space:
to find suitable – Early results seem to indicate massive theoretical
PETROLEUM RESERVOIR AQUIFER
storage potential globally;
reservoirs and Closed structure Open Structure
– most of the potential lies within deep saline 1
understand the aquifers, which are geographically widespread;
behaviour of CO2 – Pore space in depleted oil and gas reservoirs is
suitable but has limited availability;
underground, for – According to the GCCSI, “the importance of
which field undertaking storage-related actions this decade to
prepare for widespread CCUSPETROLEUM
deployment post-
demonstration is RESERVOIR
2020 cannot be overstated”. Closed structure
AQUIFER
Open Structure
essential 2. Understand CO2 behaviour, through: 1
– Large-scale field demonstrations in aquifers;
– Software modelling tools of key trapping
mechanisms:
See the Sleipner case slide 32 1– Physical trapping of mobile CO2 plume
2– Residual trapping of immobile CO2 bubbles
3– Solubility trapping of dissolved immobile CO2 22 1
– Reservoir engineering to manage risk of leakage;
– Monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA); 1
1
– International standards for MVA and risk
assessments;
32

155 Source: GCCSI (2014), “Global Status of CCUS”; Picture credits: CO2CRC; CAGS
 Power generation

CCUS can help decarbonize electricity when combined with thermal power generation
Capture capacity
Name of the project Country Description
(MtCO2)

550 MWe natural gas combined cycle plant in California, United States with CO 2 captured
Calc Capture Elk Hills Power Plant 1.4
and stored through EOR for 2024

Caledonia Clean Energy 3.1 Natural gas-fired plant provides flexibility without scarifying CO2 capture for 2024

CarbFix Project Hellisheidi 0.01 Geothermal power plant capturing 12,000 tons CO2 per year since 2014

Haifeng 0.02 2.1 MW coal-fired power plant

Chongqing 0.01 Post-combustion capture from coal-fired power plant

Planned for 2027, bio-energy combined with CCUS technology, part of the Zero Carbon
Drax BECCS Plant 4.0
Humber Project

Dry Fork 3.0 Coal-based electric generation power plant plans to capture 3 Mtpa for 2025

Project Tundra 3.1 Retrofit of the coal-fired Milton R. Young plant unit 2 for 2025

Eemshaven Power Plant 0.2 Coal and biomass fired 1.6GW plant equipped with CCUS since 2018

One of the two coaled fired unit of Gerald Gentleman Station (700 Mwe) is equipped with
Gerald Gentleman Station 0.8
carbon capture with DOE funding’s for 2025
1 Scope 1 vs 184 gCO2/kWh for methane
2Vacuum swing absorption
Sources: H21 Leeds City Gate Report, HyNet Technical Report August 2017, HyNet North Wet From Vision to Reality 2018, Status of Port-Jérôme Cryocap Plant 2017, The Carbon Capture Project at Air Products’
Port Arthur Hydrogen Production facility, Hydrogen Energy California Final Topical Report 2017, Quest CCUS Project Annual Summary Report 2018, How Humber Zero Works, H-Vision Feasibility Report 2019;
156 Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
 Power generation

CCUS can help decarbonize electricity when combined with thermal power generation
Capture capacity
Name of the project Country Description
(MtCO2)

GreenGen IGCC 2.0 Coal-fueled plant of 650 MW progressively equipped with carbon capture from 2009 to 2020

Project to demonstrate post-combustion capture technology, which would capture up to 1.2

Korea CCUS 1 & 2 1.2
Mtpa of CO2 from a 300 MW coal power plant.

Texas power plant retrofitted with post-combustion CO2 capture facility, transportation near
Petra Nova 1.4
Houston for EOR

Combines post-combustion CCUS with coal-fired power generation, some captured CO2
Boundary Dam CCS 1.0
goes for EOR, a portion of the CO2 is stored geologically

816 MWe coal-fired unit of Prairie State Energy Campus under study to capture 5 Mtpa by
Prairie State 5.0
2021

ZEROS Projects 1.5 Low-cost waste to energy by oxy-combustion with carbon capture

Plan to decarbonize Ireland activities involving abated natural gas and CCUS technology for
Ireland Gas Network 2.5
2030

Carbon capture from a coal-fired power plant in China from 0.04 Mtpa from a pilot to 1Mtpa
Sinopec Shengli 1.0
objective in 2025

1Scope 1 vs 184 gCO2/kWh for methane

2Vacuum swing absorption
Sources: H21 Leeds City Gate Report, HyNet Technical Report August 2017, HyNet North Wet From Vision to Reality 2018, Status of Port-Jérôme Cryocap Plant 2017, The Carbon Capture Project at Air Products’
Port Arthur Hydrogen Production facility, Hydrogen Energy California Final Topical Report 2017, Quest CCUS Project Annual Summary Report 2018, How Humber Zero Works, H-Vision Feasibility Report 2019;
157 Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
 Cement
CCUS projects to decarbonize cement industries

Capture capacity
Name of the project Country Description
(MtCO2)

Pilot project to capture 1tCO2 per day. CO2 captured would be used for the coal mill fire
CO2MENT Project 1 t per day
suppression system and for water treatment. Phase III has begun in 2020.

Project to capture 95% of CO2 produced during the process thanks to a direct separation
Leilac Project TBD
calcining technology

Project to capture 0,8 Mtpa of CO2 and then stored in the offshore Smeaheia area, total
Longship CCUS 0.8
cost of $2.73 billion (67% financed by the country). To be operational by 2024

Lehig's Edmonton plant 1.4 Project to capture the major of CO2 from flue gas. To be operational by 2021–2022

LafargeHolcim Cement Carbon Consortium (including Total) to conduct a study to assess the viability of a CO2 capture
0.7
Capture facility at LafargeHolcim’s cement plant in Colorado. No operational date announced yet

1Scope 1 vs 184 gCO2/kWh for methane

2Vacuum swing absorption
Sources: H21 Leeds City Gate Report, HyNet Technical Report August 2017, HyNet North Wet From Vision to Reality 2018, Status of Port-Jérôme Cryocap Plant 2017, The Carbon Capture Project at Air Products’
Port Arthur Hydrogen Production facility, Hydrogen Energy California Final Topical Report 2017, Quest CCUS Project Annual Summary Report 2018, How Humber Zero Works, H-Vision Feasibility Report 2019;
158 Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
 Iron and steel
CCUS projects to decarbonize iron and steel production industries

Capture capacity
Name of the project Country Description
(MtCO2)

Built a compression facility to capture 90% of CO2 from steel factory and to use for EOR;
Abu Dhabi CCS 0.8
project started in 2016

Started in May 2018, converts CO2 generated at Shougang Steel's Caofeidian facility into
Beijing Shougang 0.2
fuel grade ethanol thanks to LanzaTech’s technology

Project to capture CO2 emissions from a ferroalloy plant and convert them into fuel ethanol
Swayana Mpumalanga 0.2 to 0.7
thanks to LanzaTech’s technology. Started in 2019

Assesses IFPEN’s capture solvent reducing the CO2 captured cost by 30% and the energy
3D Project 1.0 consumption during the capture process at the ArcelorMittal steelworks site. Pilot in 2021,
expected to be fully operational by 2025

Project aims to produce bioethanol from CO2 emissions from blast furnaces in a steel mill in
Steelanol 0,35
Ghent thanks to LanzaTech’s technology. Starting in 2022

Project to capture CO2 from TATA Steel and other industries of the region and then to use
Athos 7.5 for horticulture, mineralization or other future CO2 industry usages or to be stored in the
North Sea. To be operational in 2027

Project to enable a 20% reduction in CO2 from blast furnaces in the steel industry. Phase
COURSE 50 6t per day
ongoing and industrialization expected for 2030

Building the first European CCUS equipped industrial zone. First operational steps by mid-
Net Zero Teesside 10
2020 and expected to be fully operational by 2030

1Scope 1 vs 184 gCO2/kWh for methane

2Vacuum swing absorption
Sources: H21 Leeds City Gate Report, HyNet Technical Report August 2017, HyNet North Wet From Vision to Reality 2018, Status of Port-Jérôme Cryocap Plant 2017, The Carbon Capture Project at Air Products’
Port Arthur Hydrogen Production facility, Hydrogen Energy California Final Topical Report 2017, Quest CCUS Project Annual Summary Report 2018, How Humber Zero Works, H-Vision Feasibility Report 2019;
159 Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Hydrogen as an Tomakomai
industrial resource Country: Japan

Capex: $284 million

Opex: $18 million per year

CO2 savings: 0.1 Mt per year

Project leader: Japan CCUS Co. Ltd

Project characteristics Details

Production technology

CCUS 99% of CO2 is captured

Government funding

CO2 storage capacity Total of 300 000 t

Business type

Planning Demonstration phase : 2012–2016

CO2 injections : 2016–2019
Monitoring : 2016–2020

Capture type Amine type solvent

Transport type Pipeline

Other sectors: refining Storage type Offshore geological storage

160 Source: CCUS Technologies@ MIT, Japan CCUS Co.; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Carbon capture North West Redwater Refinery (ACTL)
from hydrogen Country: Canada
production for a
refinery Capacity: 13 000 m3 per day

Capex: $6.5 billion

CO2 savings: 1.2 Mt per year

Partnerships: North West Redwater

Partnership and Canadian Natural
Resources
Project characteristics Details

Production technology

CCUS 95% of CO2 is captured (at least 99% pure)

$495 million by the Alberta Government for the ACTL

Government funding
$63.3 million by Canadian Government

CO2 storage capacity Between 1.2 and 1.4 MtCO2 per year

Oil refinery where H2 is used in the upgrading bitumen process. CO2 is captured and then
Business type
transported to central and southern Alberta for EOR purposes.

2005: Start of the project

Planning
May 2020: Project operational

Capture type

Transport type Alberta Carbon Trunk Line System

Other sectors: refining
Storage type EOR

161 Source: Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis

Produce hydrogen HyNet North West
combined with Country: UK
CCUS and blend it
with natural gas Capacity: 890 MW of H2
Capex: £0.92 billion
for supply homes
or use it as Opex: £85 million per year
transport fuel CoA: £114 per tCO2

CO2 savings: 1.1 Mt per year

Project characteristics Details

Production technology Low carbon hydrogen from natural gas via two autothermal reforming units

CCUS 93% CO2 emissions captured, CO2 savings 1.1 MtCO2/year

Government funding £12.8 million

CO2 storage capacity 130 million tons

Business type Hydrogen production, distribution and blending with natural gas for supply to homes,
CCUS, switching industry from natural gas to hydrogen

Planning Start 2018 Government funding February/October 2020 Construction Spring

2021Deliverable 2026

Capture type Pre-combustion

Transport type Pipeline (built)

Other sectors: hydrogen
Storage type Geological storage sites

162 Sources: Report: Cadent Your Gas Network, HyNet North West Delivering Clean Growth, HyNet North West from Vision to Reality; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Produce low H21 North of England
carbon hydrogen Country: UK
from natural gas
with CCUS to fully Capacity: 12.15 GW of H2
Capex: £1.34 billion
supply industries Opex: £24 million per year
and blend it for CoA:
CO2 savings:
home supply CO2 footprint: 14.4g/kWh
Partnerships: Cadent, Equinor, Northern Gas Network

Project characteristics Details

Production technology Low carbon hydrogen from natural gas via nine autothermal reforming units

CCUS 94.2% CO2 emissions captured

Government funding

CO2 storage capacity 20 Mtpa CO2 by 2035

Business type Hydrogen production, distribution and blending with natural gas for supply to homes,
CCUS, switching industry from natural gas to hydrogen

Planning 2028-2034 Delivery

Capture type Pre-combustion

Transport type Pipeline

Other sectors: hydrogen
Storage type Geological storage sites

163 Sources: H21 NoE Report 2018; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis
Power Leeds H21 Leeds City Gate
urban area with Country: UK
hydrogen and
replace natural Capacity: 1 GW of H2
Capex: £2 billion
gas Opex: £139 million per year
CO2 savings: 1.5 Mt CO2 per year
CO2 footprint: 27gCO2/kWh
Partnerships: Northern Gas Network, Wales and
West Utilities

Project characteristics Details

Production technology Low carbon hydrogen from natural gas, by four SMR 305,000Sm3/h 1,025 MW

CCUS 90% CO2 emissions captured

Government funding

CO2 storage capacity

Business type

Planning 2016 Establishment of H21 program, 2018 Provision of funding to begin the FEED,

Capture type Pre-combustion

Transport type Pipeline

Other sectors: hydrogen
Storage type Geological storage sites

164 Sources: H2H Saltend; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis

Fuel switching H2H Saltend
from natural gas
to hydrogen Country: UK
combined with Capacity: 600 MW, 3GW by 2030
Capex:
CCUS to power Opex:
industries and CoA:
CO2 savings: 0.9Mt CO2 per year
decarbonize CO2 footprint:
domestic heat Partnerships: Equinor

Project characteristics Details

Production technology Produce hydrogen by ATR to be blended with natural gas in the beginning (30%)

CCUS 95% efficiency in carbon capture

Government funding

CO2 storage capacity

Business type

Planning 2021–2023 project matured to final investment, 2024–2026 engineering and construction,
2026–2027 production

Capture type Pre-combustion

Transport type Pipeline

Other sectors: hydrogen
Storage type Geological storage sites

165 Sources: H2H Saltend; Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis

Kearney Energy Transition Institute

The Kearney Energy Transition Institute is a nonprofit organization. It provides leading insights on global trends
in energy transition, technologies, and strategic implications for private sector businesses and public sector
institutions. The Institute is dedicated to combining objective technological insights with economical perspectives
to define the consequences and opportunities for decision makers in a rapidly changing energy landscape. The
independence of the Institute fosters unbiased primary insights and the ability to co-create new ideas with
interested sponsors and relevant stakeholders.

For further information about the Kearney Energy Transition Institute and possible ways of collaboration,
please visit www.energy-transition-institute.com, or contact us at [email protected].

Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute copies of this work for personal or nonprofit educational purposes.
Any copy or extract has to refer to the copyright of the Kearney Energy Transition Institute.

166