Can carbon dioxide storage help

cut greenhouse emissions?

M
CO2 VACUU

c A simplified guide to the IPCC’s “Special

Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture & Storage”
 About the IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in

1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The IPCC does not conduct
new research. Instead, its mandate is to make policy-relevant assess-
ments of the existing worldwide literature on the scientific, technical
and socio-economic aspects of climate change. Most of this expert liter-
ature has appeared in peer-reviewed publications.

The IPCC has produced a series of assessment reports, special reports,

technical papers and methodologies that have become standard works
of reference for climate change policymakers, experts and students.
The Panel is organized into three Working Groups: Working Group I
focuses on the science of the climate system; Working Group II on
impacts, vulnerability and adaptation; and Working Group III on miti-
gation, a term used to describe human interventions to reduce new
greenhouse gas emissions.

The IPCC’s First Assessment Report was completed in 1990 and helped
to inspire the intergovernmental talks that led to the 1992 United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its Second
Assessment Report was published in 1996 and played a role in the
Kyoto Protocol negotiations. The 2001 Third Assessment Report
concentrated on new findings since 1995 and paid special attention to
what is known about climate change at the regional level. The Fourth
Assessment Report will be finalized in 2007.

Published by the United Nations Environment Programme’s Division for Environmental

Conventions in April 2006. For additional copies, please contact UNEP, Information Unit
for Conventions, International Environment House, 15 chemin des Anémones, CH-1219
Châtelaine (Geneva), Switzerland; [email protected]; or +41-22-917-8244/8196. See also
www.ipcc.ch, www.unep.org, and www.wmo.ch.

Printed on recycled paper.

GE-06-000837/E-2,000
 Introduction

Fossil fuels account for 75 - 80% of stabilize atmospheric concentrations of

today’s global energy use and three greenhouse gases by the end of the
quarters of humanity’s total carbon century at levels that would limit
dioxide emissions. Without specific further climate change.
actions to minimize our impact on the
climate, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions No single technology will suffice by itself;
from fossil-fuel energy are projected to instead, a combination of technologies
swell over the course of the 21st cen- will be required. Many of the most
tury. The consequences – a global tem- promising technologies will contribute
perature rise of 1.4 - 5.8°C and shifting by improving the energy efficiency of
patterns of weather and extreme certain processes and products or by
events – could prove disastrous for converting solar, wind and other non-
future generations. carbon power sources into usable energy.

Stabilizing or reducing global But with oil, coal and gas set to
emissions of carbon dioxide and remain the primary sources of
other greenhouse gases over energy for decades to come,
the coming decades will governments and industry are
challenge human ingenuity. also examining technologies for
Fortunately, the IPCC’s Third reducing emissions from these
Assessment Report, published in fuels. One such technology is
2001, concluded that existing known as carbon dioxide
and emerging technologies for capture and storage.
limiting emissions could – if Abbreviated as CCS, this techno-
supported by the right policies – logy could be used by large

c1
stationary “point sources” such as fossil
fuel-fired power plants and industrial
facilities to prevent their CO2 emissions
from entering the atmosphere and
contributing to climate change.

To learn more about this technology’s

potential, the member governments of
the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change asked
the IPCC to assess the current state of
knowledge about carbon dioxide
storage and capture. The IPCC respon-
ded by assembling some 100 experts
from over 30 countries to write the
“IPCC Special Report on Carbon
Dioxide Capture and Storage”.
Numerous experts and governments
reviewed the text before it was
finalized in September 2005. The
Report was then presented to govern-
ments at their annual Conference of
the Parties to the Convention in
December.

UNEP has produced this short public

information booklet with the aim of
making the Report’s technical findings
more accessible to the general reader.

c2
 What is carbon dioxide capture and storage?

Carbon dioxide capture and storage A post-combustion system separates

technology involves capturing carbon the CO2 from the other flue gases using an
dioxide before it can be emitted into organic solvent.
the atmosphere, transporting it to a
secure location, and isolating it from A pre-combustion system starts by
the atmosphere, for example by processing the primary fuel with steam
storing it in a geological formation. and air or oxygen. The resulting carbon
monoxide then reacts with steam in a
1 – Capturing the carbon dioxide. second reactor. This produces hydrogen
The CO2 must first be separated from for making energy or heat as well as CO2,
other gases resulting from combustion or which is separated out and captured.
processing. It is then compressed and
purified to make it easier to transport and These two technologies have been in
store. Some gas streams resulting commercial use for
from industrial processes, such as decades in other, related applica-
natural-gas purification and tions. Current post-combustion
ammonia production, are very and pre-combustion systems for
pure to begin with, although power plants can capture 85-95%
others are not. of the CO2 produced. However,
because CCS needs roughly 10 -
Carbon dioxide resulting from 40% more energy than does the
combustion, particularly in the equivalent plant without capture,
electricity sector, can be captured the net amount of CO2 “avoided”
using one of three systems. is approximately 80 - 90%.

c3
The third capture system is called oxy- nitrogen oxides lowers the CO 2
fuel combustion because it uses avoided to about 90%.
oxygen instead of air to burn the fuel.
It results in a flue gas containing 2 – Transporting the CO2. Except
mainly water vapour and CO 2. The when the source is located directly over
water vapour is removed by cooling a storage site, the CO2 needs to be
and compressing the gas stream. This transported. There are several ways of
technology, which is still in its doing this.
demonstration phase, can capture
nearly all the CO 2 produced, although Concentrated streams of CO2 can be
the need for additional gas treatment moved safely at high pressure through
systems to produce the oxygen and to pipelines. Pipelines have been in use
remove pollutants such as sulphur and since the early 1970s and are currently

Schematic representation of capture systems

Industrial separation
Compression
Raw CO2
material CO2
Industrial process separation

Product
Post-combustion

Compression
Combustion CO2
CO2
separation

Air Heat and

Power

Pre-combustion

Fossil fuels, Gasification Compression

biomass Reform H2 and CO2 CO2
separation

Air/O2 + steam Heat and

H2 Power
Other
Oxy-fuel Products
Compression
Combustion CO2

Heat and
O2 Power
O2
separation
Air

c4
the main method for transporting CO2. 3 – Storing the CO 2. Geological
The US, for example, now has over formations are the most economically
2,500km of CO2 pipelines, primarily in feasible and environmentally acceptable
Texas for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) storage option for CO 2, particularly
projects. Costs are higher when the given the experience already gained
pipeline is offshore or routed across by the oil and gas industry.
heavily congested areas, mountains or Compressed CO 2 can be injected into
rivers. porous rock formations below the
earth’s surface using many of the same
CO2 can also be transported as a liquid well-drilling technologies and
in ships, similar to the way in which monitoring methods already used by
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is often the oil and gas industry.
transported. Road tankers or railcars
with insulated tanks are technologi- The three main types of geological
cally feasible but not economical. storage are oil and gas reservoirs, deep

Overview of Geological Storage Options Produced oil or gas

1. Depleted oil and gas reservoirs Injected CO2
2. Use of CO2 in enhanced oil and gas recovery Stored CO2
3. Deep saline formations - a) offshore - b) onshore
4. Use of CO2 in enhanced coal bed methane recovry

c5
saline formations and unminable coal and other point sources lie within
beds. Storage sites must generally start 300km of areas that potentially contain
at a depth of 800m deep or lower, storage reservoirs.
where prevailing pressures and tem-
peratures usually keep CO2 in a liquid- While the available storage capacity in
like state. geological reservoirs is “likely” to be
sufficient for contributing significantly
Potential geological sites exist around to CO 2 emission reductions in the
the globe, both onshore and offshore. future, the true amount is as yet uncertain.
Estimates of the total storage space This is particularly so in some regions
available vary widely, but they gene- that are experiencing rapid economic
rally indicate that space exists for tens growth, such as South and East Asia.
to hundreds of years of CO2 emissions
at current levels. Furthermore, a large Another way to store captured CO2 may
proportion of existing power plants be to inject it into the oceans. The CO2

Overview of ocean storage concepts Platform

Moving ship
CAPTURE Fixed pipeline

Gaseous
or liquid CO2

Rising plume

DISSOLUTION TYPE

liquid CO2

Sinking plume
DISSOLUTION TYPE

liquid
CO2 LAKE TYPE

c6
can be released into the ocean water
column via a fixed pipeline or from a
moving ship. Alternatively, it can be
deposited onto the deep seafloor at
depths below 3,000m, where CO2 is
denser than water. These technologies,
however, are still in the research phase,
have not undergone full-scale testing
and could have negative impacts on
the ocean environment.

Technologies for storing CO2 virtually

permanently by converting it into
inorganic mineral carbonates through
chemical reactions are also in the
research phase. Certain applications
have been demonstrated on a small
scale. Large amounts of energy and
minerals, however, are required for this
technology. Greater improvements
would be needed before it could
become a real option.

Finally, using captured CO2 for chemical

processes in industry is technically
possible, but it has only modest poten-
tial for actually reducing emissions.

c7
 Who are the potential users?

The three main components of the CCS • Large size. Systems for capturing
process – capture, transport and storage CO 2 are currently in operation for
– are already used individually. Currently, smaller scale facilities and will require
CO2 is typically removed to purify other further demonstration in larger
industrial gas streams, such as natural facilities over the coming years and
gas or ammonia. However, as of mid- decades. But clearly, the larger the
2005 there are three commercial projects facility, the greater the economies of
that do combine all three components scale, and the lower the cost for each
for the purpose of limiting CO2 emissions tonne of CO 2 avoided by an invest-
to the atmosphere (see box on page 10). ment in CCS technology. Large candi-
dates for CCS are distributed around
In the future, the main potential users of the world. However, there are four
CCS will be certain large, stationary point noteworthy clusters: eastern and
sources of CO2. This is not as limi- Midwestern North America,
ted a group as it may sound: northwest Europe, the eastern
power stations, industrial plants coast of China, and South Asia.
and other large point sources East Asia and South Asia in
account for close to 60% of particular are likely to see a
global fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. significant increase in large
The qualities that make a source power stations and industrial
a particularly suitable candidate plants from now until 2050.
for CCS technology are the
following: • Highly concentrated CO 2
stream. Purer CO 2 emission

c8
streams also lend themselves to eco- • Located near storage site.
nomic efficiency. However, the vast Globally, there is a potentially good
majority of potential sources produce correlation between major sources
streams with CO 2 concentrations and prospective storage sites, with
under 15%. Fewer than two percent many sources lying either directly
of all fossil fuel-based industrial sour- above, or within less than 300km of, a
ces have CO 2 concentrations greater potential storage site.
than 95%. These sources have the
greatest early potential for CCS
because only dehydration and com-
pression would be needed for
capture.

c9
The first three CCS projects

To avoid a Norwegian CO2 emissions tax The Weyburn project is designed to use
applied to offshore facilities, the CO2 for 15 years and to keep it securely
Norwegian state oil and gas company stored thereafter. Extensive monitoring
Statoil established the Sleipner Project of the storage site is based on high-
in the North Sea, about 250km off the resolution seismic surveys and surface
coastline. The 9% concentration of CO2 monitoring. To date, there has been no
contained by the natural gas flowing indication of CO2 leakage to the surface
from the Sleipner West Gas Field is or near-surface environment.
separated out. It is then injected into a
large, deep, saline formation some 800m The In Salah Gas Project in Algeria’s
below the seabed. central Saharan region is a joint venture
among Sonatrach, British Petroleum and
The CO2 injection operation started in Statoil. The Krechba Field at In Salah
October 1996. By early 2005, more than produces natural gas containing up to
seven million metric tonnes of CO2 had 10% CO2 from several geological
been injected at a rate of approximately reservoirs. The gas is delivered to
2,700 tonnes per day. The project is European markets after it is processed
expected to store a total of 20 million ton- and the CO2 is stripped to meet
nes of CO2 over its lifetime. commercial specifications.

The Weyburn CO2-enhanced oil Since April 2004, the CO2 has been
recovery project is located in the re-injected via three wells into a
Williston Basin, a geological structure sandstone reservoir at a depth of
extending from south central Canada into 1,800m. Some 17 million metric tonnes of
the US. The CO2 comes from the Dakota CO2 will be geologically stored over the
Gasification Company, located approx- life of the project. The injected CO2 is
imately 325 km south of Weyburn in the US expected to migrate eventually into the
state of North Dakota. The facility gasifies area of the current gas field after the gas
coal to make synthetic gas (methane), with zone has been depleted. The field has
a relatively pure stream of CO2 as a by- been mapped using 3D seismic and other
product. This CO2 stream is dehydrated, data.
compressed, and piped to Canada for use
in the Weyburn oil field, where it is
injected to assist the extraction of oil.

c10
 What are the potential benefits?

For policymakers faced with the com- change over the next 100 years by 30%
plex and enormous challenge of or more. They also conclude that CCS
reducing or limiting greenhouse gas systems will be competitive with other
emissions, CCS technology offers two large-scale technologies, such as
potential benefits. First, it can expand nuclear power and renewable energy
their portfolio of options, giving them technologies.
more flexibility and more opportunities.
Second, it can reduce the overall costs One attraction of CCS is that it could
of mitigation. complement and facilitate the deploy-
ment of other potentially important
A number of studies based on modeled
technologies that can reduce CO 2
projections suggest that using CCS in
emissions over the long term. These
conjunction with other technological
include low-carbon or carbon-free facili-
options – such as increasing the
ties that produce hydrogen
efficiency of energy conversion,
from carbonaceous fuels for
switching to less carbon-
the transport sector, and large-
intensive fuels and using more
scale biomass energy systems
renewable energy sources –
that – equipped with CCS –
could significantly reduce the
could actually lead to “negative
cost of stabilizing atmospheric
CO2 emissions”, since sustaina-
concentrations of carbon
bly grown biomass removes CO2
dioxide.
from the atmosphere.
They find that CCS could lower
the cost of mitigating climate

c11
Given its cost competitiveness and the
likely amount of capacity, geological
storage using CCS could account for a
large amount – 15 - 55% – of all
emission reductions needed between
now and 2100 for stabilizing green-
house gas concentrations in the
atmosphere. This would equal 220 to
2,200 billion tonnes (Gt) of CO2.

For the owners and operators of large

power generators and industrial plants,
CCS technologies could one day offer a
cost-effective tool for limiting their
emissions. However, unless governments
adopt national climate change policies
that put a cost on emitting CO2, there
will be no incentive for private
operators to use such mitigation
technologies. All studies indicate that
CCS systems (and many other mitigation
measures) are unlikely to be used on a
large scale unless there are explicit
policies for substantially limiting
greenhouse gas emissions to the
atmosphere. Without this incentive, CCS
may offer only small niche opportunities.

c12
 What are the costs?

The IPCC report finds that estimates When CCS is compared to other
for the current and future costs of CCS technical options for reducing CO 2
have significant uncertainties. The cost emissions, the 10 - 40% additional
of capture and compression is normally energy that CCS systems require for
the largest cost component. This and producing the same amount of electri-
other costs will depend not only on the city has to be taken into account. The
particular CCS system used – including costs of CCS systems per tonne of
the type of storage and the transport CO 2 avoided show a large range.
distance – but on such variables as the A significant part of the technology’s
plant’s design, operation, financing, potential is available at costs that are
size, location, fuel type and fuel cost. higher than those of many other
options for improving energy effi-
Under current conditions, producing ciency, but lower than those of most
electricity costs about US$0.04 solar power options.
– 0.06/kWh (kilo-watt hour).
Adopting today’s CCS technolo- When planning the construction
gies would raise this cost by an of a new plant, calculating the
estimated US$0.01 – 0.05/kWh. cost implications of adding a
This could be reduced by about CCS system could influence the
US$0.01 – 0.02/kWh if the reve- type of plant chosen. CCS can
nues from Enhanced Oil be applied to current generation
Recovery partly compensated technologies such as pulverized
for the CCS costs. coal or natural gas combined
cycle (NGCC). However, the

c13
additional costs will be lower when
CCS is integrated into emerging
technologies such as integrated
gasified combined cycle (IGCC) and
pre-combustion hydrogen production
facilities. While most existing facilities
could be retrofitted to accommodate
CCS systems, the costs will be
significantly higher than for new
plants with CCS.

The future costs of CCS could decline

as technology advances and economies
of scale are achieved – perhaps by 20 -
30% over the next decade. On the
other hand, rising fossil fuel prices
could push CCS costs up.

The costs for non-power applications

of CCS can be lower than those for
electricity plants. For biomass plants
with CCS, the costs would be relatively
high in view of their currently small
size.

c14
 What are the risks and barriers?

In addition to technology and cost In addition to contributing to climate

issues, the potential users of CCS change, slow leaks could harm plants
technology will want to consider and animals. The probability of such
health, safety, environmental and legal leaks, however, would be low as long
concerns, as well as public perception. as the reservoirs are carefully selected
The key barriers and risks that would and the best available technologies are
have to be addressed are: used. At the global level, well-selected
geological formations are likely to
• Leakage during capture, trans-
retain over 99% of their storage over a
port and storage. Sudden local leaks
period of 1,000 years. Overall the risks
of CO2 from capture installations or
of CO2 storage are comparable to the
pipelines could pose potential hazards
risks in similar existing industrial
to workers and other people in the
operations such as underground
vicinity, similar to the kinds of
natural-gas storage and
situations faced in the oil and
enhanced oil recovery.
gas industry and with gas
pipelines. Exposure to air
• Environmental impacts of
containing CO 2 concentrations
ocean storage. Injecting carbon
greater than 7 - 10% poses an
dioxide into the oceans could
immediate danger to human
harm marine life. Although
life and health. The probability
the long-term environmental
of such events, however, is low.
implications of changing the
There is also a risk of CO 2 ocean chemistry in this way are
leakage from geological storage. unclear, CO2 injection on a large

c15
scale could locally acidify the oceans
and negatively affect marine organisms
and ecosystems.

• Lack of legal and regulatory

clarity. There is remaining uncertainty
about the legality of injecting CO2 into
or beneath the world’s oceans; this
issue is being actively considered under
several international treaties. The
Climate Change Convention and the
Kyoto Protocol will also need to
establish rules and accounting procedures
for CCS systems. At the national level,
few countries have set up legal or
regulatory frameworks that address
geological storage sites. Potential legal
issues include liability in the event of
accident or leakage and the property
rights of owners of the land above
geological storage sites.

• Public scepticism. At present, the

general public is not well informed
about CCS. The few studies carried out
so far suggest that this technology may
be less favourably viewed than other
options, such as improving energy
efficiency or adopting renewables. It is
unclear how the public would respond
to better information about CCS, other
options for reducing emissions and the
broader challenges of climate change.

c16
 Conclusion:
does CCS have a future?

The IPCC report concludes that CCS is those areas where data are currently
technologically feasible and could play limited.
a significant role in reducing green-
house gas emissions over the course of The right legal and regulatory environment
the current century. But a number of also needs to be further developed. This
issues would still need to be resolved must include agreed methods for
before CCS technology could be rolled estimating and reporting the amount
out on a large scale. of CO2 avoided by CCS, as well as the
amounts that may leak over the longer
First, the technology needs to mature term. CCS will be considered in the next
further. While the individual components revision of the Guidelines that the IPCC
of CCS are well developed, they still has developed to assist countries with the
need to be integrated into full-scale greenhouse gas inventories required
projects in the electricity under the Convention.
sector. Such projects would
demonstrate whether the A particularly critical issue
technology works when fully remains that of incentives. CCS
scaled up and increase know- systems are only likely to be
ledge about and experience widely adopted for power
with CCS. More studies are generation – the sector with by
needed to analyze and reduce far the greatest potential –
the costs and estimate the when the price of emitting a
potential capacity of suitable tonne of CO2 exceeds $25-30 (in
storage sites, particularly in 2002 dollars) over the lifetime

c17
of the project. A price on be an important component of the
emitting carbon can only result from broad portfolio of policies and
national policies for limiting CO 2 technologies that will be needed if
emissions. climate change is to be successfully
addressed at least cost.
Developing countries, which do not
have quantified emission reduction
targets under the Kyoto Protocol, may
be first introduced to CCS technology For further information, see
through bilateral projects such as the www.ipcc.ch.
new EU-China initiative to build a CCS
facility or (if CCS is deemed eligible)
through the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM). Again, accounting
rules would have to be elaborated to
calculate and account for project-
related CCS reductions and to provide
the necessary incentives.

If these various conditions are met,

CCS systems could be deployed in the
power sector on a large scale within a
few decades from the start of any
significant regime that imposes limits
on greenhouse gas emissions. Several
hundreds to thousands of CCS systems
would be required worldwide to meet
the technology’s economic potential.

Under most scenarios for stabilizing

atmosphere concentrations of CO2 by
2100, CCS systems would be built in
significant numbers in the first half of
this century, with the majority of them
built in the second half. The consensus
of the literature shows that CCS could

c18
 United Nations Environment Programme
11-13, chemin des Anémones
CH-1219, Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland
E-mail:[email protected]
web:www.unep.org/dec