Upload
ingrid-le-ru
View
120
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The use of carbon
capture and storage in
mitigation scenarios – an
integrated assessment
modelling perspective
Detlef van Vuuren, Elmar Kriegler , Keywan Riahi, Max Tavoni, Barbara Koelbl and Mariesse van Sluisveld
Conclusions
IAM models show that CCS and BioCCS can be very cost-effective as part of an emission reduction strategy (together with many other technologies!)
For stringent targets, several models do not find a solution if CCS is excluded or the solution is more expensive
Typical rates of use of CCS in stringent scenarios – if these technologies are part of the portfolio – are:
– 10 GtCO2 per year in 2050 and 25 GtCO2 per year in 2100
– Cumulative storage of 800-3000 GtCO2
Why do IAM models get this result? (1/2)
2oC target is very stringent!
Rio+20, 15 mei 2012
Under high carbon prices, fossil CCS and bio-CCS are very competitive technologies:
– In power generation, hydrogen generation, steel making, other industries and possibly transport fuels.
Comparable costs of several other alternative options (wind, nuclear, bio-energy) but…
– Renewable technologies become more expensive at high penetration rates (as a result of infrastructure needs for intermittancy)
– Bio-CCS: more expensive, but double benefit (if bio-energy is carbon neutral and available)
Why do IAM models get this result? (2/2)
Typical IAM result without constraints Baseline 450 scenarios
16
12
8
4
0
Source: Van Vuuren et al. (2012). Roads from Rio+20. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Capture rate of models, unconstrained (EMF27)
5-23 GtCO2
8-50 GtCO2
Typical rates of use of CCS in stringent scenarios – if these technologies are part of the portfolio – are 5-23 GtCO2 per year in 2050 and 8-50 GtCO2 per year in 2100
Source: Koelbl et al. (2014). Uncertainty in CCS deployment projections. Climatic Change. 123. 468-476
Excluding technologies,2oC scenarios
Costs of meeting target compared to default
Optimal timing Delay
Excluding CCS leads to higher costs and possible infeasibility of target
Source: Riahi et al. (2014). Locked into Copenhagen pledges. Technolgy Forecasting and Social Change. 90.8-23.
2030 2050 2100
Nuclear 4 6 11
Biomass with CCS 2 13 24
Biomass without CCS 10 11 11
Fossil without CCS 74 40 8
Fossils with CCS 5 16 15
Non-Biomass Renewables 6 13 30
2030 2050 2100
Nuclear 7 11 18
Biomass with CCS 0 0 0
Biomass without CCS 21 30 27
Fossil without CCS 56 26 2
Fossils with CCS 0 0 0
Non-Biomass Renewables 15 30 51
Excluding technologies,2oC scenarios Full portfolio
No CCS
Importance of negative emissions for 2oC
Cumulative CO2 storage
450 ppm
550 ppm
Source: Koelbl et al. (2014). Uncertainty in CCS deployment projections. Climatic Change. 123. 468-476
How much potential for negative emissions and CCS? Storage Bio-energy
Cumulative use equal to high estimates fossil; or medium estimates, incl. aquifers
Van Vuuren et al, 2013 Special issue CDR, Climatic Change
Around 150 EJ in 2050 (300 EJ in 2100) 10-
15 GtCO2/yr (if used only for BECCS)
BECCS / CCS limitations
Technologies not proven yet, BECCS not necessarily much more difficult than fossil CCS
– Neither of them are technically extremely speculative technologies
But implementation for both difficult/controversial
– Storage capacity unknown
– Integration of storage/transport/capture
– Bio-energy controversial (food; indirect GHG emissions)
– Societal opposition
BECCS dependent on two uncertain technologies
– risk of log-in
Conclusions
IAM models show that CCS and BioCCS can be very cost-effective as part of an emission reduction strategy (next to many other technologies)
For stringent targets, several models do not find a solution if CCS is excluded
Typical rates of use of CCS is stringent scenarios – if these technologies are part of the portfolio – are:
– 10 GtCO2 per year in 2050 and 25 GtCO2 per year in 2100
– Cumulative storage of 800-3000 GtCO2
Rio+20, 15 mei 2012
Rio+20, 15 mei 2012
Overview of BECCS use
Carbon emissions in 2100 Cumulative carbon emissions 2010-2100
CO2eq
concentration
in 2100
n BECCS
deployment –
amount of carbon
removed (GtC/yr)
Total emissions
(GtC/yr)
Gross negative
carbon emissions
relative to gross
positive carbon
emissions
BECCS deployment
– amount of
carbon removed
(GtC)
Cumulative
total
emissions
(GtC)
Gross
negative
carbon
emissions
relative to
gross positive
carbon
emissions
430-480 44 -3.3 (-5.9, -1.9) -2.6 (-5.9, -0.4) 3.9 (1.2, 10) -150 (-230, -100) 280 (180,
320)
0.41 (0.27,
0.66)
480-530 61 -4.1 (-15, -2.4) -2.7 (-16, 0.1) 2.6 (0.95, 5) -170 (-350, -87) 320 (280,
460)
0.37 (0.18,
0.54)
530-650 54 -3.4 (-15, 0) -1.1 (-16, 3.8) 1.4 (0.75, 15) -130 (-360, 0) 560 (320,
690)
0.21 (0.11,
0.52)
Rio+20, 15 mei 2012