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