Refine
Document Type
- Report (11)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (10)
- Contribution to Periodical (5)
- Conference Object (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
Bis vor wenigen Jahren diskutierten vor allem Energieversorger
und Umweltverbände über die Abscheidung und Lagerung von CO2. Mittlerweile ist die öffentliche Wahrnehmung von CCS gestiegen. Dabei dürfte die umstrittene Technologie für Deutschlands Kraftwerke weit weniger bedeutsam sein als für energiehungrige Schwellenländer.
One of the factors decelerating a further diffusion of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is the public's negative perception of early pilot or demonstration activities in Germany as well as in other countries. This study examined the public perception of CCS in more detail by looking into different options within the CCS chain, i.e. for the three elements capture, transport and storage. This was analyzed using an experimental approach, realized in an online survey with a representative German sample of 1830 citizens. Each participant evaluated one of 18 different CCS scenarios created using three types of CO2 source (industry, biomass, coal), two transport options (pipeline vs. no specification), and three storage possibilities (saline aquifer, depleted gas field, enhanced gas recovery (EGR)).
Overall, we found that the ratings of CCS were neutral on average. However, if the CO2 is produced by a biomass power plant or industry, CCS is rated more positively than in a scenario with a coal-fired power plant. The specifications of transport and storage interacted with each other such that scenarios including EGR or a depleted gas field without mentioning a pipeline were evaluated better than storing it in a saline aquifer or a depleted gas field and mentioning a pipeline as means of transport. Exploratory regression analyses indicate the high relevance of the respective CO2 source in general as well as the perceived importance of this source for Germany.
Among the factors that decelerate progress of CCS demonstration and deployment is the lack of public acceptance of local projects in Germany as well as in other countries. The study presented here aims to take the issue of public CCS perceptions further by empirically investigating the relevance of different specifications of the three main steps of the CCS chain, i.e. capture, transport and storage. An experimental approach is chosen and applied in an online survey with a representative sample from Germany with 1830 participants. With regard to possible CO2 sources we varied whether the CO2 of a specific setting is captured i) as part of an energy-intensive industry process (e.g. production of steel or cement), ii) from a power plant running on biomass, or iii) a coal-fired power plant. For transport, half of the settings described made reference to transport of CO2 via pipelines, the other half did not provide information about transport. With regard to storage the setting descriptions i) either explained that CO2 can be stored in saline aquifers, ii) can be used to enhance gas production from an emptying natural gas field or iii) can be stored in a depleted natural gas field. We find that overall the average of the ratings for perception of the settings fall into the neutral part of the answering scale. If the source of CO2 is a coal-fired power plant the setting is perceived less positively than if it includes biomass or industry. A significant interaction effect between transport and storage specifications is observed. This points out that storage in saline aquifers is perceived more negatively than a combination with enhanced gas recovery while storage in a depleted natural gas field is rated less positively if a pipeline is mentioned and more positively if no transport option is mentioned.
Facing the uncertainty of CO2 storage capacity in China by developing different storage scenarios
(2016)
China is very active in the research and development of CO2 capture and storage technologies (CCS). However, existing estimates for CO2 storage capacity are very uncertain. This uncertainty is due to limited geological knowledge, a lack of large-scale research on CO2 injection, and different assessment approaches and parameter settings. Hence storage scenarios represent a method that can be used by policy makers to demonstrate the range of possible storage capacity developments, to help interpret uncertain results and to identify the limitations of existing assessments. In this paper, three storage scenarios are developed for China by evaluating China-wide studies supplemented with more detailed site- and basin-specific assessments. It is estimated that the greatest storage potential can be found in deep saline aquifers. Oil and gas fields may also be used. Coal seams are only included in the highest storage scenario. In total, the scenarios presented demonstrate that China has an effective storage capacity of between 65 and 1551 Gt of CO2. Furthermore, the authors emphasise a need for action to harmonise storage capacity assessment approaches due to the uncertainties involved in the capacity assessments analysed in this study.
The increasing rate of renewable energies poses new challenges for industries: the amount of wind and solar energy is by far more subject to fluctuations than that of fossil based energy. Large production facilities from the aluminium, cement, steel or paper industry, however, depend on a highly secure energy supply. To which amount is a limitation of fluctuations possible? This was the key question of the project "Flexibilisation of Industries Enables Sustainable Energy systems", which was realised by the Wuppertal Institute in cooperation with the polymers company Covestro last year. In the final report, authors around project co-ordinator Karin Arnold not only show which technological and economic parameters have been considered, but also present possible business models to promote "flexibility products".
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) might be an important climate protection technology for coal-rich countries. This paper presents first results of a systemic and long-term analysis of a future CCS implementation in India. It focuses on potential storage formations in the geological subsurface and the geographic match of these sinks with CO2 emissions of current and future largepoint power plants. The analysis is framed by an overview on India’s position on CCS, ongoing Indian research and development projects as well as its international activities.
The geological potential for CO2 sequestration in India is subject to large uncertainty because, so far, only few studies estimated it in a vague manner. A first meta-analysis shows that there is a huge variation between 48 Gt and 572 Gt of CO2. The main differences between the evaluated studies are the assumed capacities for deep saline aquifers and basalt formations. Taking the ongoing discussion and the existing uncertainties into account, the storage potential might be provided only by aquifers (in the range of 44 to 360 Gt of CO2) and hydrocarbon fields (2 to 7 Gt of CO2).
The amount of CO2 emissions possibly available for sequestration is assessed by applying three substantially different long-term energy scenarios for India. These scenarios, indicating pathways between a "low carbon" and a "high carbon" development until 2050, result in cumulated CO2 emissions between 30 and 171 Gt if all new large-scaled power plants will be based on CCS from 2020 on. Compared with the sink capacities, only the CO2 emissions of scenario S2 (30 Gt) could theoretically be stored with high certainty. Considering the scenarios S3 and S1, their CO2 emissions (94 Gt and 171 Gt, respectively) could only be sequestered if the aquifer capacity would prove to be usable. Geological storage sites do not appear to be located close to sources in South West, Central, North and North East India. This first rough analysis means that only those CO2 emissions occurring in the Western parts of North and West India, the Eastern part of South India as well as the South part of East India might be suited for sequestration nearby.
A more detailed source-sink matching will follow in the next phase of the project, including results of expert meetings in India. Furthermore, this analysis will be complemented by an additional assessment from economic, ecological and resource-strategic points of view, which might further affect the potential for CCS.
This article presents an integrated assessment conducted in order to explore whether carbon capture and storage (CCS) could be a viable technological option for significantly reducing future CO2 emissions in South Africa. The methodological approach covers a commercial availability analysis, an analysis of the long-term usable CO2 storage potential (based on storage capacity assessment, energy scenario analysis and source-sink matching), an economic and ecological assessment and a stakeholder analysis. The findings show, that a reliable storage capacity assessment is needed, since only rough figures concerning the effective capacity currently exist. Further constraints on the fast deployment of CCS may be the delayed commercial availability of CCS, significant barriers to increasing the economic viability of CCS, an expected net maximum reduction rate of the power plant's greenhouse gas emissions of 67%-72%, an increase in other environmental and social impacts, and low public awareness of CCS. One precondition for opting for CCS would be to find robust solutions to these constraints, taking into account that CCS could potentially conflict with other important policy objectives, such as affordable electricity rates to give the whole population access to electricity.
If the current energy policy priorities are retained, there may be no need to focus additionally on carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the power plant sector of Germany. This applies even in the case of ambitious climate protection targets, according to the results of the presented integrated assessment study. These cover a variety of aspects: Firstly, the technology is not expected to become available on a large scale in Germany before 2025. Secondly, if renewable energies and combined heat and power are expanded further and energy productivity is enhanced, there is likely to be only a limited demand for CCS power plants, as a scenario analysis of CCS deployment in Germany shows. Thirdly, cost analysis using the learning curve approach shows that the electricity generation costs of renewable electricity approach those of CCS power plants. This leads to the consequence that, from 2020, several renewable technologies may well be in a position to offer electricity at a cheaper rate than CCS power plants. In addition, a review of new life cycle assessments for CO2 separation in the power plant sector indicates that the greenhouse gas emissions from 1 kW h of electricity generated by first-generation CCS power plants could only be reduced by 68 % to 87 % (95 % in individual cases). Finally, a cautious, conservative estimate of the effective German CO2 storage capacity of approximately 5 billion tonnes of CO2 is calculated, including a fluctuation range yielding values between 4 and 15 billion tonnes of CO2. Therefore, the total CO2 emissions caused by large point sources in Germany could be stored for 12 years (basic value) or for 8 or 33 years (sensitivity values).
The study presents the results of an integrated assessment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the power plant sector in Germany, with special emphasis on the competition with renewable energy technologies. Assessment dimensions comprise technical, economic and environmental aspects, long-term scenario analysis, the role of stakeholders and public acceptance and regulatory issues. The results lead to the overall conclusion that there might not necessarily be a need to focus additionally on CCS in the power plant sector. Even in case of ambitious climate protection targets, current energy policy priorities (expansion of renewable energies and combined heat and power plants as well as enhanced energy productivity) result in a limited demand for CCS. In case that the large energy saving potential aimed for can only partly be implemented, the rising gap in CO2 reduction could only be closed by setting up a CCS-maximum strategy. In this case, up to 22% (41 GW) of the totally installed load in 2050 could be based on CCS. Assuming a more realistic scenario variant applying CCS to only 20 GW or lower would not be sufficient to reach the envisaged climate targets in the electricity sector. Furthermore, the growing public opposition against CO2 storage projects appears as a key barrier, supplemented by major uncertainties concerning the estimation of storage potentials, the long-term cost development as well as the environmental burdens which abound when applying a life-cycle approach. However, recently, alternative applications are being increasingly considered–that is the capture of CO2 at industrial point sources and biomass based energy production (electricity, heat and fuels) where assessment studies for exploring the potentials, limits and requirements for commercial use are missing so far. Globally, CCS at power plants might be an important climate protection technology: coal-consuming countries such as China and India are increasingly moving centre stage into the debate. Here, similar investigations on the development and the integration of both, CCS and renewable energies, into the individual energy system structures of such countries would be reasonable.