Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): angel/demon?

Event sponsored by www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu


Some introductory statistics:


World Total Primary Energy Supply:
1. Fossil (coal, oil, gas): 81.1%
2. Renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear & biomass): 13%
3. Nuclear: 5.9%


A Gigaton of CCS can be stored annually by 2020.
Co2 reductions by 2050 of 19% needed.


What the CCS process represents visually:

Brad Page, CEO of the Global CCS Institute, says there are 74 projects worldwide being developed today - 8 of which are in full operation and another 6 being in the construction phase. When the 14 projects are all in operation, they will store 23 Megatons of carbon annually.


"The pipeline of projects is slow beacuse of the future price of carbon hanging in the balance, a lack of Government funding and the global economic crunch," he says. "Europe and the US leads, with Canada catching up. In the developing world, where emissions are growing fastest, CCS interest is least active."


Pulp and paper, chemcial and iron/steel production, which are hugely dependent on coal, have to date shown no interest in CCS. US CCS is moving up, but on the back of enhanced oil recovery - as the only real driver of funding.


Brendan Beck of the South African Centre for CCS says CCS according to the IEA contributed 19% to xxx in 2010. In SA, which has about 43 Gigawatts of capacity, 40 Gigawatts are generated by coal. 25% of SA's population has no access to electricity and the country had rolling blackouts in 2009 to service the other 75%. A life expectancy of 50 year, youth unemployment of 36% - CCS can be a huge generator of jobs in SA. Medupe power station construction employs 11000 citizens. The SA Centre for CCS was set up two years ago to explore the role of CCS in SA. Power generation and liquid fuels (which produces 60m tonnes of CO2 a year - biggest in the world) means we have the "product" for CCS (um, yeah...) For an update, contact brendan@saneri.org.za.


Last month, the International Energy Agency in its annual World Energy Outlook reported that coal accounted for nearly half of the increase in global energy use over the past decade, with the bulk of the growth coming from the power sector in emerging economies.


Now for the NGO view!


The WWF (it stands for Worldwide Fund for Nature and NOT the World Wildlife Fund anymore) is of the view that: Earth can have a 100% renewable society by 2050, using existing technologies - but with massive investment funding. Their vision in the 2050 Energy Report excludes CCS...


Cement, steel, chemicals are areas where we don't have low-energy alternatives in production, so accedes that CCS is the only way while the coal addiction has no cure at present.


WWF's Carbon Capture and Use case studies for algae production and use in greenhouses means a cleverer way is required, not a witch-hunt. The pricing of carbon is contentious!


AUDIENCE Q&A yielded the following nuggets:


Q
Greenpeace asked what evidence exists to suggest CCS can be implemented at necessary scale in time when 12 projects have been cancelled or are in legal process this year alone? Also, what about infrastructure lock-in and admittance to the Carbon Exchange? Then these funds will effectively be transferred from renewables to CCS! Also, 45% of electricity generated in SA today go to 36 companies - not the 12.5 million people or 25% waiting for power access.
A
CCS is not only utilised in power generation, but also from other end-uses keeping millions of tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere already. Access for the 25% of SA's population new to power would be better served by access off the grid which is already grid-locked. In SA's storage atlas for CCS, geological information is sorely missing! Alstom, as we know, are super-keen to transfer skills and sign CCS deals in SA :)