CCS and the Carbon Budget

CCS and the Carbon Budget

Key Points

• Climate Protection requires a budget limit on cumulative GHG emissions.

• Efficiency, Renewable Electric, Biofuels, Electrification/FCV, CCS, Nuclear(?) all play a role.

• Each has challenges at scale.• Preserving climate budget options requires

immediate change in focus, especially for coal.

© OECD/IEA 2011

Energy policies will determine long-term temperature increase

Without further energy and climate policy action, we are committing to a trajectory leading to up to 6 degrees long-term temperature increase

65%

33%

71%

28%

15 Gt

7 Gt

20

25

30

35

40

45

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2035

Gt

Current PoliciesScenario(6°C)

450 Scenario (2°C)

New PoliciesScenario

(3.5°C)

Non-OECDOECD

World energy-related CO2 emissions by scenario

IEA 2° Energy CO2 Budget50% chance of exceeding 2°

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

884

607

277

Gt CO2Budget 2012-2050

Budget2012-2035

Budget2036-2050

Source: IEA, WEO 2012

Stranded Fossil Assets

Source: IEA, WEO 2012 ©OECD/IEA 2012

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

607

884

2860

Gt CO2

Budget2012-2035

Budget2012-2050

Current ProvedFossil Reserves

CO2 in Proved Reserves 2012


New estimate: 2860 Gt total

2 012

2 014

2 016

2 018

2 020

2 022

2 024

2 026

2 028

2 030

2 032

2 034

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000Cumulative CO2 to 2035: BAU v 450

Coal BAU Oil BAU Gas BAU Total 450 Case

Billion

Metr

ic t

on

nes


Lock-in from Coal Power

• Large budget lock-in from:– existing coal plants – and new planned coal plants

New Coal Build 2012-2035: CPS (1709 GW)


China; 796.961435; 47%

India; 345.182699;

20%

USA; 57.43615184;

3%

Rest Asia; 245.08397599

; 14%

EU; 70.005598783

; 4%

Africa; 72.4428124;

4%

Russia; 41.7949993; 2%

Rest World; 80.4773667219997; 5%

China 41%

United States 21%

India 6%

Germany3%

Russia 3%

Japan 3%

South Africa 2%

Australia 2%

Korea 2%

Poland 2%

Rest of World16%

Source: IEA, CCS Retrofit Paper, 2012; WEO 2012

World Coal Power Capacity 2010 (1649 GW)

New Coal Plant CO2 is 25% Greater Than From All Pre-2000 Coal Use

Source: ORNL, CDIAC; IEA, and WEO 2012

Tot

al C

oal C

O2

175

1-20

00

Projec

ted

New C

oal P

lant

Life

time

CO2-

200

400

600524

654

Gt CO2

74% of remaining budget for 450 ppm

Existing Coal Fleet – 1649 GW

Source: IEA, CCS Retrofit Paper, 2012

>50%

Coal Power v. Carbon Budget

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

884

1049

Gt CO2

existing coal: 396 Gt

new coal: 654 Gt

Based on IEA, WEO 2012

119% of Budget

Carbon/Energy Impacts of CCS

• Cut CO2 from new fossil sources• Cut CO2 from existing sources pre-

retirement• Create space in the budget for easier

transition away from oil.• Reduce bio-energy pressure on

forested lands

New Coal Plant CO2 is 25% Greater Than From All Pre-2000 Coal Use

Source: ORNL, CDIAC; IEA, and WEO 2012

Tot

al C

oal C

O2

175

1-20

00

Projec

ted

New C

oal P

lant

Life

time

CO2-

200

400

600524

654

Gt CO2

74% of remaining budget for 450 ppm

Cutting CO2 Lock-in from New Coal

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

524

654

165

22.422381795

Gt CO2

431 GW without

CCS

391 GWwith CCS

1709 GWwithout

CCS


CCS Cuts CO2 from Power


85% of total coal generation; 35% of total fossil gen.

Prime CCS Retrofit Candidates

Source: IEA CCS Retrofit Paper, 2012

Prime CCS Retrofits by Country

Source: IEA CCS Retrofit Paper, 2012

China, 481

USA, 20

India, 24

Japan, 25

Korea, 21

2 012

2 014

2 016

2 018

2 020

2 022

2 024

2 026

2 028

2 030

2 032

2 034

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000Cumulative CO2 to 2035: BAU v 450

Coal BAU Oil BAU Gas BAU Total 450 Case

Billion

Metr

ic t

on

nes


Fossil Budget CompetitionBillion tonnes CO2

403.22711755529

745%

295.66790080195

733%

190.52135153776

421%

Coal Oil Gas

205.38062557

39534%

244.51835516148940%

156.89644945

35426%

Coal Oil Gas


Current Policies (889 Gt) 450 Case (607 Gt)

Fuel Amounts (Mtoe)

2010 2035: 450 case-

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

4 500

3 474

2 337

4 113

3 682

2 740

3 293

CoalOilGasM

toe


33% drop

CO2: 2010 v. 2035; 450 case

2010 2035: 450 case0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

13105

5664

CoalOilGas

Mto

nn

es C

O2

57% drop


2010 2035 450ppm0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1.3

6.8

0.8

0.6

Biofuels Demand(mboe/d)

OtherAviationRoad Transport


U.S. Carbon Pollution Standard

• Proposed New Source Performance Standard” for CO2 from new fossil fuel fired power plants

• First national carbon pollution standard for stationary sources

• Builds on “endangerment finding” following Mass v. EPA Supreme Court decision

What U.S. CPS Requires

• 1000 lbs/MWh standard for new fossil fuel fired plants (NGCC and coal)

• Achievable by natural gas combined cycle plants

• Also achievable by coal plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) – 30 year compliance option

• EPA projects no added cost because forecasts show no new coal plants

Standards for Existing Plants

• 2.4 billion tons CO2 from existing plants each year

• Clean Air Act requires CO2 standards for existing plants (Section 111(d))

• EPA sets performance standards, states implement through SIPs

• Flexible compliance options

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

2020 - EPA VehicleStandards

2025 - EPA VehicleStandards

2020 - NRDCRecommended 111(d)Existing Power Plant

Standards

2025 - NRDCRecommended 111(d)Existing Power Plant

Standards

CO2

Emis

sion

s Red

uctio

ns (m

illio

n sh

ort t

ons)

28

Potential Reductions from Power Sector…Twice What’s Being Achieved by Clean Car Standards

MDV and HDV Standards

LDV Standard

Sources: EPA/NHTSA rule documents at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm and NRDC estimates.

LDV Standard

MDV and HDV Standards

Note: The reductions shown are from BAU in the forecast years.

500 Million

900 Million

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm

BENEFITS SWAMP COSTS

NOTES• Benefits from SO2 and NOX reductions estimated by extensively peer-reviewed dispersion model developed by Abt Associates to estimate health

impacts from power plants for EPA. Lower and Higher estimates based on different statistical relationships between pollution concentrations and health effects that are used by EPA. Value of statistical lives lost is the primary component of the monetary value of the estimated benefits.

• Lower carbon reduction benefit calculated with Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) of $26 per ton in 2020, reflecting the Administration’s current estimate, using a 3% discount rate. Higher carbon benefit calculated with SCC of $59 per ton in 2010, reflecting a discount rate of 2%. OMB recommends using a discount rate of 1-3% for inter-generational issues such as climate change. At a discount rate of 1%, the SCC is $254 per ton in 2010.

COSTS BENEFITS

CO2 BenefitsSO2 and NOX BenefitsCompliance Costs

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Mil

lio

n 2

010$

Compliance Costs Low Estimate2020

High Estimate2020

ENGO Network Recommendations for Canada

• Adopt higher price on carbon and/or mandate CCS on new facilities.

• Adopt strong, protective standards throughout Canada regulating sequestration facilities.

ENGO Recommendations for Developing Countries

• Use UNFCCC to agree on mechanism to provide:– financial aid for CCS projects– Tech transfer– Support for mapping of storage formations– Market mechanisms to support CCS– Capacity building for safe and effective

regulation.• MEF: Strengthen Technology Action Plan

Thank You

David Hawkins

Natural Resources Defense Council

www.nrdc.org

[email protected]

http://www.nrdc.org/

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

CCS and the Carbon Budget