lable at ScienceDirect

Energy 34 (2009) 1032–1041

Contents lists avai

Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/energy

Coal and energy security for India: Role of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture andstorage (CCS)

Amit Garg*, P.R. Shukla 1

Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 June 2008Received in revised form30 December 2008Accepted 6 January 2009Available online 2 May 2009

Keywords:Energy securityCoal useCO2 captureStorageMitigation potential estimation

* Corresponding author. Public Systems Group, IndAhmedabad, Wing 16B, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380 015fax: þ91 79 6630 6896.

E-mail address: amitgarg@iimahd.ernet.in (A. Gar1 Public Systems Group, Indian Institute of Manag

Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380 015, India. Tel.: þ91 79 66896. shukla@iimahd.ernet.in.

0360-5442/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.01.005

a b s t r a c t

Coal is the abundant domestic energy resource in India and is projected to remain so in future undera business-as-usual scenario. Using domestic coal mitigates national energy security risks. However coaluse exacerbates global climate change. Under a strict climate change regime, coal use is projected todecline in future. However this would increase imports of energy sources like natural gas (NG) andnuclear and consequent energy security risks for India. The paper shows that carbon dioxide (CO2)capture and storage (CCS) can mitigate CO2 emissions from coal-based large point source (LPS) clustersand therefore would play a key role in mitigating both energy security risks for India and global climatechange risks. This paper estimates future CO2 emission projections from LPS in India, identifies thepotential CO2 storage types at aggregate level and matches the two into the future using Asia-PacificIntegrated Model (AIM/Local model) with a Geographical Information System (GIS) interface. The paperargues that clustering LPS that are close to potential storage sites could provide reasonable economicopportunities for CCS in future if storage sites of different types are further explored and found to haveadequate capacity. The paper also indicates possible LPS locations to utilize CCS opportunitieseconomically in future, especially since India is projected to add over 220,000 MW of thermal powergeneration capacity by 2030.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Fossil fuels will continue to dominate the energy supply systemsfor much of this century. In particular, coal is projected to remainthe mainstay of electricity generation in many major economies –especially where coal is the main indigenous and economicallyviable, source of energy. Even in the context of extensiveimprovements in energy efficiency and deployment of renewableenergy and other fuel switching measures, use of coal in India willincrease for many years to come [1,2]. In this context, CO2 captureand storage (CCS) technologies are of interest to reduce the carbonfootprint of a fossil-fuel based energy system. The present driver forimproving energy technologies in most developing countries is toincrease the security and affordability of energy supply – rarely areenergy technology developments driven by a desire to mitigate

ian Institute of Management, India. Tel.:þ9179 6632 4952;

g).ement Ahmedabad, Wing 3,632 4827; fax: þ91 79 6630

All rights reserved.

climate change. The greatest contribution to mitigation from CCSwould come from its application in power generation. Otherapplications of CCS have substantially lower mitigation costs butsmaller global potential – nevertheless, they may provide oppor-tunities for earlier deployment; examples include use of CCS inproduction of ammonia, hydrogen or synfuels, enhanced oilrecovery (EOR), in natural gas (NG) clean-up, or large mills recy-cling steel.

Coal is the abundant domestic energy resource in India (Table 1).The Indian energy system has evolved around it and is projected toremain so in future under a business-as-usual scenario [3,1]. Usingdomestic coal also mitigates national energy security risks.However coal use exacerbates global climate change. India emitted1751 Million ton (Mt) CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases (GHGs) in2005 [4] and coal contributed 56% of these emissions. Under a strictglobal regime for greenhouse gas mitigation, coal use woulddecline in future. However this would raise dependence onimported NG, thus enhancing energy security risks. CCS couldtherefore play a key role in mitigating both the energy security risksfor India and the global climate change risks. CCS is globally iden-tified as a likely technology for large-scale CO2 mitigation. There-fore CCS is an important technology for balancing national andglobal risks. It can reduce external cost of using coal by India under

Table 1Sectoral commercial energy consumption in India, 2005 (PJ).

Sectors Coal & Lignite NG MS LPG Naphtha ATF KO Diesel LDO FO Total Share (%)

Power generation 6473 486 122 2 56 7139 50.8Iron and steel 767 4 32 803 5.7Fertilizer 79 397 125 68 669 4.8Petrochemicals 44 49 93 0.7Soda ash 1 0 1 0.0Chlor alkali 0 1 1 0.0Chemicals (other) 2 57 59 0.4Aluminum 342 0 16 358 2.5Cement 361 0 361 2.6Sugar 139 31 368 538 3.8Paper, pulp and print 52 0 0 0 3 55 0.4Brick 399 399 2.8Textile and leather 9 6 1 28 45 0.3Non-specified 57 74 85 195 20 84 514 3.7Air 148 148 1.1Road 387 903 1291 9.2Rail 71 71 0.5Non-specified 13 0 7 20 0.1Total other sectors 109 9 487 294 409 10 62 1380 9.8All India (PJ) 8648 1186 387 487 552 148 409 1702 38 508 14,066 100

Share (%) 61.5 8.4 2.8 3.5 3.9 1.1 2.9 12.1 0.3 3.6 100

Sources: Assimilated from various published documents of government of India ministries; CMIE Energy 2006.Note: 1 Peta joule (PJ)¼ 1015 joules.NG (natural gas), MS (motor spirit), LPG (liquefied petroleum gas), ATF (aviation turbine fuel), KO (kerosene oil), LDO (light diesel oil), FO (fuel oil). Zero consumption indicatesthat there is some consumption but it is too small in PJ to be captured in this table.

A. Garg, P.R. Shukla / Energy 34 (2009) 1032–1041 1033

higher climate sensitivity scenarios and hence would keepdomestic coal a viable alternative.

Economic growth, energy supply, thermal electricity generationand national CO2 emissions have profound linkages in India. During1990–2005, the Indian gross domestic product (GDP) has grown by148% [5,6], commercial energy supply by 118%, thermal electricitygeneration by 170% [7,6], and total CO2 emissions by 100% [4]. Coal-based thermal power generation increased its share from 73% in1990 to over 82% in 2005 in all-India total power generation, whilerelated CO2 emissions contributed about 52% to all-India CO2

emissions in 2005 [4]. This is the single largest source of CO2

emissions in India. Economic growth of India has evidentlyremained strongly coupled with CO2 emissions. The Government ofIndia has targeted over 130% GDP growth during 2002–2012(average annual growth rate of 8.1% for 2002–2007, and 9.3%beyond), implying a rapid growth in CO2 emissions from India.

Indian CO2 emissions were 1229 Mt in 2005 [4], with top 500large point sources (LPSs) contributing nearly 70%, and the 25largest emitters contributing almost a third of India’s CO2 emis-sions. For mitigating CO2 emissions therefore, it appears prudent totarget LPS. The technological options for CO2 emissions mitigationfrom LPS include energy efficiency improvement, switching to lesscarbon intensive fuels, upgrading technology, and CCS. Energyefficiency improvement and fuel switching are already happeningin India. For example, the average heat rate of thermal power plantshas improved from about 2850 kcal/kWh in 1990 to about2550 kcal/kWh in 2000 [8,9]. These factors have led to a decliningtrend of energy intensity of India’s GDP and also a decline in carbonintensity of India’s GDP. In this context, CCS offers an opportunity totarget mitigation efforts to a selected few LPS to achieve deep cutsin India’s future CO2 emissions, while maintaining viability ofdomestic coal against a strict global GHG mitigation regime. Thetiming and sequencing issues of alternative mitigation options areimportant and are discussed in later part of this paper.

Details on source sink mapping for LPSs in Indian-sub-continentare provided as of now. Holloway et al. [10] provide details oncurrent source sink mapping for LPSs for Indian-subcontinent fromCO2 emissions perspective, conducted under IEA GHG programme.The present paper is an independent research providing future

energy and emission projections for India using energy modeling,suggesting policy options for future CCS policy in India and pro-jecting mitigation potential from specific CCS applications, such asEOR and coal bed methane (CBM), extending much beyond the IEAproject domain. The present paper uses Geographical InformationSystem (GIS) based energy modeling for an initial assessment offuture Indian CCS potential until 2030, especially from coal-basedLPS, EOR and CBM, and would be useful for policymaking includingsite selection of future LPS for a cost effective CCS.

2. Methodology

The future energy mix and CO2 emissions till 2030 are estimatedusing a bottom-up energy-environment optimization model, Asia-Pacific Integrated Model (AIM/Local model) . This model followsa linear programming approach to find an optimal solution byselecting a combination of technologies with the least cost whilesatisfying the given constraints of fulfilling the demand andmeeting environmental targets and/or energy supply constraints inthe specific region [11–14]. The model has a GIS interface. LPS andarea sources are mapped for the present and future. The key inputsto the model are technical data about each LPS, future end-usedemand projections, energy resource availability and price, andremoval technologies. The main outputs are sectoral energy tech-nology mix and emission projections.

For the AIM/Local model exercise, 303 LPS and 466 area sources(Indian districts) were mapped for the year 2000. For future esti-mation of CO2 emissions, new LPS are added and reach 374 (2010),435 (2020) and 495 (2030). Future LPS data was mainly taken fromreports of various Ministries and published reports and databasessuch as Center for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). Theseprovide status information of various planned investment projectsin India (power, refineries, cement, steel, fertilizer, petrochemicalplants, etc.) until 2015. Coupled with the retrofitting and capacityaugmentation options for existing plants, present policy directivesof the Government and expert opinion, LPS information for the next30 years was assimilated [14,15]. Almost half of the existing coal-based power and steel plants are near coal mines and strong coal-centric economic linkages have resulted in development of a large

Table 3Projections of percentage contributions from major LPSs to all-India CO2 emissions(%).

Sector 2000 2010 2020 2030

Power 50.1 52.5 50.5 48.2Pulverized Coal (sub, super and ultra critical) 49.0 50.4 45.9 42.8Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle – 0.4 1.3 2.2Gas 1 1.6 3.2 3.1Oil 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Steel 8.9 9 8.5 7.4Cement 7.5 8.6 7.8 7.1Petroleum refining 0.8 1.2 2.4 3.1Fertilizer 2.2 0.3 0.2 0.2Paper 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5

A. Garg, P.R. Shukla / Energy 34 (2009) 1032–10411034

associated infrastructure related to the mining industry, coaltransportation networks, generation equipment manufacturers,and a large labor force employed in all these areas. This is true evenfor power plants that are far away from coal mines but nearer todemand centers. Setting up new plants also create problems relatedto obtaining fresh clearance after the Environment Impact Assess-ment (EIA). All these factors would influence future investmentdecisions encouraging capacity addition at the existing LPS duringfuture expansions, with a strong likelihood of coal dominancecontinuing. Since the economic reforms in the nineties decade, newLPS started coming up near ports for ease of raw material transport.Our analysis includes these dynamics.

Aluminum 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3Petrochemicals 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5Hydrogen plants – – 0.2 0.3

3. Indian CO2 emissions and coal dominance

Indian CO2 emissions in 2005 were 1229 Mt CO2, and almostdoubled during 1990–2005 [4]. A significant fraction of the CO2

emanating from fossil-fuel combustion and specific industrialactivities [11] was emitted by LPSs, with thermal power, steel,cement, fertilizer, petrochemical, aluminum plants, gas processing,and petroleum refineries contributing over 70% of all-India CO2

emissions in 2005. Coal contributed 72% of all-India CO2 emissions,overwhelmingly from power and steel plants. The top three sec-toral contributors were power plants (51.9%), steel plants (8.4%) andcement plants (8%). The twenty-five largest emitters contributed34% of the total all-India CO2 emissions in 2005 and have grownaround 10% per annum during 1990–2005. This reveals that emis-sions are getting increasingly concentrated in few LPS whichcontribute sizably to the overall Indian emissions, and this simul-taneously offers focussed mitigation opportunities.

Our modeling results show that the total annual CO2 emissionsin India will increase 2.5 times during 2005–2030 to reach 3084 MtCO2 in 2030, growing annually at 3.7%. During 2005–2030, over200,000 MW of thermal power capacity is added with three-fourths being coal-based power plants [16]. The share of coal-basedpower in gross generation from utilities has steadily increased from55% (1980) to 66% (1990) to 71% (2005), contributing substantiallyto the growth of Indian CO2 emissions [7,4]. Some plants in otherindustries, including the steel and cement sectors, have set up coal-based captive power plants for assured and quality power supply.Thus, coal will continue to be a dominant fuel in the future asperformance of coal technologies will improve over time. Undera reference scenario, coal consumption increases about two-foldbetween 2005 and 2030, from 434 Mt in 2005. About 90% of Indiancoal consumption is from LPS for power generation and industrysectors. The LPS share in Indian CO2 emissions is projected toincrease marginally from 71% in 2000 to73% in 2010 and thendecline to 68% in 2030 (Table 2). The decline after 2010 is due toenergy efficiency improvements in fossil-based power generation.However LPS will continue to contribute substantially to CO2

emissions in 2030, with coal-based power plants continuing tomaintain a dominant share (Table 3).

Present and future estimates of CO2 emissions from different LPSindicate that power, steel, cement plants and refineries providegood opportunities for CO2 capture (Table 3). This also depends

Table 2Share of LPS emission in all-India CO2 emissions.

Year 1990 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030

Number of LPS 292 303 339 374 435 495LPS emissions (Mt CO2/yr) 386 724 885 1157 1703 2085All-India emissions (Mt CO2/yr) 615 1032 1229 1593 2412 3084

LPS/All-India (%) 63 70 72 73 71 68

upon the characteristics of the CO2 stream coming out of the plant.CO2 content in flue gases and the volume of flue gases will varydepending on the type of fuel used and the excess air level used foroptimal combustion conditions. NG fired power generation plantsare typically combined cycle gas turbines which generate flue gaseswith low CO2 concentrations, typically 3–4% by volume. Coal, forpower generation is burnt in pulverized fuel boilers which producean atmospheric pressure flue gas stream with a CO2 content of up to14% by volume. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)technology based plants where the synthesis gas is directlycombusted in the turbine produce, like conventional thermalpower plants, produce a flue gas with low CO2 concentration (up to14% by volume). It is noted that there are conceptual designs inwhich the CO2 can be removed before the synthesis gas is com-busted which produces a high concentration, high pressure CO2

exhaust gas stream that could be more suitable for storage.However, it is noted that no such plants are currently built or underconstruction [20]. Flue gas streams with a higher CO2 concentrationwould provide higher opportunities for efficient capture. Theregional distribution of CO2 emissions in India for the years 2000,2010, 2020 and 2030 in the reference scenario indicates the highcontribution of LPS (Fig. 1).

4. CO2 storage potential types

Identifying the CO2 capture opportunities is the first step inconsidering the CCS technology as a CO2 emission mitigationoption. The next step is to link the capture opportunities with othernecessary conditions, namely the CO2 storage potential around thetargeted LPS. CO2 can be injected into deep geological formationsand stored for thousands to millions of years [17]. The geologicalstorage opportunity types considered in this paper are sedimentaryrocks, unmineable deep coal seams, depleted oil and gas fields andbasalt formations. This paper examines the storage opportunitiesbased on macro-level estimates and does not assess the actualstorage potential of individual sites. We understand this assess-ment is necessary since all the potential sites are not necessarilyfeasible for storage. The site level detailed data mapping is not asyet available and future research in this area will help to furtherimprove the assessments of CCS potential in the country.

Geologically, the Indian-sub-continent is divided into threemajor regions based on distinguished characteristics such aspeninsula shield, Indo-Gangetic alluvial plains, and extra peninsula.These three regions exhibit distinguished physical features, stra-tigraphy and structures. Peninsula shield is largely composed ofgeologically ancient crystalline rocks of diverse origin which haveundergone metamorphism. The Indo-Gangetic plains are built up of

< 33 - 66 - 99 - 1212 - 1515 - 18

18 - 21

> 21

Million Tons of CO2

05

10 15

30

40

20

2000 2010

20302020

Fig. 1. Regional Distribution of CO2 emissions in India in reference scenario. Note: The circles show emissions from LPS, shaded areas show emissions from Area Sources.

A. Garg, P.R. Shukla / Energy 34 (2009) 1032–1041 1035

layers of sands, clays and occasional organic debris deposited fromearly Cenozoic times to the present day.

India has the fourth largest recoverable coal reserves in theworld. The coal will therefore remain as significant fuel source. Anindicative calculation suggests that the CCS potential could be ofthe order of 345 Mt CO2 nationally in the major coalfields. None ofthe coalfields are estimated to have the capacity to store >100 MtCO2 [18]. If CO2 storage on coal proves practical at depths >1200 mthen the very large resource present at this depth, e.g. in theCambay Basin and down dip to the east of the Rajmahal coalfieldscould be brought into play. This is an area that requires furtherinvestigation [10,18].

Fig. 2 shows the distribution of sedimentary rocks, unmineablecoal deposits and depleted oil and gas fields in India that offeropportunities for carbon dioxide storage. It also provides thelocation of current LPSs in power, steel, cement and fertilizersectors. Based on this mapping and our discussions with Indian

geological experts, it has been estimated that many of these storagesites have LPS within 500 km, or marginally greater.

4.1. Sedimentary rocks

The main potential CO2 storage sites in India are thought to belocated in the saline aquifers in the oil- and gas-bearing sedimen-tary basins around the margins of the peninsula, especially in theoffshore basins, but also onshore in the states of Gujarat andRajasthan. Thus CO2 sources in the center of the peninsula appear tobe poorly placed with respect to potential CO2 storage sites unlessthe Gondwana basins in which the coalfields, and thus many of thepithead coal-based power plants, are found can be demonstrated tohave good potential. There may also be considerable saline aquiferCO2 storage potential in Assam and probably in Cachar, Tripura andMizoram, although this potential is stranded relative to most of themain emission sources in India.

Fig. 2. Districts with CO2 storage potential in India.

A. Garg, P.R. Shukla / Energy 34 (2009) 1032–10411036

4.2. Coal mines

Coal is found as layers and beds known as seams mainly insedimentary rocks of older Gondwana formations of peninsularIndia and also in younger Tertiary formations of the Northern andNortheastern hilly region. Some deposits are of Jurassic period also,though they are of very little economic significance. The Gondwanacoal deposits account for over 99% of the total coal reserve of India[19]. More precisely, the eastern states of West Bengal, Jharkhand,Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh have thebiggest coal bearing formations, while the next important align-ment is along the Godawari river over Madhya Pradesh, Mahara-shtra and Andhra Pradesh.

4.3. Depleted oil and gas fields

Oil and gas fields occur in three areas: Assam and the Assam–Arakan Fold Belt, the Krishna–Godavari and Cauvery Basins, and theMumbai/Cambay/Barmer/Jaisalmer basin area (Fig. 2). The totalstorage capacity in oil and gas fields is estimated to be between 3.7and 4.6� Billion ton (Bt) CO2 [18]. However, many fields are rela-tively small in CO2 storage terms. Only a few fields, e.g. the BombayHigh field, offshore Mumbai, are thought to have ample storagecapacity for the lifetime emissions of a medium sized coal-firedpower plant. However, some of the recent offshore gas discoveriesmay have potential as CO2 storage sites in the future. It is also clearfrom existing literature [20] that there are opportunities for EORusing CO2, especially with consistently high oil prices.

Crude oil production is predominantly in the western states ofMaharashtra (49%) and Gujarat (24%), and northeastern state ofAssam (14%) in the year 2005 [7]. These three states respectivelyalso account for 61%, 15% and 8% of India’s total NG productionrespectively in 2005 [7]. There were 10,621 total wells in India inthe year 2000, comprising 5484 oil wells, 656 gas wells, 2680 drywells, 1733 service wells and 68 wells under test [7]. Almost 98% ofthese are concentrated in eight districts of India, namely Mumbai(Bombay High), Bharuch, Ahmedabad, Mehsana, Sibsagar, Dibru-garh, Thanjavur and West Godavari. The 2680 dry wells and manymature wells are potential storage sites for CO2. Almost one-third ofthis potential is offshore at Bombay High.

4.4. Basalt formations

In India, two major formations viz. Deccan and Rajmahal trapsare in existence wherein basalts are strategically located. TheDeccan traps province is one of the largest volcanic provinces in theworld. It covers an area of nearly 500,000 square km and consists offlat-lying basalt lava flows varying in thickness which can exceed2000 m intertrappean and infratrappean sedimentary beds varyingthickness, reaching a maximum of about 15 m in parts of West-Central India. The map of the Indian-sub-continent marked withDeccan and Rajmahal province is shown in Fig. 3. Basalt formationsmight have good storage potential in India [18], but the storage ofCO2 in basalt formations, by reaction of basic aluminosilicateminerals with injected CO2, is considered to be an immaturetechnology at present.

Fig. 3. Map of the Indian sub-continent showing Deccan and Rajmahal Trap province.

A. Garg, P.R. Shukla / Energy 34 (2009) 1032–1041 1037

Singh et al. [18] have estimated total carbon dioxide seques-tration potential of geologic formations in India to be 572 Bt ofwhich storage potential of Basalt formations is 200 Bt. While thetotal onshore and offshore capacity of deep saline aquifers is 360 Bt,it is only 5 Bt for unmineable coal seams and about 7 Bt for depletedoil and gas reservoirs.

5. CCS clusters

Alternative CCS arrangements are possible in the Indian contextdepending upon the cluster of emission sources. Many large coal-based power plants have multiple power generating units of 110,220 and 440 MW capacities. These are in the same industrialcomplex, resulting in substantial combined CO2 emissions. Thecombined generating capacity of the largest power plant in India ismore than 2000 MW and the proposed ultra mega power plantswill have capacity of 4000 MW at each location. Captured CO2 fromall these units can be transported through a common transmissionpipeline network for storage at a common site.

Secondly, there are a few large coal-based LPS within 500 km ofeach other, especially in eastern Uttar Pradesh, southern Bihar andnorthern Chhattisgarh, resulting in substantial combined CO2

emissions from the same ‘CO2 catchment area’ or LPS clusters,which could, therefore, have a common storage network (Fig. 2).These are also the major coal mining and sedimentary rock regionsin the country, with good probability of CO2 storage opportunities.

Thirdly, coal-based integrated steel plants (ISPs) in India havecaptive power generation in the same industrial complex, againresulting in substantial combined CO2 emissions. Moreovera couple of large ISPs are also within the above ‘CO2 catchment

area’; further enhancing the economies of scale for CCS. There arealso gas processing plants in western India that are close to manymatured oil wells. These could provide other possible clusters usingEOR.

There is also an on-going promising research in India exploringpossibilities to use the same adsorbents for CO2, SO2 and NOx

adsorption, wherein CO2 can be separated for storage while SO2 andNOx could continue to remain in the adsorbent for up to 2000 cycles[21]. This would result in major cost reductions since no separateSO2 and NOx removal would be needed that could normally take upto 7–10% of a plant’s capital cost.

Clustering could generate economies of scale for CCS. There aresome common functions and processes in a CCS chain, such as fluegas cleaning at the capture stage (if the capture sources are in thesame complex, e.g. different power generating units of a powerplant), transport, injection, storage and monitoring. The economiesof scale in clusters would reduce per unit cost of CCS.

Thus, it is evident that there are a few LPS clusters for exploringCCS opportunities in India. These areas have a further economicadvantage since CBM produced from CCS would have readydemand centers in the vicinity. Similarly EOR would be a major co-benefit from CO2 storage and may even drive the initial CCS projectsin India.

6. Criteria for selecting LPS for CCS

Developing a CCS system would be justified in terms of invest-ments mainly if fossil fuels continue to be a significant proportionof the energy supply mix. In India, under a reference scenario, theenergy system will continue to depend on fossil fuels, primarily

A. Garg, P.R. Shukla / Energy 34 (2009) 1032–10411038

domestic coal [1,3]. The LPS that would be targeted for CCS is basedon specific criteria such as their contribution to the all-Indiaemissions, geographical proximity to potential storage opportuni-ties, purity of emission sources, co-benefits in terms of EOR andenhanced coal bed methane (ECBM), and costs involved in CCS.Here we assume that the proposed storage sites have been pre-assessed for their storage suitability.

6.1. Contribution to all-India CO2 emissions

LPS will contribute a major share of national CO2 emissionsduring 2005–2030. The distribution range of LPS CO2 emission inthe total national emissions indicates that the 100 largest pointsources of CO2 contribute to 58% of all-India CO2 emissions in 2005,a trend which is projected to continue in future. These 100 LPSinclude 65 power plants, 7 steel plants, 6 refineries, 16 cementplants, 3 fertilizer plants, 1 aluminum plant and 2 petrochemicalplants. The majority of these are coal-based.

More specifically, we consider the case of the 20 largest LPS andshow their cumulative potential in terms of CO2 capture (Table 4).Their share decreases between the two periods due to energyefficiency improvements and also due to the increase in emissionsfrom other small emitters. However, these top 20 LPS continue tocontribute significantly to the all-India CO2 emissions in 2010–2030(30%). Therefore, targeting these LPS would address a significantproportion of all-India emissions, and they could be candidates forCO2 capture.

The 20 largest LPS identified in Table 4 comprise power and steelplants. The CO2 concentration of the gas streams from these plantsis around 10% by volume, which is one of the highest in India.Therefore, these power and steel plants provide substantial focusedopportunities for CO2 capture in India. The capture potential fromthe largest LPS is evaluated based on different studies [22,23]. Evenif we assume low system efficiency at 80% in a developing countryset-up, the capture potential from the top 10 LPS is over 6 Bt CO2

during 2010–2030, which is 13% of projected Indian CO2 emissionsduring 2010–2030 (Table 5).

6.2. Geographical proximity of the LPS with potential storageopportunities

The top 20 LPS identified in Table 4 (2010–2030) are within500 km of potential storage sites and 12 within 200 km. These sitesprimarily comprise unmineable coal seams and sedimentary rocks(Fig. 4). Since, gas pipelines exist in many areas where the LPS arelocated, sufficient experience exists in India in pipeline operationtraversing different regions and landscapes.

Moreover, plant clusters provide an opportunity for a common‘CO2 catchment area’. The CO2 captured from these plant clusterscould be brought to the same storage site using a common pipelinenetwork, thereby creating economies of scale and lowering costs. Inareas, where there is potential for ECBM and LPS, CO2 capturedfrom the plants could be stored at the coal seams, and methanerecovered could be used as one of the energy sources in the same

Table 4CO2 mitigation potential from largest LPS.

CO2 emissions 2000–2030

Cumulative CO2 (Bt) % Of all-India cumulative emis

All-India 61.7 100%All LPS 42.1 68%Top 5 LPS 5.2 8%Top 10 LPS 10.3 17%Top 20 LPS 16.7 27%

LPS. Thus, the existing geographical proximity of the largest LPSwith potential storage sites would have a substantial impact inlowering costs of plants involved in CCS as well as delivering co-benefits.

6.3. Co-benefits – ECBM and EOR

Technological interventions such as CCS could enhance recoveryof CBM and oil. There are many deep coal seams that areunmineable and may be used for CBM. Deeper coal seams andsurrounding strata contain much larger volumes of CH4 thanshallow coal seams. Geological pressure, which increases withdepth, holds more CH4 in place. Therefore, potentially there is scopefor ECBM recovery. So far as CBM utilization is concerned, some ofthe existing power, steel and cement plants in the vicinity of coalmines are planning to utilize recovered gas as their prime energysource. Some state governments in India have already startedgiving out CBM exploitation rights to private/public enterprises. Forexample, Jharkhand state government has given rights to Oil andNatural Gas Commission (ONGC) to exploit CBM in five mines in thesoutheastern part of Jharia Coal field. The West Bengal stategovernment has given CBM exploitation rights in one mine inRaniganj coalfields, and Chhattisgarh state has given out one minein the Soharpur coalfields. The estimated CBM potential from thethree States alone is expected to be around 400�109 m3 [24]. Thusthere is a significant co-benefit of injecting the captured CO2.However for the next 15–20 years, these wells will be producingmethane on their own and ECBM techniques would be preferredonly when the normal methane outputs decline.

Similarly, injecting captured CO2 in dry and on-the-verge-dry oilwells could enhance oil recovery. For example, over 20 Mt CO2 areinjected annually, mostly in West Texas, to recover oil from 50individual projects [25]. As already indicated, many of the 2680 drywells and many on-the-verge-dry wells in India are potentialstorage sites for CO2, providing significant co-benefit of EOR. In factONGC, the largest oil producer in India, has already started buildingthe first EOR facility in Ankaleshwar oil fields capturing CO2 from itsHazira gas processing plant and transporting it to 75 km beforestorage. The average cost for the complete process chain is around25 US$/t- CO2 without including the benefits of recovering around5 Mt crude oil over the next 30 years and the market price ofmitigated CO2 [26]. A detailed study is required to estimate EORpotential from specific wells.

6.4. Costs involved

The main costs involved in CCS include capture, compression,transportation, injection, storage, and site monitoring. The litera-ture gives a wide range of costs for the different processes. Forinstance, the range of costs for CO2 capture in power plants usingSub-Critical PC technology and 400 MW net output could bearound US$ 30–45/t-CO2. However, these are generalized figuresfor developed countries, which would vary across countriesdepending on the specific technologies available for CCS, location of

2010–2030

sions Cumulative CO2 (Bt) % Of all-India cumulative emissions

46.8 100%32.4 69%

3.8 8%7.6 16%

12.4 27%

Table 5CO2 Capture potential from the largest LPS (2010–2030).

LPS Cumulative CO2 emissions (Bt) CO2 capture Potential (Bt CO2)

At 80% system efficiency At 90% system efficiency

Top 5 LPS 3.8 3.0 3.4Top 10 LPS 7.6 6.1 6.8Top 20 LPS 12.4 9.9 11.2

A. Garg, P.R. Shukla / Energy 34 (2009) 1032–1041 1039

emission sources, distance from potential storage sites, and co-benefits generated from injecting CO2 at CBM sites and in depletedoil and gas fields and carbon trading.

Based on global experience and our discussions with Indianexperts in coal mining and oil production, we have taken theaverage capture, transportation and storage cost for India at aroundUS$ 50–60/t-CO2 using existing technologies, which may comedown in the future [22,23]. The average cost components in the CCSchain are capture (45%); compression (20%); transportation, injec-tion and monitoring (35%). The costs for CCS with storage in anoilfield combined with EOR using a pure flue gas stream sourcesuch as gas processing could be much lower. Fig. 5 gives domesticcoal use with and without CCS in India for an equal CO2 emissiontrajectory. The difference between the coal use (with and withoutCCS) curves is the indicator of enhanced energy security due to CCS.Use of CO2 for EOR at sites near to CO2 rich flue gas facilitiesprovides the initial CCS opportunities at around US$25/t-CO2. Thesehave a lower capture costs due to practically no need for flue gascleaning, or increasing CO2 concentration level. The initial CCSopportunities are those near storage sites and therefore transportcosts are also lower. Large power plants kick-in later at higherprices (over US$ 60/tCe) but provide a large amount of CO2 miti-gation. The cost curve reflects a graded structure based on purity ofCO2 in the flue gas, distance between capture of the storage sites(lower transportation cost sites get picked up first), and size of thestorage site (larger storage potential sites get used first since theycan support clustered CO2 capture sources).

However, there is a need for further research to estimate thespecific costs. This would also enable estimation of the cost-effectiveness of CCS vis-a-vis other technological options of CO2

mitigation in India.

Fig. 4. Proximity of largest LPS (>10 Mt CO2 per year) to potential CO2 stor

7. CCS, energy security and low carbon future

CCS is emerging as a potential option for large-scale CO2 miti-gation. However the cost trends do not portend near term pene-tration. Our modeling analysis suggests that for near to mid-termmitigation, energy efficiency improvements, higher penetration ofrenewable energy technologies (including large hydro), demandside management and nuclear power will provide the majorcontribution to mitigating CO2 emissions from Indian energy sector.EOR is likely to be first off the blocks for CCS.

There are alternative transition pathways to achieving a lowcarbonfuture for the Indian energy sectors in the long-term. In case there istechnological breakthrough which can improve economics of CCS inthe near term, then the system could very well leapfrog to a near-zeroemission state from the current state. This can lower the barrier to theuse of domestic coal and thereby enhance the country’s energysecurity (Fig. 5). However the current best expectation of nationalpolicymakers and experts [27,28] indicates a very low probability forimmediate and steep reduction in the cost of CCS technology; rathera steady improvement in CCS technology is expected. Edmonds et al.[29] also indicate that reductions in the costof capture could reap largebenefits under a climate mitigation regime.

Under these expectations, the results of our modeling exercisesindicate that CO2 mitigation will more likely arise from energyefficiency and fuel-mix changes in the short to medium term andCCS technology is likely to penetrate later. Under a strict climatechange regime, coal use is projected to decline in future. This wouldincrease imports of energy sources like NG and nuclear andconsequent energy security risks for India. However, if it was clearthat CCS technology could be included in India’s mitigation port-folio, it could make a significant difference to perceptions of

age sites in 2010 and 2030. Note: The circles show the location of LPS.

Coa

l use

With CCS

Without CCS

Near-term Mid-term Long-term

Fig. 5. Domestic coal use in India with and without CCS with a similar CO2 emissiontrajectory.

A. Garg, P.R. Shukla / Energy 34 (2009) 1032–10411040

national energy security and consequently to national energysector decisions. Therefore, a minor investment in improving theassessment of the cost and potential of CCS technology woulddeliver a high return.

8. Conclusions

Source and storage site mapping shows that a targeted CCSapproach would be more prudent for India. The advent of CCSimplies that CO2 mitigation in India can pose lower energy securityrisks and incur lower costs than anticipated under scenarios whereCCS is ignored. CCS for the largest 5–10 LPS may constitute 2–3 CCSclusters, mostly in central and eastern regions of India. These canmitigate 3–6 Bt CO2 during 2010–2030; i.e. 6–13% of cumulativeIndian emissions over this period. The different constituents of thecost of CCS reveal that there are reasonable opportunities forreducing per unit CCS costs by increasing cluster sizes.

India will be adding over 220,000 MW of coal and NG basedthermal power generation capacity from 2010 to 2030. The newcapacity additions offer the possibility to align plant site selectionwith potential CCS sites. Some new capacity will be added atexisting plants in the CCS cluster, thus improving economies ofscale. It will help to strengthen the power transmission systems toexport additional electricity from these CCS clusters to the demandcenters that are much more widely distributed.

Our analysis indicates that initial CCS opportunities should beexplored where ECBM and EOR opportunities exist. High oil priceexpectation would enhance EOR attractiveness. Spatial analysisindicates viability of such options. India has more than 400 bil-lion m3 CBM potential [24]. Even if 20% of this potential is tappedusing CCS, this would mean mitigating about 0.2 Bt CO2 whilesimultaneously releasing methane worth US$ 14 billion at US$ 5 perGJ for energy use2. Even a low mitigation price of US$ 30/t-CO2 over2010–2030, CO2 mitigation would fetch additional revenue of US$ 6billion. The effective CCS cost is lowered substantially when CCS andECBM opportunities are combined. The scenario is much morefavorable for CCS and EOR where the market price of additional oilrecovered is much higher compared to the total cost of the CCS chain.

Our analysis is based on current expectations of future carbonprices, the exploration regimes and emission source locations andthe estimates are sensitive to these parameters. The work pre-sented in this paper represents an early assessment of CCS as

2 There are advanced official level discussions for India to buy NG from Iran atUS$ 5.2 per GJ for next 30 years through Iran–Pakistan–India gas pipeline (http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/feb/06india.htm).

a potential technological option for CO2 emissions mitigation inIndia. The improved estimation of future penetration of CCS wouldrequire site specific assessment of mitigation supply curves. Thecost information from pilot projects being envisaged and detailedsite mapping to assess storage potential, we believe, would help toimprove the initial estimates reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge our continuing discussions with DrJae Edmonds (and GTSP project), Dr Sam Holloway and Dr John Gale(and IEA GHG project) on CCS. We have also benefited from ourdiscussions with Dr R.R. Sonde and participants at the CCS work-shop in Hyderabad, India during January 2007. We thank the Asia-Pacific Integrated Model (AIM) team from NIES, Japan for access tothe AIM/Local model. We also acknowledge Dr Manmohan Kapshe,Dr Deepa Menon Choudhury, Dr A.K. Singh and Dr V.A. Mendhe forour initial joint work on CCS in India.

References

[1] Shukla PR, Rana A, Garg A, Kapshe M, Nair R. Global climate change stabili-zation regimes and Indian emission scenarios: lessons for modeling ofdeveloping country transitions. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies2006;7(3):205–31.

[2] Khadse A, Qayyumi M, Mahajani S, Aghalayam P. Underground coal gasifica-tion: a new clean coal utilization technique for India. Energy 2007November;32(11):2061–71.

[3] Garg A, Shukla PR, Ghosh D, Kapshe MM, Nair R. Future GHG and localemissions for India: policy links and disjoints. Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global Change 2003;8(1):71–92.

[4] Garg A, Shukla PR, Kapshe M. The sectoral trends of multigas emissionsinventory of India. Atmospheric Environment 2006;40:4608–20.

[5] GOI. Economic survey of India 2005–2006. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance,Government of India, http://www.mycii.org/library/Newarrivals/0602.htm#CII%20PUBLICATIONS; 2006.

[6] PC. Mid term appraisal of the 10th five year plan. New Delhi: PlanningCommission, Government of India,, http://delhiplanning.nic.in/appraisal/mta04-05.PDF; 2006.

[7] CMIE. Energy. Mumbai, India: economic intelligence services. Center forMonitoring Indian Economy; 2006.

[8] Shukla PR, Biswas D, Nag T, Yajnik A, Heller T, Victor DG. Impact of powersector reforms on technology, efficiency and emissions: case study of AndhraPradesh, India. Working Paper # 20. USA: Program on Energy and SustainableDevelopment, Stanford University, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20452/wp20_apcase_5mar04.pdf; 2004.

[9] Shukla PR, Biswas D, Nag T, Yajnik A, Heller T, Victor DG. Impact of powersector reforms on technology, efficiency and emissions: case study of Gujarat,India. Working Paper # 21. USA: Program on Energy and Sustainable Devel-opment, Stanford University, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20453/wp21_gujaratcase_5Mar04.pdf; 2004.

[10] Holloway S, Garg A, Kapshe M, Deshpande A, Pracha AS, Khan SR, et al. Anassessment of the potential for CO2 storage in the Indian subcontinent.Greenhouse Gas Issues; 2008.

[11] IPCC. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Inter-GovernmentalPanel on Climate Change, IGES; 2006.

[12] Shukla PR, Rana A, Garg A, Kapshe MM, Nair R. Climate policy assessment forIndia: applications of Asia-Pacific integrated model (AIM). Hyderabad:Universities Press; 2004. p. 208.

[13] Garg A, Shukla PR, Kapshe MM. Large point source (LPS) emissions from India:regional and sectoral analysis. Atmospheric Environment 2002;36:213–24.

[14] Kapshe MM, Garg A, Shukla PR. Application of AIM/local model to India usingarea and large point sources. In: Kainuma M, Matsuoka Y, Morita T, editors.Climate policy assessment: Asia-Pacific integrated modelling. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag; 2002. p. 402.

[15] Shukla PR, Ghosh D, and Garg A. Future energy trends and GHG emissions forIndia. In: climate change economics and policy: Indian perspectives, resourcesfor the future: Washington, DC, USA; 2003.

[16] Nair R, Shukla PR, Kapshe MM, Garg A, Rana A. Analysis of long-term energyand carbon emission scenarios for India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategiesfor Global Change 2003;8(1):53–69.

[17] Holloway S, Pearce JM, Hards VL, Ohsumi T, Gale J. Natural emissions of CO2from the geosphere and their bearing on the geological storage of carbondioxide. Energy 2007;32(7):1194–201.

[18] Singh AK, Mendhe VA. Garg A. CO2 sequestration potential of geologicformations in India. Paper presented at the GHGT-7, Norway; 2006.

[19] CIL. Coal Atlas of India. Ranchi, India: Central Mine Planning and DesignInstitute Limited, Coal India Limited; 1993.

A. Garg, P.R. Shukla / Energy 34 (2009) 1032–1041 1041

[20] IPCC. Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. 2004. http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-final/IPCCSpecialReportonCarbondioxideCaptureandStorage.htm.

[21] Rayalu SS, Jadhav P, Biniwale R, Devotta S. Amine functionalized materials forCO2 capture. At the International workshop on R&D challenges in carboncapture and storage technology for sustainable energy future. Hyderabad,India; January 12–13, 2007.

[22] IEA. Potential for improvement in IGCC with CO2 capture. InternationalEnergy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/reports.html; 2003. Report Number PH4/19.

[23] Rao AB, Rubin ES. A technical, economic, and environmental assessment ofamine-based CO2 capture technology for power plant greenhouse gas control.Environmental Science and Technology 2002;36:4467–75.

[24] Garg A, Shukla PR, Kapshe MM, Menon D. Indian methane and nitrousoxide emissions and mitigation flexibility. Atmospheric Environment2004;38(13):1965–77.

[25] Stevens SH, Fox CE, Melzer LS. McElmo dome and St. Johns natural CO2deposits: analogs for geologic sequestration. In: Williams D, Durie B,

McMullan P, Paulson C, Smith A, editors. Proceedings of the 5th internationalconference on greenhouse gas control technologies. Cairns, Australia: CSIROPublishing; 2001. p. 317–21.

[26] Kumar MS, Roy KK, Gyani ON. A study on application of CO2 EOR in a matureoil field. Paper presented at the International workshop on R&D challenges incarbon capture and storage technology for sustainable energy future. Hyder-abad, India; January 12–13, 2007.

[27] Shahi RV. Key note address. Hyderabad, India. In: At the international work-shop on R&D challenges in carbon capture and storage technology forsustainable energy future, http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/may102007/1201.pdf;January 12–13, 2007 [accessed 05.05.08].

[28] Sonde RR. R&D challenges in carbon capture and storage technology forsustainable energy future. Hyderabad, India. In: Paper presented at theinternational workshop on R&D challenges in carbon capture and storagetechnology for sustainable energy future, http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/may102007/1201.pdf; January 12–13, 2007 [accessed 05.05.08].

[29] Edmonds JA, Wise MA, Dooley JJ, Kim SH, Smith SJ, Runci PJ, et al. Global energytechnology strategy: addressing climate change. GTSP; May 2007.