Models show that carbon capture and storage (CCS) can help meet climate targets in a cost effective way, however progress on deploying CCS has been slow. While CCS may be necessary for some industrial processes and biomass energy, it should not be seen as an alternative to reducing energy demand and transitioning to renewable sources. For climate goals to be achieved, deployment of unavoidable CCS applications needs to accelerate, while focusing technical efforts on industry and biomass rather than using CCS with fossil fuels.

1. Some thoughts on the future of CCS
Side-event GCCSI: How can we reconcile climate targets with energy
demand growth?
COP20 IETA room
December 8th, 2014
Heleen de Coninck

2. Emissions are excalating despite climate policy efforts
IPCC AR5 WGIII, 2014

3. Models love CCS
Without CCS, reaching two degrees may be 30-300% more expensive
IPCC AR5 WGIII, 2014

4. Fossil fuels with deep emission reductions?
Viebahn et al., 2007
-68%
-67%
-78%
-67%
-78%
Fossil CCS does not reduce emissions by enough to reach long-term climate
goals

5. Models love CCS, because of biomass + CCS
IPCC AR5 WGIII, 2014

6. Worrisome progress – maybe only 20 Mt/yr by 2020
Without CCS, reaching two degrees may be 30-300% more expensive (IPCC,
2014)
De Coninck and Benson (2014): ARER

7. What is a sensible strategy for CCS?
Avoid avoidable CCS! Save that storage space!
Unavoidable CCS needs to speed up urgently
Technical focus on industry and biomass
Models love CCS, people don’t
Not an alternative to energy demand reduction and
renewable energy

8. Thank you
Heleen de Coninck
Radboud University
h.deconinck@science.ru.nl