This document provides a summary of a trial lecture presentation on the global status of carbon capture and storage (CCS). It outlines the motivation for CCS to limit global temperature rise and outlines the key components of a CCS system. It then discusses the current state of CCS technologies, including the costs of capture, storage options, and the status of demonstration projects. The document also covers policy and regulatory issues related to incentivizing and enabling large-scale CCS deployment.

1. Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Global Status of Carbon Capture
and Storage
Bita Najmi
Trondheim, 28 May 2015,
Department of Energy and Process Engineering
Trial lecture presentation

2. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 2
Outline
Motivation for CCS
Schematic of a CCS system
CCS technology and cost
Policy and regulations
Public acceptance
Summary

3. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 3
Motivation for CCS
Source: IEA, 2012c.
Note: numbers in brackets are shares in 2050. For example, 14% is the share of CCS in cumulative emission
reductions through 2050, and 17% is the share of CCS in emission reductions in 2050, compared with 6DS.
CCS contribute of total emission reductions through 2050
Global increase
in temperature
limit: 2°C (=450
ppm CO2)
10
20
30
40
50
60 Where the world is
heading now
2o15
2 °C scenario

4. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 4
Schematic of a CCS system
Fossil fuels
or
biomass
Air or
oxygen
Power plant
or industrial
processes
CO2
Capture
CO2
Transport
CO2
Storage
• Post-combustion
• Pre-combustion
• Oxy-combustion
• Pipeline
• Ship
• Depleted oil/gas fileds
• Deep saline
formations
• Ocean
• Mineralisation
• Reuse
CO2
Useful products
(electricity, chemicals,
hydrogen)

5. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 5
CO2 capture
CO₂
separation
CO₂ compression
& conditioning
N₂/O₂
CO₂
Shift
H₂
CO₂
Power
plant
Air Air seperati
O₂
N₂
Air/O₂
Raw materials Product: Natural gas, ammonia, steel
CO₂
N₂/O₂Power
plant
Gasification
Reforming
CO₂
separation
H₂
CO₂
CO/H₂
Air separation
Process +CO₂ Sep.
CO/H₂
Coal,Oil,NaturalGas,Biomass
Power
plant
Post-combustion
Pre-combustion
Oxy-combustion

6. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 6
 Deep saline formations, deep enough and separated from any usable groundwater
CO2 storage
 Storage is last step of CCS project, but it should be developed simultaneously with capture and transport
from beginning (IEA 2014_CCS 2014)
Geological storage options (Courtesy CO2CRC)
Depleted oil &
gas reservoirs
EOR
Saline formations

7. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 7
CO2 storage
o Deep saline formations: suffiient capacity for CO2 storage. However,
uncertainities about their capacity range
o Depleted oil and gas reservoirs: limited capacity.
Annual global emissions on
average: 37 GtCO2/yr,
(corresponds to 10 GtC/yr)
largest
underground
storage potentialH. Herzog & D. Golomb, MIT, Contribution to Encyclopedia of Energy
*CCS share in
reduction: 1.5-2 GtC/yr)

8. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 8
CCS
Technology &
Cost
Interaction between CCS key factors
CCS Technology &
Cost
Policy actions
Legal &
regulation
issues
Public
acceptance

9. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 9
CCS Technology and Cost

10. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 10
Capture system energy penalty
Power plant & capture
system type
CCS energy penalty
Additional
energy input
(%) per net
KWh output
Reduction in
net KWh output
(%) for a fixed
energy input
Existing subcritical PC,
post-combustion
capture
43 30%
New supercritical PC,
post-combustion
capture
29 23%
New supercritical PC,
oxy-combustion
capture
25 20%
New IGCC
(bituminous), pre-
combustion capture
21 18%
New natural gas comb.
Cyle, post-combustion
capture
16 14%
Sources: Metz, Special Report; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Future of Coal (Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2007);
Carnegie Mellon University, Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM), December 2009.
 Post-combustion capture on a
subcritical PC plant-most energy-
intensive- requires more than twice
additional energy per unit of
electricity output as pre-combustion
capture on a new IGCC plant
 Although, fuel conversion steps of IGCC
plant are more elaborate and costly than
traditional coal combustion plants,
applying CO2 capture to IGCC is much
easier and cheaper
 The lower the efficiency, the more
fuel is needed to generate electricity
relative to plant w/o CCS (higher
energy penalty and cost of CCS).

11. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 11
Current cost of CCS
1. Costs for new power plants
2. Retrofit costs for existing power plants
3. Costs for other industrial processes
4. Uncertain costs
Supercritical
pulverized
coal plant
(SCPC)
IGCC
Cost of CO2 avoided
($/tCO2) –relative
to the same plant
w/o CCS
60 - 80 30 – 50*
Fuel: Bituminous coal
CO2 capture acounts for
80% of CCS cost
* 40–60 $/tCO2, when IGCC
with CCS is compared with
SCPC reference plant w/o CCS
(SCPC w/o CCS is about 15–
20% cheaper than a similarly
sized IGCC)
E.S. Rubin, et al, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 38 (2012)
Costs are drecreased when CO2 can
be used for EOR

12. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 12
Current cost of CCS
1. Costs for new power plants
2. Retrofit costs for existing power plants
3. Costs for other industrial processes
4. Uncertain costs
 Larger energy penalty than new plant, because of lower efficiency before
installing CO2 capture
 Retrofit costs are more expensive than new power plant costs

13. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 13
Current cost of CCS
1. Costs for new power plants
2. Retrofit costs for existing power plants
3. Costs for other industrial processes
4. Uncertain costs
IEA; 2011. pp. 46
 Incremental cost of CCS is
lowest in cases where CO2
capture is part of normal
process operation, not for
environmental purposes
 Cost of CCS is simply added cost
of compression, transport and
geological storage

14. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 14
Current cost of CCS
1. Costs for new power plants
2. Retrofit costs for existing power plants
3. Costs for other industrial processes
4. Uncertain costs
 Absence of full-scale plants (except Boundary Dam)
 Uncertainty of current costs and future cost development

15. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 15
CCS technology development levels
Conceptual
design
Laboratory
and bench
scale
Pilot plant
Full-scale
demonstration
Commercial
scale
Laboratory and
bench scale
Pilot plant
Full-scale demonstration
Commercial scale
Conceptual
design

16. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 16
Status of commercial CCS projects
CO2 is also captured at several coal-
fired & gas-fired power plants,
where a portion of flue gas stream
is fitted with a CO2 capture
system.
First large scale CCS
o Not yet on power plants, but in other industrial processes (purifying gas streams)
o Mainly amine-based systems
• Natural gas production
• Amine absorption
• Deep geological formation
Sleipner; In Salah; Snøhvit
Rubin et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 38 (2012)

17. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 17
In Salah – CO2 separation from natural gas
Unit includes CO2 capture, pipeline transport and sequestration in a depleted gas formation.
Amine-based CO2 capture, natural gas purification at BP’s In Salah plant in Algeria; Photo
courtesy of IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme.

18. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 18
AES Shady Point Power Plant, Oklahoma, USA, coal-fired power plant (left) and Bellingham,
Massachusetts, USA, natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant (right);
Amine-based post-combustion CO2 capture from a slip stream of plants flue gas.
Photos courtesy of ABB Lummus, Fluor Daniels and Chevron.
Captured CO2 is sold to nearby food processing facilities (to make dry ice or carbonated beverages). However,
these products soon release the CO2 to atmosphere no long-term sequestration.
Closed!

19. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 19
Commercial plants (pre-combustion)
 Industrial applications to remove syngas containants (such as CO2, sulfure and nitrogen compounds)
Farmlands plant in Kansas, syngas produced by gasification of petcoke Dakota gasification plant in North Dakota
followed by a water-gas shift reactor, ~93% CO2 capture (~0.2 Mt CO2/yr ). synthetic natural gas from coal gasification, 3 Mt/yr
Selexol, CO2 to manufacture urea, remainder is vented to atmosphere. of CO2, Rectisol, CO2 previously to atmosphere, now
Separated H2 is used to manufacture ammonia. Since 2000 in operation EOR via pipeline to Canadian oil field (Weyburn)
Photos courtesy of UOP and IPCC.

20. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 20
Planned demonstration projects at power plants with post-combustion capture, IEAGHG, 2011
Canceled
Now operating! first full-scale CCS project, integrating post-combustion with coal-fired power generation!
Storage type: EOR
Status of post-combustion-full scale demonstration
 CCS installed on existing coal-fired plants (capture from portion of power plant flue gases,
pipeline transportation, storage: geological (often EOR to reduce project costs)
 Cancelled: due to cost considerations
Demo projects are crucial to gain technology acceptance by electric utility companies and institutions that
finance & regulate power plant construction and operation/gain experience to reduce costs
N/A: not available, TBD: to be determined.
End of 2016

21. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 21
Status of post-combustion-Pilot plant
Pilot plant processes and projects post-combustion CO2 capture, (IEAGHG, 2011)
captured
capacity
 Amine-based capture processes
 Ammonia-based capture processes
 Calcium-based capture processes
Status: operating, or in design or
construction stage, or have
recently been completed.
Corresponding
power plant
capacity
(0.1-25 MW)

22. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 22
Status of pre-combustion capture-Full-scale demo plants
 No full-scale demonstrations at power plants, but several in coal/petrochemical plants
 Most activities based on coal, less on natural gas
 Less interest for pre-combustion than post- and oxy- combustion in power generation
 Absorption/Selexol is preferred technology
N/A: not available; MWg: megawatts gross generated. a This project is on hold pending future state funding.
b Depends on outcome of the Carbon Storage Law. c Depends on performance of the Buggenum pilot plant
Announced demonstration of pre-combustion CO2 capture, Rubin et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 38 (2012)
2016
~2
EOR,
selexol
EOR

23. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 23
Status of pre-combustion capture-Pilot plant
projects
Examples of CO2 capture at operating IGCC facilities, a small-scale
 Nuon Buggenum project, Netherlands: main aim of this pilot plant was to gain operational experience which could
be used for future full demonstration of Magnum IGCC power plant
 ELCOGAS IGCC plant in Puertollano, Spain, captured its first tonne of CO2 in late 2010.
Now closed
Treating a slip stream of syngas

24. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 24
Schwarze pumpe power station
Pilot plant projects with oxy-combustion CO2 capture
Oxy-combustion projects
Planned demonstration projects
Proposed White Rose (UK)
Stopped!
Most activities based on coal!
Tech. Is demonstrated! Next step: a large scale
demo for some scale up issues!
MIT, http://sequestration.mit.edu; March 2011.

25. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 25
Large-scale CCS projects by industry and storage
type (actual & expected operation dates)
Global CCS institute, global status of CCS 2014

26. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 26
Challenges for large-scale CCS deployment
• Uncertain costs
• Transportation infrastructure
• Storage capacity, subsurface uncertainty, leakage from storage
reservoirs
• Lack of long term policy, national/international regulatory
frameworks and economical measures
• Public acceptance

27. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 27
Policy, legal and regulation issues

28. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 28
Policy is critical if CCS is to play a role in future
• Enabling CCS as part of energy portfolio
• Making CCS a legal activity & clarifying responsibilities
• Ensuring safety and environmental viability of operations
• Providing economical mechanism for demonstration &
deployment
• Contributing to public acceptance

29. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 29
Policies to make CCS happen
1. Cap-and-trade: Emission Trade Scheme (ETS), CO2 quota price
2. Carbon tax
3. Emission Performance Standard (EPS)
4. Feed-in Tariff
5. Investment cost coverage
6. CO2 purchase contract (EOR)

30. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 30
Emission Trade Scheme (ETS)
• Works according to a cap-and-trade:
 Cap is set for total amount of GHGs that can be
emitted by sectors included by the system
 Within the cap, companies buy (or receive for free)
emission allowances, they can trade if they have an
under or oversupply
• EU has been successful in establishing a cap-and-trade
system
• EU ETS has not lead to deployment of CCS, so far!

31. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 31
Carbon tax
• Penalizes carbon emissions
• Can be done at either regional, national or international level
• Already introduced in some countries (Norway, Australia, Canada and US)
• Result of carbon tax ,will vary depending on tax level
 In Alberta, a low carbon tax has been part of total policy framework
 Carbon tax on petroleum production in Norway, Sleipner Project
 So far have been too low to provide major shifts in emissions and
technology implementation such as CCS
 Meanwhile, a carbon tax at low level will not give sufficient incentive to
carry out CCS, but for example covering operation cost

32. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 32
Emission Performance Standard (EPS)
• Sets a restriction of maximum allowed emissions per
plant or region
• Introduced in California (2006) and Canada (2012)
• Effective in stopping new investments in conventional
coal power plants in California, but no CCS projects
have been realized
• In use for other pollution control (SO2 , NOx)

33. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 33
Feed-in Tariff (FIT)
• Price-driven policy instrument where public authorities
decide price compensation per technology
• With a long-term contract that pays producers a fixed
(additional) price
• Used in several countries for supporting renewable
electricity, paid by electricity consumers, Germany
• For deployment of renewables in Europe, national feed-in
tariffs have been crucial

34. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 34
Investment cost coverage
• Governmental funding: most common instrument so far,
including covering certain shares of project, investment,
loan guarantees
• Mainly in US and Canada
• An instrument for promoting establishment of CCS in an
early learning phase
• Unfeasible and expensive to continue with large-scale
public funding of a large number of projects

35. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 35
CO2 purchase contract
• Sale of captured CO2 provides revenue that can offset the
costs of CCS
• EOR is an example of that: encourages CCS deployment
• CCS for EOR mostly used in Canada, US

36. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 36
Policy objectives should evolve over time
• Short to mid term focus on learning and access to capital
• Long term focus shifts towards emissions cuts
• Different objectives – different policy tools
A Policy Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage, IEA 2012

37. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 37
Long term CCS policy architecture
• R&D & experience
gained from demo
projects will lower
costs, while rising
carbon prices will
boost revenues.
Examples of incentive
policies today
Current carbon
prices are well
below CCS costs
Long-term policy
architecture can
enhance credibility
& effectiveness
Source: A Policy Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage, IEA 2013

38. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 38
Public acceptance

39. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 39
Public perceptions
o Point of CCS in few rich countries, while other booming economies are increasing
their emissions more than reductions realistically achieved by CCS?
o CO2 stored in ground remain there or will leak out into atmosphere after few years?
o Climate change is already happennig, too late and unable to do enough CCS to avoid
major climate change!
o Who is responsible in long term for CO2 stored in ground?
o CCS is a methodology for rich countries to continue their unsustainable way of life
with an excesive use of energy!
o CCS requires additional energy to be used and will deplete fossil energy resources
faster, resulting in less time to develop new energy sources!
o Would like a warmer climate because it is very cold most of the year where I live!
o CCS requires large amount of chemicals to be used, which will create a problem of
handling toxic wastes!
o We should rather spend our money and engineering resources on renewable, non-
fossil energy sources and technologies!
o In many countries challenge is to provide enough electricity, car, gasoline to people.
We cannot start with CCS before we have developed our society to something closer
in what they have in Europe and North America!

40. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 40
Public perception
o Underground storage of gases is something we know well, as of today,
large-scale storage of natural gas!
o Experience with CO2 capture exists, so many plants in chemical
industry!
o Experience with CO2 storage exists, many examples in oil industry!
o When storing CO2 using our best knowledge, possible leakage rate of
CO2 back to atmosphere is very low, we can hardly measure it!
o Rich countries should start CCS now. To demonstrate the world this can
actually be done!
o To cope with challenge of man-made climate change, and because of
its magnitude, there is no choice between CCS, renewable energy,
nuclear, energy conservation, we have to do them all!
o To reduce GHG emissions significatlly, CCS is only realistic alternative
to a substantial reduction in use of fossil energy sources!
o We have knowledge, methodologies and resources to do large scale
CCS, what are we waiting for?
o Large-scale CCS will cost less than our military spending!

41. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 41
Summary
• Several years of R&D have led to develop more energy efficient and cost-effective
CCS processes
• Post-combustion (amine) technologies are dominant
• One big challenge facing CCS now and in doing large demostration projects is
getting financing in place.
• With no climate policy, international regulatory and economical framework,
being in place, it is difficult to deploy CCS in large scales.
• CCS will always be more expensive than just emitting CO2, But, CCS is very
competitive against other low carbon technologies
• Large-scale CCS has yet a long way to come down along the learnnig curve
• Public acceptance & political support are challenging

42. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 42
Thank you for your attention