Carbon Capture, Usage & Storage

Priyansh Bhimajiyani

16BPE009

Upstream

School Of Petroleum Technology, PDPU

Abstract:

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies remove carbon dioxide from flue gases for
storage in geologic formations or the ocean. We find that CCS is technically feasible and
economically attractive within the range of carbon policies discussed domestically and
internationally. Current costs are about $200 to $250 per ton of carbon, although costs are
sensitive to fuel prices and other assumptions and could be reduced significantly through
technical improvements. Near-term prospects favor CCS for certain industrial sources and
electric power plants, with storage in depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Deep aquifers may
provide an attractive longer-term storage option, whereas ocean storage poses greater
technical and environmental uncertainty. Vast quantities of economically recoverable fossil
fuels, sizable political obstacles to their abandonment, and inherent delay associated with
developing alternative energy sources suggest that CCS should be seriously considered in the
portfolio of options for addressing climate change, alongside energy efficiency and
carbon-free energy.

Introduction:
Carbon capture and geological sequence (CCS) is the process of separating carbon used in
industrial process and sequestering it underground because CCS would allow the continued
use of fossil fuels while simultaneously reducing carbon emission, it is widely seen as one
option to mitigate atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. There are two worlds out there:
one where we use fossil fuels and the one where we do not. The where we use them is a lot is
cheaper, even with capture and sequestration[1].

The indications are that CCS is a technically viable option and in most cases there are
potential sequestration near large source of carbon emissions. However technological mastery
of a problem is not sufficient to ensure public acceptance of its implementation. Indeed, many
emerging technologies have stumbled when the technology was deployed. The various
trajectories of biotechnology, stem cell research and nuclear energy, to name but a few, have
been drastically altered because political and societal concerns.

Our goal with this volume is to describe the current state of these technologies and to
assess the technical, legal and socio-economics forces that must coalesce if CCS is to
becomea viable carbon reduction strategy, much like the reports produced by the now
defunded Office of Technology Assessment , Framing the technical factors in the context of
their interplay with legal,regulatory, economic and risk–assessment factors is a unique
contribution of this volume.
The climate change challenge:

Research has shown that the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the
atmosphere has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial era.
Unless we do something to reduce the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, the
world will experience the effects of climate change.
When fossil fuels are burnt in a power plant to make electricity, large amounts of
CO2 are released into the atmosphere. CO2 is released from the ground into the
atmosphere during natural gas production. And industrial processes such as refining
oil or producing iron, steel, cement and ammonia also release large amounts of CO2.
Other major sources of CO2 include emissions from cars, trucks, ships and aeroplanes,
and from domestic sources, such as heating your home.
Long-term monitoring has shown that the increasing amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere due to human activity is causing the Earth to warm and the oceans to
become more acidic. Combating climate change requires urgent action on the part of
many. If we do not act now scientists predict that the temperature will continue to
increase, causing the climate to change, sea levels to rise, and ocean and land
environments to be adversely affected.
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly
380 parts per million (ppm). This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant
relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple
premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.

Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate and
these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of
carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2to
nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the
terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce. It is the fact
that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the
observed increase[3].

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning are responsible for the
increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes.
Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior but with different
masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most
common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic
composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the
lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are
ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the
same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials
is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere
decreases[4].
 Figure-1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide in ppm.

Figure-2. Atmospheric 13C ratio. Figure-3. 14C ration in tree ring grown at the
(Levin & Hesshaimer 2000) pacific coast (Levin & Hesshaimer 2000)

These isotopic observations confirm that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from
biogenic carbon, not from the oceans or volcanoes. Some "skeptics" argue that the
carbon-13(Figure-2) ratio isn't unique to fossil fuels. However, because the
carbon-14(Figure-3) ratio has also decreased significantly , we know it's from the old fossil
fuel sources not modern sources[2].

Carbon Capture Technologies:

The first stage in the CCS process is the capture of CO2 released during the burning of fossil
fuels, or as a result of industrial processes such as making cement, steel or in the chemical
industry. Capture technologies separate carbon dioxide from gases in electricity generation
and may be done in at least three different ways: pre-combustion capture, post-combustion
capture and oxy-fuel combustion. Similar methods are also used for industrial processes.
Fossil Fuel power plants can be built with the carbon capture technology integrated, or can be
built ‘carbon capture ready’, which allows the plant to have carbon capture capabilities in the
future.

1) Pre-combustion:-

A pre-combustion system involves first ‘gasification’ or ‘reforming’ which is converting solid,

liquid or gaseous fuel into a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide by reacting it with
oxygen or air, and in some cases steam. The mixture of mainly CO and H2, is passed through
a catalytic reactor, called a shift converter, where the CO reacts with steam to give CO2 and
more H2. The CO2 is separated and the H2 is used as fuel in a gas turbine combined-cycle
plant. The hydrogen produced by these processes may be used, not only to fuel our electricity
production, but also in the future to power our cars and heat our homes with near zero
emissions.

1) Flowchart for Pre-combustion

2) Post Combustion:-

This involves separating CO2 from the flue gas produced by fuel combustion.This method
requires separating the CO2 from other flue gases because sequestration of combustion gases
is not feasible due in part to the cost of gas compression and storage. CO2 can be captured
from the exhaust of a combustion process by absorbing it in a suitable solvent. The absorbed
CO2 is liberated from the solvent and is compressed for transportation and storage. Other
methods for separating CO2 include high pressure membrane filtration, adsorption/desorption
processes and cryogenic Separation.

2) Flowchart for Post-combustion

3) Oxy-combustion:-

Oxyfuel combustion is actually modified post-combustion method. Fuel is combusted in

almost pure oxygen instead of air, which results in high concentration of CO2 in flue gases. If
fuel is burnt in pure oxygen, the flame temperature is excessively high, so some CO2-rich flue
gas would be recycled to the combustor to make the flame temperature similar to that in
normal air-blown combustor. The advantage of oxygen-blown combustion is that the flue gas
has a CO2 concentration of over 80%, so only simple CO2 purification is required.
 3) Flowchart for Oxy-combustion

Uses:

(1) Plastic industry:-

Recently scientists have discovered a novel way to make plastic from carbon dioxide (CO2)
and inedible plant material, such as agricultural waste and grasses. Many plastic products
today are made from a polymer called polyethylene terephthalate (PET). PET is made from
two components, terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol, which are derived from refined
petroleum and natural gas. Manufacturing PET produces significant amounts of CO2, a
greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming[5].

The use of fossil-fuel feedstocks, combined with the energy required to manufacture PET,
generates more than four tons of CO2 for every ton of PET that’s produced. A promising
alternative to PET is called Polyethylene- furandicarboxylate (PEF). PEF is made from
ethylene glycol and a compound called 2-5-Furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA). But making
FDCA from furfural and CO2 typically requires hazardous chemicals that are expensive and
energy-intensive to make. The Stanford team solved the problem using a far more benign
compound: carbonate. They combined carbonate with CO2 and furoic acid, a derivative of
furfural. She then heated the mixture to about 290 degrees Fahrenheit (200 degrees Celsius) to
form a molten salt.The results were dramatic. After five hours, 89 percent of the molten-salt
mixture had been converted to FDCA. The next step, transforming FDCA into PEF plastic, is
a straightforward process that has been worked out.

The Stanford team’s approach has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions,
because the CO2 required to make PEF could be obtained from fossil-fuel power plant
emissions or other industrial sites.

(2) Biological conversion to fuels:-

Flue gases from industrial processes could be fed directly into ponds containing high
concentrations of microalgae, which can convert solar energy to biomass at about 1% to 3%
efficiency—though bioengineering and other technological improvements promise higher
efficiencies. Biomass grown using this method could be harvested and converted to fuels,
displacing some fossil fuel consumption. Unfortunately, this process would have high water,
natural solar energy, and land requirements—a 500 MW power plant would need 50 to 100
square km of pond area—and these types of inputs are not generally found in the same
locations as power plants.

(3) Enhance Geothermal System:-

Responding to the need to reduce atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide A Hot Dry Rock
geothermal energy concept utilizing supercritical CO2 instead of water. Enhanced
geothermal systems (EGS) concept that would use carbon dioxide instead of water as heat
transmission fluid, and would achieve geologic sequestration of CO2 as an ancillary benefit[6].

CO2 is superior to water in its ability to mine heat from hot fractured rock. Carbon dioxide
also offers certain advantages with respect to well-bore hydraulics, in that its larger
compressibility and expansivity as compared to water would increase buoyancy forces and
would reduce the parasitic power consumption of the fluid circulation system. While the
thermal and hydraulic aspects of a CO2-EGS system look promising, major uncertainties
remain with regard to chemical interactions between
fluids and rocks.

How can CO2 be stored?[2]

CO2 can be stored in three main ways:
 in deep geological formations
 in deep ocean water — ocean storage
 in the form of mineral carbonates — mineral storage.

(1) Deep geological formations:-

Storage in deep geological formations is also known as ‘geo-sequestration’. In this technique
carbon dioxide is converted into a high pressure liquid-like form known as ‘supercritical CO2’.
This supercritical CO2 is injected directly into sedimentary rocks. The rocks may be in old oil
fields, gas fields, or in saline formations. Unminable coal seams and saline water-filled basalt
volcanic rocks have also been suggested as storage sites. Various physical, e.g. impermeable
‘caprock’, and geochemical trapping mechanisms prevent CO2 from escaping to the surface.
In most cases, and due to the increase in temperature and pressure with depth, injected
CO2 will be in a supercritical (or dense phase) state (pressure > 7.38 megapascal (MPa) and
temperature > 31.1°C). In this condition, CO2 acquires a liquid-like density, between 600 and
800 kilogram per cubic meter (kg/ m3) therefore occupying a smaller pore volume, leading to
more efficient storage.To ensure storage in a supercritical state, the minimum depth estimated
for a reservoir is around 800 meters (m)[2].
Figure-4. Deep geological formations Figure-5.Density of carbon dioxide with
depth.

A reservoir rock is usually well suited for CO2 storage according to the following
properties[8]:

 Porosity: Refers to the volume of fluid that can be contained within the rock between
the rock 'pore spaces', i.e. the minute spaces existing between rock grains.

 Permeability: Refers to the connectivity between the rock pore spaces, i.e. the space
or channels linking the pore spaces that fluid can flow through, from one pore space
to the next. A minimum permeability is necessary and especially important in the
early stages of a storage project to avoid CO2 injectivity issues.

Physical and chemical trapping mechanisms are responsible for preventing the injected
CO2 from migrating back to the surface.A requirement for a physical trapping mechanism is
the existence of an impermeable cap-rock formation, overlying the storage reservoir. This
cap-rock acts as an obstacle and stops the vertical migration of the CO2 to the upper parts of
the sedimentary basin and the atmospher[2][8].

Figure-6. Typical geological reservoir and Figure-7. Rocks under the North Sea
contain a cap-rock setting large amount of geological storage
space.
(2) Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR):-

This process is already understood and

has been carried out for many years in the
process of ‘Enhanced Oil Recovery’ or
EOR. In the United States approximately
30 to 50 million tonnes of CO2 are
injected annually into declining oil fields.
This option is attractive for geological
storage because the geological character
Figure-8. Enhanced Oil Recovery of hydrocarbon reservoirs is well known,
and because costs of injection may be
partly offset by the sale of additional oil that is recovered. CO2-EOR operations have the
potential to extend the economic life of individual fields by a decade or more, as proven by a
number of projects where several tens of percent of additional oil reserves have been
produced. Typically, a proportion of the injected CO2 is stored in the reservoir by trapping
mechanisms as described above, whilst some injected CO2 is produced from the reservoir
with oil. The proportion of this 'recycled' CO2 increases with time, and it should be stripped
from the oil and re-injected into the reservoir with 'new' CO2 in a closed loop system[2][8].

The ultimate storage capacity provided by any CO2-EOR project will depend on a number of
technical and economic factors. At the end of economic oil production, an operator may
choose to use the closed loop system to ensure all CO2 is stored in the reservoir before sealing
and abandoning wells. Alternatively, a significant portion of the CO2 could be produced for
further utilization in other oil fields. Storage capacity could be increased with injection into
residual oil zones beneath the main field, or into the reservoir for storage only.

(3) Unminable coal:-

‘Unminable’ coal seams (or coal that is too deep or difficult to mine) can be used to store
CO2 because it is adsorbed in the coal if the coal is permeable enough to allow CO2 to
penetrate. In the process of absorption the coal releases previously absorbed methane, and the
methane can be recovered. This methane can be used and the process of extracting useful
methane from a coal seam when it is injected with CO2 is called ECBM (or enhanced coal bed
methane).
The sale of the methane can be used to offset a portion of the cost of the CO2 storage.
However as in EOR, burning the resultant methane would produce CO2 which would reduce
some of the benefit of storing the original CO2[2].
(4) Saline aquifers:-
Some deep rock formations contain highly concentrated brine which is present in the rock
pores (which act together like a huge sponge), and have so far been considered of no benefit
to humans. These are known as ‘saline aquifers’. Their main advantage for CCS is their large
potential storage volume and their common occurrence. For example much of the North Sea
and mainland Europe and the Texas Gulf Coast is underlain by large saline aquifers. We need
to understand more about saline aquifer storage, but current research shows that several
trapping mechanisms immobilise the CO2 underground, reducing the risk of leakage.
The IPCC says that for well-selected, designed and managed geological storage sites,
CO2 could be trapped for millions of years, retaining over 99 per cent of the injected CO2 over
1000 years.

Figure-9. Saline aquifers Figure-10. Ocean Storage

(5) Ocean storage

Another proposed form of carbon dioxide storage is in the deep oceans, but the environmental
effects of this are generally believed to be bad, and the process is not well understood.

Large concentrations of CO2 kill ocean organisms as CO2 acts as an asphyxiant. Also, as
CO2 reacts with the water to form carbonic acid, H2CO3, the acidity of ocean water would
increase.

(6) Mineral storage:-

In mineral storage, captured CO2 is reacted
with naturally occurring magnesium- (Mg)
and calcium- (Ca) containing minerals.
This is called mineral carbonation and
occurs naturally as the weathering of rock
over geologic time periods.

Such magnesium and calcium minerals are

very abundant and are very stable. As a
result, the re-release of CO2 into the
atmosphere does not happen.
However, these carbonation reactions are
very slow under normal temperatures and
pressures and to speed it up would need
Figure-11. Mineral storage, Oman. energy. The reaction rate can be made
faster, by reacting at higher temperatures
and pressures, or by pre-treatment of the minerals[2].

The IPCC estimates that a power plant equipped with CCS using mineral storage will need
60–180 per cent more energy than a power plant without CCS.
Cost:-
All the options for capturing CO2 from power generation have higher capital and operating
costs as well as lower efficiency than conventional power plants without capture. Capture is
typically the most expensive part of the CCS chain. However, as CCS and power generation
technology become more efficient and better integrated, the increased energy use is likely to
fall significantly below early levels. Much of the work on capture is focused on lowering
costs and improving efficiency as well as improving the integration of the capture and power
generation components. These improvements will reduce energy requirements.

CCS Facilities Worldwide:-

1. Norway:- Norway is taking concrete steps towards CCS deployment in the form of
concept and FEED studies on industrial facilities, and continues a consistent policy
narrative about the need for CCS to achieve climate goals, which are set in legislation.

2. China:- Continued support for carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) has been
demonstrated in China via targeted project activity, including the decision to commence
construction of China’s first large-scale CCS facility.

3. U.S. :- The US has backtracked from a range of climate-related mitigation arrangements

entered under the Obama administration (including against the introduction of emissions
performance standards in the power sector) and there is uncertainty regarding the new
administration’s stance towards CCS overall. These overarching positions are balanced
against supportive activity at the state level and moves to extend/enhance tax credits for
CCS projects.

4. UK:- After a long period of reassessment, the UK government has renewed its
commitment to CCS investment with its inclusion in the newly released Clean Growth
Strategy. The UK’s Committee on Climate Change has consistently emphasised the
importance of CCS to future UK energy and climate policies and other parliamentary and
audit reports have provided useful learning from close examination of the cancellation of
the UK’s Commercialization Competition.

5. Australia:- There have been references to “technology neutral” policies in the form of
proposals for electricity market incentive mechanisms and around the broadening of
concessional loans to include CCS.
 GLOBAL CCS INSTITUTE LEGAL AND REGULATORY INDICATOR 2017:
SUMMARY HIGHLIGHTS

COUNTRY TOTAL SCORE (Out of a possible 87)

Band A: CCS-specific laws or

existing laws that are applicable
Average score: 65
across most parts of the CCS
project cycle.

Australia 67.0

Canada 65.5

Denmark 62.0

United Kingdom 65.0

United States 64.0

Band B: CCS-specific laws or

existing laws that are applicable
Average score: 47
across parts of the CCS project
cycle (27 countries)

BAND C: Very few CCS-specific or

existing laws that are applicable
AVerage score: 26
across parts of the CCS project
cycle (21 countries scored)

(Global CCS Institute (2017)

Barriers to CCS implementation in India[14]:-

1. The following have been raised by some Indian stakeholders as being the principal
barriers for CCS deployment in India.

2. Worldwide, CCS is still in the demonstration phase. It is only once a degree of

confidence has been gained in the technology via large-scale deployment internationally
that it can be considered seriously for India.
3. One major barrier to CCS deployment in India is the lack of accurate geological storage
site data, since before capture technology can be installed in power plants or other
sources, the location, capacity, permeability, and other characteristics of the sinks must
be known.
4. The issue of CCS drastically increasing the cost of electricity while reducing net power
output is often cited as being one of the biggest barriers to acceptability of CCS in India.
CCS deployment is held to run counter to India’s ambitious goals for electrification,
especially given the present electricity deficit and energy situation in the country.
5. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is worldwide one of the most attractive options for CO2
storage, since the cost of storing the CO2 is offset by the revenues accrued by the
hard-to-extract oil that can be recovered from depleted oil fields by this procedure. In the
Indian scenario, however, it has been stated by stakeholders in the petroleum sector that
there are few oil fields which are sufficiently depleted for EOR to be required at present;
further, since EOR is dependent on the miscibility characteristics of the oil with the
extracting fluid, it may not be suitable in all cases.
6. Clarity is needed on how CCS implementation via retrofit of capture equipment to
existing plants will change the Terms of Reference of the plant. In particular, the fresh
environment clearances required, if any, need to be spelt out and standardised.
7. Access to funding from financing agencies such as the World Bank, Asian Development
Bank, etc. might require further governance requirements in addition to the existing
requirements e.g. around monitoring, measure and verification. These may be dependent
on CCS-specific clearances being available from the Ministry of Power and/or other
Government bodies, in addition to the existing clearances required.

8. Deployment of CCS on a large scale requires specialised manpower and suitable

infrastructure, which may not be available in India at present.
9. Monitoring the stored CO2 to assure against leakage is essential if the central purpose of
CCS implementation is to be fulfilled. Ensuring rigorous monitoring is needed over long
time scales and techniques developed internationally in this area need to be introduced to
Indian stakeholders.
10. Legal issues related to land acquisition; ground water contamination, CO2 leakage, etc.
need to be addressed before any large scale transport and storage of CO2 can be
permitted.

Summary:-
1. CCS is a climate change technology. It is probably the most versatile and vital climate
mitigation technology that exists. Irrefutable evidence by the IPCC, IEA, plus numerous
other international specialist bodies concur that international climate change targets
cannot be achieved without CCS.

(Note: IEA findings maintain that to reach Paris climate targets of 2˚C, 14% of
cumulative emissions reductions by 2060 must derive from CCS.)

2. CCS has been working safely and effectively for 45 years (since the Apollo 17 moon
landing in 1972). Operations undertaken over almost half a century demonstrates that
CO2 can be safely stored deep below ground. Oil, gas and naturally occurring CO2
reservoirs have proven that fluids can be safely sealed underground for millions of years.
CCS facilities target the same geology.

 CCS technology is verifiably well tested. Seventeen largescale facilities are operating
successfully around the world (with four more coming onstream shortly). These 17
facilities are currently capable of capturing more than 30 Mtpa of CO2 per annum.
3. There is no evidence to indicate that CCS causes earthquakes. CO2 injection does have
the potential to cause micro-seismic activity in the same way as other customary
engineering activity, including mining, dam construction and oil or gas development.
This microseismic activity is monitored, and is of such a low magnitude, it cannot be felt
on the surface of the Earth. The meticulous characterisation of CO2 storage sites to
identify and understand below-ground stress and pressure conditions minimises the risks
of seismicity. It is also worth noting that the injection and geological storage of CO2, in
conventional oil and gas fields or deep saline formations, does not require hydraulic
fracturing.

4. On a like-for-like total system cost basis, CCS is cheaper than intermittent renewables
and costs continue to decrease as more facilities commercialise. In the power sector,
CCS can provide the necessary backup and other services to complement intermittent
renewables, and costs continue to decrease as more facilities commercialise. Since the
Boundary Dam CCS facility in Canada began operations in 2014, savings of as much as
30% have been identified for construction of a like (or follow-up) facility.iii This
demonstrates the declining costs of deployment. As a simple law of economics, costs
will continue to fall as more facilities come onstream. What is expensive is not doing
anything at all.

5. CCS is commercially successful as the 17 largescale facilities operating around the world
attest. Similarly, the four plants poised to come onstream and the raft of other facilities in
development (seven in China alone) further demonstrate its commercial viability and
versatility.

6. CCS is not a “front” for the coal or wider fossil fuel industry. Rather, it is a pragmatic
technology with wide application that can bridge the gap between our current fossil fuel
dependence and a future that is fossil free.

 It is the only clean technology able to address emissions across major industrial sectors
(including steel, cement, chemicals, fertiliser, petrochemicals, paper and pulp).

 Furthermore, CCS is the only technology able to curtail emissions from the more than
500 new coal plants (Units) currently being built around the world today (and an
additional 1,000 in planning). CCS’s ability to retrofit aged coal plants keeps jobs and
economies alive as the world transitions to a lowcarbon future. Even critical and
supercritical coal technologies like HELE (high-efficiency lowemission) technology,
need CCS to mitigate CO2 emissions. There is no such thing as clean coal without CCS.

7. CCS complements renewables by reducing emissions in industries that renewables

cannot penetrate – notably, steel, cement, chemicals, fertilisers, petrochemicals, paper
and pulp. International climate change bodies (IPCC, IEA) confirm that CCS is the only
mitigation technology able to decarbonise large industrial sectors. CCS and renewables
are partner technologies working towards the same decarbonised objective.

8. There is abundant global CO2 storage resources to support widespread CCS deployment.
Detailed surveys have been undertaken in many countries, including the United States
(US), Canada, Australia, Japan, China, Norway and the United Kingdom (UK), where
potential storage sites are well defined and well documented. Many other countries are
progressing storage studies.
9. CCS works effectively and its wide adoption and escalating deployment supports that
fact. CCS still deserves greater awareness and increased incentivisation through policy
parity with other low-carbon emission technologies (the same sort of market instruments
that renewables enjoy).

10. CCS is needed because the amount of fossil fuels we burn continues to rise. Last year,
fossil fuels reached a record 83.6 billion barrels of oil equivalent (Bboe) compared to
73.3 Bboe 10 years ago. There are no signs of abatement. In 25 of the last 26 years, we
burned more fossil fuels than the year before. The only year recording a decrease in the
last 25 years was 2009 (caused by the global recession). CO2 emissions have increased
every year since 1960 and in the last two years, these hit all-time records.

 The renewables’ (solar and wind’s) share of gross electricity generation is currently less
than 5%, rising to 17% by 2040.vi Fossil fuels’ share of electricity generation will equate
to 50% by 2040. This confirms the urgency at which CCS must be applied to power and
wider industry.

11. The reason why some CCS facilities have not matured has nothing to do with technology,
cost or capability. For example, the Kemper CCS facility in Mississippi made the
decision to run the plant with natural gas instead of coal. This made the need for a
gasifier redundant. Since carbon capture was linked to the gasifier, CCS is now not
applicable. The Petra Nova CCS Plant in Texas and the Boundary Dam facility in
Canada are testament to the capability of CCS and its profitability in the power sector.

12. The Global CCS Institute is an independent, member-owned climate change

organization that advocates for wider CCS deployment on behalf of its 55 members,
including governments, large and small companies, researchers, academics and
Environmental nongovernmental organizations (ENGOs).

 As the leading world authority on CCS, the Institute is an accredited member of

reputable climate change organisations including the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the IPCC, while it enjoys very close and
supportive relationships with the IEA, the International Emissions Trading Association
(IETA), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the
Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) and the Carbon Sequestration
Leadership Forum (CSLF), to name a few.
References:-
1. https://www.worldcoal.org/reducing-co2-emissions/carbon-capture-use-storage

2. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/CCS/howCanCo2BeStored.ht
ml

3. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-co
sub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

4. https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm
5. https://news.stanford.edu/2016/03/09/low-carbon-bioplastic-030916/
6. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) using CO2 as working fluid—A novel approach for
generating renewable energy with simultaneous sequestration of carbon.Karsten Pruess
paper
7. https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/accelerating-uptake-ccs-industrial-use-ca
ptured-carbon-dioxide/appendix-c-co2-working
8. https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/brazilian-atlas-co2-capture-and-geologic
al-storage/co2-geological-storage
9. http://www.ccsassociation.org/
10. https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-status-ccs-2012/21-overview-larg
e-scale-integrated-ccs-projects
11. http://www.ccsassociation.org/what-is-ccs/capture/
12. CO2 capture and separation technologies for end-of-pipe applications e A review- Abass
A. Olajire
13. The Global Status Of CCS-2017 by Global CCS institute.
14. India CCS Scoping Study: Final Report prepared for The Global CCS institute (January
2013) (Project Code 2011BE02)