What will become of you CSS?

Those who are involved in the energy sector will probably have come across the acronym CCS, an English acronym (CCS, Carbon Capture and Storage) which is an abbreviation meaning the diverting and storing of carbon dioxide during combustion in industrial processes.

Experts from many areas are concerned with the dilemmas associated with this technology. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a separate publication on this a few years ago, and for many years it has been a recurring theme at the UN negotiations whether carbon dioxide neutralised in this way should also be accountable as emission reductions in the framework of the so-called flexible mechanisms.

 

The EU is quite committed to the technology, although not all countries are completely in favour, and properly functioning demonstration projects have not actually materialised yet. In spite of this, the EU has put by huge funds from the reserves of the new entrants to the carbon trading system, which could potentially be considered as EU funding for CCS too.

If we look at the CCS situation in Hungary, experts are unanimous in agreeing that the country has very good conditions for CCS, in terms of storage capacity. The round-table discussion held a few weeks ago by the Bellona Foundation, the British Embassy and the Energiaklub concerning the opportunities for CCS in Hungary provided an opportunity to at least raise the questions which could take us nearer to the answer.

In the following we deal with these one by one:

What emission reduction potential does CCS have?

The reason the question arises is that, naturally, there are many other tools for reducing emissions. This 'toolbox' is generally referred to as an 'emission reduction portfolio'. Among these we can find the renewable energy resources, energy efficiency and saving measures along with fuel-switching, possibly including nuclear energy too. The question is, then, knowing the emission reduction goals and the time horizon, what size of potential emission reduction is CCS technology theoretically able to achieve?

How much are the marginal costs of the different elements of the emission reduction portfolio?

Besides the potential, the other most immediate question is the cost. Obviously, the cost incurred cannot be separated from the quantity to be reduced, but in spite of this it is still possible to carry out a cost comparison. For example, how much does it cost to capture 1 ton of carbon dioxide with CCS technology (in other words, the cost of avoiding emissions), and how much does it cost for the same amount to be achieved with renewable energy? Besides this, it is possible to examine how this looks in terms of specific electricity generation. How much does it cost to produce 1 kWh of electricity using fossil fuels with CCS, and how much does it cost if we use renewable energy sources?

How long does it take to realise the reduction potential offered by CCS?

The time factor is a critical element in emission reduction, given that the IPCC's safest scenario for avoiding catastrophic climate change counts with emissions maximizing before 2015.  In order to achieve this it is necessary to bring in reduction measures today. Hence we need to know in what amount of time the technology is capable of delivering different   volumes of reduction.

On what time scale do we measure the advantages and disadvantages?



During strategic planning, very large differences can come about simply due to the time scale on which we evaluate the advantages and disadvantages. That which seems advantageous in the short term, not only may be disadvantageous in the long term but can reduce the chance of switching to alternatives, or may increase costs. If we start to make calculations, it is necessary to work on a unified time scale when evaluating the reduction possibilities and it is preferable that this scale be as long as possible. Ad absurdum, it is even possible to imagine a situation in which a technology produces very good indicators until 2025, but if we extend the time scale to 2050, then it turns out that the bill was actually bigger in the end and/or we achieved the same goal more slowly.

How safe is underground storage?

Given that the CCS technology rests on storing carbon dioxide separate from the atmosphere, the question arises as to how safe from leakage we can consider this or that storage space.  Questions such as this can be raised: How great is the chance of 0.01% of the stored carbon dioxide escaping?

What kind of infrastructure is needed for monitoring the underground storage? Who carries this out, and for how long? This question points to the fact that the CCS technology chain does not end with injection into the storage site, but rather, in order for it to be successful the carbon dioxide has to be kept there permanently. If we look at the overall time-scale, this represents the longest period in the CCS technology, given that even in the instance of neutralisation through chemical bonding, we are still talking in terms of centuries. Similarly, costs are increased by the need to constantly monitor the carbon dioxide in the reservoir to see whether it is coming through to the surface, which could cause damage financially and could cost human life too. The question can perhaps be put this way: how far is the state, and how far is the company responsible? A company can be terminated without a successor, and should an unexpected event occur after monitoring is discontinued, who will foot the bill? Future generations?

Péter Kardos, Energiaklub