Carbon capture and sequestration potential in India: A comprehensive review

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect ScienceDirect

Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

Availableonline onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com Available Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

ScienceDirect ScienceDirect

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy (2019) 000–000 848–855 EnergyProcedia Procedia160 00 (2017) www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

2nd International Conference on Energy and Power, ICEP2018, 13-15 December 2018, Sydney, Australia 2nd International Conference on Energy and Power, ICEP2018, 13-15 December 2018, Sydney, Australia

Carbon capture and sequestration potential in India: A The 15th International Symposium on District Heating in andIndia: Cooling A Carbon capture and sequestration potential comprehensive review comprehensive review* Abhishek Gupta, Akshoy Assessing the feasibility of using thePaul heat demand-outdoor * Abhishek Gupta, Akshoy Paul Department offunction Applied Mechanics, Motilal National Institute of Technologyheat Allahabad, Prayagraj, Indiaforecast temperature for a Nehru long-term district demand Department of Applied Mechanics, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad, Prayagraj, India

Abstract Abstract a

I. Andrića,b,c*, A. Pinaa, P. Ferrãoa, J. Fournierb., B. Lacarrièrec, O. Le Correc

IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal Concerns due to anthropogenically forced climate change owing to emissions of CO 2 are now well accepted and b Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France have resultedcDépartement in several initiatives to reduce CO The U.N. (IPCC) in its latest report indicated Concerns due to anthropogenically forced climate change owing to panel emissions of CO are now well accepted that and 2 emissions. 244300 Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, Nantes, France to contain warming at 1.5 C, manmade global CO2 emissions would need to fall 45 % by 2030 from emissions. The U.N. panel (IPCC) in by its about latest report indicated that have resulted in several initiatives to reduce CO2net 2010 levelswarming and reach 'netC,zero' by 2050. Carbon capture and sequestration a process of would need to(CCS) fall bytechnology about 45 %is by 2030 from to contain at 1.5 manmade global net CO 2 emissions capturing waste sources, such as fossil and fuel sequestration stations, so that it will not enter the 2010 levels andCO2 reachfrom 'netlarge zero'point by 2050. Carbon capture (CCS) technology is aatmosphere. process of Abstract CCS is seen a crucial climate protection technology coal-rich likethat India having massively capturing waste CO2 from large point sources, such for as fossil fuelcountries stations, so it will not potential enter the in atmosphere. reducing CO2a emission as compared to any other existing technology. As third largesthaving producer of coal fourth CCS is seen crucial climate protection technology for coal-rich countries like India potential in and massively District heating networks are commonly addressed in the literature as one of the most effective solutions for decreasing the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter,toIndia's totalexisting emissions are 7% ofAs global and is increasing 4.5% reducing CO2 emission as compared any other technology. thirdemissions largest producer of coal andatfourth greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. These systems require high investments which are returned through the heat per annum. India’s current and expected future emissions are sufficiently massive to have an adverse effect on global largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter, India's total emissions are 7% of global emissions and is increasing at 4.5% sales. Due to the changed climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease, mitigation The IPCC studied thatfuture without CCS, theare price of achieving long-run climate goals effect is almost 140% per annum.efforts. India’s current and expected emissions sufficiently massive to have an adverse on global prolonging the investment return period. more expensive. However, India has been taking a cautious approach towards CCS technology due to various mitigation efforts. The IPCC studied that without CCS, the price of achieving long-run climate goals is almost 140% The main scope of this paper is to assess the feasibility of using the heat demand – outdoor temperature function for heat demand factors. The discusses on the challenges of CCS in India and a roadmap the of more expensive. However, India has been taking a cautious approach CCSsuccessful technology to various forecast. Thepaper district of Alvalade, located in Lisbon (Portugal), was used as atowards casefor study. The districtimplementation is due consisted of 665 CCS in India. factors. The on the challenges oftypology. CCS in India a roadmap for(low, the successful implementation of buildings thatpaper vary discusses in both construction period and Three and weather scenarios medium, high) and three district renovation scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were CCS in India.

©compared 2018 Thewith Authors. Published by Elsevier results from a dynamic heatLtd. demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors. © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This isresults an open accessthat article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) showed when only weather change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications ©The 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an and openpeer-review access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Selection under responsibility of the scientific committee the 2nd International on Energy and (the error in annual demand was lower than 20% for all weather scenariosofconsidered). However, Conference after introducing renovation This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Conference on Energy and Power, ICEP2018. scenarios, thepeer-review error value under increased up to 59.5% (depending oncommittee the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered). Selection and responsibility of the scientific of the 2nd International Conference on Energy and Power, ICEP2018. The value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the Power, ICEP2018. Keywords: dioxide and climate; Carbon capture and storage/sequestration ), Global and India's concerns. decrease inCarbon the number of emission heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending(CCS on the combination of weather and renovation scenarios considered). On the other hand, function intercept increased for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on Keywords: Carbon dioxide emission and climate; Carbon capture and storage/sequestration (CCS), Global and India's concerns.the * Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-532-2271208; fax: +91-532-2545341. coupled scenarios). The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and E-mail address: [email protected] * Corresponding author.of Tel.: +91-532-2271208; fax: +91-532-2545341. improve the accuracy heat demand estimations. E-mail address: [email protected]

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.

1876-6102© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access under the CC by BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 1876-6102© 2018 Thearticle Authors. Published Elsevier Ltd. Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change Selection under responsibility of the scientific of the 2nd International Conference on Energy and Power, ICEP2018. This is an and openpeer-review access article under the CC BY-NC-ND licensecommittee (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Conference on Energy and Power, ICEP2018.

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling. 1876-6102 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Conference on Energy and Power, ICEP2018. 10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.148

2

Abhishek Gupta et al. / Energy Procedia 160 (2019) 848–855 Gupta et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

849

1. Introduction Carbon dioxide (CO2) is considered one amongst the main greenhouse gases (GHG) that is inflicting global warming and forcing climate change. The primary source of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is from the combustion of fossil fuels. Both past and future, anthropogenic CO2 emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise with grave implications globally. Developing countries are significantly at risk, as their infrastructures are most at risk of extreme events, and there is an expectation that global climate change will worsen their food security, water accessibility and health, in addition to fast biodiversity losses. India is a developing country that completely illustrates the character of this challenge involved in developing its economy while also preventing dangerous global climate change. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry have increased every decade from an average of 11.4 GtCO2 in the 1960s to an average of 34.4 GtCO2 during 2007-2016, 62% increase over 1990 as evident from Fig. 1. Emissions in 2016 were 36.3 GtCO2 with a share of coal (40%), oil (34%), gas (19%), cement (6%), and flaring (1%). Global emissions in 2017 are projected to increase by 2% after three years of almost no growth, reaching 36.8 GtCO2, a new high record. As revealed from Fig. 2, global CO2 emissions in 2016 were dominated by emissions from China (28%), the USA (15%), the EU (28-member states; 10%) and India (7%). Growth rates of these countries from 2015 to 2016 were −0.3% for China, −2.1% for the USA, −0.3% for the 28 countries under European Union (EU) but a whopping 4.5% for India, which is a major concern for India.

Fig. 1. Emissions from fossil fuel use and industry [1-3]

Fig. 2. Top emitters: fossil fuels and industry (absolute) [1-3]

Fig. 3. Globally averaged surface atmospheric CO2 concentration [1,3-5]

850

Abhishek Gupta et al. / Energy Procedia 160 (2019) 848–855 Gupta et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

3

The global atmospheric CO2 concentration increased from 277 ppm in 1750 to 403 ppm in 2016, up by 45% as seen in Fig. 3. Data represented in Fig. 3 before 1980 is taken from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography [4] (harmonized to recent data by adding 0.542 ppm), while data after 1980 is taken from NOAA-ESRL [5]. It is pertinent to note that 2016 was the first full year with concentration above 400ppm. 1.1 Fate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions (2007–2016): Of the total emissions from human activities during the period 2007-2016, about 46% accumulated in the atmosphere, 24% in the ocean and 30% on land. During this period, the size of the natural sinks grew in response to the increasing emissions, though year-to-year variability of that growth is large. The total estimated sources do not match the total estimated sinks, i.e., the carbon imbalance. This imbalance reflects the gap in our understanding and results from the uncertainties from all budget components [1-3, 5-7]. 1.2 Global concerns: The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published a report in Oct. 2018which is prepared at the request of governments when a global pact to tackle climate change was agreed in Paris in 2015. The IPCC report [8] is seen as the main scientific guide for government policymakers on how to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Paris pact (2015) aims to limit global average temperature rise to 'well below' 2 C above preindustrial levels, while seeking to tighten the goal to 1.5 C. The IPCC report indicated that a rise of 1.5 C would still carry climate-related risks for nature and mankind, but the risks would be lower than a rise of 2 C. The targets agreed in Paris on cutting emissions would not be enough even if there were larger and more ambitious cuts after 2030, the report said. To contain warming at 1.5 C, manmade global net CO2 emissions would need to fall by about 45 % by 2030 from 2010 levels and reach 'net zero' by 2050. Any additional emissions would require removing CO2 from the air. The IPCC summary [9] said renewable energy would need to supply 70 to 85% of electricity by 2050 to stay within a 1.5C limit, compared with about 25% now. Using carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, the share of gas-fired power would need to be cut to 8% and coal to between 0 and 2%. There was no mention of oil in this context in the summary. If the average global temperature temporarily exceeded 1.5C, additional carbon removal techniques would be required to return warming to below 1.5C by 2100.It is expressed by the researchers that keeping the rise in temperature to 1.5C would mean sea levels by 2100 would be 10 cm lower than if the warming was 2C, the likelihood of an Arctic ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century not at least once a decade, and coral reefs would decline by 70 to 90% instead of being virtually wiped out. Food insecurity (consequently the hunger), water inaccessibility, decline in public health, fast biodiversity losses are the other major concerns due to global warming. 1.3 India's concerns: India is the third highest producer of coal, while has fifth highest coal reserves and approximately 0.5% of world’s oil and gas reserves in the World [10]. As of 2018, 66% of India’s electricity generation capacity comes from thermal power plants. About 85% of the country’s thermal power generation being coal-based. With India being the world’s fourth largest emitter of CO2, it is vital to know what the country’s emissions are presently and where they might be headed. Given India’s early stage of economic development, low per-capita emissions and its large population, there is vital scope for its emissions to increase. India’s CO 2 emissions from energy are the fourth largest in the world and rising. India’s energy future carries implications for both global outcomes and national development objectives. India’s emissions grew by an estimated 4.6% in 2017.India’s carbon emission would double in 2030! From a global perspective, India’s current and expected future emissions are sufficiently massive to influence global mitigation efforts. More than 65% of India’s electricity generation capacity comes from thermal power plants, with about 85% of the country’s thermal power generation being coal-based. By the end of March 2018, total installed coal capacity in India stood at 197,171.50 MW (66% of its total electricity production). India’s established

4

Abhishek Gupta et al. / Energy Procedia 160 (2019) 848–855 Gupta et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

851

natural gas capacity measures about 24,897.46 MW as on March 2018. With a large swathe of rivers and water bodies, India has huge potential for hydropower. As of March 2018, India has 45.29 GW (13% of its total electricity production) of hydro power generating capacity. Wind energy is the largest renewable energy source in India; projects like the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (aims to generate 20,000 MW of solar energy by 2022) are making a positive atmosphere among investors keen to take advantage of India’s potential. There are plans to set up four solar power plants of 1GW each. As of March 2018, India has 69.02 GW of renewable energy capacity [10]. India aimed at propagation of healthy, green, and sustainable path to economic development included to reduce the emission intensity of its GDP by 33–35% by 2030 from 2005 level, to achieve 40% cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel resources by 2030 and to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5–3 billion tons of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover. But global climate models are so far unable to attain costefficient outcomes consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement without factoring in crucial technologies like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), bio-energy and their combination (BECCS). 1.4 Is solution ahead? The IPCC report (2018) maintains that without CCS, the price of achieving long-run climate goals is almost 140% more expensive! IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2017 [11] report stated that carbon capture and storage is vital for reducing energy emissions across the energy system in both the 'Energy technology perspectives 2 °C scenario (2DS)' and 'The beyond 2°C scenario (B2DS)'. Despite of recent thrust in renewable energy options like solar, wind etc., fossil fuels would still give 60% of the world’s primary energy by 2040 [11]. This confirms the urgency at which carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) must be applied to power and wider industry. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the only technology which can reduce emissions on a significant scale from fossil fuel power plants and these industrial processes. Renewable technologies are not mitigation substitutes to CCS in the industrial sector. Inclusion of CCS within a portfolio of low-carbon technologies is not simply the most efficient route to global de-carbonization, it also delivers energy reliability and lower costs. The potential for CCS to generate negative emissions when coupled with bio-energy is integral to energy use becoming carbon dioxide (CO2) emission-neutral in 2060 [11]. 2. Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology is a process of capturing waste CO2 from large point sources, like fossil fuel power plants, transporting it to a storage site, and depositing it wherever it will not enter the atmosphere, usually in underground geological formations. The aim is to prevent the discharge of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuel use in power generation and other industries. CCS is seen a crucial climate protection technology for coal-rich countries like India having potential in massively reducing CO 2 emission as compared to any other existing technology. CCS involves three major steps: • Capture: The separation of CO2 from other gases produced at large industrial process facilities such as coal and natural gas power plants, oil and gas plants, steel mills and cement plants. • Transport: Once separated, the CO2 is compressed and transported via pipelines, trucks, ships or other methods to a site suitable for geological storage. • Storage/Sequestration: CO2 is injected into deep underground rock formations, at depths of one km or more. 2.1 Global status of CCS: Many natural-gas processing plants in the Val Verde area of Texas (USA) began using carbon capture to supply CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in 1972. The period of 1970-80 is considered as the early application of CCS technologies that involved processes in which CO2 was already routinely separated, like in natural gas processing and fertilizer production. Today, the portfolio of CCS facilities is much more diverse, including applications in coalfired power, steel manufacture, chemical and gas production and Bio-energy coupled CCS (BECCS). USA, Canada and Brazil are champions in enhanced oil recovery projects through carbon sequestration with more than hundreds of projects worldwide. Capture technologies are currently employed widely at scale globally. Costs for employing CCS

852

Abhishek Gupta et al. / Energy Procedia 160 (2019) 848–855 Gupta et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

5

are falling rapidly as new facilities come on stream while next generation technologies are unleashed. Figure 4 shows development progress of carbon capture, storage and utilization technologies in terms of technology readiness level (TRL). More than 6,000 km of CO2 pipelines are operational with an excellent safety record worldwide. CO2 is injected securely into a variety of strata with no evidence of leakage to the atmosphere. Sequestration in saline aquifers is relatively new and besides USA and Canada, South Africa has commenced a pilot project. Algeria is also exploring feasibility of using depleted gas fields for sequestration. China is the first country in Asia to take up sequestration in saline aquifers and is carrying out research and modeling work in a large scale. More than 200 million tonnes of CO2 has been captured and injected deep underground till November 2017. All this carbon capture capacity adds up to CO2 capture of 37 Mtpa- equivalent, which is equivalent of over 8 million motor vehicles taken off the roads [1]. To reach the goals specified in Paris climate targets, the CCS Report 2017 [13] as drafted in COP23 meeting suggested to develop more than 2000 CCS facilities by 2040 to manage 14% of cumulative emissions reductions using CCS. CCS is described as the only clean technology capable of de-carbonizing industry-steel, chemicals, cement, fertilizers, pulp and paper, coal and gas-fired powered generation. To date, more than 220 million tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 has been safely and permanently injected deep underground. In Asia and the Pacific (APAC), 11 CCS facilities are in varying stages of development including 8 in China. On a like-for-like basis, CCS is cheaper than intermittent renewable, and costs continue to fall.

Fig. 4 Current development progress of carbon capture, storage and utilization technologies in terms of technology readiness level (TRL). BECCS =bio-energy with CCS, IGCC = integrated gasification combined cycle, EGR = enhanced gas recovery, EOR = enhanced oil recovery, NG = natural gas. Note: CO2 utilization (non-EOR) reflects a wide range of technologies, most of which have been demonstrated conceptually at the lab scale. The list of technologies is not intended to be exhaustive [12].

2.2 Status of CCS in India:

6

Abhishek Gupta et al. / Energy Procedia 160 (2019) 848–855 Gupta et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

853

India is one among 24 developing countries that are having CCS activity, recognizing the importance of CCS for energy security. There is marginal interest in domestic demonstration of the technology in India because of the concerns about the public’s reaction to underground CO 2 storage, poor geological CO2 storage data, higher cost and technical uncertainties associated with CCS technologies. A study [14] albeit inconclusive, shows that on-shore and off-shore deep saline formations (300-400 Gt CO2), basalt formation traps (200-400 Gt CO2), unmineable coal seams (5Gt CO2), depleted oil and gas reservoirs (5-10Gt CO2) and in deep coal seams (345 Mt CO2) and their approximate storage potential given in brackets. The storage potential in India is poorly defined with only a few broad assessments completed. Comprehensive national study on Indian storage basins is needed. National Aluminum Company (NALCO), ONGC, Bharat heavy Electrical Ltd. (BHEL) and APGENCO are some industries which are in early stages of setting up facilities associated with CCS. The NTPC has already tested a pilot project to sequester CO2 in open pond using algal technology. National Aluminum Co. (NALCO), Orissa has successfully commissioned a pilot-cum-demonstration CO2 sequestration plant. Indian fertilizer sector has adopted carbon capture technology. The captured CO 2 is said to be of 99% purity which will be recycled again to be used in the production of urea from ammonia. Table 1 furnishes list of commercial CO 2 storage plants in India. Table 1: List of Commercial C2 storage plants in India [15] Plant

Main Developer

Capture technology

Industry

CO2 absorption capacity in Tonnes per day (TPD)

Aonla (U.P.) urea plant

Indian Farmers Fertilizer CoOperative

Amine Based Combustion Capture)

(Post-

Chemical Production

450 TPD

Jagdishpur (Orissa) urea plant

Indo Gulf Corporation

Amine Based Combustion Capture)

(Post-

Chemical Production

150 TPD

Phulpur (U.P.) urea plant

Indian Farmers Fertilizer CoOperative

Amine Based Combustion Capture)

(Post-

Chemical Production

450 TPD

3. Challenges of CCS in India Key Policy Initiatives for CCS Implementation in India includes introduction of ‘Clean Energy Tax’ on imported and domestic coal 2010, which goes to go into the National Clean Energy Fund. In 2012, National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) was expanded to include clean coal and clean carbon technology to minimize CO 2 emissions. India’s Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-17) highlighted the need to invest in R&D of ultra-supercritical (USC) units. The Renovation, modernization (RM) and Life Extension (LE) activities for 72 Coal power plants totaling to 16532 MW are currently underway. Institute of Reservoir Studies is carrying out CO2 capture and EOR field studies in Gujarat, while National Geological Research Institute (NGRI) Hyderabad is testing the feasibility of storing CO2 in basalt formations. The challenges associated with the commercial use of CCS in India are identified and listed below. • Lack of R&D effort: Along with its research phase, its potential estimation of conversion into fuel or either its geo sequestration (potential site estimation) plays an important role. • Need for comprehensive national study on Geological storage: The comprehensive geological assessment for CO2 storage potential are yet to be studied in India. • Energy penalty: CCS requires additional energy input and India's power requirement is yet to be fulfilled. Thus, energy penalty plays as barrier in India. • Lack of financing and inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI): Implementation of costly CCS technologies require financial incentives from local and central governments in India and good governance polities enabling to attract foreign FDI for the same. • Environmental and legal concerns: Like land acquisition, ground water contamination, fear of CO2 leakage. • Cost scenario: Even after development for over 30 years, CCS technology is still proven costly to developing countries like India.

854

Abhishek Gupta et al. / Energy Procedia 160 (2019) 848–855 Gupta et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

7

• Political and policy making: India is world’s largest democracy and have 1.3 billion population. A slight increment in cost of electricity due to implementation of CCS and subsequent change in policy may cause political instability. • Public opinion: Being the largest democracy and with less concern to the environment and clean energy, regular interaction with the common people is necessary before implementing large CCS plants in India. • Foreign policies: Foreign policies have to be understood before installing any large CCS project in collaboration with foreign companies. 4. A Roadmap to Successful CCS in India The Roadmap recommends the following actions for successful implementation of commercial CCS plants in India. 4.1 Policy & Regulatory Framework: It includes induction of private finance for demonstration and early deployment of CCS, development of comprehensive national laws, regulations, guidelines for multilateral finance that require new-build, base-load, fossil-fuel power plants to be CCS-ready, improvement of understanding among the public and stakeholders of CCS technology and its importance and determination of government role in design and operation of CO2 transport and storage infrastructure. 4.2 Identification of Suitable CO2 Storage: This includes implementation of policies encouraging storage exploration, characterization, and development for CCS projects, implementation of governance frameworks ensuring safe and effective storage, development of coordinated international approaches/methodologies to improve understanding of storage resources and to enhance best practices and support to R&D into novel technologies utilizing significant quantities of CO2 leading to their permanent retention from the atmosphere. 4.3 Improvement and Cost Reduction of Capture Technologies: Reduction in electricity cost from power plants equipped with capture through continued technology development, demonstration of CO2 capture systems at pilot scale in industrial applications, translate research into novel capture technologies and power generation cycles that will dramatically lower the cost of capture and resource consumption, and increase of R&D collaboration among nations to further decrease the electricity cost and resource footprint of fossil-fuel plants equipped with capture. In this context, it is pertinent to mention the potential combined use of hydrogen and CCS technology. Most hydrogen is currently being produced via steam-methane (from natural gas) reforming, which produces hydrogen and CO2. As long as we release this CO2 into the air, we call this product 'grey hydrogen'. But there is a solution by employing CCS. If the CO2 from this process is capture and stored, the hydrogen produced is also CO2-neutral. This hydrogen is often called 'blue hydrogen'. Blue hydrogen Not really blue, but certainly not grey! Netherlands, Japan, Australia, UK, Ireland are exploring this technology further. 4.4 Development of CO2 Transport Infrastructure: The strategy includes encouraging for efficient development of CO2 transport infrastructure, ensure that laws and regulations are suitable for pipelines and shipping, foster a commercial environment for CO2 transport and its geological storage, and reduce the cost and risk of pipeline transport by sharing knowledge gained from experience and developing common methodologies.

8

Abhishek Gupta et al. / Energy Procedia 160 (2019) 848–855 Gupta et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

855

5. Conclusions It is proven that CCS can significantly reduce the CO2 footprint. The role of CCS goes well beyond a ‘clean coal technology’. The experience of the last 20 years has highlighted the diversity of CCS applications. Early opportunities for CCS deployment exist but must be cultivated. Long-term commitment and stability in policy frameworks is critical. Targeted policies which provide a financial incentive for investment will be essential in the near term. The availability of CCS in the future depends on investment in R&D and implementation today. An expanded project line-up is needed for more new projects to become operational in 2020 and beyond. Governments should take steps to create markets for clean products with a low CO 2 content. Community engagement and public understanding for CCS is must. Acknowledgement The authors used data and information from various research papers and reports as listed in the references and gratefully acknowledge concerned contributors, authors, researchers and agencies for the same. Any omission of contributors/authors/researchers/agencies in the references, if any, is purely unintentional. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Global Carbon Project (2018) Carbon budget and trends 2018. [www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/] published on 5 Dec. 2018 by Global CCS Institute. Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emission2014, Published by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC), USA. https://cdiac.essdive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html# C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2017, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 405–448, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-405-2018 C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2018, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2141-2194, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018 Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL), USA. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ R. A. Houghton, Alexander A. Nassikas. Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Volume31, Issue3, March 2017; Pages 456-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GB005546 Eberhard Hansis, Steven J. Davis, Julia Pongratz, Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Volume29, Issue8, August 2015; Pages 1230-1246, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004997 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, Published in October 2018 Metz B, Davidson O, De Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L. IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage, 2005; Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, Chap 7, Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf BP Statistical Review of world Energy, British Petroleum (BP), 67th edition, June 2018. Energy Technology Perspectives 2017: Catalysing Energy Technology Transformations. International Energy Agency (IEA). Published on 6 June 2017, ISBN: 978-92-64-27597-3. 'Carbon capture and storage (CCS): The way forward' by Bui et al., 2018. The Global Status of CCS: 2017. Retrieved from http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/www.globalccsinstitute.com/files/uploads/globalstatus/1-0_4529_CCS_Global_Status_Book_layout-WAW_spreads.pdf Singh, A.K., Mendhe, V., Garg, A. CO2 sequestration potential of geological formations in India, 2006; 8th International conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-8, Trondheim, Norway, June 19-22, 2006. Sood, Akash & Vyas, S.A review: Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in India, 2017; International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology. 8. 1-7.