- Email: [email protected]
State of the art in carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: An experts’ review
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc
State of the art in carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: An experts’ review Clair Gough * Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Pariser Building, The University of Manchester, PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK
article info
abstract
Article history:
This paper presents results from the first round of an extensive on-line Delphi survey of
Received 8 March 2007
experts in the field of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). Questions related to key
Received in revised form
drivers of energy technology in the UK, capture and engineering, CO2 transport, storage,
9 May 2007
risks and leakage, monitoring and remediation, costs and economics, incentives, regulation,
Accepted 16 May 2007
international context. The survey has constructed a comprehensive picture of expert
Published on line 21 June 2007
opinion on the current status of CCS in the UK from across the CCS and related energy supply community. The results contribute to understanding how large-scale deployment of
Keywords:
CCS might be realised in the UK and the challenges associated therein. The survey revealed
Delphi survey
that key barriers to implementation of CCS are currently a lack of long-term policy frame-
Stakeholder and expert opinion
work in the UK and costs. There remain aspects of the process that require further investigation but until the technology is adopted on a commercial scale, in the context of a commitment to significant reductions in CO2 emissions across all demand sectors, it is neither possible nor appropriate to predict the details of how the process will evolve. # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1.
Introduction
As the case for urgent and large-scale reductions in CO2 emissions grows within both scientific and political dialogues (IPCC, 2005; Schellnhuber et al., 2006; Stern, 2006), the application of carbon dioxide capture and geological storage (CCS) becomes increasingly relevant. CCS technologies provide the potential to make large-scale cuts in atmospheric CO2 emissions without wholesale restructuring of the electricity supply system (IEA, 2004; IPCC, 2005). Although, ultimately, a fully decarbonised energy system is likely to be required in order to avoid dangerous climate change (Anderson et al., 2005), CCS could make a significant contribution to securing deep cuts in CO2 in the short- to medium-term as alternative supply and demand measures are developed. The approach is attracting increasing political attention, but how soon could CCS be deployed at a commercial scale in the UK and what are
the key uncertainties and barriers to its implementation? This paper describes the first stage of a Delphi process in which key experts in areas related to CCS technology and its application have been consulted regarding a broad range of technical and non-technical issues. This paper describes the first phase of a two-phase Delphi process. It begins with a brief description of the Delphi process and how it has been applied here, followed by a description of the results generated during the first phase. We conclude with a brief summary and discussion of the implications of these results to the UK.
2.
The Delphi approach
The Delphi method was developed in the 1950s by the RAND corporation (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963) as a method for
* Tel.: +44 161 306 3447; fax: +44 161 3273. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1750-5836/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00073-4
156
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
deriving a consensus view from a group of experts. Originally developed for military applications, it has since been used widely in a variety of forecasting and decision making applications. The basic principle is that experts are presented individually with a set of questions, or Delphi statements, their responses are then compiled and presented back to participants (usually anonymously) who have the opportunity to revise their responses on the basis of the results of earlier rounds. The key features are thus reflexivity, iteration and a degree of anonymity. The process is designed to deliver results that distil the combined knowledge of experts in a field, free from the influences of a ‘conference room’ environment (Gordon, 1994). Various criticisms have been directed towards the use of the Delphi process, notably concerns over its accuracy (e.g. (Woudenberg, 1991)). However, as Webler et al. (1991) note, if the purpose is to identify expert opinion rather than factual evidence and when the application is one that combines ‘a mixture of scientific evidence and social values’, Delphi provides a flexibility and validity not provided by other, more conventional, methods. A key function of Delphi adopted here is as a communication process (Linstone and Turoff, 1975). Specifically, we can identify three broad objectives: 1. identify those aspects of the CCS technology for which consensus exists within the professional community and those for which there remains divergence of opinion; 2. identify key areas of uncertainty; 3. identify major opportunities and challenges to the implementation of CCS in the UK. To address these objectives, we have designed a twophase Delphi survey. Phase 1 consisted of an extensive webbased on-line questionnaire circulated to 242 professionals in the UK, either directly engaged in the CCS technology (and its components) or in an area related to its application. This phase will primarily address the first two objectives and provide preliminary results for the third objective. Phase 2 will pursue a group process and will build on the results of phase 1 to generate a pathway or ‘roadmap’ for CCS in the UK. The phase 2 workshop will involve a selection of the survey respondents (selected in order to ensure a spread of expertise and opinion) with some additional key stakeholders. All those respondents that supplied their email addresses have been given an opportunity to submit feedback to the first round results presented here, any such comments will feed into the phase 2 process. In the present paper we will concentrate on the first phase of this process and its results; phase 2 will be documented elsewhere.
3.
Development of the questionnaire
Careful design of a Delphi questionnaire is crucial to its success; the questionnaire design stage can be seen as substantive part of the process itself, ensuring that the right questions are asked and that questions are clear and unambiguous. In the present application a draft survey was piloted at a UK CCS Consortium
(UKCCSC)1 project meeting (attended by members from across the Consortium, representing expertise in all stages of the CCS technology). During the pilot session, Consortium members were initially asked to attempt to complete a draft survey following which their detailed feedback on the survey design and content was collected through two separate group discussions. The survey was subsequently amended to account for this feedback, with some additional consultation with relevant specialists relating to individual sections of the survey. Once this development phase was complete the draft survey was converted into its final format using specialist Delphi software. The next stage of the survey, including the administration and the collection of responses was conducted on-line. A specialist web-architected software from the Calibrum Corporation, ‘Surveylet’ (Calibrum, 1999), was used, providing a comprehensive array of question formats and a user-defined on-line help facility. The survey was structured around ten topics, each containing up to nine questions relating to a specific aspect of CCS and opportunities for respondents to add comments. Each section (excluding Sections 4 (profile) and 5.1 (landscape)) began by asking the respondents to indicate their level of expertise in that area—selecting from a four point scale ranging from none to expert; users were also given the option of omitting all or part of a section should they choose. It was estimated that to complete all of the questions in the survey would take up to 1 h; this was indicated in the invitation to participate in the survey. The 10 sections included in the survey were as follows: 1. Profile: areas of expertise, professional background and demographic profile, including the option for respondents to provide their email address, 2. Landscape: user’s opinion of CCS and key drivers of energy technology in the UK, 3. Capture and engineering: electricity generation and CO2 capture technology, 4. CO2 transport: infrastructure and management of CO2 transport, 5. Storage: type and extent of geological storage capacity in the UK, 6. Risks and leakage: environmental risks, monitoring and remediation associated with leakage, 7. Costs and economics: economic prospects for CCS technologies, 8. Incentives: fiscal measures to support CCS, 9. Regulation: national and international regulatory context, 10. International context: influence of overseas CCS initiatives and international role of UK.
4.
Profile of respondents
At the beginning of summer 2006, an invitation to participate in the Delphi process was sent out from the leader of the UK 1 The UKCCSC is a Consortium of 15 academic institutions funded under the ‘Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy’ Programme of the Natural Environment Research Council. It brings together a variety of expertise carrying out research on all aspects of CCS.
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
CCS Consortium (UKCCSC) to 242 UK-based CCS and related professionals. Those invited included all members of the UKCCSC teams, individuals from the CCS academic, industry, policy and NGO communities (including the members of a CCS network, CO2NET), participants at a UK Energy Research Centre event on CCS and other specialists from relevant sectors. Of these, 88 completed forms were returned—a response rate of 36% which is satisfactory given the detailed technical nature of the survey and level of engagement required for its completion. Whilst no claims are made that the survey sample is representative (a requirement in largescale generic surveys) efforts were made to ensure that the respondents consisted of ‘‘non-representative knowledgeable persons’’ (Gordon, 1994) and reflected different schools of thought (Webler et al., 1991) on CCS. Some degree of bias is inevitable in a survey such as this since, given that CCS is a relatively new technology, the majority of those sufficiently knowledgeable to participate in the survey are more likely to be in favour of the technology than opposed to it. The aim of the survey is to understand predominately technical challenges and potential for CCS rather than to identify stakeholder opinions on the desirability or otherwise of CCS. In order to identify where areas of controversy may lie, effort was made to include commentators that had voiced negative opinions of CCS in the past (for example, some NGOs). However, these remain a small minority of respondents, as revealed in the response to a question relating to level of support of CCS, to which more than 70% viewed its use ‘‘very positively’’. Respondents were also asked to indicate their professional background and area of expertise (with the option in each case of selecting more than one of the suggested categories). The majority of those that responded to the questionnaire were either from industry or the private sector (34 individuals), academics (46) or public sector research establishments (15); other environmental NGOs (2), government departments (4) and think tank/policy development bodies (5) were also represented but in much smaller numbers. Respondents reflected a good spread of expertise; the areas of energy policy, geology, petroleum engineering, environmental science, process and mechanical engineering were represented in the greatest numbers (13 or more selecting each field respectively). Overall, a minimum of 10 respondents indicated either expert or moderate levels of expertise in each of the 8 technical sections; the number with expert or moderate knowledge was greatest for the sections on capture and engineering (38), risk and leakage (31) and storage (29) and lowest for costs and economics (10). These figures describe self-declared levels of expertise and hence reflect respondents’ own subjective interpretations of expertise.
5.
Survey responses
In this section we present a summary of the results of the first round Delphi survey; a more detailed graphical presentation of the results of every question in the survey can be found on the UKCCSC website (http://www.co2storage.org.uk/UKCCSC/ Results/D2.html).
157
Fig. 1 – What are the key drivers for energy technology deployment in the UK?
5.1.
Landscape
This short section aimed to identify respondents’ views on more general factors likely to influence the use of CCS in the UK, namely energy technology drivers and barriers to CCS. The first substantive question asked in the survey was ‘‘What are the key drivers for energy technology deployment in the UK?’’2 This was an open-ended question to which respondents had the opportunity of providing long text answers. These answers have been collated, counting the number of times any of 15 drivers selected by the author (based on text responses) are mentioned in the responses; the results of this process are presented in Fig. 1 and Table 1 explains how the various drivers have been categorised. The average number of drivers selected by individuals was 2.3. The three most frequently selected drivers were, CO2 emissions (or environmental concerns in general), energy security and costs. In the case of the former, 62% of these explicitly cited CO2 or climate change and the remainder simply stated ‘environmental concerns’ (which may include CO2 reductions); 10% (5) of those selecting an environmental driver thought it to be the only driver. It is interesting to note that the importance of environmental drivers identified by these energy stakeholders was also identified in a largescale survey of members of the public; in the last Eurobarometer survey relating to energy (Eurobarometer, 2002), members of the public were asked to select what they considered should be the top two out of three priorities for energy for their national government (the three options being: low prices for consumers, ensuring uninterrupted supplies (of oil, gas and electricity), protection of the environment and public health and safety associated with 2
Online help for this question specified that ‘‘Drivers may be political, technical, economic, environmental: whichever you think are the key forces which influence which energy technologies are deployed’’.
158
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Table 1 – Explanation of categories for energy technology drivers presented in Fig. 1 CO2 emissions/other environmental
Energy security Government Politics
NGO/public opinion Incentives Private industry/profit Technical Reliability
Meeting energy demand Diversity of supply International commitments
Any mention of climate change, CO2 or carbon, ocean acidification (caused by elevated CO2 concentrations), general environmental impacts or legislation (including Kyoto, Large Combustion Plant Directive, EU Emissions Trading Scheme) Majority of respondents simply stated ‘‘security of supply’’ but also phrases such as ‘‘sustainability of supply’’, ‘‘looming energy supply gap’’ and ‘‘long-term supply prospects’’ were included here Responses classed as government when referring to formal government energy policy in the form of strategy or legislation or in one case identifying government as a key stakeholder Most respondents simply stated ‘‘politics’’/‘‘political’’, also cited political support for a technology, political will. This has been presented as a distinct category from ‘‘government’’ to distinguish between political motivation and explicit government policy or legislation NGO or public opinion or acceptance Responses explicitly referring to financial incentives or subsidies Includes business opportunities and market creation Use of established technologies, developing technological options, ‘‘technical’’, ‘‘technology’’ Generally refers to shorter term supply issues than energy security; responses were categorised as reliability if either explicitly stated reliability or intermittency, ‘‘avoiding brown outs’’ or ‘‘keeping the lights on’’ Responses referring to matching (increasing) demand for energy Maintaining a broad portfolio to avoid lock-in Respondent simply stated ‘‘international commitments’’
energy supply). In the majority of the EU15 countries the environmental protection was most frequently picked, including the UK where it was selected by 76% and low prices, selected by 61%. Fig. 2 shows that the two most frequently selected factors thought to represent the most important challenges to the development of CCS were the lack of long-term policy support in the UK and costs (each selected by almost 60 respondents) followed by the international regulatory framework (29).
5.2.
Capture and engineering
This section was somewhat wide-ranging, exploring respondents’ views on fuel mix for electricity supply, future capacity and performance of CCS capture technology. Respondents were first asked their opinion on the fuel
Fig. 2 – Potential show stoppers: What are the three most important challenges that, in your opinion, could prevent the implementation of CCS in the UK?
mix by 2050—what they thought it would be and what they would like it to be. Clearly, it is impossible to predict what the fuel mix will be in more than 40 years time, since it is contingent on a multitude of complex and inter-related factors. However, by framing the question in two parts, that of the respondent’s expectation and their preference, the intention was to identify differences in the perceptions of where energy policy is heading and where respondents consider it should be heading. Consequently, the results should be considered in parallel, as illustrated in Fig. 3. These graphs plot the 10th, 50th (median) and 90th percentile in a so-called ‘tent’ diagram of percentages given for each fuel type. These show that there is greater agreement over what respondents expect compared to what they would prefer. Eighty-four percent expected there to be a greater reliance on gas in the future than they would like to see, while none of the respondents expected to see more renewables in the mix than they would like—respondents do not appear to be very optimistic about the future contribution of renewables reaching their perceived potential. Expectation was for renewable energy to be the lowest component of the fuel mix (although only slightly less than nuclear) while renewable energy was placed high in the preferred fuel mix. With respect to coal, it is perhaps not surprising that 69% would like to see the same or more coal in the mix than they expect, since many of the respondents work directly in an area relating to coal technology. Opinion on the future for nuclear power was fairly split; 39% expected there to be more nuclear than they would like, 29% supplied the same percentage for each question and 32% expected to see less nuclear than they would like to see. Note, however, that the nuclear tent is to the left on both graphs as a relatively low proportion of the fuel mix compared to other energy sources. A question relating to the likely capacity of coal plant with CCS in the UK by 2015, 2025, 2040 showed little consensus beyond there being little or no (<1 GW) retrofit or co-firing technology by 2015 and up to a maximum of 3 GW new build or
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
5.3.
Fig. 3 – Graphs showing expectation and preference for the electricity supply fuel mix to 2040.
capture-ready3 plant by 2015 (although the majority predicted there to be much less than this).4 The main exception to this was a large proportion of respondents (75%) anticipating there to be more than 5 GW new build CCS in place by 2040. Opinion over which specific CCS technology will provide this was split between pre-combustion capture and there being no single dominant technology. The same question relating to gas-fired plant revealed that respondents think CCS is unlikely to be adopted until after 2015 and at much lower capacities, if at all for gas-fired plant. This question asked respondents whether they thought that capture technology applied to the two fuel types was likely rather than their opinion on whether it is appropriate or desirable. A recent survey of around 400 stakeholders conducted during the General Assembly of the European Technologies Programme Zero Emission Platform (ETP ZEP) revealed that more than 80% of respondents thought that CCS should be focused on ‘all fossil fuels’ and not just coal (ETPZEP, 2006a). The range in plant thermal efficiency that is likely to be achieved in CCS plant was generally thought to be fairly narrow: the mode responses for minimum to maximum were 35–45% LHV (lower heating value) for coal plant and 45–60% LHV for gas plant. 3 The term ‘capture ready’ was defined in the survey online help as ‘‘A plant built with the intention of subsequent retrofitting of CCS technologies. A capture ready plant should require no additional expenditure and incur no performance penalties compared to standard industry plant options. Its conversion to capture should not incur additional maintenance outages and should operate with same performance as a base plant and capture process built as a single unit’’. 4 Capacity of coal fired generation in the UK is currently (2005) 22.6 GW (DTI, 2006).
159
CO2 transport
All questions in this section related to the transportation of CO2, the key technical uncertainties associated with transporting CO2, what form a potential CO2 network might take, who should pay for it and the environmental risks associated with different modes. To date, the CO2 transportation stage of the CCS process has received relatively little attention, compared to capture and storage (see for example IEA, 2004; IEAGHG, 2002, 2004; IPCC, 2005). One reason for the relatively limited debate in this area is reflected in the responses to a question asking respondents what they thought were the key technical uncertainties surrounding CO2 transport; the majority (including one respondent expert in the field of CO2 transport) thought there were none. The remaining experts in this area cited impurities (main problems likely to be H2S or SO2), long distances offshore and lack of testing. The Delphi survey has attempted to explore further what form a CO2 transport network might take in the UK. All but one respondent thought that the majority of CO2 stored in the UK would be transported by pipeline, with 79% (23 out of 29 respondents) expecting the proportion to be 80% or more. Most (76%) respondents thought that there would be opportunity for reusing existing pipelines (particularly offshore) while fewer thought that this would be the case for shipping; however, all respondents considered that CO2 transport would require some new infrastructure, regardless of the transport mode. On the question of who should pay for new pipeline construction (Fig. 4), 48% of the 29 respondents thought that government should not be required to cover any of these costs but that they should be covered by storage site operators and CO2 providers (either individually or shared between the two) and 42% (including the one government department respondent) thought that the costs should be shared between the government, storage site operators and CO2 providers (the remaining four respondents wanted costs to be shared between CO2 providers and government). In addition there was a comment that ‘‘the pipeline should be paid for by the pipeline operator and funded by revenue from contracts for transportation with third parties, either CO2 provider or storage site operator’’. In a subsequent question, establishing new commercial partnerships was the second
Fig. 4 – Who should pay for new pipeline construction?
160
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Table 2 – What are the main environmental or safety risks associated with CO2 transport?
CO2 emissions Health and safety impacts Landscape effects Drinking water contamination Soil contamination Ecosystem impacts
5.4.
Onshore pipelines
Offshore pipelines
Ships
11 19 18 9
14 7 1 0
17 17 0 0
9 12
3 22
0 8
Number of respondents selecting impact categories.
most frequently selected barrier to the construction of new pipelines, behind costs. Respondents were also asked to select from a list what they thought were the main environmental or safety risks associated with CO2 transport; responses to this are summarised in Table 2. Onshore pipelines were seen as having the widest range of impacts—with nine or more selecting all of the options presented; those effects selected by the greatest number of respondents were landscape effects and health and safety. For offshore pipelines, ecosystem impacts and CO2 emissions were selected by the greatest number of respondents. The only risks selected as being associated with transport by ship were CO2 emissions, health and safety and ecosystem impacts. Only two respondents identified other risks not included on the list: public opinion (applicable to all modes) and for onshore pipelines, risk to local population (via ‘‘suffocation’’ or ‘‘jet of solid particles in event of a rupture’’); this latter respondent recommended that a comprehensive risk assessment would be required.
Storage
The section on storage focused on the potential for different types of reservoir for CO2 storage, in terms of when they might come into use, and capacity; the management and potential risks associated with their use is covered in the following section. Fig. 5 shows the timescale over which respondents consider that different types of storage will be adopted at a large-scale (>10 MT CO2 pa). Over 50% of the 43 respondents to this question considered that onshore aquifers and coal seams (either onshore or offshore) would never be used for large-scale CO2 storage in the UK. In the case of coal seams, reasons that were cited for this were either a potential future requirement to access the coal resource or technical reasons. By 2015, the majority (53 and 70%, respectively) thought that disused gas fields and EOR would be in use for large-scale storage. By 2025, a further 40% thought that disused gas fields would be in significant use and 44% thought that offshore saline aquifers would be in use by this time; those that thought EOR would come on line in 2025 dropped to 20%. By 2040, a further 30% considered that offshore saline aquifers and 26% thought that offshore coal seams would be in use. These results indicate the different storage sites that come into play over different timescales. There is clearly uncertainty surrounding the use of coal seams (both on- and off-shore); our respondents think that they will either never be used or, if they are used, only in the much longer term. The effect of expertise on responses to this question appears most marked with respect to the use of coal seams—only a very small proportion of the experts considered that coal seems would ever be used for CO2 storage in contrast to a slightly more optimistic view from those with moderate or basic knowledge.
Fig. 5 – Large-scale storage (>10 MT CO2 pa) will be adopted in UK reservoirs by which year?
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
161
Fig. 6 – Storage capacity in main reservoir types: please enter an approximate figure for the likely range of usable storage capacity in the UK.
Respondents were then asked to state what they thought were minimum, medium and maximum estimates of storage capacity in the different types of reservoir in the UK; their responses are shown for the main reservoir types in Fig. 6. A maximum of nine respondents attempted to provide answers to this question, seven of whom were experts in the field, providing us a snapshot of current thinking on this issue. While there is a reasonable level of agreement on the lower and mid-estimates of capacity, particularly for oil fields and saline aquifers, upper estimates of storage capacity lie in a much larger range (note that the second graph for saline aquifers has been plotted on a log scale to reveal these ranges more clearly). While the location and extent of saline aquifers appears to be well understood (Brook et al., 2003; GESTCO, 2003), these results reflect the large uncertainties associated with the specific suitability for storage across these very large geological structures. There are relatively few published estimates for storage capacity, the most frequently cited of which is Holloway (1996), providing the upper estimates of storage capacity for saline aquifers indicated in Fig. 6. While oil and gas fields are well studied and documented, such detailed information at site level is not available for saline aquifers. Hence while it is known in theory that the potential for storage could be extremely large, precisely how much of this capacity will prove practically feasible for CO2 storage remains more uncertain. Detailed site by site assessment will be required before this potential can be exploited (Gough et al., 2006). Respondents were asked to identify what they thought were the key technical uncertainties currently associated with CO2 storage. This was presented as an open-ended question, the responses to which have been categorised by the author, as shown in Fig. 7. Clearly the key technical uncertainty for CO2 storage is leakage and in particular well bore integrity
(leakage at the injection site), independent of respondents’ level of expertise in this area. Another concern frequently cited is the fate of the CO2 once it has been stored—i.e. how the CO2 migrates through the underground formation and any chemical and physical transformation it undergoes in the process. The issue of leakage is explored in more detail in the following section.
5.5.
Risks and leakage
This section briefly addressed the perception of the relative risk of CCS and the opportunity for leakage detection and remediation across different stages of the CCS process. Although clearly the risks associated with CCS and with the
Fig. 7 – What are the key technical uncertainties associated with storage of CO2?
162
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
optimistic claims that have been made about CCS,5 suggesting that the environmental performance of storage requires significant further investigation.
5.6.
Fig. 8 – In your opinion, how does the risk (identified in the previous question) associated with CCS compare to the environmental risk associated with an equivalent (in terms of CO2 reductions) use of nuclear power?
use of nuclear power are very different, we asked respondents to compare the environmental risks presented by the two options (to achieve equivalent levels of CO2 reduction), the results are shown in Fig. 8. This question prompted a high response rate with 46 individuals responding. Of these, a large majority (74%) thought that the risk would be slightly less or much less and only 6% (three individuals) thought that CCS posed a greater environmental risk than nuclear power. Initially this response might appear to be a function of the rather pro-CCS bias of the respondents but referring back to responses concerning preferences for a future fuel mix this is not balanced by an opposition to nuclear power per se. However, several respondents did comment that while the probability of a leak may be greater with CCS, the implications of an incident associated with the use of nuclear power would be far greater. Respondents were then asked to assess the ease of both detecting and repairing or remediating leaks from different stages of the CCS process; their responses are shown in Fig. 9. The onshore components of CCS (capture and pipeline transport) are not seen as presenting difficulties for monitoring—only 2% (1) and 7% (3) selected difficult or very difficult, respectively; 24% (11) of respondents considered offshore pipelines to be difficult or very difficult to monitor and similar for boreholes (although the majority (61% (27)) considered monitoring of boreholes to be manageable; in the case of offshore pipelines, 38% (17) thought manageable, 29% (13) thought straightforward). However, 68% (30) thought that geological faults would be difficult or very difficult to monitor and 27% thought that they would be manageable (no one thought these would be very simple to monitor). The results for the ease of repair of capture and onshore pipelines results are very similar to those for monitoring. For the offshore elements of CCS, repair and remediation were seen as being slightly more challenging than monitoring: 24% (11) of respondents considered offshore pipelines to be difficult or very difficult to monitor and similar for boreholes (and 45% (19) considered monitoring of boreholes to be manageable). However, 59% (24) thought that geological faults would be very difficult and 29% (12) difficult to repair and 12% (5) thought only manageable (no one thought these would be straightforward or simple). This result is in contrast to some
Costs and economics
This section explored respondents views of the effect on electricity prices of CCS, the proportion of costs associated with the three main stages in the process and opportunities for reducing costs. The first question in this section asked what the likely additional cost of electricity would be as a result of installing and running capture equipment and this revealed a broad spread of opinion. Eighteen people gave responses ranging from 2 to 75%; the mode and median response was 20% and there was no relation between level of expertise and response. Clearly many factors will affect the costs of CCS and the extent to which these are passed on to consumers, including any government subsidies or incentives, making it particularly difficult to put a figure on such a question. The survey then asked respondents to specify how total costs would be split between the three stages of the CCS process. Fig. 10 shows that all respondents agreed that capture would make up more than a third of the costs with a median and mode response of 70 and 75%, respectively. A recent poll of around 400 European stakeholders conducted at the General Assembly of the European Technology Platform on Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ETPZEP, 2006a) identified cost reduction of capture technologies as the top priority issue to be addressed (closely followed by reliability and long-term stability of CO2 storage). A Special Eurobarometer survey conducted in 2005 (Eurobarometer, 2006), showed that although 45% of respondents (in the UK) would be prepared to pay more for energy produced from renewable sources, there appears to be an upper limit of an increased cost of 5–10%. Although the Eurobarometer question was presented in terms of renewable energy, it is unlikely that, if CCS were presented clearly as a means of reducing CO2 emissions, a significantly different response would be generated (although there is evidence to suggest that currently the public views renewable energy more favourably than coal with (Curry et al., 2005; Shackley et al., 2005) or without CCS (Poortinga et al., 2006)). The Eurobarometer survey showed that people’s willingness to pay extra in order to face new energy challenges is increasing over time and it is likely that this trend will continue as awareness of both the challenge and urgency of addressing climate change increases. However, it remains clear that increased electricity costs resulting from CCS could have a significant impact on its acceptability unless there are significant improvements in cost and/or some form of government support to reduce the extent to which the consumer bears the costs. In the final question in this section respondents were asked to select up to three out of nine suggested factors (plus the opportunity to specify additional factors) that would lead to 5
For example the European Technology Platform’s ‘‘zero tolerance for CO2 leakages’’ (ETPZEP, 2006b) which states that ‘‘in storage sites that are well-sited [. . .] monitoring and remediation techniques [. . .] should be able to correct them immediately’’.
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
163
Fig. 9 – Ease of monitoring/detecting leaks and repair/remediation of each stage of the CCS process.
the greatest reduction in CCS costs for each stage. Fig. 11 shows that certain developments appear as important and these are different for each stage in the process. All of the options were selected by one or more respondent for capture, transport and storage. Technology breakthrough, economies of scale and experience from demonstration plant were the most frequently selected for capture; for transport, it was economies of scale and planning certainty and most frequently selected for storage were EOR offsets, learning by doing and experience from demonstration plant.
5.7.
Incentives
This short section assessed respondents’ views of different types of regulatory and fiscal incentives. The survey asked whether respondents thought that industry should receive incentives or not (to which 46 (out of 50) responded in the affirmative) and, if so, were then asked to state the extent to which they supported a range of different possible incentives. The results, shown in Fig. 12, show that while all of the proposed incentives were generally supported, ‘support for
164
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Fig. 10 – What percentage of costs can be attributed to capture, transport and storage?
R&D’ was strongly supported by the greatest number of respondents (33), with the ‘EU ETS beyond 2012’ being the next most popular. Those incentives grouped under ‘other initiatives’ were generally strongly supported by fewer respondents compared to the other mechanisms, perhaps because they are less familiar concepts, as reflected in the greater number of ‘don’t know’ responses for this category.
aquifers and hydrocarbon fields?’ produced overall consensus that amendment of both the London and OSPAR Conventions is required for storage but somewhat less consensus on the situation for pipelines, as shown in Table 3. It should be noted that on 2 November 2006, after this survey was conducted, the 1996 protocol to the London Convention was amended to allow storage of CO2 in sub-seabed geological formations from February 2007, although ‘‘guidance (. . .) on the means by which sub-seabed geological sequestration of carbon dioxide can be conducted, (. . .) over the long and short term, should be developed as soon as possible.’’ (IMO, 2006). Referring to the Landscape section (see Section 5.1) of this survey, the third most frequently selected challenge to CCS was the international regulatory framework, which at first sight may appear in contradiction of the relative optimism reflected in the results in Table 3. There are two effects that may have produced this result. Firstly, at least four times more people responded to the ‘show stoppers’ question than to the regulation question, suggesting that many of these may not be familiar with the actual international regulatory situation, which they perceive to be a significant barrier. Secondly, although there is optimism that the Conventions will be resolved, clearly if resolution is necessary but not achieved, this is sufficient to prevent CCS proceeding.
5.9. 5.8.
International context
Regulation
This section explored respondents’ opinions of the current status of the various international Conventions with respect to CCS. The question ‘By when will the following Conventions be resolved to allow clear provision for CO2 storage in North Sea
The aim of the International context section was to explore respondents’ views on the influence of and relationship between developments in CCS implementation overseas and in the UK. Fig. 13 charts what impact respondents considered overseas commercial success in CCS will have in
Fig. 11 – What would lead to the greatest reduction in CCS costs?
165
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Fig. 12 – Incentives: please indicate you level of support for the following options.
the UK; this shows that such success is generally thought to have a positive effect on the deployment of CCS, although there was no consensus on whether this will lead to economic benefits in terms of export potential. The comments associated with responses to this question reveal that respondents found it difficult to judge the economic impact, since it would depend on what the overseas initiatives were and the extent of UK involvement in them, how successful they were, how quickly the UK government puts the appropriate legal framework in place and how soon CCS is adopted in the UK. Respondents’ views on the prospects for an international network of CO2 storage are shown in Fig. 14. 91% (of 44 respondents) thought that the UK may store CO2 from overseas and the export of CO2 from the UK for storage elsewhere was considered a possibility by 75%. Several respondents commented that the most likely context for
such arrangements lay in the North Sea with a strong history of collaboration between offshore operators and good relations between the UK and Norway. This latter point is exemplified by a joint declaration signed between the Norwegian and UK governments in 2005 setting up a North Sea Basin Task Force. The final two questions in this section, and of the survey as whole, looked at the UK’s position and capabilities in CCS relative to other countries. While 89% agreed or agreed strongly with the statement that the UK should aim for a leadership role in CCS technology, Fig. 15 shows that most respondents consider the UK to be only averagely placed in each of the three broad components of the technology. There was least optimism in the area of CO2 capture and greatest in the area of storage. The comments provided with responses to this question reveal that many considered the UK to have (or
Table 3 – By when will the following Conventions be resolved to allow clear provision for CO2 storage in North Sea aquifers and hydrocarbon fields?
Not required 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2020 Total
OSPAR for storage
OSPAR for pipeline reuse
London convention for storage
London convention for pipeline
2 1 2 3 1 6
6
2
7
2
1 1
6 1 1 3 1
2
1 3 2 1
1
1
4
2
1998 petroleum act
1 1
16
Frequency of respondents selecting each year.
13
15
12
9
166
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Fig. 13 – What effect will commercial success of non-UK initiatives have on the development of CCS in the UK?
have had) the capability to have a leadership role but expressed frustration that the necessary substantive progress at government and managerial level is lacking. A key reason put forward as to why we should be pursuing leadership in this technology was, in addition to economic and agenda setting advantages, that the UK holds a responsibility to develop and adopt the technology we are advocating for use in developing countries, leading by example.
5.10.
Summary and recommendations
This paper has presented results of a wide-ranging survey of the views of stakeholders and experts from across the extended CCS community on the technical, economic and political factors affecting the future deployment of CCS in the UK. We conclude this paper with a brief summary of some of the key findings from the survey and make some provisional recommendations based on those findings. CCS is a technology which incurs a cost but no direct benefits other than potentially large reductions in CO2 emissions; that climate change mitigation was seen as a key driver of energy technology by a majority of respondents is thus crucial to its future implementation. The survey results show a broad agreement on the top three barriers to the use of CCS; these are: long policy framework in the UK, costs, international regulatory framework. The fact that two of these
Fig. 14 – International movement of CO2 for storage. Will all of the CO2 captured in the UK be stored in UK reservoirs? And will UK reservoirs be used to store CO2 captured outside the UK?
Fig. 15 – How well developed are UK capabilities in the following areas?
concerns relate to the policy context demonstrate the urgent need for political leadership (at both national and international levels) if the UK is to exploit its significant potential for large-scale storage. The opportunity for the UK to establish an international leadership role in this area was typically seen as significant but not inevitable by the respondents to the survey. The third barrier, costs, with CO2 capture representing the largest proportion of costs in the CCS process, clearly remains uncertain for CCS in the absence of existing commercial scale deployment in the UK. Economies of scale and technology breakthrough were the most frequently selected factors that would lead to a reduction in capture costs, followed by greater experience from demonstration plant. Although the survey respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the use of CCS (a product of requiring a relatively high level of expertise relating to the technology in order to complete the survey), there was nevertheless a high level of support for a greater use of renewables in the fuel mix than thought likely to occur, matched by the expectation of a greater than desirable reliance on gas. The majority thought that there will be significant (>5 GW) new build coal fired plant with CCS by 2040, although opinion remains split on whether this will be dominated by precombustion capture or a mix of technologies with no single technology dominating. CCS on gas plant is considered likely to be adopted later than on coal plant and on a smaller scale, with even less consensus on technology for gas plant than for coal plant. Transport of CO2 by pipeline in the North Sea CO2 was thought likely to be a combination of a networked and a pointto-point system between sources and storage sites. The survey revealed a perception that corrosion is a key technical uncertainty associated with CO2 transport among some respondents with basic or moderate knowledge in this area. This was not cited by the experts that responded, for whom impurities in the CO2 stream was raised as a concern; this may also hold implications for the CO2 capture process as well as its transportation. The most commonly cited uncertainty associated with the storage of CO2 was leakage, in particular well integrity and the long-term fate of stored CO2. Clearly it is crucial that a better understanding and confidence in the storage process is required before CCS becomes part of the mainstream portfolio
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
of mitigation options. As experience is built up of CO2 storage in hydrocarbon fields in the nearer-term (to 2015), further research into the use of saline aquifers should improve understanding into their use for CO2 storage. While only a small fraction of respondents held sufficient expertise to respond, there is a very large storage potential in these formations, although the true magnitude of this potential is not well understood currently. This survey has constructed a comprehensive picture of expert opinion from across the CCS and related energy supply community on the current status of CCS in the UK. The results contribute to understanding how large-scale deployment of CCS might be realised in the UK and the challenges associated therein. There remain aspects of the process that require further investigation but until the technology is adopted on a commercial scale, in the context of a commitment to significant reductions in CO2 emissions across all demand sectors, it is neither possible nor appropriate to predict the details of how the process will evolve. Within its Energy Policy for Europe, the European Commission has set out its intention to ‘‘design a mechanism to stimulate the construction and operation by 2015 of up to 12 large-scale demonstrations of sustainable fossil fuel technologies’’. In the UK, several proposals from different companies, deploying different CCS technologies, are currently under evaluation, although, as yet, no firm decision to proceed with the construction of a single demonstration plant has been taken in the UK6 (including a recent deferment of a decision over the DF1 project in Scotland by BP (Harvey, 2007)). The UK is ‘‘wellpositioned to play a leading role in demonstrating CCS technology’’ (HoC, 2006) but it is apparent that the decision over whether or not to actively pursue this option must be made in the very short-term and a clear policy framework developed to support that decision.
Acknowledgements This work was conducted on behalf of the UK CCS Consortium (UKCCSC), funded by the Natural Environment Research Council under their ‘Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy’ Programme. The author would like to thank the members of UKCCSC for their cooperation and help in preparing and conducting the Delphi survey, in particular Sarah Mander and David Reiner, and to all those who responded to the on-line survey.
references
Anderson, K., Shackley, S., Mander, S., Bows, A., 2005. Decarbonising the UK: Energy for a Climate Conscious Future. Tyndall Centre, Manchester.
6 Since this paper was originally submitted, the Government indicated in the 2007 Budget that a CCS demonstration plant would be funded, to be decided via competitive tender, details of which will be announced in the forthcoming Energy White Paper.
167
Brook, M., Holloway, S., Shaw, K.L., Vincent, C.J., 2003. GESTCO Case Study 2a-1. Storage Potential of the Bunter Sandstone Formation in the UK Sector of the Southern North Sea and the Adjacent area of Eastern England. Commissioned Report CR/03/154. British Geological Survey, Nottingham. Calibrum, 1999. Surveylet. Calibrum Corporation. www.calibrum.com/Products/Surveylet/Login.asp. Curry, T., Reiner, D., Figuiredo, M.d., Herzog, H., 2005. A Survey of Public Attitudes towards Energy and Environment in Great Britain. MIT LFEE 2005-001 WP. Massachusets Institute of Technology. Dalkey, N., Helmer, O., 1963. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manage. Sci. 9, 458–467. DTI, 2006. UK Energy Sector Indicators 2006. URN 06/193. Department of Trade and Industry, London. ETPZEP, 2006a. Electronic Q/A Session Paper, September 8, 2006. Coordination Group #10, Brussels. ETPZEP, 2006b. Strategic Deployment Document, European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Plants (ZEP). Brussels. Eurobarometer, 2006. Attitudes Towards Energy. Special Eurobarometer 247. European Commission. GESTCO, 2003. Geological Storage of CO2 from Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Final Report. Project No. ENK6-CT-1999-00010, European Union Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Development, Brussels. Gordon, T.J., 1994. The Delphi Method. AC/UNU Millenium Project. Gough, C., Bentham, M., Shackley, S., Holloway, S., 2006. A regional integrated assessment of carbon dioxide capture and storage: East Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside case study. In: Shackley, S., Gough, C. (Eds.), Carbon Capture and its Storage: An Integrated Assessment, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 209–242. Harvey, F., 2007. BP Defers Decision on Carbon Capture Plant. Financial Times, London. HoC, 2006. Meeting the UK Energy and Climate Needs: The Role of Carbon Capture and Storage. HC 578-I, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, London. Holloway, S.E., 1996. The Underground Disposal of Carbon dioxide. Final Report of the Joule II Project CT92-0031. IEA, 2004. Prospects for CO2 Capture and Storage. International Energy Agency, Paris. IEAGHG, 2002. Transmission of CO2 and Energy. Report PH4/6, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Cheltenham, UK. IEAGHG, 2004. Ship Transport of CO2. Report PH4/30, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Cheltenham, UK. IMO, 2006. Briefing 43/2006 ’New international rules to allow storage of CO2 in seabed adopted’, IMO Briefing, Press Release. International Maritime Organisation. IPCC, 2005. In: Metz, B., Davidson, O., Coninck, H.C.d., Loos, M., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M., 1975. The Delphi Method Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Massachusetts. Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., Lorenzoni, I., 2006. Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and November 2005. Understanding Risk Working Paper 06-02. Centre for Environmental Risk, Norwich. Schellnhuber, H.J., Cramer, W., Nakicenovic, B., Wigley, T., Yohe, G. (Eds.), 2006. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
168
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Shackley, S., McLachlan, C., Gough, C., 2005. The public perception of carbon capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey. Clim. Pol. 4, 377–398. Stern, N., 2006. The economics of climate change: the Stern Review. HM Treasury & the Cabinet Office.
Webler, T., Levine, D., Rakel, H., Renn, O., 1991. A novel approach to reducing uncertainty: the group Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 39, 253–263. Woudenberg, F., 1991. An evaluation of Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 40, 131–150.
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc
State of the art in carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: An experts’ review Clair Gough * Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Pariser Building, The University of Manchester, PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK
article info
abstract
Article history:
This paper presents results from the first round of an extensive on-line Delphi survey of
Received 8 March 2007
experts in the field of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). Questions related to key
Received in revised form
drivers of energy technology in the UK, capture and engineering, CO2 transport, storage,
9 May 2007
risks and leakage, monitoring and remediation, costs and economics, incentives, regulation,
Accepted 16 May 2007
international context. The survey has constructed a comprehensive picture of expert
Published on line 21 June 2007
opinion on the current status of CCS in the UK from across the CCS and related energy supply community. The results contribute to understanding how large-scale deployment of
Keywords:
CCS might be realised in the UK and the challenges associated therein. The survey revealed
Delphi survey
that key barriers to implementation of CCS are currently a lack of long-term policy frame-
Stakeholder and expert opinion
work in the UK and costs. There remain aspects of the process that require further investigation but until the technology is adopted on a commercial scale, in the context of a commitment to significant reductions in CO2 emissions across all demand sectors, it is neither possible nor appropriate to predict the details of how the process will evolve. # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1.
Introduction
As the case for urgent and large-scale reductions in CO2 emissions grows within both scientific and political dialogues (IPCC, 2005; Schellnhuber et al., 2006; Stern, 2006), the application of carbon dioxide capture and geological storage (CCS) becomes increasingly relevant. CCS technologies provide the potential to make large-scale cuts in atmospheric CO2 emissions without wholesale restructuring of the electricity supply system (IEA, 2004; IPCC, 2005). Although, ultimately, a fully decarbonised energy system is likely to be required in order to avoid dangerous climate change (Anderson et al., 2005), CCS could make a significant contribution to securing deep cuts in CO2 in the short- to medium-term as alternative supply and demand measures are developed. The approach is attracting increasing political attention, but how soon could CCS be deployed at a commercial scale in the UK and what are
the key uncertainties and barriers to its implementation? This paper describes the first stage of a Delphi process in which key experts in areas related to CCS technology and its application have been consulted regarding a broad range of technical and non-technical issues. This paper describes the first phase of a two-phase Delphi process. It begins with a brief description of the Delphi process and how it has been applied here, followed by a description of the results generated during the first phase. We conclude with a brief summary and discussion of the implications of these results to the UK.
2.
The Delphi approach
The Delphi method was developed in the 1950s by the RAND corporation (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963) as a method for
* Tel.: +44 161 306 3447; fax: +44 161 3273. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1750-5836/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00073-4
156
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
deriving a consensus view from a group of experts. Originally developed for military applications, it has since been used widely in a variety of forecasting and decision making applications. The basic principle is that experts are presented individually with a set of questions, or Delphi statements, their responses are then compiled and presented back to participants (usually anonymously) who have the opportunity to revise their responses on the basis of the results of earlier rounds. The key features are thus reflexivity, iteration and a degree of anonymity. The process is designed to deliver results that distil the combined knowledge of experts in a field, free from the influences of a ‘conference room’ environment (Gordon, 1994). Various criticisms have been directed towards the use of the Delphi process, notably concerns over its accuracy (e.g. (Woudenberg, 1991)). However, as Webler et al. (1991) note, if the purpose is to identify expert opinion rather than factual evidence and when the application is one that combines ‘a mixture of scientific evidence and social values’, Delphi provides a flexibility and validity not provided by other, more conventional, methods. A key function of Delphi adopted here is as a communication process (Linstone and Turoff, 1975). Specifically, we can identify three broad objectives: 1. identify those aspects of the CCS technology for which consensus exists within the professional community and those for which there remains divergence of opinion; 2. identify key areas of uncertainty; 3. identify major opportunities and challenges to the implementation of CCS in the UK. To address these objectives, we have designed a twophase Delphi survey. Phase 1 consisted of an extensive webbased on-line questionnaire circulated to 242 professionals in the UK, either directly engaged in the CCS technology (and its components) or in an area related to its application. This phase will primarily address the first two objectives and provide preliminary results for the third objective. Phase 2 will pursue a group process and will build on the results of phase 1 to generate a pathway or ‘roadmap’ for CCS in the UK. The phase 2 workshop will involve a selection of the survey respondents (selected in order to ensure a spread of expertise and opinion) with some additional key stakeholders. All those respondents that supplied their email addresses have been given an opportunity to submit feedback to the first round results presented here, any such comments will feed into the phase 2 process. In the present paper we will concentrate on the first phase of this process and its results; phase 2 will be documented elsewhere.
3.
Development of the questionnaire
Careful design of a Delphi questionnaire is crucial to its success; the questionnaire design stage can be seen as substantive part of the process itself, ensuring that the right questions are asked and that questions are clear and unambiguous. In the present application a draft survey was piloted at a UK CCS Consortium
(UKCCSC)1 project meeting (attended by members from across the Consortium, representing expertise in all stages of the CCS technology). During the pilot session, Consortium members were initially asked to attempt to complete a draft survey following which their detailed feedback on the survey design and content was collected through two separate group discussions. The survey was subsequently amended to account for this feedback, with some additional consultation with relevant specialists relating to individual sections of the survey. Once this development phase was complete the draft survey was converted into its final format using specialist Delphi software. The next stage of the survey, including the administration and the collection of responses was conducted on-line. A specialist web-architected software from the Calibrum Corporation, ‘Surveylet’ (Calibrum, 1999), was used, providing a comprehensive array of question formats and a user-defined on-line help facility. The survey was structured around ten topics, each containing up to nine questions relating to a specific aspect of CCS and opportunities for respondents to add comments. Each section (excluding Sections 4 (profile) and 5.1 (landscape)) began by asking the respondents to indicate their level of expertise in that area—selecting from a four point scale ranging from none to expert; users were also given the option of omitting all or part of a section should they choose. It was estimated that to complete all of the questions in the survey would take up to 1 h; this was indicated in the invitation to participate in the survey. The 10 sections included in the survey were as follows: 1. Profile: areas of expertise, professional background and demographic profile, including the option for respondents to provide their email address, 2. Landscape: user’s opinion of CCS and key drivers of energy technology in the UK, 3. Capture and engineering: electricity generation and CO2 capture technology, 4. CO2 transport: infrastructure and management of CO2 transport, 5. Storage: type and extent of geological storage capacity in the UK, 6. Risks and leakage: environmental risks, monitoring and remediation associated with leakage, 7. Costs and economics: economic prospects for CCS technologies, 8. Incentives: fiscal measures to support CCS, 9. Regulation: national and international regulatory context, 10. International context: influence of overseas CCS initiatives and international role of UK.
4.
Profile of respondents
At the beginning of summer 2006, an invitation to participate in the Delphi process was sent out from the leader of the UK 1 The UKCCSC is a Consortium of 15 academic institutions funded under the ‘Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy’ Programme of the Natural Environment Research Council. It brings together a variety of expertise carrying out research on all aspects of CCS.
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
CCS Consortium (UKCCSC) to 242 UK-based CCS and related professionals. Those invited included all members of the UKCCSC teams, individuals from the CCS academic, industry, policy and NGO communities (including the members of a CCS network, CO2NET), participants at a UK Energy Research Centre event on CCS and other specialists from relevant sectors. Of these, 88 completed forms were returned—a response rate of 36% which is satisfactory given the detailed technical nature of the survey and level of engagement required for its completion. Whilst no claims are made that the survey sample is representative (a requirement in largescale generic surveys) efforts were made to ensure that the respondents consisted of ‘‘non-representative knowledgeable persons’’ (Gordon, 1994) and reflected different schools of thought (Webler et al., 1991) on CCS. Some degree of bias is inevitable in a survey such as this since, given that CCS is a relatively new technology, the majority of those sufficiently knowledgeable to participate in the survey are more likely to be in favour of the technology than opposed to it. The aim of the survey is to understand predominately technical challenges and potential for CCS rather than to identify stakeholder opinions on the desirability or otherwise of CCS. In order to identify where areas of controversy may lie, effort was made to include commentators that had voiced negative opinions of CCS in the past (for example, some NGOs). However, these remain a small minority of respondents, as revealed in the response to a question relating to level of support of CCS, to which more than 70% viewed its use ‘‘very positively’’. Respondents were also asked to indicate their professional background and area of expertise (with the option in each case of selecting more than one of the suggested categories). The majority of those that responded to the questionnaire were either from industry or the private sector (34 individuals), academics (46) or public sector research establishments (15); other environmental NGOs (2), government departments (4) and think tank/policy development bodies (5) were also represented but in much smaller numbers. Respondents reflected a good spread of expertise; the areas of energy policy, geology, petroleum engineering, environmental science, process and mechanical engineering were represented in the greatest numbers (13 or more selecting each field respectively). Overall, a minimum of 10 respondents indicated either expert or moderate levels of expertise in each of the 8 technical sections; the number with expert or moderate knowledge was greatest for the sections on capture and engineering (38), risk and leakage (31) and storage (29) and lowest for costs and economics (10). These figures describe self-declared levels of expertise and hence reflect respondents’ own subjective interpretations of expertise.
5.
Survey responses
In this section we present a summary of the results of the first round Delphi survey; a more detailed graphical presentation of the results of every question in the survey can be found on the UKCCSC website (http://www.co2storage.org.uk/UKCCSC/ Results/D2.html).
157
Fig. 1 – What are the key drivers for energy technology deployment in the UK?
5.1.
Landscape
This short section aimed to identify respondents’ views on more general factors likely to influence the use of CCS in the UK, namely energy technology drivers and barriers to CCS. The first substantive question asked in the survey was ‘‘What are the key drivers for energy technology deployment in the UK?’’2 This was an open-ended question to which respondents had the opportunity of providing long text answers. These answers have been collated, counting the number of times any of 15 drivers selected by the author (based on text responses) are mentioned in the responses; the results of this process are presented in Fig. 1 and Table 1 explains how the various drivers have been categorised. The average number of drivers selected by individuals was 2.3. The three most frequently selected drivers were, CO2 emissions (or environmental concerns in general), energy security and costs. In the case of the former, 62% of these explicitly cited CO2 or climate change and the remainder simply stated ‘environmental concerns’ (which may include CO2 reductions); 10% (5) of those selecting an environmental driver thought it to be the only driver. It is interesting to note that the importance of environmental drivers identified by these energy stakeholders was also identified in a largescale survey of members of the public; in the last Eurobarometer survey relating to energy (Eurobarometer, 2002), members of the public were asked to select what they considered should be the top two out of three priorities for energy for their national government (the three options being: low prices for consumers, ensuring uninterrupted supplies (of oil, gas and electricity), protection of the environment and public health and safety associated with 2
Online help for this question specified that ‘‘Drivers may be political, technical, economic, environmental: whichever you think are the key forces which influence which energy technologies are deployed’’.
158
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Table 1 – Explanation of categories for energy technology drivers presented in Fig. 1 CO2 emissions/other environmental
Energy security Government Politics
NGO/public opinion Incentives Private industry/profit Technical Reliability
Meeting energy demand Diversity of supply International commitments
Any mention of climate change, CO2 or carbon, ocean acidification (caused by elevated CO2 concentrations), general environmental impacts or legislation (including Kyoto, Large Combustion Plant Directive, EU Emissions Trading Scheme) Majority of respondents simply stated ‘‘security of supply’’ but also phrases such as ‘‘sustainability of supply’’, ‘‘looming energy supply gap’’ and ‘‘long-term supply prospects’’ were included here Responses classed as government when referring to formal government energy policy in the form of strategy or legislation or in one case identifying government as a key stakeholder Most respondents simply stated ‘‘politics’’/‘‘political’’, also cited political support for a technology, political will. This has been presented as a distinct category from ‘‘government’’ to distinguish between political motivation and explicit government policy or legislation NGO or public opinion or acceptance Responses explicitly referring to financial incentives or subsidies Includes business opportunities and market creation Use of established technologies, developing technological options, ‘‘technical’’, ‘‘technology’’ Generally refers to shorter term supply issues than energy security; responses were categorised as reliability if either explicitly stated reliability or intermittency, ‘‘avoiding brown outs’’ or ‘‘keeping the lights on’’ Responses referring to matching (increasing) demand for energy Maintaining a broad portfolio to avoid lock-in Respondent simply stated ‘‘international commitments’’
energy supply). In the majority of the EU15 countries the environmental protection was most frequently picked, including the UK where it was selected by 76% and low prices, selected by 61%. Fig. 2 shows that the two most frequently selected factors thought to represent the most important challenges to the development of CCS were the lack of long-term policy support in the UK and costs (each selected by almost 60 respondents) followed by the international regulatory framework (29).
5.2.
Capture and engineering
This section was somewhat wide-ranging, exploring respondents’ views on fuel mix for electricity supply, future capacity and performance of CCS capture technology. Respondents were first asked their opinion on the fuel
Fig. 2 – Potential show stoppers: What are the three most important challenges that, in your opinion, could prevent the implementation of CCS in the UK?
mix by 2050—what they thought it would be and what they would like it to be. Clearly, it is impossible to predict what the fuel mix will be in more than 40 years time, since it is contingent on a multitude of complex and inter-related factors. However, by framing the question in two parts, that of the respondent’s expectation and their preference, the intention was to identify differences in the perceptions of where energy policy is heading and where respondents consider it should be heading. Consequently, the results should be considered in parallel, as illustrated in Fig. 3. These graphs plot the 10th, 50th (median) and 90th percentile in a so-called ‘tent’ diagram of percentages given for each fuel type. These show that there is greater agreement over what respondents expect compared to what they would prefer. Eighty-four percent expected there to be a greater reliance on gas in the future than they would like to see, while none of the respondents expected to see more renewables in the mix than they would like—respondents do not appear to be very optimistic about the future contribution of renewables reaching their perceived potential. Expectation was for renewable energy to be the lowest component of the fuel mix (although only slightly less than nuclear) while renewable energy was placed high in the preferred fuel mix. With respect to coal, it is perhaps not surprising that 69% would like to see the same or more coal in the mix than they expect, since many of the respondents work directly in an area relating to coal technology. Opinion on the future for nuclear power was fairly split; 39% expected there to be more nuclear than they would like, 29% supplied the same percentage for each question and 32% expected to see less nuclear than they would like to see. Note, however, that the nuclear tent is to the left on both graphs as a relatively low proportion of the fuel mix compared to other energy sources. A question relating to the likely capacity of coal plant with CCS in the UK by 2015, 2025, 2040 showed little consensus beyond there being little or no (<1 GW) retrofit or co-firing technology by 2015 and up to a maximum of 3 GW new build or
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
5.3.
Fig. 3 – Graphs showing expectation and preference for the electricity supply fuel mix to 2040.
capture-ready3 plant by 2015 (although the majority predicted there to be much less than this).4 The main exception to this was a large proportion of respondents (75%) anticipating there to be more than 5 GW new build CCS in place by 2040. Opinion over which specific CCS technology will provide this was split between pre-combustion capture and there being no single dominant technology. The same question relating to gas-fired plant revealed that respondents think CCS is unlikely to be adopted until after 2015 and at much lower capacities, if at all for gas-fired plant. This question asked respondents whether they thought that capture technology applied to the two fuel types was likely rather than their opinion on whether it is appropriate or desirable. A recent survey of around 400 stakeholders conducted during the General Assembly of the European Technologies Programme Zero Emission Platform (ETP ZEP) revealed that more than 80% of respondents thought that CCS should be focused on ‘all fossil fuels’ and not just coal (ETPZEP, 2006a). The range in plant thermal efficiency that is likely to be achieved in CCS plant was generally thought to be fairly narrow: the mode responses for minimum to maximum were 35–45% LHV (lower heating value) for coal plant and 45–60% LHV for gas plant. 3 The term ‘capture ready’ was defined in the survey online help as ‘‘A plant built with the intention of subsequent retrofitting of CCS technologies. A capture ready plant should require no additional expenditure and incur no performance penalties compared to standard industry plant options. Its conversion to capture should not incur additional maintenance outages and should operate with same performance as a base plant and capture process built as a single unit’’. 4 Capacity of coal fired generation in the UK is currently (2005) 22.6 GW (DTI, 2006).
159
CO2 transport
All questions in this section related to the transportation of CO2, the key technical uncertainties associated with transporting CO2, what form a potential CO2 network might take, who should pay for it and the environmental risks associated with different modes. To date, the CO2 transportation stage of the CCS process has received relatively little attention, compared to capture and storage (see for example IEA, 2004; IEAGHG, 2002, 2004; IPCC, 2005). One reason for the relatively limited debate in this area is reflected in the responses to a question asking respondents what they thought were the key technical uncertainties surrounding CO2 transport; the majority (including one respondent expert in the field of CO2 transport) thought there were none. The remaining experts in this area cited impurities (main problems likely to be H2S or SO2), long distances offshore and lack of testing. The Delphi survey has attempted to explore further what form a CO2 transport network might take in the UK. All but one respondent thought that the majority of CO2 stored in the UK would be transported by pipeline, with 79% (23 out of 29 respondents) expecting the proportion to be 80% or more. Most (76%) respondents thought that there would be opportunity for reusing existing pipelines (particularly offshore) while fewer thought that this would be the case for shipping; however, all respondents considered that CO2 transport would require some new infrastructure, regardless of the transport mode. On the question of who should pay for new pipeline construction (Fig. 4), 48% of the 29 respondents thought that government should not be required to cover any of these costs but that they should be covered by storage site operators and CO2 providers (either individually or shared between the two) and 42% (including the one government department respondent) thought that the costs should be shared between the government, storage site operators and CO2 providers (the remaining four respondents wanted costs to be shared between CO2 providers and government). In addition there was a comment that ‘‘the pipeline should be paid for by the pipeline operator and funded by revenue from contracts for transportation with third parties, either CO2 provider or storage site operator’’. In a subsequent question, establishing new commercial partnerships was the second
Fig. 4 – Who should pay for new pipeline construction?
160
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Table 2 – What are the main environmental or safety risks associated with CO2 transport?
CO2 emissions Health and safety impacts Landscape effects Drinking water contamination Soil contamination Ecosystem impacts
5.4.
Onshore pipelines
Offshore pipelines
Ships
11 19 18 9
14 7 1 0
17 17 0 0
9 12
3 22
0 8
Number of respondents selecting impact categories.
most frequently selected barrier to the construction of new pipelines, behind costs. Respondents were also asked to select from a list what they thought were the main environmental or safety risks associated with CO2 transport; responses to this are summarised in Table 2. Onshore pipelines were seen as having the widest range of impacts—with nine or more selecting all of the options presented; those effects selected by the greatest number of respondents were landscape effects and health and safety. For offshore pipelines, ecosystem impacts and CO2 emissions were selected by the greatest number of respondents. The only risks selected as being associated with transport by ship were CO2 emissions, health and safety and ecosystem impacts. Only two respondents identified other risks not included on the list: public opinion (applicable to all modes) and for onshore pipelines, risk to local population (via ‘‘suffocation’’ or ‘‘jet of solid particles in event of a rupture’’); this latter respondent recommended that a comprehensive risk assessment would be required.
Storage
The section on storage focused on the potential for different types of reservoir for CO2 storage, in terms of when they might come into use, and capacity; the management and potential risks associated with their use is covered in the following section. Fig. 5 shows the timescale over which respondents consider that different types of storage will be adopted at a large-scale (>10 MT CO2 pa). Over 50% of the 43 respondents to this question considered that onshore aquifers and coal seams (either onshore or offshore) would never be used for large-scale CO2 storage in the UK. In the case of coal seams, reasons that were cited for this were either a potential future requirement to access the coal resource or technical reasons. By 2015, the majority (53 and 70%, respectively) thought that disused gas fields and EOR would be in use for large-scale storage. By 2025, a further 40% thought that disused gas fields would be in significant use and 44% thought that offshore saline aquifers would be in use by this time; those that thought EOR would come on line in 2025 dropped to 20%. By 2040, a further 30% considered that offshore saline aquifers and 26% thought that offshore coal seams would be in use. These results indicate the different storage sites that come into play over different timescales. There is clearly uncertainty surrounding the use of coal seams (both on- and off-shore); our respondents think that they will either never be used or, if they are used, only in the much longer term. The effect of expertise on responses to this question appears most marked with respect to the use of coal seams—only a very small proportion of the experts considered that coal seems would ever be used for CO2 storage in contrast to a slightly more optimistic view from those with moderate or basic knowledge.
Fig. 5 – Large-scale storage (>10 MT CO2 pa) will be adopted in UK reservoirs by which year?
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
161
Fig. 6 – Storage capacity in main reservoir types: please enter an approximate figure for the likely range of usable storage capacity in the UK.
Respondents were then asked to state what they thought were minimum, medium and maximum estimates of storage capacity in the different types of reservoir in the UK; their responses are shown for the main reservoir types in Fig. 6. A maximum of nine respondents attempted to provide answers to this question, seven of whom were experts in the field, providing us a snapshot of current thinking on this issue. While there is a reasonable level of agreement on the lower and mid-estimates of capacity, particularly for oil fields and saline aquifers, upper estimates of storage capacity lie in a much larger range (note that the second graph for saline aquifers has been plotted on a log scale to reveal these ranges more clearly). While the location and extent of saline aquifers appears to be well understood (Brook et al., 2003; GESTCO, 2003), these results reflect the large uncertainties associated with the specific suitability for storage across these very large geological structures. There are relatively few published estimates for storage capacity, the most frequently cited of which is Holloway (1996), providing the upper estimates of storage capacity for saline aquifers indicated in Fig. 6. While oil and gas fields are well studied and documented, such detailed information at site level is not available for saline aquifers. Hence while it is known in theory that the potential for storage could be extremely large, precisely how much of this capacity will prove practically feasible for CO2 storage remains more uncertain. Detailed site by site assessment will be required before this potential can be exploited (Gough et al., 2006). Respondents were asked to identify what they thought were the key technical uncertainties currently associated with CO2 storage. This was presented as an open-ended question, the responses to which have been categorised by the author, as shown in Fig. 7. Clearly the key technical uncertainty for CO2 storage is leakage and in particular well bore integrity
(leakage at the injection site), independent of respondents’ level of expertise in this area. Another concern frequently cited is the fate of the CO2 once it has been stored—i.e. how the CO2 migrates through the underground formation and any chemical and physical transformation it undergoes in the process. The issue of leakage is explored in more detail in the following section.
5.5.
Risks and leakage
This section briefly addressed the perception of the relative risk of CCS and the opportunity for leakage detection and remediation across different stages of the CCS process. Although clearly the risks associated with CCS and with the
Fig. 7 – What are the key technical uncertainties associated with storage of CO2?
162
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
optimistic claims that have been made about CCS,5 suggesting that the environmental performance of storage requires significant further investigation.
5.6.
Fig. 8 – In your opinion, how does the risk (identified in the previous question) associated with CCS compare to the environmental risk associated with an equivalent (in terms of CO2 reductions) use of nuclear power?
use of nuclear power are very different, we asked respondents to compare the environmental risks presented by the two options (to achieve equivalent levels of CO2 reduction), the results are shown in Fig. 8. This question prompted a high response rate with 46 individuals responding. Of these, a large majority (74%) thought that the risk would be slightly less or much less and only 6% (three individuals) thought that CCS posed a greater environmental risk than nuclear power. Initially this response might appear to be a function of the rather pro-CCS bias of the respondents but referring back to responses concerning preferences for a future fuel mix this is not balanced by an opposition to nuclear power per se. However, several respondents did comment that while the probability of a leak may be greater with CCS, the implications of an incident associated with the use of nuclear power would be far greater. Respondents were then asked to assess the ease of both detecting and repairing or remediating leaks from different stages of the CCS process; their responses are shown in Fig. 9. The onshore components of CCS (capture and pipeline transport) are not seen as presenting difficulties for monitoring—only 2% (1) and 7% (3) selected difficult or very difficult, respectively; 24% (11) of respondents considered offshore pipelines to be difficult or very difficult to monitor and similar for boreholes (although the majority (61% (27)) considered monitoring of boreholes to be manageable; in the case of offshore pipelines, 38% (17) thought manageable, 29% (13) thought straightforward). However, 68% (30) thought that geological faults would be difficult or very difficult to monitor and 27% thought that they would be manageable (no one thought these would be very simple to monitor). The results for the ease of repair of capture and onshore pipelines results are very similar to those for monitoring. For the offshore elements of CCS, repair and remediation were seen as being slightly more challenging than monitoring: 24% (11) of respondents considered offshore pipelines to be difficult or very difficult to monitor and similar for boreholes (and 45% (19) considered monitoring of boreholes to be manageable). However, 59% (24) thought that geological faults would be very difficult and 29% (12) difficult to repair and 12% (5) thought only manageable (no one thought these would be straightforward or simple). This result is in contrast to some
Costs and economics
This section explored respondents views of the effect on electricity prices of CCS, the proportion of costs associated with the three main stages in the process and opportunities for reducing costs. The first question in this section asked what the likely additional cost of electricity would be as a result of installing and running capture equipment and this revealed a broad spread of opinion. Eighteen people gave responses ranging from 2 to 75%; the mode and median response was 20% and there was no relation between level of expertise and response. Clearly many factors will affect the costs of CCS and the extent to which these are passed on to consumers, including any government subsidies or incentives, making it particularly difficult to put a figure on such a question. The survey then asked respondents to specify how total costs would be split between the three stages of the CCS process. Fig. 10 shows that all respondents agreed that capture would make up more than a third of the costs with a median and mode response of 70 and 75%, respectively. A recent poll of around 400 European stakeholders conducted at the General Assembly of the European Technology Platform on Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ETPZEP, 2006a) identified cost reduction of capture technologies as the top priority issue to be addressed (closely followed by reliability and long-term stability of CO2 storage). A Special Eurobarometer survey conducted in 2005 (Eurobarometer, 2006), showed that although 45% of respondents (in the UK) would be prepared to pay more for energy produced from renewable sources, there appears to be an upper limit of an increased cost of 5–10%. Although the Eurobarometer question was presented in terms of renewable energy, it is unlikely that, if CCS were presented clearly as a means of reducing CO2 emissions, a significantly different response would be generated (although there is evidence to suggest that currently the public views renewable energy more favourably than coal with (Curry et al., 2005; Shackley et al., 2005) or without CCS (Poortinga et al., 2006)). The Eurobarometer survey showed that people’s willingness to pay extra in order to face new energy challenges is increasing over time and it is likely that this trend will continue as awareness of both the challenge and urgency of addressing climate change increases. However, it remains clear that increased electricity costs resulting from CCS could have a significant impact on its acceptability unless there are significant improvements in cost and/or some form of government support to reduce the extent to which the consumer bears the costs. In the final question in this section respondents were asked to select up to three out of nine suggested factors (plus the opportunity to specify additional factors) that would lead to 5
For example the European Technology Platform’s ‘‘zero tolerance for CO2 leakages’’ (ETPZEP, 2006b) which states that ‘‘in storage sites that are well-sited [. . .] monitoring and remediation techniques [. . .] should be able to correct them immediately’’.
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
163
Fig. 9 – Ease of monitoring/detecting leaks and repair/remediation of each stage of the CCS process.
the greatest reduction in CCS costs for each stage. Fig. 11 shows that certain developments appear as important and these are different for each stage in the process. All of the options were selected by one or more respondent for capture, transport and storage. Technology breakthrough, economies of scale and experience from demonstration plant were the most frequently selected for capture; for transport, it was economies of scale and planning certainty and most frequently selected for storage were EOR offsets, learning by doing and experience from demonstration plant.
5.7.
Incentives
This short section assessed respondents’ views of different types of regulatory and fiscal incentives. The survey asked whether respondents thought that industry should receive incentives or not (to which 46 (out of 50) responded in the affirmative) and, if so, were then asked to state the extent to which they supported a range of different possible incentives. The results, shown in Fig. 12, show that while all of the proposed incentives were generally supported, ‘support for
164
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Fig. 10 – What percentage of costs can be attributed to capture, transport and storage?
R&D’ was strongly supported by the greatest number of respondents (33), with the ‘EU ETS beyond 2012’ being the next most popular. Those incentives grouped under ‘other initiatives’ were generally strongly supported by fewer respondents compared to the other mechanisms, perhaps because they are less familiar concepts, as reflected in the greater number of ‘don’t know’ responses for this category.
aquifers and hydrocarbon fields?’ produced overall consensus that amendment of both the London and OSPAR Conventions is required for storage but somewhat less consensus on the situation for pipelines, as shown in Table 3. It should be noted that on 2 November 2006, after this survey was conducted, the 1996 protocol to the London Convention was amended to allow storage of CO2 in sub-seabed geological formations from February 2007, although ‘‘guidance (. . .) on the means by which sub-seabed geological sequestration of carbon dioxide can be conducted, (. . .) over the long and short term, should be developed as soon as possible.’’ (IMO, 2006). Referring to the Landscape section (see Section 5.1) of this survey, the third most frequently selected challenge to CCS was the international regulatory framework, which at first sight may appear in contradiction of the relative optimism reflected in the results in Table 3. There are two effects that may have produced this result. Firstly, at least four times more people responded to the ‘show stoppers’ question than to the regulation question, suggesting that many of these may not be familiar with the actual international regulatory situation, which they perceive to be a significant barrier. Secondly, although there is optimism that the Conventions will be resolved, clearly if resolution is necessary but not achieved, this is sufficient to prevent CCS proceeding.
5.9. 5.8.
International context
Regulation
This section explored respondents’ opinions of the current status of the various international Conventions with respect to CCS. The question ‘By when will the following Conventions be resolved to allow clear provision for CO2 storage in North Sea
The aim of the International context section was to explore respondents’ views on the influence of and relationship between developments in CCS implementation overseas and in the UK. Fig. 13 charts what impact respondents considered overseas commercial success in CCS will have in
Fig. 11 – What would lead to the greatest reduction in CCS costs?
165
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Fig. 12 – Incentives: please indicate you level of support for the following options.
the UK; this shows that such success is generally thought to have a positive effect on the deployment of CCS, although there was no consensus on whether this will lead to economic benefits in terms of export potential. The comments associated with responses to this question reveal that respondents found it difficult to judge the economic impact, since it would depend on what the overseas initiatives were and the extent of UK involvement in them, how successful they were, how quickly the UK government puts the appropriate legal framework in place and how soon CCS is adopted in the UK. Respondents’ views on the prospects for an international network of CO2 storage are shown in Fig. 14. 91% (of 44 respondents) thought that the UK may store CO2 from overseas and the export of CO2 from the UK for storage elsewhere was considered a possibility by 75%. Several respondents commented that the most likely context for
such arrangements lay in the North Sea with a strong history of collaboration between offshore operators and good relations between the UK and Norway. This latter point is exemplified by a joint declaration signed between the Norwegian and UK governments in 2005 setting up a North Sea Basin Task Force. The final two questions in this section, and of the survey as whole, looked at the UK’s position and capabilities in CCS relative to other countries. While 89% agreed or agreed strongly with the statement that the UK should aim for a leadership role in CCS technology, Fig. 15 shows that most respondents consider the UK to be only averagely placed in each of the three broad components of the technology. There was least optimism in the area of CO2 capture and greatest in the area of storage. The comments provided with responses to this question reveal that many considered the UK to have (or
Table 3 – By when will the following Conventions be resolved to allow clear provision for CO2 storage in North Sea aquifers and hydrocarbon fields?
Not required 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2020 Total
OSPAR for storage
OSPAR for pipeline reuse
London convention for storage
London convention for pipeline
2 1 2 3 1 6
6
2
7
2
1 1
6 1 1 3 1
2
1 3 2 1
1
1
4
2
1998 petroleum act
1 1
16
Frequency of respondents selecting each year.
13
15
12
9
166
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Fig. 13 – What effect will commercial success of non-UK initiatives have on the development of CCS in the UK?
have had) the capability to have a leadership role but expressed frustration that the necessary substantive progress at government and managerial level is lacking. A key reason put forward as to why we should be pursuing leadership in this technology was, in addition to economic and agenda setting advantages, that the UK holds a responsibility to develop and adopt the technology we are advocating for use in developing countries, leading by example.
5.10.
Summary and recommendations
This paper has presented results of a wide-ranging survey of the views of stakeholders and experts from across the extended CCS community on the technical, economic and political factors affecting the future deployment of CCS in the UK. We conclude this paper with a brief summary of some of the key findings from the survey and make some provisional recommendations based on those findings. CCS is a technology which incurs a cost but no direct benefits other than potentially large reductions in CO2 emissions; that climate change mitigation was seen as a key driver of energy technology by a majority of respondents is thus crucial to its future implementation. The survey results show a broad agreement on the top three barriers to the use of CCS; these are: long policy framework in the UK, costs, international regulatory framework. The fact that two of these
Fig. 14 – International movement of CO2 for storage. Will all of the CO2 captured in the UK be stored in UK reservoirs? And will UK reservoirs be used to store CO2 captured outside the UK?
Fig. 15 – How well developed are UK capabilities in the following areas?
concerns relate to the policy context demonstrate the urgent need for political leadership (at both national and international levels) if the UK is to exploit its significant potential for large-scale storage. The opportunity for the UK to establish an international leadership role in this area was typically seen as significant but not inevitable by the respondents to the survey. The third barrier, costs, with CO2 capture representing the largest proportion of costs in the CCS process, clearly remains uncertain for CCS in the absence of existing commercial scale deployment in the UK. Economies of scale and technology breakthrough were the most frequently selected factors that would lead to a reduction in capture costs, followed by greater experience from demonstration plant. Although the survey respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the use of CCS (a product of requiring a relatively high level of expertise relating to the technology in order to complete the survey), there was nevertheless a high level of support for a greater use of renewables in the fuel mix than thought likely to occur, matched by the expectation of a greater than desirable reliance on gas. The majority thought that there will be significant (>5 GW) new build coal fired plant with CCS by 2040, although opinion remains split on whether this will be dominated by precombustion capture or a mix of technologies with no single technology dominating. CCS on gas plant is considered likely to be adopted later than on coal plant and on a smaller scale, with even less consensus on technology for gas plant than for coal plant. Transport of CO2 by pipeline in the North Sea CO2 was thought likely to be a combination of a networked and a pointto-point system between sources and storage sites. The survey revealed a perception that corrosion is a key technical uncertainty associated with CO2 transport among some respondents with basic or moderate knowledge in this area. This was not cited by the experts that responded, for whom impurities in the CO2 stream was raised as a concern; this may also hold implications for the CO2 capture process as well as its transportation. The most commonly cited uncertainty associated with the storage of CO2 was leakage, in particular well integrity and the long-term fate of stored CO2. Clearly it is crucial that a better understanding and confidence in the storage process is required before CCS becomes part of the mainstream portfolio
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
of mitigation options. As experience is built up of CO2 storage in hydrocarbon fields in the nearer-term (to 2015), further research into the use of saline aquifers should improve understanding into their use for CO2 storage. While only a small fraction of respondents held sufficient expertise to respond, there is a very large storage potential in these formations, although the true magnitude of this potential is not well understood currently. This survey has constructed a comprehensive picture of expert opinion from across the CCS and related energy supply community on the current status of CCS in the UK. The results contribute to understanding how large-scale deployment of CCS might be realised in the UK and the challenges associated therein. There remain aspects of the process that require further investigation but until the technology is adopted on a commercial scale, in the context of a commitment to significant reductions in CO2 emissions across all demand sectors, it is neither possible nor appropriate to predict the details of how the process will evolve. Within its Energy Policy for Europe, the European Commission has set out its intention to ‘‘design a mechanism to stimulate the construction and operation by 2015 of up to 12 large-scale demonstrations of sustainable fossil fuel technologies’’. In the UK, several proposals from different companies, deploying different CCS technologies, are currently under evaluation, although, as yet, no firm decision to proceed with the construction of a single demonstration plant has been taken in the UK6 (including a recent deferment of a decision over the DF1 project in Scotland by BP (Harvey, 2007)). The UK is ‘‘wellpositioned to play a leading role in demonstrating CCS technology’’ (HoC, 2006) but it is apparent that the decision over whether or not to actively pursue this option must be made in the very short-term and a clear policy framework developed to support that decision.
Acknowledgements This work was conducted on behalf of the UK CCS Consortium (UKCCSC), funded by the Natural Environment Research Council under their ‘Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy’ Programme. The author would like to thank the members of UKCCSC for their cooperation and help in preparing and conducting the Delphi survey, in particular Sarah Mander and David Reiner, and to all those who responded to the on-line survey.
references
Anderson, K., Shackley, S., Mander, S., Bows, A., 2005. Decarbonising the UK: Energy for a Climate Conscious Future. Tyndall Centre, Manchester.
6 Since this paper was originally submitted, the Government indicated in the 2007 Budget that a CCS demonstration plant would be funded, to be decided via competitive tender, details of which will be announced in the forthcoming Energy White Paper.
167
Brook, M., Holloway, S., Shaw, K.L., Vincent, C.J., 2003. GESTCO Case Study 2a-1. Storage Potential of the Bunter Sandstone Formation in the UK Sector of the Southern North Sea and the Adjacent area of Eastern England. Commissioned Report CR/03/154. British Geological Survey, Nottingham. Calibrum, 1999. Surveylet. Calibrum Corporation. www.calibrum.com/Products/Surveylet/Login.asp. Curry, T., Reiner, D., Figuiredo, M.d., Herzog, H., 2005. A Survey of Public Attitudes towards Energy and Environment in Great Britain. MIT LFEE 2005-001 WP. Massachusets Institute of Technology. Dalkey, N., Helmer, O., 1963. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manage. Sci. 9, 458–467. DTI, 2006. UK Energy Sector Indicators 2006. URN 06/193. Department of Trade and Industry, London. ETPZEP, 2006a. Electronic Q/A Session Paper, September 8, 2006. Coordination Group #10, Brussels. ETPZEP, 2006b. Strategic Deployment Document, European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Plants (ZEP). Brussels. Eurobarometer, 2006. Attitudes Towards Energy. Special Eurobarometer 247. European Commission. GESTCO, 2003. Geological Storage of CO2 from Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Final Report. Project No. ENK6-CT-1999-00010, European Union Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Development, Brussels. Gordon, T.J., 1994. The Delphi Method. AC/UNU Millenium Project. Gough, C., Bentham, M., Shackley, S., Holloway, S., 2006. A regional integrated assessment of carbon dioxide capture and storage: East Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside case study. In: Shackley, S., Gough, C. (Eds.), Carbon Capture and its Storage: An Integrated Assessment, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 209–242. Harvey, F., 2007. BP Defers Decision on Carbon Capture Plant. Financial Times, London. HoC, 2006. Meeting the UK Energy and Climate Needs: The Role of Carbon Capture and Storage. HC 578-I, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, London. Holloway, S.E., 1996. The Underground Disposal of Carbon dioxide. Final Report of the Joule II Project CT92-0031. IEA, 2004. Prospects for CO2 Capture and Storage. International Energy Agency, Paris. IEAGHG, 2002. Transmission of CO2 and Energy. Report PH4/6, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Cheltenham, UK. IEAGHG, 2004. Ship Transport of CO2. Report PH4/30, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Cheltenham, UK. IMO, 2006. Briefing 43/2006 ’New international rules to allow storage of CO2 in seabed adopted’, IMO Briefing, Press Release. International Maritime Organisation. IPCC, 2005. In: Metz, B., Davidson, O., Coninck, H.C.d., Loos, M., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M., 1975. The Delphi Method Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Massachusetts. Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., Lorenzoni, I., 2006. Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and November 2005. Understanding Risk Working Paper 06-02. Centre for Environmental Risk, Norwich. Schellnhuber, H.J., Cramer, W., Nakicenovic, B., Wigley, T., Yohe, G. (Eds.), 2006. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
168
international journal of greenhouse gas control 2 (2008) 155–168
Shackley, S., McLachlan, C., Gough, C., 2005. The public perception of carbon capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey. Clim. Pol. 4, 377–398. Stern, N., 2006. The economics of climate change: the Stern Review. HM Treasury & the Cabinet Office.
Webler, T., Levine, D., Rakel, H., Renn, O., 1991. A novel approach to reducing uncertainty: the group Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 39, 253–263. Woudenberg, F., 1991. An evaluation of Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 40, 131–150.