Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in a Carbon Constrained World: The Role of Carbon Capture and Storage

Contents:

Author Info

  • Barbara Praetorius
  • Katja Schumacher

Abstract

In a carbon constrained world, at least four classes of greenhouse gas mitigation options are available: Energy efficiency, fuel switching, introduction of carbon dioxide capture and storage along with renewable generating technologies, and reductions in emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. The role of energy technologies is considered crucial in climate change mitigation. In particular, carbon capture and storage (CCS) promises to allow for low-emissions fossil-fuel based power generation. The technology is under development; a number of technological, economic, environmental and safety issues remain to be solved. With regard to its sustainability impact, CCS raises a number of questions: On the one hand, CCS may prolong the prevailing coal-to-electricity regime and countervail efforts in other mitigation categories. On the other hand, given the indisputable need to continue using fossil fuels for some time, it may serve as a bridging technology towards a sustainable energy future. In this paper, we discuss the relevant issues for the case of Germany. We provide a survey of the current state of the art of CCS and activities, and perform an energy-environment-economic analysis using a general equilibrium model for Germany. The model analyzes the impact of introducing carbon constraints with respect to the deployment of CCS, to the resulting greenhouse gas emissions, to the energy and technology mix and with respect to interaction of different mitigation efforts. The results show the relative importance of the components in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in Germany. For example, under the assumption of a CO2 policy, both energy efficiency and CCS will contribute to climate gas mitigation. A given climate target can be achieved at lower marginal costs when the option of CCS is included. We conclude that, given an appropriate legal and policy framework, CCS, energy efficiency and some other mitigation efforts are complementary measures and should form part of a broad mix of measures required for a successful CO2 mitigation strategy.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.89042.de/dp820.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research in its series Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin with number 820.

as in new window
Length: 38 p.
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp820

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Mohrenstraße 58, D-10117 Berlin
Phone: xx49-30-89789-0
Fax: xx49-30-89789-200
Email:
Web page: http://www.diw.de/en
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Rubin, Edward S. & Yeh, Sonia & Antes, Matt & Berkenpas, Michael & Davison, John, 2007. "Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with CO2 capture," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt46x6h0n0, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
  2. Unruh, Gregory C. & Carrillo-Hermosilla, Javier, 2006. "Globalizing carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1185-1197, July.
  3. Sands, Ronald D., 2004. "Dynamics of carbon abatement in the Second Generation Model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 721-738, July.
  4. Unruh, Gregory C., 2000. "Understanding carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 817-830, October.
  5. Unruh, Gregory C., 2002. "Escaping carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 317-325, March.
  6. Katja Schumacher & Ronald D. Sands, 2005. "Innovative Energy Technologies and Climate Policy in Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 509, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  7. Martinsen, Dag & Linssen, Jochen & Markewitz, Peter & Vogele, Stefan, 2007. "CCS: A future CO2 mitigation option for Germany?--A bottom-up approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2110-2120, April.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Bowen, Frances, 2011. "Carbon capture and storage as a corporate technology strategy challenge," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2256-2264, May.
  2. Rogge, Karoline S. & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2010. "The impact of the EU ETS on the sectoral innovation system for power generation technologies - Findings for Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7639-7652, December.
  3. Wang, Bing & Kocaoglu, Dundar F. & Daim, Tugrul U. & Yang, Jiting, 2010. "A decision model for energy resource selection in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7130-7141, November.
  4. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
  5. Rübbelke, Dirk & Vögele, Stefan, 2013. "Effects of carbon dioxide capture and storage in Germany on European electricity exchange and welfare," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 582-588.
  6. Sören Lindner & Sonja Peterson & Wilhelm Windhorst, 2009. "An Economic and Environmental Assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Power Plants – A Case Study for the City of Kiel," Kiel Working Papers 1527, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
  7. Arvesen, Anders & Bright, Ryan M. & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2011. "Considering only first-order effects? How simplifications lead to unrealistic technology optimism in climate change mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7448-7454.
  8. Kemp-Benedict, Eric, 2013. "Resource Return on Investment under Markup Pricing," MPRA Paper 49154, University Library of Munich, Germany.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp820. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bibliothek).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.