IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/masfgc/v18y2013i2p187-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon capture and storage deployment rates: needs and feasibility

Author

Listed:
  • Asbjørn Torvanger
  • Marianne Lund
  • Nathan Rive

Abstract

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) may become a key technology to limit human-induced global warming, but many uncertainties prevail, including the necessary technological development, costs, legal ramifications, and siting. As such, an important question is the scale of carbon dioxide abatement we require from CCS to meet future climate targets, and whether they appear reasonable. For a number of energy technology and efficiency improvement scenarios, we use a simple climate model to assess the necessary contribution from CCS to ‘fill the gap’ between scenarios’ carbon dioxide emissions levels and the levels needed to meet alternative climate targets. The need for CCS depends on early or delayed action to curb emissions and the characteristics of the assumed energy scenario. To meet a 2.5°C target a large contribution and fast deployment rates for CCS are required. The required deployment rates are much faster than those seen in the deployment of renewable energy technologies as well as nuclear power the last decades, and may not be feasible. This indicates that more contributions are needed from other low-carbon energy technologies and improved energy efficiency, or substitution of coal for gas in the first half of the century. In addition the limited availability of coal and gas by end of the century and resulting limited scope for CCS implies that meeting the 2.5°C target would require significant contributions from one or more of the following options: CCS linked to oil use, biomass energy based CCS (BECCS), and CCS linked to industrial processes. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Asbjørn Torvanger & Marianne Lund & Nathan Rive, 2013. "Carbon capture and storage deployment rates: needs and feasibility," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 187-205, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:18:y:2013:i:2:p:187-205
    DOI: 10.1007/s11027-012-9357-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11027-012-9357-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11027-012-9357-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gert Jan Kramer & Martin Haigh, 2009. "No quick switch to low-carbon energy," Nature, Nature, vol. 462(7273), pages 568-569, December.
    2. Massimo Tavoni & Valentina Bosetti & Carlo Carraro, 2009. "Climate Change Mitigation Strategies in Fast-Growing Countries: The Benefits of Early Action," Working Papers 2009.53, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Rai, Varun & Victor, David G. & Thurber, Mark C., 2010. "Carbon capture and storage at scale: Lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4089-4098, August.
    4. Tooraj Jamasb, 2007. "Technical Change Theory and Learning Curves: Patterns of Progress in Electricity Generation Technologies," The Energy Journal, , vol. 28(3), pages 51-72, July.
    5. Grubler, Arnulf, 2010. "The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5174-5188, September.
    6. Jacobsson, Staffan & Johnson, Anna, 2000. "The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(9), pages 625-640, July.
    7. Ken Gregory & Hans-Holger Rogner, 1998. "Energy Resources and Conversion Technologies for the 21st Century," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 171-230, December.
    8. Malte Meinshausen & Nicolai Meinshausen & William Hare & Sarah C. B. Raper & Katja Frieler & Reto Knutti & David J. Frame & Myles R. Allen, 2009. "Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C," Nature, Nature, vol. 458(7242), pages 1158-1162, April.
    9. Joeri Rogelj & Julia Nabel & Claudine Chen & William Hare & Kathleen Markmann & Malte Meinshausen & Michiel Schaeffer & Kirsten Macey & Niklas Höhne, 2010. "Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry," Nature, Nature, vol. 464(7292), pages 1126-1128, April.
    10. Steven J. Smith and T.M.L. Wigley, 2006. "Multi-Gas Forcing Stabilization with Minicam," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 373-392.
    11. Herzog, Howard J., 2011. "Scaling up carbon dioxide capture and storage: From megatons to gigatons," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 597-604, July.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. García, Jorge H. & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2019. "Carbon leakage from geological storage sites: Implications for carbon trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 320-329.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elia, A. & Kamidelivand, M. & Rogan, F. & Ó Gallachóir, B., 2021. "Impacts of innovation on renewable energy technology cost reductions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    2. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    3. Sergey Paltsev, 2016. "Energy Scenarios: The Value and Limits of Scenario Analysis," EcoMod2016 9371, EcoMod.
    4. George A. Gonzalez, 2016. "Transforming Energy: Solving Climate Change with Technology Policy . New York : Cambridge University Press . 360 pages. ISBN 9781107614970, $29.99 paperback. Anthony Patt , 2015 ," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(1), pages 111-113, January.
    5. Sergey Paltsev, 2017. "Energy scenarios: the value and limits of scenario analysis," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(4), July.
    6. Lovering, Jessica R. & Yip, Arthur & Nordhaus, Ted, 2016. "Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 371-382.
    7. Nordhaus, William, 2013. "Integrated Economic and Climate Modeling," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 1069-1131, Elsevier.
    8. Gunnar Luderer & Christoph Bertram & Katherine Calvin & Enrica De Cian & Elmar Kriegler, 2015. "Implications of Weak Near-term Climate Policies on Long-term Mitigation Pathways," Working Papers 2015.05, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    9. Strupeit, Lars, 2017. "An innovation system perspective on the drivers of soft cost reduction for photovoltaic deployment: The case of Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 273-286.
    10. Nichola Raihani & David Aitken, 2011. "Uncertainty, rationality and cooperation in the context of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 47-55, September.
    11. Li, Canbing & Zhou, Jinju & Cao, Yijia & Zhong, Jin & Liu, Yu & Kang, Chongqing & Tan, Yi, 2014. "Interaction between urban microclimate and electric air-conditioning energy consumption during high temperature season," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 149-156.
    12. Höök, Mikael & Tang, Xu, 2013. "Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change—A review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 797-809.
    13. Ajay Gambhir & Laurent Drouet & David McCollum & Tamaryn Napp & Dan Bernie & Adam Hawkes & Oliver Fricko & Petr Havlik & Keywan Riahi & Valentina Bosetti & Jason Lowe, 2017. "Assessing the Feasibility of Global Long-Term Mitigation Scenarios," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-31, January.
    14. Berthélemy, Michel & Escobar Rangel, Lina, 2015. "Nuclear reactors' construction costs: The role of lead-time, standardization and technological progress," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 118-130.
    15. Hernandez-Negron, Christian G. & Baker, Erin & Goldstein, Anna P., 2023. "A hypothesis for experience curves of related technologies with an application to wind energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    16. Portugal-Pereira, J. & Ferreira, P. & Cunha, J. & Szklo, A. & Schaeffer, R. & Araújo, M., 2018. "Better late than never, but never late is better: Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 158-166.
    17. Iyer, Gokul & Hultman, Nathan & Eom, Jiyong & McJeon, Haewon & Patel, Pralit & Clarke, Leon, 2015. "Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 103-118.
    18. Ottmar Edenhofer & Christian Flachsland, 2012. "Die Nutzung globaler Gemeinschaftsgüter: Politökonomische Herausforderungen an die Klimapolitik," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 65(12), pages 29-35, June.
    19. Thomassen, Gwenny & Van Passel, Steven & Dewulf, Jo, 2020. "A review on learning effects in prospective technology assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    20. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:18:y:2013:i:2:p:187-205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.