IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rffdps/10879.html

Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Anderson, Soren T.
  • Newell, Richard G.

Abstract

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies remove carbon dioxide from flue gases for storage in geologic formations or the ocean. We find that CCS is technically feasible and economically attractive within the range of carbon policies discussed domestically and internationally. Current costs are about $200 to $250 per ton of carbon, although costs are sensitive to fuel prices and other assumptions and could be reduced significantly through technical improvements. Near-term prospects favor CCS for certain industrial sources and electric power plants, with storage in depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Deep aquifers may provide an attractive longer-term storage option, whereas ocean storage poses greater technical and environmental uncertainty. Vast quantities of economically recoverable fossil fuels, sizable political obstacles to their abandonment, and inherent delay associated with developing alternative energy sources suggest that CCS should be seriously considered in the portfolio of options for addressing climate change, alongside energy efficiency and carbon-free energy.

Suggested Citation

  • Anderson, Soren T. & Newell, Richard G., 2003. "Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies," Discussion Papers 10879, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10879
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10879/files/dp020068.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10879?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blok, K. & Williams, R.H. & Katofsky, R.E. & Hendriks, C.A., 1997. "Hydrogen production from natural gas, sequestration of recovered CO2 in depleted gas wells and enhanced natural gas recovery," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 161-168.
    2. McFarland, J. R. & Reilly, J. M. & Herzog, H. J., 2004. "Representing energy technologies in top-down economic models using bottom-up information," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 685-707, July.
    3. Huesemann, Michael H., 2001. "Can pollution problems be effectively solved by environmental science and technology? An analysis of critical limitations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 271-287, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hodjat Ghadimi, 2007. "Global Impact of Energy Use in Middle East Oil Economies: A Modeling Framework for Analyzing Technology-Energy-Environment-Economy Chain," Working Papers Working Paper 2007-05, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    2. Jennifer F. Morris & Vivek Srikrishnan & Mort D. Webster & John M. Reilly, 2018. "Hedging Strategies: Electricity Investment Decisions under Policy Uncertainty," The Energy Journal, , vol. 39(1), pages 101-122, January.
    3. Doukas, Haris & Patlitzianas, Konstantinos D. & Psarras, John, 2006. "Supporting sustainable electricity technologies in Greece using MCDM," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 129-136, June.
    4. Biagi, James & Agarwal, Ramesh & Zhang, Zheming, 2016. "Simulation and optimization of enhanced gas recovery utilizing CO2," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 78-86.
    5. Kevin Maréchal & Hélène Aubaret-Joachain & Jean-Paul Ledant, 2008. "The influence of Economics on agricultural systems: an evolutionary and ecological perspective," Working Papers CEB 08-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Keipi, Tiina & Li, Tian & Løvås, Terese & Tolvanen, Henrik & Konttinen, Jukka, 2017. "Methane thermal decomposition in regenerative heat exchanger reactor: Experimental and modeling study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 823-832.
    7. Wissema, Wiepke & Dellink, Rob, 2007. "AGE analysis of the impact of a carbon energy tax on the Irish economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 671-683, March.
    8. Boeters, Stefan & Koornneef, Joris, 2011. "Supply of renewable energy sources and the cost of EU climate policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1024-1034, September.
    9. Jiang, Hong-Dian & Pradhan, Basanta K. & Dong, Kangyin & Yu, Yan-Yan & Liang, Qiao-Mei, 2024. "An economy-wide impacts of multiple mitigation pathways toward carbon neutrality in China: A CGE-based analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    10. Li, Wei & Jia, Zhijie, 2016. "The impact of emission trading scheme and the ratio of free quota: A dynamic recursive CGE model in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 1-14.
    11. McFarland, James R. & Paltsev, Sergey & Jacoby, Henry D., 2009. "Analysis of the Coal Sector under Carbon Constraints," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 404-424, May.
    12. Hwang Won-Sik & Oh Inha & Lee Jeong-Dong, 2014. "The Impact of Korea’s Green Growth Policies on the National Economy and Environment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 14(4), pages 1585-1614, October.
    13. Abdirizak Omar & Mouadh Addassi & Volker Vahrenkamp & Hussein Hoteit, 2021. "Co-Optimization of CO 2 Storage and Enhanced Gas Recovery Using Carbonated Water and Supercritical CO 2," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-21, November.
    14. Sue Wing, Ian & Eckaus, Richard S., 2007. "The implications of the historical decline in US energy intensity for long-run CO2 emission projections," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5267-5286, November.
    15. Marten, Alex L. & Garbaccio, Richard & Wolverton, Ann, 2018. "Exploring the General Equilibrium Costs of Sector-Specific Environmental Regulations," National Center for Environmental Economics-NCEE Working Papers 280949, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    16. Ling Tang & Qin Bao & ZhongXiang Zhang & Shouyang Wang, 2015. "Carbon-based border tax adjustments and China’s international trade: analysis based on a dynamic computable general equilibrium model," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(2), pages 329-360, April.
    17. Kiuila, O. & Rutherford, T.F., 2013. "The cost of reducing CO2 emissions: Integrating abatement technologies into economic modeling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 62-71.
    18. Schumacher, Katja & Sands, Ronald D., 2006. "Innovative energy technologies and climate policy in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3929-3941, December.
    19. Pizer, William A. & Popp, David, 2008. "Endogenizing technological change: Matching empirical evidence to modeling needs," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2754-2770, November.
    20. Zhang, Xu & Qi, Tian-yu & Ou, Xun-min & Zhang, Xi-liang, 2017. "The role of multi-region integrated emissions trading scheme: A computable general equilibrium analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P2), pages 1860-1868.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q30 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q40 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - General
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:rffdps:10879. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.