California's Climate Policies Limit CCS Despite Long-Term Need
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
0 gostou•1,090 visualizações
Delivered at the Global CCS Institute's Global Status of CCS: 2013 event in Seoul, 10 October 2013.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (19)
Destaque
Semelhante a California's Climate Policies Limit CCS Despite Long-Term Need
Semelhante a California's Climate Policies Limit CCS Despite Long-Term Need (20)
Mais de Global CCS Institute
Mais de Global CCS Institute (20)
Último
Último (20)
California's Climate Policies Limit CCS Despite Long-Term Need
- 1. GCCSI Annual Meeting Seoul, S. Korea October 8-10,2013 Recent Developments and Opportunities for CCS A Look at California Elizabeth Burton Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and WESTCARB eburton@lbl.gov (925)899-6397
- 2. Why Look at California? 7th largest global economy 17-18th largest carbon emitter globally In top 5 globally for carbon efficiency: lowest carbon emissions per capita highest economic output per ton of emissions Climate and CO2 emissions reductions policies in place Studies of energy future show clear need for CCS to meet goals 2
- 3. Substantial CCUS/ CO2EOR opportunity Type of Oil Reservoir # Potential Fields Estimated Capacity (MMT CO2) Miscible 121 3,186 Immiscible 18 178 CO2 must come from captured anthropogenic sources Price point estimated $40/tonne 3
- 4. BUT—CCS Projects Are Not Happening--WHY NOT? 4
- 5. California’s Climate Policies 2005 Governor’s Executive Order, S-3-05, established target GHG reduction levels 2020: roll back to 1990 levels (~436 million metric tons) (became law as Assembly Bill 32—Global Warming Solutions Act) 2050: 80% below 1990 levels—not ―law‖ Many policies enacted to meet 2020 goals include CCS only nominally: Emissions Performance Standards (EPS) Renewable portfolio standards (33%) (RPS) Low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) Cap-and-trade 5
- 6. Should CCS ―wait‖ until after 2020? ~ 12MMT CO2/yr 6
- 7. CCS Must Adapt to Changes in Point Sources Today: In-state: natural gas baseload power, refineries and cement plants Imported power from coal plants Tomorrow: Divesture of all coal-fired power contracts by 2030 Retirement of all natural gas plants with once-through cooling by 2020 More rapid response fossil power, not baseload Geographic shifts in demand inland Sea level rise impacts on coastal infrastructure? 7
- 8. RPS means large fractions of intermittent energy sources: fossil fuels must provide load balancing Tehachapi Wind Generation, April 2009 Source: Solar PV output on partly cloudy day 10-second sampling Source: NERC Report - Accommodating High Levels of Variable Generation – March 2009 Courtesy of M. Brown, CIEE 8
- 9. Meeting 2050 goals requires CCS on electricity to create net negative emissions Scenarios from California’s Energy Future: The View to 2050 9
- 10. So what has happened? Projects— two cancelled, one remains Policy— Interest in reports Attempts at legislation R&D funding declining Inclusion of CCS very limited in 2020 planning documents Hydrogen Energy California (HECA) 10
- 11. What must happen? Write CCS methodologies for compliance Eliminate short-term (2020) focus Fully integrate CCS in future energy policy and infrastructure planning Define regulatory agency roles and jurisdictions Include CCS in carbon reduction technologies that qualify for incentives, loading orders, subsidies, etc. to ―force‖ a business case External Advocacy and Technical Input 11
- 12. Conclusions California is a good test case for studying challenges to CCS deployment California needs expertise and advocacy NOW to assure CCS for 2050 Thank you 감사합니다 Contact information: eburton@lbl.gov 12