Abstract
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is increasingly gaining attention as a strategy for the abatement of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CCS includes the capture of CO2 emissions from electricity generation plants and/or industrial processes, its transport (by pipeline or ships) and sequestration in underground reservoirs such as deep aquifers or
... read more
depleted oil and gas fields. As a novel technology, CCS is an ideal case study for testing the Prosuite methodology. The sustainability is tested using the five end-points established in Prosuite: human health, natural environment, exhaustible resources, social well-being and prosperity. This case study uses the scope defined across WP3-5 of PROSUITE. The analysis is undertaken in a prospective framework for the year 2030 under the economic scenarios developed in WP2, which themselves are based on the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives. A key component of the scenarios from WP2 relevant for the economic analysis of the CCS case is the inclusion of a cost of carbon, which in the main scenario investigated is taken from the BlueMap scenario of the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives. With the cost of carbon, coal fired power without carbon capture and storage is more expensive than coal fired power with carbon capture and storage and viceversa. The tax per kWh for the reference system is €0.07, which is markedly more than the tax of €0.02 for the prospective system. This is a result of the BLUE Map scenario assumption of a 110 $/t CO2 tax. In fact, CCS is only cheaper per functional unit when taxes (including a carbon tax) are included as an input. This indicates that that the technology is economically “non-sustainable” in the sense that it cannot compete on costs with the reference technology when a carbon tax is not levied. For the scenario evaluated, key results can be summarized as follows: Implementation of CCS results in lower impact on the human health indicator than in the reference scenario (without CCS). In both scenarios, the decrease is mainly driven by changes in the environmental human health indicator while the role of occupational health is minor. Implementation of CCS results on a score on impacts on the natural environment that is 70% lower than the reference scenario. This is mainly due to the significant decrease on the climate change indicator which counteracts increases shown in other environmental indicators. Implementation of CCS results on a significant increase in the impact on exhaustible resources, which is due to an increase on fossil depletion. The effect of metal depletion is negligible compared to the large amount of fossil depletion. With a high tax (110 $/tonne Blue map scenario), as used in this study, applying CCS results in a marked increase in economic activity, when results are analysed at the technology level. The results also show a substantial increase in working hours per functional unit. However, the results also indicate that the producer price increase more than 80% when implementing CCS. The results for social well-being indicate that in the scenario with CCS there is an increase in total employment and knowledge intensive jobs, and a decrease in income and global inequality. However, increases in child and forced labour are also observed. The qualitative indicators reveal that issues such as trust in risk information, long term control functions, stakeholder involvement can become bottlenecks for the deployment of the technology and need to be carefully addressed as part of project development and implementation There is a large difference in order of magnitude in the end-points. This makes the integration of results troublesome. Until this problem is solved, it is recommended to assess the results without a formal aggregation methodology. The evaluation of the Prosuite framework in the case study CCS provided support for the applicability of the developed methods, but also illustrated remaining shortcomings and challenges.
show less