Business

Greenhouse Gas Accounting Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects

Greenhouse Gas Accounting Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects

February 2012

Download the full report (PDF)

Press Release

Other Resources:

 

Foreword

Meeting the global challenge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and avoid dangerous climate impacts requires deploying a portfolio of emission reduction technologies.

We must both commit to broad and deep efficiencies in the way our societies’ consume energy and to significant increases in power supplies from low carbon energy sources. At the same time, it is important to recognize that the scale of the challenge to reduce global emissions is massive, and that it will take decades for new and advanced low and zero-emissions technologies to sufficiently mature and dominate the world’s primary energy supply.

Because the use of fossil fuels – including coal – will continue to maintain a central role in powering the global economy for at least the next several decades, the portfolio of solutions to achieve the necessary GHG emissions reductions must include carbon capture and storage (CCS). 

CCS refers to a suite of technologies that, when effectively combined, prevent carbon dioxide (CO2) from entering the atmosphere. The process involves capturing and compressing CO2 from power plants and other industrial facilities, transporting it to suitable storage sites, and injecting it into geologic formations for secure and permanent sequestration. 

Geologic storage of CO2 emissions currently represents the only option to substantially address the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants and large industrial facilities.

 

Executive Summary

 

The Greenhouse Gas Accounting Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects – CCS Accounting Framework – provides methods to calculate emissions reductions associated with capturing, transporting, and safely and permanently storing anthropogenic CO2 in geologic formations. It aims for consistency with the principles and procedures from ISO 14064-2:2006. Greenhouse gases – Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements, which represents best practice guidance for the quantification of project-based GHG emission reductions. 

Ultimately, the objective of the CCS Accounting Framework is to inform and facilitate the development of a common platform to account for CO2 emissions reductions due to capturing and geologically storing CO2. It also contributes to the public discussion about the viability of CCS to serve as a feasible CO2 mitigation solution.

The emissions accounting procedures in the CCS Accounting Framework apply to multiple CO2 source types, including electric power plants – equipped with pre-combustion, post-combustion, or oxy-fired technologies – and industrial facilities (for example, natural gas production, fertilizer manufacturing, and ethanol production). For CO2 transport, the calculation methodology in this document applies only to pipelines because while other methods of transport, (e.g., truck transport) are possible, they are typically not considered viable options for large-scale CCS endeavors. With respect to the geological storage of CO2, the CCS Accounting Framework applies to saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas fields, and enhanced oil and gas recovery sites.

The CCS Accounting Framework provides a comprehensive set of GHG accounting procedures within a single methodology. The quantification approach includes equations to calculate emissions reductions by comparing baseline emissions to project emissions – the difference between the two represents the GHG reductions due to capturing and sequestering CO2, which would have otherwise entered the atmosphere.

 

GHG reductions from CCS project = Baseline emissions - Project emissions

 
  • Baseline emissions represent the GHG emissions that would have entered the atmosphere if not for the CCS project. 

  • Project emissions are actual GHG emissions from CO2 capture sites, transport pipelines, and storage sites.

The quantification approach to determine baseline emissions presents two baseline options: 1) “Projection-based” and 2) “Standards-based.” In both cases, the calculation method uses data from the actual CCS project to derive baseline emissions.

Determining project emissions involves measuring CO2 captured and stored by the project and deducting CO2 emitted during capture, compression, transport, injection, and storage (and recycling of CO2 if applicable). The procedure to determine project emissions also accounts for GHG emissions from energy inputs required to operate CO2 capture, compression, transport, injection and storage equipment. Energy inputs include “direct emissions” from fossil fuel use (Scope 1 emissions) and, in case required by a program authority, “indirect emissions” from purchased and consumed electricity, steam, and heat (Scope 2 emissions).

CCS project monitoring covers large above ground industrial complexes and expansive subterranean geologic formations. In terms of emissions accounting, monitoring CO2 capture and transport involves well known technologies and practices, established over many years for compliance with federal and state permitting programs. Therefore, the monitoring program would follow generally accepted methods and should correspond with GHG monitoring requirements associated with the relevant subparts of EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) and other state-level programs.

On the other hand, monitoring geologic storage sites for the purpose of verifying the safe and permanent sequestration CO2 from the atmosphere is a relatively recent activity that may involve new techniques and technologies. While there exists no standard method or generally accepted approach to monitor CO2 storage in deep rock formations, project developers will benefit from monitoring practices deployed over the past 35 years in CO2 enhanced oil and gas recovery operations. Thus, the CCS Accounting Framework does not prescribe an approach to monitor CO2 sequestration, as geologic storage sites will vary from site to site and demand unique, fit-for-purpose monitoring plans. This approach is consistent with the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) procedures for geologic sequestration from subpart RR to EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which overlays the monitoring requirements associated with the Underground Injection Control Program.

0

January 2012 Newsletter

Click here to view our January 2012 newsletter.

Learn about the Climate Leadership Conference, Australia's new carbon pricing mechanism, the Make an Impact energy conservation challenge, and more in C2ES's January 2012 newsletter.

The Role of Constraints in Low-Carbon Innovation

Climate change is the global innovation challenge of our time.  That was the theme of a Green Innovators in Business Network “Solutions Lab” in Cambridge, MA, last month co-hosted by C2ES, EDF, Innocentive, and others.  Dr. Andrew Hargadon, a leading expert in technology management and author of “The Business of Innovating,” articulated for participants the enormous scale of innovation needed to achieve a clean energy economy.  “Low-carbon innovation” is about dealing with new problems—carbon emissions, skyrocketing energy costs—that emerge from traditional solutions for making our economy work, such as for transporting goods or lighting our buildings.  Transforming energy-consuming activities to emit less carbon requires that we deploy new technologies that will work with conventional behaviors, and develop entirely new behaviors. 

Eileen Claussen Reacts to President Obama's State of the Union Address

Statement of Eileen Claussen
President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

January 24, 2012

We share President Obama’s enthusiasm for homegrown solutions to America’s energy challenges. Without question, America has the resources and know-how to produce more energy at home, strengthening both our economy and our national security. But protecting the climate also has to be part of the equation. If we sensitively develop domestic reserves, get serious about ramping up new energy sources, and push efficiency across the board, we can both meet America’s energy needs and dramatically shrink our carbon footprint.

Even if comprehensive legislation remains off the table for now, we can make important progress tackling these challenges piece by piece. C2ES is working with policymakers and stakeholders on ways to expand enhanced oil recovery using captured carbon dioxide – an approach that can boost domestic oil production while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, we’re working with automakers, environmentalists and others on a plan for integrating plug-in electric vehicles into the U.S. electrical grid. We look forward to sharing the results of these and other C2ES initiatives aimed at practical solutions to our twin climate and energy challenges.

Contact: Tom Steinfeldt, 703-516-4146

Read the full transcript of the 2012 State of the Union Address

Global Survey Names C2ES the World’s Top Environmental Think Tank

The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) was named the world’s top environmental think tank in a global survey of top public policy research institutes.

The University of Pennsylvania’s 2011 Global Go-To Think Tank Rankings are based on a survey of more than 1,500 policymakers, scholars, journalists, think-tank executives and others worldwide. The survey assessed more than 5,300 organizations nominated in 30 categories to create a global list of top think tanks by region and policy area.

C2ES’s predecessor organization, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, was named the world’s top environmental think tank in the same survey in 2009.  The center began operating as C2ES in November 2011, and is listed in the new survey under its former name.

“While our name has changed, we remain as committed as ever to fact-based analysis and common-sense solutions to our climate and energy challenges,” said C2ES President Eileen Claussen. “We are thrilled to again be recognized as the world’s top environmental think tank.  I’d like to commend the C2ES staff and thank all of our partners and supporters in the United States and abroad for helping to make this possible.”   

The independent, nonpartisan center provides impartial information and analysis on energy and climate challenges; convenes policymakers and stakeholders to work toward consensus solutions; works with members of its Business Environmental Leadership Council and others to promote on-the-ground action; and promotes pragmatic, effective climate and energy policies at the state, national and international levels.

The annual survey, first published in 2007, is directed by James G. McGann, assistant director of the University of Pennsylvania’s International Relations Program and director of the Think Tanks and Civil Society Program.

The World Resources Institute and Chatham House ranked second and third, respectively, among the study’s top 30 environmental groups. Brookings Institution was named the top overall think tank. Additional categories in which the report ranks organizations include health policy, international development, and security and international affairs, among others.

The complete study, released in January 2012, is available online here.

More about C2ES's work to advance climate and energy solutions can be found here.

You Can’t Manage What You Can’t Measure

Yesterday, EPA announced the public release of reported greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from large facilities across the country. Under legislation signed by President George W. Bush, most large sources of GHG emissions, including refineries, power plants, chemical plants, car manufacturers, and factories emitting more than 25,000 tons of CO2 equivalent a year, have been reporting their annual emissions electronically to EPA since 2010, while small sources are specifically exempted from the rule. Now, in accordance with the law, EPA is making that data public.

Some similar information was public already. Power plants have been required to report their CO2 emissions since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, while many other companies have voluntarily reported their emissions through programs like the Carbon Disclosure Project

Eileen Claussen Comments on EPA's Release of Greenhouse Gas Reporting Data

Statement of Eileen Claussen
President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

January 11, 2012

We’ve seen before that what you measure, you can manage. Two decades ago, when EPA published the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), the public, policymakers and business all got a better handle on toxic emissions across the U.S. and how to reduce them. We can expect similar results now that EPA is publishing greenhouse gas data from major emitters. Businesses shrinking their carbon footprints will have a metric credible with the public. Clean technology developers will know who and where their potential customers are. Policymakers will know better how to develop policies that reduce emissions while contributing to economic growth. Simply getting this data out is an important step in tackling climate change.

Click here for more on EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.

Click here for a related blog post.

Contact: Tom Steinfeldt, 703-516-4146

Eileen Claussen Comments on Utility MACT Rule

Statement of Eileen Claussen
President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

December 21, 2011

Today’s announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency of final standards for reducing mercury and other toxic air pollutants from power plants is an important step in protecting public health.  A very long time in coming, these regulations trace back to the 1990 Clean Air Act and were first proposed by the George W. Bush Administration.  Like most measures to protect the environment, this rule has costs – estimated at nearly $10 billion a year.  But these investments will pay important dividends by reducing health costs by $37-90 billion in 2016 alone.  EPA has taken steps to allow time to install new controls and to ensure energy reliability, but implementation will have to be carefully monitored to ensure that any bottlenecks are addressed in a timely manner.  

In addition to the health benefits, the new standards may yield significant climate benefits if power companies meet them by replacing old, inefficient plants with cleaner technologies.  This is more likely if EPA moves forward with carbon dioxide emission standards for power plants, and if Congress continues to fund R&D and deployment for renewable energy, nuclear power, and technologies that capture and store carbon dioxide from fossil fuel-fired power plants.

Click here for a Utility MACT summary.

Contact: Tom Steinfeldt, 703-516-4146

December 2011 Newsletter

Click here to view our December 2011 newsletter.

C2ES's December 2011 features updates from the 17th annual Conference of the Parties (COP17) in Durban, South Africa, policy options for a clean energy standard, a blog post on the landmark new fuel economy standards, and more.

Australia's Carbon Pricing Mechanism

Australia's Carbon Pricing Mechanism

December 2011

Download the full brief (PDF)

 

Summary:

Australia’s Clean Energy Future plan is a comprehensive set of national policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and driving investments in clean energy. At its core is a carbon pricing mechanism starting in July 2012 and covering approximately 60 percent of Australia’s emissions. The pricing mechanism begins with a fixed carbon price for the first three years, then transitions to a cap-and-trade program. Revenue generated by the carbon price will be used to ease costs for households and industry and for investment in renewable power, energy efficiency, and other low-carbon alternatives. This brief summarizes the carbon price mechanism and other key features of the Clean Energy Future plan.

 

Introduction:

On November 8, 2011, the Australian Senate gave final approval to the government’s Clean Energy Future climate change plan outlining a series of measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and drive investment in clean energy. A central element of the plan is a carbon pricing mechanism directly covering 50 percent of Australia’s emissions and providing direct financial support for renewable energy, energy efficiency, reducing emissions from land-use and forestry, and other elements. The mechanism starts with a fixed price for the first three years from 2012 to 2015 (AUD 23, rising with inflation to about AUD 25 at the end of the fixed-price period). It then transitions from 2015 to 2018 to a cap-and-trade program, with a price cap and price floor. Regulations to implement the plan are being developed. Other principal elements of the plan include:

  • A long-term target of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050;
  • Over 50 percent of revenue generated from the carbon price is returned to households, particularly low-income ones, through tax relief and greater family benefit payments;
  • Revenue generated by the program, along with additional government resources, will be used to ease the impact on trade-exposed industries and workers, and boost investments in renewable power, energy efficiency and other low-carbon alternatives;
  • Implementation of the plan is expected to cost the government AUD 4.3 billion over the first four years, over and above revenue generated;
  • Emissions from sectors not directly covered by the carbon price, such as certain fuels and synthetic gases, are indirectly addressed through changes to existing levies and taxes;
  • Politically sensitive sectors are carved out of the mechanism: agriculture is addressed separately through an incentive-based scheme, and road transport fuels are largely exempt from the carbon price;
  • Three new governance institutions are established to administer, oversee, and advise on all areas of the plan.
0
Syndicate content