“We must scale up the technology for CO2 capture and storage and make it more cost-efficient. This is a top priority for the European Commission,” says Dr Pierre Dechamps of the European Commission.

Dr Dechamps of the European Commission’s research department is happy about the European Council’s recent historic decision regarding the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, he thinks it is important to keep the red flag flying.

“A reduction of 20% CO2 by 2020 is not enough if we stop at that level. We need to cut emissions by 50–75% by the middle of the century if significant results are to be achieved,” he says.
“This is an important step and a leap forward from the Kyoto Protocol, where the aim was an 8% reduction for the EU compared to the 1990 level. In other words, this is not enough, but it is the way to go. We have established the goal; the next question is how to get there.”

Just as important as the EU commitment to a concrete reduction is the fact that CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is now a top priority for the Commission.

“Europe is showing the way, and hopefully countries such as the USA, Australia and the developing countries will follow suit,” says Dr Dechamps, who admits that this will be very difficult.

Consensus change
Until a few years ago, there was a broad consensus that general energy efficiency and a gradual shift from fossil fuel towards more sustainable energy were sufficient to halt increased CO2 emissions.

“But we were all wrong,” says Dr Dechamps. “Fossil fuel is still the dominant energy source, and is likely to remain the main source of global energy supply for the foreseeable future. Renewable energy is still expensive compared to fossil fuels, or should we say fossil fuels are too cheap?”

The current scientific consensus is that man-made CO2 emissions have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and are contributing to global climate change.

“The research community is currently developing transition technology that will enable us to use fossil fuel without creating the emissions. The aim is first and foremost to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants, which are today responsible for one third of these emissions,” says Dr Dechamps. “Furthermore, the most important issue at hand is to eliminate emissions from coal-fired plants, which produce more CO2 than gas-fired plants.”

This does not mean that capturing CO2 from gas-fired plants is not important, but coal is the real problem in terms of the overall carbon quantities locked in the geology.
“At the same time, only 3% of the total emissions from a gas-fired power plant consist of CO2, compared to 10% CO2 from burning coal, making CO2 capture from gas more difficult,” Dr Dechamps explains.

Sense of urgency
The focus on the CO2 emissions problem in recent years has resulted in technology that enables us to capture CO2. However, the scale of CO2 capture is still on a pilot level. Today capture is carried out in only a few plants that produce from one to 10 MW. By comparison, big coal plants produce 1,000 MW.

The challenge is to scale up the technology and make it more cost-efficient. Then we must deploy it everywhere as quickly as possible, keeping in mind that it takes from three to seven years to build a full-scale plant.

“We need to realise that if we do not deploy the technology on a large scale and soon enough, we are in trouble. In order to achieve this, it is important that we continue to focus on research, legal and regulatory frameworks and incentive systems,” says Dr Dechamps.

Incentives disabled
There is a broad range of issues to be discussed, including the relationship with the waste and water directives, storage safety, liability and a whole set of new legislative issues. Then there is the question of standardisation and monitoring schemes. Today, the new technology is not part of the EU trading scheme or the Kyoto Protocol. The technology is simply not recognised, thus disabling important economic incentives.

“In this respect, DNV and similar companies will play an important role in establishing certification and quality assurance schemes,” says Dr Dechamps. “In addition, there will be local health and safety aspects to consider. In the long run, the liability will lie with the state. In order to transfer the ownership of the CO2 storage site to the state, there will be a strong demand on certification companies to ensure that storage is carried out properly.”

TEXT AND PHOTO: OLE MAGNUS GRØNLI

Date: 2007-06-08