ccs latest progress at unfccc negotiations_1 jan 2011

8/7/2019 CCS Latest Progress at UNFCCC Negotiations_1 Jan 2011

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ccs-latest-progress-at-unfccc-negotiations1-jan-2011 1/35

CCS Latest Progress at the UNFCCC Negotiations

Dr. Hardiv H. Situmeang - Jakarta, 1 Januari 2011

Chichen Itza, Mexico, 5 December 2010



Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group onFurther Commitments for Annex I parties under the Kyoto

Protocol at Its Fifteenth Session

(Decision -/CMP.6)

Paragraph 4

Urges Annex I Parties to raise the level of ambition of the emission

reductions to be achieved by them individually or jointly, with a view

to reducing their aggregate level of emissions of greenhouse gases inaccordance with the range indicated by Working Group III to the

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change AR4, and

taking into account the quantitative implications of the use of land

use, land-use change and forestry activities, emissions trading and theproject-based mechanisms and the carry-over of units from first to the

second commitment period;



Scenario Category Region 2020 2050

A-450 ppm CO2-eqb

Annex I -25 % to – 40 % -80% to -95 %

Non-Annex I

Substantial deviation from

baseline in Latin America, Middle

East, East Asia and Centrally-

Planned Asia

Substantial deviation from baseline

in all regions

B-550 ppm CO2-eq

Annex I -10% to -30% -40% to -90%

Non-Annex I

Deviation from baseline in Latin

America and Middle East, East

Asia

Deviation from baseline in most

regions, especially in Latin America

and Middle East

C-650 ppm CO2-eq

Annex I 0% to -25% -30% to -80%

Non-Annex I Baseline Deviation from baseline in Latin

America and Middle East, East Asia

The Range of the Difference between Emissions in 1990 and

Emission Allowances in 2020/2050 for Various Concentration Levels

for Annex I And Non-Annex I Countries as a Groupa

• Source: IPCC Working Group III, Chapter 13, Box 13.7, page 776.

• a) The aggregate range is based on multiple approaches to apportion emissions between regions (contraction &

convergence, multistage, Triptych and intensity targets, among others). Each approach makes different assumption

about the pathways, specific national efforts and other variables.Additional extreme cases – in which Annex I

undertakes all reductions, or non-Annex I undertakes all reductions – are not included. The range presented here

do not imply political feasibility, nor do the results reflect cost variance.

• b) Only the studies aiming at stabilization at 450 ppm CO2-eq assume a (temporary) overshoot of about 50 ppm

(See Den Elzen and Meinshausen, 2006).



Characteristic of Post - Third Assessment Report

Stabilization Scenarios



Largest Emitters: Developed & Developing



Emission Reduction Trade-off for Meeting Concentration Targets(Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency)

Conclusions• New allocation studies confirm the reductions in Box 13.7.

• For non-Annex I (NA1) countries as a group “substantial

deviation from baseline” is now specified: 15-30% for 450 ppmCO2-eq, 0-20% for 550 ppm CO2-eq and from 10% above to 10%below baseline for 650 ppm CO2-eq, in 2020. Roughly the frist

10% can be “no-regret options”• If Annex I countries as a group reduces with 30% below 1990

level, non-Annex I need to reduce about 10-25% below baselinefor meeting 450 ppm CO2-equivalent

• For baseline that assume ongoing rapid growth in non-Annex Iemissions (higher than IPCC SRES range), the reductions will behigher.

• Avoiding deforestation relaxes the reductions for Annex I andnon-Annex I

• Michel den Elzen (Contributing Author IPCC WG III AR4

•

Niklas Hohne (Lead Author IPCC WG III AR4)



NATIONALLY APPROPRIATE MITIGATION

ACTIONS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES[ Its Categories ]

Category Interpretation

1. Unilateral NAMAs Undertaken by Developing Country Parties by their own:

voluntarily, self financing.

2. Supported NAMAsSupported by direct finance from Developed Country

Parties. This agreed emission reductions cannot be used

as an offset by Developed Country Parties to fulfill their

commitment for their emission reductions.

3. Credited NAMAs

Additional Mitigation actions in Developing Country

Parties which can generate credits, and can be used as an

offset by Developed Country Parties to fulfill their

emission reductions commitment through carbon market

or non-market instruments. For instances: (i) Carbon

market, such as sectoral crediting, (ii) Non market

instrument, such as bilateral arragement.



NATIONALLY APPROPRIATE MITIGATION

ACTIONS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES[ Indonesia Case ]

Category Remarks

1. Unilateral NAMAs Voluntarily, Self financing: 26 % from the National

Baseline (Letter 30 January 2010).

2. Supported NAMAs Can be increased up to 41% with International Support

(G20 Meeting in Pittsburgh, 2009).

3. Credited NAMAs(These potential

possibility need to

be confirmed

further )

Additional National Mitigation actions which can

generate credits, and can be used as an offset by

Developed Country Parties to fulfill their emission

reductions commitment through carbon market or non-

market instruments. For instances: (i) Carbon market,

such as sectoral crediting, (ii) Non market instrument,

such as bilateral arragement.



T0 Tn 2020 [Tahun]

Multi Sectoral Baseline

[G

Emiso

Future Path of GHG Emissions

T1

26 %

41 %

UnilateralNAMAs

SupportedNAMAs

National integrated process in meeting the national

emission reduction target based on cost effectiveness.

C

r e d i t e d N A M

A s



Future Path of GHG Emissions Reduction(Multi Sectoral Mitigation Actions)

Multi SectoralBaseline

Mitigation Actionsof Each Sectors

GEmiso

Past Trend andCurrent State ofGHG Emissions

Future Pathof GHG Emissions

[T i m e]T0 T1 Tn

Sector # 1

Sector # 2

Sector # 3 Sector # 4

Sector # --

Sector # n

National integrated process in meeting the national

emission reduction target based on cost effectiveness.

Least CostPrinciple



CO2

Sources

GeologicalPotential

Storage Location

PipelineDistance

(Km)

EstimatedAvoided Cost

(US$/tCO2)

Indramayu1000 MW

Steam Coal Power Plant

South Sumatraregion

(onshore)655

62.1(versus 1000 MW

plant withoutcapture)

Muara Tawar

750 MWNGCC Power Plant

North Jawa sea

(offshore) 15

71.4

(versus NGCCwithout capture)

Bangko Tengah600 MW

Steam Coal Power Plant

South Sumatraregion

(onshore)60

56.2(versus 600 MW

plant withoutcapture)

Muara Jawa100 MWSteam Coal Power Plant

East Kalimantanregion(onshore)

60

76.3

(versus 100 MWplant without

capture)Subang Field

Natural Gas ProcessingPlant

North Jawa sea(offshore)

79.710.7

(cost ofcompressing)

CO2 Sources, Geological Potential Storage

Locations & Estimated Avoided Costs*)

*) Study: “Understanding CCS Potential in Indonesia”, November 2009.



Cost of Various Components of a CCS System

CCS System Components Cost Range Remarks

Capture

From a coal or gas

fired power plant

15 – 75 US$/tCO2

net captured

Net costs of captured CO2 compared to the

same plant without capture

From hydrogen &

ammonia

production or gas

processing

5 – 55 US$/tCO2

net captured

Applies to high-purity sources requiring

simple drying and compression.

From other

industrial sources

25 – 115 US$/tCO2

net captured

Range reflects use of a number of different

technologies and fuels.

Transportation Via pipeline or ship1 – 8 US$/tCO2

transported

Per 250 km pipeline or shipping for mass

flow rates of 5 (high end) to 40 (low end)

MtCO2/yr.

Storage

Geological

storage*

0.5 – 8 US$/tCO2

net injected

Excluding potential revenues from EOR or

Enhanced Coal Bed Methane (ECBM).

Geological storage:monitoring &

verification

0.1 –

0.3 US$/tCO2

injectedThis covers pre-injection, injection, andpost injection monitoring, and depends on

the regulatory requirements.

Ocean storage5 – 30 US$/tCO2

net injected

Including offshore transportation of

100-500 km, excluding monitoring and

verification.

* Over the long-term, there may be additional costs for remediation and liabilities; Source: Carbon DioxideCapture and Storage, Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary, IPCC, 2006.



CCS PROPOSITION – WHOLE CHAIN ONLY

Country (Project) CaptureTechnology

Store Start Year Size

USA (Mountaineer, AEP) Post-combustion Aquifer 2008 0.1 Mt/yr

USA (Shadyside) Post-combustion Aquifer 2008 0.3 Mt/yr

France (Lacq) Oxyfuel EOR 2008 0.08 Mt/yr

Germany (Schwarze Pumpe) Oxyfuel Aquifer 2008 0.25-2 Mt/yr

China (Green-Gen)* Pre-combustion EOR 2009/15 1.5-2.7 Mt/yr

Australia (Callide) Oxyfuel Aquifer 2010 0.05 Mt/yr

USA (Oologah) Post-combustion EOR 2011 1.5 Mt/yr

Australia (Zero-Gen)* Pre-combustion Aquifer 2011/12 0.4 Mt/yr

Norway (Mongstad)* Post-combustion Aquifer 2011/14 0.1-1.5 Mt/yr

Abu Dabi (Masdar)* Pre-combustion EOR 2012 1.8 Mt/yr

USA (Sugar Land) Post-combustion EOR 2012 0.7-1 Mt/yr

USA (North East, AEP) Post-combustion Aquifer 2012 1.5 Mt/yr

Denmark (Vattenfall) Post-combustion Aquifer 2013 1.8 Mt/yr

UK* Post-combustion Aquifer or EOR 2014/19 2.0 Mt/yr

Canada (Boundary Dam)* Post-combustion EOR 2015 0.4 Mt/yr

*) = State Funds



Huaneng Group's First Carbon Capture Demo ProjectAchieves Commercial Run

China's first carbon capture demonstration project launched by China Huaneng Group has

captured nearly 4,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide after one year operation, and all the captured

carbon dioxide has been adopted for commercial use. The demonstration project is located in

Huaneng Beijing thermal power plant, which involved a total investment of 21 million yuan in

equipment, with annual capacity of about 3,000 tonnes, and recovery rate of 85 percent. So far, ithas formed a daily carbon capturing capacity of 12 tonnes, and has been put into commercial

usage. All the captured carbon dioxide is sold at 500 yuan/tonne while its operation cost is only

300 yuan/tonne. According to Huaneng, the production cost of food-grade carbon dioxide made

from the captured carbon is under 420 yuan/tonne, far less than the current market price of 800-

1200 yuan/tonne. China Huaneng Group is the parent company of Huaneng Power International,

Inc. (Source: Xinhua News Agency)

First Million-ton Coal-carbon Capture Device was Officially

Put into Operation in ChinaThe first Million-ton CO2 capture device designed for coal-fired power plant in china was put into

operation in Chongqing Hechuan. China Power Investment Group announced on January 21, 2010.

It can capture 10000 tons of high purity CO2 from 50 million cubic meters of flue gas generated bycoal-flue power plants as expected. Quanda environmental protection engineering company,

owned by China Power Investment Group, designed the device which is one of the few Million-ton

CO2 capture devices in the world with international leading technology and advantages including

low cost, broad flue gas adaptability, high CO2 capture rate and low solvent consumption.



Excerpt as a Reference for Discussion only

ETP 2010



Cancun Beach, 8 December 2010

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CCS in CDM)



SUBMISSION BY INDONESIA TO UNFCCCViews on the Inclusion of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in

Geological Formations (CCS) in CDM

Full submission can be accessed through http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/sbsta/eng/misc02.pdf

Document number FCCC/SBSTA/2010/MISC.2

Indonesia recognizes the potential of CCS as one of the keyoptions to mitigate GHG emissions at a large scale.

Deployment of CCS in both developed and developing countries is

important in efforts to avoid the adverse impacts of climate

change.

CCS is a particularly major GHG mitigation option for developingcountries whose economies are dependent on fossil fuels.

Recognizing that CCS is high cost measure, project based

mechanism is the most appropriate means to support the finance

of CCS projects in developing countries through provision of

incentives. Indonesia supports the principle of having CCS projects as activity

under the CDM with the objectives to establish CCS projects in

due course and in the safest possible manner .

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/sbsta/eng/misc02.pdf

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/sbsta/eng/misc02.pdf



Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storagein Geological Formations as CleanDevelopment Mechanism Project

Activities - FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.1(Draft conclusions proposed by the Chair)

a) Non-permanence, including long-term permanence;

b) Measuring, reporting and verification;

c) Environmental impacts;

d) Project activity boundaries;

e) International law;f) Liability;

g) The potential for perverse outcomes;

h) Safety;

i) Insurance coverage and compensation for damages caused

due to seepage or leakage.

1. The SBSTA took note of the views submitted by Parties,

including those submitted in response to previous requests for

submissions on this agenda item and those expressed during the

session, on concerns related to the following outstanding issues,inter alia:



KEY IMPORTANT ITEMS

SITE SELECTION

Non-permanence and long-term permanence, criteria

MEASURING, MONITORING & VERIFICATIONGHG accounting options during the injection, post-injection phase and long-term

stewardship, methodology and plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSAnalysed potential environmental impacts, site specific risks assessment, CO2 stream,

criteriaPROJECT ACTIVITY BOUNDARIES

Identification and criteria for evaluation of physical boundary

RISK and SAFETY ASSESSMENTDeployment of CCS in geological formation, proposal mitigation actions related to

emissions from injection points, from above-ground and underground installations

and reservoirs, seepage, etc

LIABILITY

Identification short, medium, and long-term liable entities, rules and procedures

INSURANCE COVERAGE AND COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES

CAUSED DUE TO SEEPAGE OR LEAKAGE



Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage inGeological Formations as Clean Development

Mechanism Project Activities -

FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.1(Draft conclusions proposed by the Chair)

Annex

Paragraph 1

[Option 1: Decides that carbon dioxide capture and storage ingeological formations is eligible as project activities under the clean

development mechanism, provided that the issues identified in

decision 2/CMP.5, paragraph 29, are addressed and resolved in

satisfactory manner trough, inter alia, the actions identified in

paragraph 2 (a-n) below;

Option 2: Decides that carbon dioxide capture and storage in

geological formations is not eligible as project activities under the

clean development mechanism.]



Issues Identified – Annex FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.11

SITE SELECTION

a) Careful selection of the storage site for CO2 capture and storage in

geological formations is key in addressing issues related topermanence of storage, liability, the international legal frameworkand environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts;

b) Any consideration of CO2 capture and storage in geologicalformations shall be based on stringent and robust criteria for theselection of the storage site;




MONITORING - METHODOLOGY & PLAN

c) Stringent monitoring plans shall be in place in order to ensure the

environmental integrity of of CO2 capture and storage in geologicalformations;

d) Further consideration is required as regards the suitability of theuse of modeling, as opposed to direct monitoring, in meeting thestrigency requirements of such monitoring plans, in particular

taking into account the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories ;




PROJECT BOUNDARY

e) The boundaries of of CO2 capture and storage in geologicalformations shall include all above-ground and undergroundinstallations and storage sites,as well as all potential sources ofCO2 that can be released into atmosphere, involved in the capture,treatment, transportation, injection and storage of carbon dioxide;

f) The boundaries referred to in para (e) above shall be clearlyidentified and contained within the borders of a single country;

g) Any release of CO2 from the boundaries referred to in para (e)above must accounted for in the monitoring plans;

h) Any increase in energy use related to the deployment of CO2

capture and storage in geological formations shall be accountedfor in the monitoring plans;




RISK & SAFETY ASSESSMENT

i) A through risk and safety assessment shall be required for thedeployment of CO2 capture and storage in geological formations;

j) The risk and safety assessment referred to in para (i) above shallinclude, inter alia, the assessment of risk and proposal ofmitigation actions related to emissions from injection points,emissions from above-ground and underground installations andreservoirs, seepage, lateral flows, migrating plumes, massive and

catastrophic release of stored CO2, and impacts on human healthand ecosystems;

k) The result of the risk and safety assessment referred to in para (i)above shall be considered when assessing the technical viabilityof CO2 capture and storage in geological formations;




LIABILITY

(Short, Medium, and Long-term)

l) Short, medium and long-term liability provisions, including the

clear identification of liable entities, shall be defined prior to theconsideration of CO2 capture and storage in geological formations;

m) Adequate provisions for restoration of any damage ecosystemsand full compensation of impacted communities in the event ofrelease of CO2 from the deployment of CO2 capture and storage in

geological formations must be set up prior to any deployment ofrelated activities;

n) In view of the environmental risk involved, storage of CO2 in watercolumns shall not be considered as a viable option for CO2 captureand storage.



CCS Progress Path 2009-2010

COP16/CMP6

Cancun, Mexico,30 Nov-11 December 2010

Decision -/CMP.6 – Paragraph 1Decides that carbon dioxide capture

and storage in geological formations is

eligible as project activities under the

clean development mechanism,

provided that the issues identified in

decision 2/CMP.5, paragraph 29, areaddressed and resolved in satisfactory

manner.

See: Paragraphs 2 and 3.

COP15/CMP5

Copenhagen,7-18 December 2009

Decision 2/CMP.5 – Paragraph 29Recognizes the importance of carbon

dioxide capture and storage in geological

formations as a possible mitigation

technology, bearing in mind the concerns

related to the following outstanding issues,

inter alia: (a) Non-permanence, includinglong-term permanence; (b) Measuring,

reporting and verification; (c) Environmental

impacts; (d) Project activity boundaries; (e)

International law; (f) Liability; (g) The

potential for perverse outcomes; (h) Safety;

(i) Insurance coverage and compensation for

damages caused due to seepage or leakage.

SBSTA 32

Bonn, Germany31 May-9 June 2010

“Eligible as project activities

under the clean development

mechanism, or Not Eligible”



Paragraph 2

Request the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice at

its thirty-fifth session, to elaborate modalities and procedures for theinclusion of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological

formations as project activities under the clean development

mechanism, with a view to recommending a decision to the

Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the

Kyoto Protocol at its seventh session;

Paragraph 3

Decides that the modalities and procedures referred to in paragraph 2

above shall address the following issues:

a) The selection of the storage site for carbon dioxide capture and

storage in geological formations shall be based on stringent and

robust criteria in order to seek to ensure the long-term

permanence of the storage of carbon dioxide and the long-term

integrity of the storage site;

Decision -/CMP.6



b) Stringent monitoring plans shall be in place and be applied during

and beyond the crediting period in order to reduce the risk to the

environmental integrity of carbon dioxide capture and storage in

geological formations;

c) Further consideration is required as regards the sustainability of the

use of modeling, taking into account the scientific uncertainties

surrounding existing models, in meeting the stringent requirementsof such monitoring plans, in particular taking into account the 2006

IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories;

d) The criteria for the site selection and monitoring plans shall be

decided upon by the Conference of the Parties serving as the

meeting of the Parties to Kyoto Protocol and may draw uponrelevant guideline by international bodies, such as the 2006 IPCC

Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories;

Decision -/CMP.6



e) The boundaries of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations

shall include all above-ground and underground installations and storage sites,

as well as all potential sources of carbon dioxide that can be released into theatmosphere, involved in the capture, treatment, transportation, injection and

storage of carbon dioxide, and any potential migratory pathways of the carbon

dioxide plume, including a pathway resulting from dissolution of the carbon

dioxide in underground water;

f) The boundaries referred to in paragraph 3 (e) above shall be clearly identified;

g) Any release of carbon dioxide from the boundaries referred to in paragraph 3

(e) above must be measured and accounted for in the monitoring plans and

the reservoir pressure shall be continuously measured and these data must be

independently verifiable;

h) The appropriateness of the data development of transboundary carbon

dioxide capture and storage project activities in geological formations andtheir implications shall be addressed;

i) Any project emissions associated with the deployment of carbon dioxide

capture and storage in geological formations shall be accounted for as project

or leakage emissions and shall be included in the monitoring plans, including

an ex-ante estimation of project emissions;

Decision -/CMP.6



j) A thorough risk and safety assessment using a methodology specified in

the modalities and procedures, as well as a comprehensive socio-

environmental impacts assessment, shall be undertaken by independententity(ies) prior to the deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage

in geological formations;

k) The risk and safety assessment referred to in paragraph 3 j) above shall

include, inter alia, the assessment of risk and proposal of mitigation

actions related to emissions from injection points, emissions from above-ground and underground installations and reservoirs, seepage, lateral

flows, migrating plumes, including carbon dioxide dissolved in aqueous

medium migrating outside the project boundary, massive and catastrophic

release of stored carbon dioxide, and impacts on human health and

ecosystems, as well as an assessment of the consequences of such arelease for the climate;

l) The results of the risk and safety assessment, as well as the socio-

environmental impacts assessment, referred to in paragraph 3 (j) and (k)

above shall be considered when assessing the technical and environmental

viability of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations;

Decision -/CMP.6



m) Short-, medium-, and long-term liability for potential physical leakage

of seepage of stored carbon dioxide, potential induced seismicity orgeological instability or any other potential damage to the

environment, property or public health attributable to the clean

development mechanism project activity during and beyond the

crediting period, including the clear identification of liable entities,

shall:

(i) Be defined prior to the approval of carbon dioxide capture

and storage in geological formations as clean development

mechanism project activities;

(ii) Be applied during and beyond the crediting period;

(iii) Be consistent with the Kyoto Protocol;

Decision -/CMP.6



n) When determining the liability provisions referred to in paragraph 3 (m) above, the

following issues shall be considered:

i. A means of redress for Parties, communities, private-sector entities andindividuals affected by the release of stored carbon dioxide from carbon

dioxide capture and storage project activities under the clean development

mechanism;

ii. Provisions to allocate liability among entities that share the same reservoir,

including if disagreements arise;

iii. Possible transfer of liability at the end of the crediting period or at anyother time;

iv. State liability, recognizing the need to afford redress taking into account the

longevity of liabilities surrounding potential physical leakage or seepage of

stored carbon dioxide, potential induced seismicity or geological instability

or any other potential damage to the environment, property or public

health attributable to the clean development mechanism project activityduring and beyond the crediting period;

o) Adequate provision for restoration of damage ecosystems and full compensation

for affected communities in the event of a release of carbon dioxide from the

deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations must

be established prior to any deployment of related activities;

Decision -/CMP.6



Thank you

To promote the

sustainable supply

and use of energy for

the greatest benefitof all people.

www.worldenergy.org

KOMITE NASIONAL INDONESIA

ccs latest progress at unfccc negotiations_1 jan 2011

Documents