CCS - indispensable for reaching climate targetsWe need practical local solutions.. and everything

COP 23 6th Nov 2017Charles Soothill Vice Chair ZEP

WWF also use the BP data

• Is it obvious that we need to tackle all emissions?• Worldwide: coal, oil

and gas use each grew faster than solar and wind over last 16 years

• The equipment installed will last 25years+

• 2050 is not far away?• To meet targets we must

reduce emissions as they are….

2

Steel Production needs CCS

3

• ZEP study shows CCS can reduce CO2 from Steel by >1:8

• Additional electricity is modest 2:1

• CCS is logical choice

• Steel industry jobs at risk

• Steel needs CCS

Source ZEP

Transportation needs CCS

• Use of electric vehicles is increasing

• But 30 to 50% increase in electricity needed!

• Electricity mix determines CO2/km

• CCS can help deliver till 2050..

Sources: ICCT, Euan Mearns, Montreal Economic Institute 4

EV Elec Mix

ICEV range

EV Wind & CCS

Source: M. Meinshausen Nature

Modelling Energy Systems to reach Paris

5

This means CCS and BioCCS.

6

United Kingdom

Netherlands

France

Spain Greece

Switzerland

Germany

Poland

Italy

Norway

The 10 countries Modelled

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Generated e

lectric

ity (TW

h)

WindPVBiomass CCS CHPGas CC CCS CHPC&L CCS CHPBiomass CCSGas CC CCSC&L CCSBiomass CHPRecip CHPGas CC CHPC&L CHPBiomassGas CCGas SCC&LNuclearHydro RiverHydro Lakes

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Ele

ctric

al

capacit

y (G

W)

WindPVBiomass CCS CHPGas CC CCS CHPC&L CCS CHPBiomass CCSGas CC CCSC&L CCSBiomass CHPRecip CHPGas CC CHPC&L CHPBiomassGas CCGas SCC&LNuclearHydro RiverHydro Lakes

7With CCS No CCS

Electricity Generation in 10 countries• Model chooses dispatchable power to better integrate Solar and Wind

• With CCS the backup power does not emit CO2

• Wind and Solar capacity factors increased with CCS

• Growth in demand for electricity for Transport and Heat achieved

Source: ZEP

CCS avoids emissions

Without CCS emissions 3 or 4 times higher

0

200

400

600

800

0100020003000

Tota

l levelize

d s

yst

em

cost

s (b

€/y

)

Total CO2 emissions (MTCO2/y)

Series2

ALL

ALL_CCS

2010

2050

2030

Without CCS

With CCS

UK, ES, DE, PL, IT, FR, NL, GR, CH, NO

EU

reducti

on targ

et

80 -

95%

ref. 1

990

Cost benefit for emissions reductionin 10 countries

8

• 95% emission reduction 1.5c can only be achieved with CCS

• Without CCS emissions 3-4 times higher in 2050

• Savings 1 Trillion Euro till 2050 for EU

• The more you want to reduce emissions the stronger the business case for CCS

• Early investment in CO2 hubs and clusters has strong business case

Source: ZEP

Making these reductions happen – hubs & clusters

9

• Clusters & storage hubs reduce costs and risks for industry to connect

• Sized to accommodate local industrial emitters and their connection when possible

• EU funds for infrastructure, innovation and modernisation

Source: ZEP

Conclusions

• Urgent - 2050 targets are only achievable, with CCS (&everything)

• Lower cost – saves EU 1 Trillion Euros, to 2050

• Transport, Industry and above all Heat needs more Electricity

• Jobs in Energy Intensive Industries rely on CCS

• Solutions will be regional and vary..

• Like trains and water systems - Requires Infrastructure

• Strong Business case for countries to invest in Hubs/Clusters

• If countries want to meet the Paris Targets we should invest in CCS for:

10

Cost, Renewables Integration, Industrial jobs, Energy Security.. .. And we wont get there otherwise