CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect ^
Energy Procedia 1 (21009)) 4297-0306
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Energy Technology Modelling of Major Carbon Abatement Options Bennaceur Kamela, Gielen Dolfb
a International Energy Agency, Paris, France (on secondment from Schlumberger) b International Energy Agency, Paris, France
Abstract
The International Energy Agency Energy Technologies Perspectives (ETP) model is used for the assessment of the prospects for carbon abatement options, including carbon capture and storage, up to 2050. Three main scenarios are considered: a baseline scenario with current energy policies, an accelerated technology scenario (ACT) with an associated CO2 reduction incentive development, and a scenario in which global greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by 50 % compared to current levels in 2050 (BLUE). The analysis suggests that CCS can account for up to 19% of all CO2 reduction in 2050, which would equal 10.4 Gt CO2 capture and storage. The power sector would account for 54% of all CCS, the remainder is in manufacturing industry and the fuel transformation sector.
CCS is a critical option. Without CCS, the cost to meet the same target would rise by 71%. The potential rate at which CCS can be introduced exceeds the rate at which regular capital stock is typically replaced, if plants are retrofitted or closed down before the end of their technical life span. Retrofitting of coal plants with CCS plays a very significant role in the ACT Map scenario. But at the price of USD 200/t CO2 envisaged in the BLUE scenario, there is sufficient economic incentive to accelerate the replacement of inefficient power plants with new plants equipped with CCS before the existing plants reach the end of their life span. In the BLUE scenario, 350 GW of coal-fired power-plant capacity is closed down early. The remaining 700 GW consists of 80% new capacity that is equipped with CCS, and 20% retrofits with CCS.
Following IEA recommendations, the G8 countries have announced that they will commit 20 demonstration plants for CCS by 2010. Also the G8, China India and Korea have asked the IEA to continue its work on roadmaps and transition paths for CCS in power generation and in industry, in cooperation with other bodies such as CSLF. This work has started and final results will be reported in 2010.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: CO2 capture and storage, CCS, energy, emissions, technology, abatement, modelling PACS: Type pacs here, separated by semicolons ;
The IEA Energy Technology Perspectives model and the scenarios
At their summit in Gleaneagles in July 2005 the leaders of the G8 asked the IEA to advise on alternative scenarios and strategies for energy supply and demand. One of the options of great interest was CO2 capture and storage (CCS) (IEA, 2004). Subsequently the IEA has analysed in more detail the role CCS can play in future new policy regimes aiming for deep CO2 emission cuts (IEA, 2008a, 2008b). Also the conditions for a transition from today's situation to a more sustainable situation in 2050 were analysed. This analysis is based on model analysis.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.242
The International Energy Agency (IEA)'s Energy Technology Perspectives model is a MARKAL'-type model that represents energy supply and demand through a micro-economic representation of the world. The energy system is described by a network of processes linked by flows of energy carriers and materials. The model provides an analysis of the impact on energy markets of current and future energy policies and technologies, using the experience from industry models, industry statistics compiled by the IEA and other organizations on energy use, and a database of 1,500 technology options. In the ETP model, the world is divided into 15 energy regions, and regional cost factors are given for technology options.
The goal of the ETP analysis is to provide a technology perspective on the feasibility and costs of deep emission reductions; the analysis considers the impact of several scenarios, including an extremely ambitious one, showing how CO2 emissions could be reduced to 50% below current levels by 2050 in line. The analysis does not deal with the political feasibility of such targets. However, the results make clear that all countries need to act in terms of energy policy development in the next few years if the goal of halving emissions is to remain feasible. In fact the analysis suggests that such development could also greatly enhance the supply security. The Baseline scenario reflects developments that are expected on the basis of the energy and climate policies that have been implemented to date. In terms of projections of economic growth, fuel prices and other macroeconomic drivers it is consistent with the World Energy Outlook 2007 Reference scenario for the period 2005 to 2030 (IEA, 2007). The World Energy Outlook trends have been extrapolated for the period 2030 to 2050 using the new Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) model. The pattern of economic growth changes after 2030, as population growth slows and developing country economies begin to mature.
The implications of two policy objectives have been analysed. The ACcelerated Technology (ACT) scenarios envisage bringing global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2050 back to 2005 levels. The BLUE scenarios envisage reducing 2050 CO2 emissions by 50% as compared with 2005 levels. The BLUE scenarios are consistent with a global rise in temperatures of 2-3 degrees Celsius (IPCC-2007), but only if the reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions is combined with deep cuts in other greenhouse gas emissions and if emissions continue to decline after 2050. Both scenarios also aim for reduced dependence on oil and gas.
The ACT and BLUE scenarios are based on the same macro-economic assumptions as the Baseline scenario. In all scenarios, average world economic growth is at 3.3% per year between 2005 and 2050, resulting in economic activity in 2050 being four times that in 2005. The underlying demand for energy services is also the same in all scenarios, i.e. the analysis does not consider actions for reducing the demand for energy services.
The ACT and BLUE scenarios enable the exploration of the technological options that will need to be exploited if the ambitious CO2 reductions implicit in the scenarios are to be achieved. The analysis does not reflect on the likelihood of these things happening, or on the climate policy instruments that might best help achieve these objectives. The scenarios assume an optimistic view of technology development. However, it is clear that these objectives can only be met if the whole world participates.
In total, five variants were analysed for the electricity generation sector in the ACT and BLUE scenarios, as follows:
• Map: these scenarios are relatively optimistic for all technologies;
• a high nuclear variant (hi NUC) which assumes up to 2 000 GW nuclear capacity rather than the 1 250 GW assumed in the Map variant (so in hi NUC more than a five-fold increase compared to today);
• a no- carbon capture and storage (no CCS) variant;
• a low renewables variant (lo REN) which includes less optimistic cost reduction assumptions for renewable power generation technologies; and
• a low end-use efficiency gains variant (lo EFF) which assumes a 0.3 percentage points lower annual energy efficiency improvement than the Map scenarios (1.4% instead of 1.7%).
The ACT Map and BLUE Map scenarios contain relatively optimistic assumptions for all key technology areas. The BLUE Map scenario is more speculative than the ACT Map scenario insofar as it assumes technology that is not available today. It also requires the rapid development and widespread uptake of such technologies. Without affordable new energy technologies, the objectives of the BLUE Map scenario will be unachievable.
These scenarios are not predictions. They are internally consistent analyses of the least-cost pathways to meet energy policy objectives, given a certain set of optimistic technology assumptions. This work can help policy makers identify technology portfolios and flexible strategies that may help deliver the outcomes they are seeking. The scenarios are the basis for roadmaps that can help establish appropriate mechanisms and plans for further international technology cooperation.
The MARket ALlocation (MARKAL) modelling framework is a bottom-up systems engineering economic model developed and updated since the 1970-s by the IEA Implementing Agreement ETSAP.
The results of the ACT and the BLUE scenarios assume the successful implementation of a wide range of policies and measures to overcome barriers to the adoption of appropriate technologies. Both the public and the private sectors have major roles to play in creating and disseminating new energy technologies. The increased uptake of cleaner and more efficient energy technologies envisaged in the ACT and the BLUE scenarios will need to be driven by:
• Increased support for the research and development (R&D) of energy technologies that face technical challenges and need to reduce costs before they become commercially viable;
• Demonstration programmes for energy technologies that need to prove they can work on a commercial scale under relevant operating conditions;
• Deployment programmes for energy technologies that are not yet cost-competitive, but whose costs could be reduced through learning-by-doing. These programmes would be expected to be phased out as individual technologies become cost-competitive;
• CO2 reduction incentives to encourage the adoption of low-carbon technologies. Such incentives could take the form of regulation, pricing incentives, tax breaks, voluntary programmes, subsidies or trading schemes. The ACT scenarios assume that policies and measures are put in place that would lead to the adoption of low-carbon technologies with a cost of up to USD 50/t CO2 saved from 2030 in all countries, including developing countries. In the BLUE scenarios the level of incentive is assumed to continue to rise from 2030 onwards, reaching a level of USD 200/t CO2 saved in 2040 and beyond.
• Policy instruments to overcome other commercialisation barriers that are not primarily economic. These include enabling standards and other regulations, labelling schemes, information campaigns and energy auditing. These measures can play an important role in increasing the uptake of energy-efficient technologies in the building and transport sectors, as well as in non-energy intensive industry sectors where energy costs are low compared to other production costs.
The principal components of the energy model include demand side and supply side factors. From the demand set, efficient use of energy in the residential, transportation and industry, along with CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in the industry are considered. On the supply side, the major components are from the fossil-fuel (coal or gas, with and without CCS), renewables, biomass, and nuclear power generation.
Table 1: ETP Roadmaps
Supply Side Demand Side
• CCS fossil-fuel power generation • Energy efficiency in buildings and
• Nuclear power plants appliances
• Onshore and offshore wind • Heat pumps
• Biomass IGCC & co-combustion • Solar space and water heating
• Photovoltaic systems • Energy efficiency in transport
• Concentrating solar power • Electric and plug-in vehicles
• Coal: integrated-gasification combined cycle • H2 fuel cell vehicles
• Coal: ultra-supercritical • CCS industry, H2 and fuel transformation
• 2nd generation biofuels • Industrial motor systems
Results from the Baseline scenario
The Baseline scenario reflects developments that will occur with the energy and climate policies that have been implemented to date. In the Baseline scenario as in the other scenarios, world economic activity grows approximately fourfold between 2005 and 2050. During the same time period, primary energy use rises by 110%, and the carbon intensity of primary energy increases by 11%. Strong decoupling of economic activity and energy use - a consequence of technical energy efficiency gains and structural change - is overshadowed by rapid economic growth and the increasing carbon intensity of energy use. A shift towards more coal in the power sector energy mix, at the expense of oil and gas, contributes a significant proportion of the emissions growth in the Baseline scenario (Figure 1). Coal accounts for 52% of power generation. Oil and gas demand will also continue to rise. IEA analysis suggests it is unlikely that this demand will be constrained by a shortage of available reserves, although it is less clear that the necessary investment will occur in time to exploit those reserves. If investment in the OPEC countries and Russia does not materialize in the coming decades, oil and gas prices will rise further, thus increasing the demand for alternatives, whether high- or low-carbon.
Although emissions from the power sector represent the largest absolute increase, emissions are forecast to rise faster in percentage terms in the fuel transformation, transportation and industry sectors. Figure 2 shows the evolution of energy-related CO2 emissions in the Baseline scenario rising from 27 Gt in 2005 to 41 Gt in 2030 and 62 Gt in 2050 (a 130 % increase). In 2050, emissions from the power sector alone would be at the same level as the combined emissions from all sectors in 2005. The share of the power sector in total energy related CO2 emissions would rise from 35% to 44%.
Even if the Baseline scenario is feasible from a resource perspective, it will result in unacceptable climate change. It will also make major oil and gas consuming countries increasingly reliant on energy imports from a relatively small number of supplier countries.
Results from alternative scenarios: ACT and BLUE
The final energy demand in the ACT Map and the BLUE Map scenarios, compared to the Baseline are respectively 23 % and 33 % lower in 2050. Figure 7 shows the evolution of final energy use, split between industry, transportation and buildings. The Buildings sector offers the highest potential savings in the ACT Map scenario (-32 %), while the transportation sector has the highest relative decrease in the BLUE Map scenario (-44 %).
In the ACT Map scenario, emissions are 35 Gt lower than the Baseline, while the BLUE Map scenario projects 48 Gt reductions, down to 14 Gt in 2050. Emission reductions by sector are given in Table 2 for both scenarios. In the BLUE Map Scenario, the power generation sector shows the largest reduction in emissions per unit of product (-90 %). All sectors reduce their emissions by more than 60 %.
Figure 1: Global electricity production by fuel in the Baseline scenario
2005 Baseline 2030 Baseline 2050
Figure 2: Global C02 emissions in the Baseline scenario
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Buildings Industry Transport Fuel transformation ■ Power sector
Baseline 2030
Baseline 2050
Figure 3: Final energy demand in the Baseline, ACT Map and BLUE Map Scenarios
Table 2: Percentage CO2 emission intensity reductions by sector in the ACT Map and BLUE Map scenarios, 2050
Intensity reduction
ACT Map BLUE Map
[%] [%]
Reference Baseline 2050 Baseline 2050
Power sector -81
Other transformation -51
Transport -42
Industry -18
Buildings -36
Total -57
-90 -84 -69 -60 -61 -78
Figure 4 shows the evolution of CO2 emissions in the BLUE Map scenario and a comparison with the Baseline case. The figure also highlights the broad portfolio of technologies to be used. In this study, end-use efficiency accounts for 36% of all savings in the BLUE Map scenario, renewables for 21%, and CO2 capture and storage 19%. The remaining 24% is accounted for by nuclear, fossil fuel switching and efficiency in power generation. Certain CO2-free options play already an important role in Baseline (especially energy efficiency, nuclear and hydropower), this is not shown in this graph.
A description of the investments required is given in the ETP publication (IEA 2008a). The average annual investments between 2010 and 2050 needed to achieve a virtual decarbonisation of the power sector, include, amongst others, 55 fossil-fuelled power plants with CCS (35 coal fired and 20 gas fired), 32 nuclear plants, 17 750 large wind turbines, and 215 million square metres of solar panels. Although such rates of new technology adoption may seem daunting the historical rate of nuclear addition and that of current onshore wind additions suggest that they are achievable. Investments in CO2-free power generation need to increase six- to sevenfold, from around 50 GW per year today to 330 GW per year in the period 2035-2050.
BLUE also requires widespread adoption of very energy-efficient buildings, with near zero emissions; and, on one set of assumptions, deployment of nearly a billion electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Sales of conventional vehicles with internal combustion engines would be all but phased out in 2050.
Compared to previous IEA scenarios, the outlook is considerably more optimistic for renewables and also for nuclear energy. The electricity mix in BLUE Map consists of nearly half renewables, a quarter nuclear and a quarter fossil fuels with CO2 capture and storage. In the scenario which halves CO2 emissions, renewables account for up to 46% of total power generation. Hydro, wind and solar each provide around 5000 TWh in 2050. In the transport sector, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles have emerged as a promising strategy and are now a key part of some of the more ambitious scenarios.
Figure 4: Contribution of emissions reductions options in 2005-2050
The options for emission reductions can be grouped into distinct categories, indicated in Figure 5. The marginal emission abatement curve is shown against the Baseline for increasingly expensive technologies (in terms of cost per tonne of CO2 reduced). Even though the figure is a simplified representation of the impact of many variables, it includes several important characteristics:
1. Costs are relatively flat up to the ACT Map scenario (USD 50-100 per tonne of CO2 reduced)
2. Costs increase significantly to reach the BLUE Map target (above USD 200 per tonne)
3. Without energy efficiency and/or CCS, the marginal cost would increase considerably.
Figure 5: Marginal abatement cost curve, 2050
Transport alternative fuels
Technology Pessimism
Technology 00 Optimism 100 50
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2050 C02 emissions reduction (Gt C02/yr)
CO2 capture and storage prospects in the ETP scenarios
CCS in industry, fuel transformation and electricity generation accounts for 14% of the emissions reduction in the ACT Map scenario and 19% in the BLUE Map scenario, leading to the capture of 5.1 Gt to 10.4 Gt of CO2.
The growth of CCS between the ACT Map and the BLUE Map scenarios accounts for 32% of the additional emissions reduction in the BLUE Map. The level of CO2 reduction using future advanced technologies is approximately 10% to 20% lower than the
total amount of CO2 captured, because CCS uses significant additional energy. In the BLUE Map scenario, 54% of the CO2 capture takes place in the power sector (Figure 6). The remainder takes place in the fuel-transformation sector (refineries, synfuel production, blast furnaces) and in manufacturing industries, for example in cement kilns, ammonia plants and industrial combined heat and power (CHP) units.
In the power sector, the retrofit of power plants with CO2 capture plays an important role in the ACT Map scenario. Retrofitting plays a smaller part in the BLUE Map scenario, where CCS is incorporated into new generation capacity earlier. In the ACT Map scenario, 239 GW of coal-fired capacity is retrofitted with CCS by 2050 and 379 GW of new capacity is equipped with CCS. The new plants are largely integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) based. In the BLUE Map scenario, only 157 GW of coal-fired capacity is retrofitted with CCS and 543 GW of new capacity with CCS is installed. Retrofit of power plants built before 2005 is not significant in either scenario because the efficiency of these plants is too low. Only 10% of all coal-fired electricity generation capacity today (about 120 GW) achieves the 40% net efficiency that would make it suitable for retrofitting CCS. In the BLUE Map scenario about 350 GW of coal-fired capacity is replaced before the end of its technical life span.
In the ACT Map scenario, 280 GW of new gas-fired capacity is equipped with CCS. This increases to 817 GW in the BLUE Map scenario. These figures include industrial large-scale combined heat and power (CHP) generation units. In addition, black liquor gasifiers are equipped with CCS in both scenarios and CCS is increasingly applied to industrial processes (/.g. cement kilns and iron production processes) and in the fuel-transformation sector (/.g. hydrogen production for refineries). CCS is especially important for some industries such as steel and cement because it is the only way to achieve deep emission cuts.
The analysis suggests that meeting emissions halving without the CCS option would result in an increase of the annual cost by USD 1.28 trillion in 2050, an increase of 71%. The marginal cost would nearly double. This suggests that CCS is a critical option for deep emission cus.
Figure 6: Use of CO2 Capture and Storage in the ACT Map and BLUE Map Scenarios (2050)
In the baseline scenario, which assumes a negligible price for CO2, CCS is mainly limited to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and fuel-transformation applications. Figure 7 shows the growth in emission reductions from CCS in the ACT Map scenario, which assumes an incentive of USD 50/t CO2. CCS achieves a saving of 5.1 Gt CO2 per year in 2050, of which 68% is from the electricity sector. Retrofits represent nearly 40% of this amount. Gas processing and synthetic-fuel production represent 17%, and industry CCS 5% of the total reduction. The cumulative storage volume between 2010 and 2050 is less than 100 Gt, representing only a small fraction of the capacity available.
Figure 8 shows CO2 capture by region under the ACT Map scenario. The distribution for the BLUE Map scenario is very similar. Up to 2030, more than half of total capture takes place in OECD countries. After 2035, emerging economies account for more than half of total CCS use. This pattern can be explained by the assumption of the delayed introduction of CO2 policies in developing countries and the need for technology transfer. However, in the long run, developing countries account for the bulk of the economic activity and for two thirds of the CO2 emissions in the Baseline scenario. Therefore, their potential to apply CCS is much higher. The high share of capture in developing countries in this scenario suggests that if CCS is not applied in developing countries, the total quantity captured worldwide will be much lower. This indicates the importance of international co-operation to maximise the impact of CCS as an abatement option.
CO2 Storage
The use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) has been applied on a limited scale for the past 25 years. Opportunities are likely to increase gradually over the next 15 years as production in certain basins such as the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico matures. In practice, CO2-EOR use is likely to be limited: many oil and gas fields are in remote regions which are far from sources where CO2 could be captured. In such cases, the cost of bringing CO2 to the site must be compared to the cost of alternative EOR technologies. The model results regarding CO2 use for EOR are subject to significant uncertainties. A proper assessment of the potential would require detailed field-by-field data, which is beyond the scope of the ETP model analysis. Nonetheless, the model suggests suggest that CO2-EOR opportunities are not critical for the feasibility of CCS strategies.
Figure 7: Growth of CO2 Capture and Storage in the ACT Map Scenario
Figure 8: Global CO2 Capture by Region, ACT Map Scenario
Figure 9 shows results for CO2 storage under the ACT Map scenario. Storage is initially mainly associated with EOR. By 2025, it is roughly evenly divided between aquifers and depleted oil and gas fields, including enhanced oil and gas recovery (EOR and Carbon Sequestration and Enhanced Gas Recovery - CSEGR). By 2030, storage in deep saline formations (DSF) will dominate. Total cumulative storage over the period 2000 to 2050 amounts to 80 Gt, a small share of the total global storage potential. In a least-cost optimisation model such as ETP, one might expect that CO2 use for enhanced fossil fuel production would be chosen
first. Currently, only 3% of world oil production is based on EOR and 0.3% is associated with CO2-EOR. The remaining 97% is based on primary and secondary production technologies.
Figure 9: CO2 Storage in the ACT Map Scenario
2020 2030 ■ DSF ■ Other 2040 2050
Note: Other CO2 applications include CO2 enhanced recovery and storage in depleted oil and gas fields. The way forward
Worldwide deployment of CCS requires major progress in five key areas: legal and regulatory frameworks, financial mechanisms, technology demonstration and cost decrease, public awareness, and international collaboration. Worldwide deployment of CCS requires major progress in five key areas: legal and regulatory frameworks, financial mechanisms, technology demonstration and cost decrease, public awareness, and international collaboration.
The near-term (by 2020) implementation of 20-30 full-scale CCS projects, including the power sector and the industry and fuel transformation sectors, would have a noticeable impact on reducing the uncertainties related to cost and reliability of CCS technologies, mainly from the capture side. These demonstrations are very urgent, or it will not be possible for CCS to have a significant share of new power plants by 2030. Retrofits of power plants also needs to be demonstrated: at least 6 demonstration projects are recommended for retrofit coal fired power plants by 2020, in order to avoid major carbon lock-in.
CCS is not a stand-alone technology. It needs to be combined with energy efficient conversion processes that generate concentrated CO2 flows. IGCC and USCSC are two such technologies for the power sector. In industry, nitrogen free blast furnaces, smelt reduction processes, black liquor gasifiers are examples of such enabling technologies. As use of oxygen is a prerequisite for high CO2 concentrations, energy efficient oxygen production should also be a priority.
Emerging CO2 capture technologies could reduce the additional cost of CCS to USD 0.02-0.04 per kWh, but the evolution of plant costs, after the sustained increases experienced over the last 5 years, remains a significant unknown. The reduction of capture cost depends critically on RD&D and learning-by-innovation to cut capture costs in half by 2030. Cost savings can be achieved in CO2 capture from power generation by co-producing electricity and synfuels.
In summary, the technology assessment suggests that it may be possible to reduce CCS energy use and costs significantly. Such improvements would be largely based on R&D (innovation), price of commodities, and to a lesser extent on learning-by-doing. A CCS strategy will not depend on a single technology. As technology development is always fraught with uncertainty, this improves the likelihood that CCS can play an important role. CCS improvements must be combined with efficiency improvements, especially for power plants. The global CO2 storage potential seems significant, but it is not evenly distributed. R&D suggests that long-term storage is feasible. However permanence is not yet sufficiently proven in practice, although monitoring of existing storage sites have indicated that CO2 behaved as per the prediction of reservoir simulation models.
CCS will not be commercially deployed unless there is a value for CO2 abated. The private sector needs long-term price signals through government action in the introduction of international/national instruments to create a value for CO2. In the short term, inclusion of CCS in the Kyoto Protocol flexibility mechanisms and in the European Trading Schemes, as well as, in the medium term, upcoming post-Kyoto instruments, is a necessity for CCS as a carbon abatement option.
A legal framework for CO2 capture and storage projects must be developed to address various problems, such as liability issues, licensing, responsibility for leakage, landowner rights and royalty owner rights. Classification of CO2 should be agreed by governments, so that it is not classified as a waste. For storage in particular, countries should create an enabling legal and regulatory environment for more experimental and CO2 storage EOR projects. Regulations governing long-term liability in relation to CO2 storage are not likely to differ significantly from those in related extraction industries. Requirements for post-closure monitoring need to be established on the basis of a technically-based risk management methodology.
Given the scale of investment required for R,D&D of clean coal and CCS technologies, and the projected growth of capacity in non-OECD countries, international cooperation is needed to accelerate the deployment of those technologies. Organizations such as the IEA and the CSLF have enabled the creation of large networks of CCS stakeholders. In the absence of CCS, the marginal cost of abatement would increase significantly with technologies at costs significantly higher than 200 USD/tonne.
Roadmaps incorporating all critical elements for a successful deployment of CCS at the scale required need to be developed urgently, incorporating financial mechanisms, legal and regulatory frameworks, technology development and demonstration, CO2 transport infrastructure, and raising public awareness. At its meeting in June 2008 the energy ministers of the G8, China India and Korea have requested the IEA to further elaborate the roadmaps for the 17 technologies of the ETP2008 study, including CCS for power generation and CCS for industry. This work has started and the final report is scheduled for May 2010, part of the Energy Technology Perspectives 2010. Moreover the G8 have requested the IEA to work with CSLF to monitor progress in the implementation of 20 demonstration projects.
References
International Energy Agency - IEA (2004), Prosp/cts for CO2 capture and storage, IEA/OECD, Paris. IEA (2007), WorldEn/rgy Outlook 2007, IEA/OECD, Paris.
IEA (2008a), En/rgy T/chnology P/rsp/ctiv/s: Sc/narios and Strat/gi/s to 2050, IEA/OECD, Paris. IEA (2008b), CO2 Captur/ and storag/: A k/y carbon abat/m/nt option, IEA/OECD, Paris.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Climat/ Chang/ 2007: Mitigation to Climat/ Chang/: Contribution of Working Group III to th/ Fourth Ass/ssm/nt R/port of th/ Int/rgov/rnmn/tal Pan/l on Climat/ Chang/ [B. Metz, /t al. (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, United States.
