Integrated infrastructure for CO2 transport and storage in the west Mediterranean
Laboratorio Nacional de Energia e Geologia I.P.
Rua Da Amieira
4466-901 S.Mamede De Infesta
Higher or Secondary Education Establishments
€ 283 695,74
Ana Cláudia Carvalho (Mrs.)
Sort by EU Contribution
UNIVERSIDADE DE EVORA
€ 162 000
€ 189 500
INSTITUTO GEOLÓGICO Y MINERO DE ESPAÑA
€ 153 000
BUREAU DE RECHERCHES GEOLOGIQUES ET MINIERES
€ 141 524
University Mohammed V-Agdal
€ 117 600
Office National des Hydrocarbures et des mines
€ 80 000
UNIVERSITE MOHAMMED PREMIER 1 - UMP
€ 101 400
ASATREM SRL - APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSES, TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH, ENERGY MODELS
€ 328 400
CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIONES ENERGETICAS, MEDIOAMBIENTALES Y TECNOLOGICAS-CIEMAT
€ 183 500
FUNDACAO DA FACULDADE DE CIENCIAS E TECNOLOGIA DA UNIVERSIDADE NOVA DE LISBOA.
€ 138 010
FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JULICH GMBH
€ 154 732
EDP - GESTAO DA PRODUCAO DE ENERGIA SA
€ 59 542
ENDESA GENERACION SA
€ 36 534
Galp Energia SA
€ 44 421
Office National de l'Electricité
€ 60 600
TEJO ENERGIA S.A.
€ 37 200
INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ENGENHARIA, TECNOLOGIA E INOVACAO
€ 71 470,26
Grant agreement ID: 241400
1 January 2010
31 December 2012
€ 3 125 087
€ 2 343 129
Laboratorio Nacional de Energia e Geologia I.P.
Carbon capture, transport and storage in the western Mediterranean
Grant agreement ID: 241400
1 January 2010
31 December 2012
€ 3 125 087
€ 2 343 129
Laboratorio Nacional de Energia e Geologia I.P.
Final Report Summary - COMET (Integrated infrastructure for CO2 transport and storage in the west Mediterranean)
Carbon dioxide Capture, Transport and Storage (CCS) is an important component of a portfolio of low-carbon technologies, as it is able to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions substantially from both the energy sector and industry. The EU FP7 COMET (2010-2012) project paved the road towards CCS development in the West Mediterranean Region (WMR) – Portugal, Spain and Morocco – researching, developing and applying an integrated methodology.
The COMET methodology integrates the special development aspects of infrastructure to transport the captured CO2 from its sources to the appropriate CO2 storage sites, as well as their time development and costs in a technical economic energy-transport model.
The methodology explored how, how much, where and when CO2 will be captured, and where can it be adequately, safely and securely stored in a considered area. This was achieved by integrating the evolution of the energy system and industry sectors (therefore of the emissions of CO2) and the storage potential. Combining this information into a geographical system allowed studying the development of the CO2 transport infrastructure over time. In this frame the methodology assessed the impact of different development assumptions: with or without transnationally infrastructure, with high or low economic development, with more or less stringent mitigation commitments, allowing free pipeline pathways or constraining them, etc.
In the study area, CCS may contribute to reduce the CO2 emissions to 180-390 Mt (reduction of 21% - 63% in 2050 compared to 2005). For CCS to play this role, around 100 Mt of CO2 has to be avoided by CCS in 2050. Only in scenarios of low economic growth would storage of 50 Mt CO2 be sufficient. Although in 2050, this amount is similar in both the low and high mitigation scenarios; in 2030 it is clearly different: 74 Mt is avoided by CCS in the high mitigation scenario versus 44 Mt in the low mitigation scenarios.
The detailed descriptions which resulted from the modeling work show among others when, where, and how much CO2 is captured, transported and stored in the different scenarios (among others in tables, figures and GIS maps). These also include information on associated costs and investments and are meant to give an elaborate impression of possible trajectories of a CCS infrastructure over time. The overview of drivers, synergies and barriers, provided an inventory from the international literature, supplemented by information found at the national level. Based on this inventory, actions were identified to overcome the barriers and enhance synergies.
The basis is laid for identifying and assessing promising CO2 transport networks in the West Mediterranean region. Many lessons have been drawn which are related to physical aspects of the network, as well as issues which are encountered during the implementation process. The models and tools developed and data collected within COMET, provide opportunities to further refine these lessons. COMET was the first large-scale integrated study of the costs, barriers and challenges for the deployment of a large CO2 transport and storage infrastructure in the WMR. Moreover, the results of the project, namely its technical and economic cost analysis, provide a framework for similar studies across Europe and other parts of the world.
Project Context and Objectives:
COMET focuses on assessing CO2 transport and storage in a geographical area that until now has received little attention: the West Mediterranean area, specifically, the Iberian Peninsula and Morocco.
The need for research on CCS in the West Mediterranean is related not only to the geographical proximity but also to:
1. The increasing connections between the energy and industrial sectors in the area;
2. The continuity of sedimentary basins that can act as possible storage reservoirs;
3. The existing experience in managing a large gas transport infrastructure, such as the natural gas pipeline coming from Algeria, through Morocco, to Spain and Portugal.
There is a strong connection between the energy sectors across this geographic area. On the one hand, Morocco, Portugal and Spain already cooperate in terms of transport of natural gas. The pipeline that supplies the Iberian Peninsula with natural gas from the Algerian fields crosses Morocco in a large extension (Figure 1). Furthermore, Spain and Portugal have signed an agreement to create an Iberian electricity market (MIBEL) with strategic decisions being taken by the energy companies on the basis of the supply/demand of the whole Iberian Peninsula. In the oil refining and supplying sectors, there is also an increasing connection between the major Spanish (REPSOL and CEPSA) and Portuguese (GALP) companies, which operate freely in both countries and cooperate in the management of pipelines. It is, thus, likely that the European Commission targets for reduction of GHG emissions also need to be addressed in an integrated manner by the two countries.
On the other hand, Morocco is going through a period of fast economic growth. A steady increase on energy demand has driven the construction of new fossil based power plants, and the Moroccan Ministry of Energy developed an energy plan for the coming 4 years that includes additional power generation capacity of 2640 MW coal fired, 2472 MW of Natural Gas Combined Cycle and 700 MW of Gas turbines and diesel plants.
Similar challenge is faced by the energy sector in both sides of the West Mediterranean area: the need to reduce CO2 emissions, without compromising energy supply and economic development. Under such conditions, CCS in geological formations may become an attractive option common to Morocco, Portugal and Spain, also because these countries share some offshore sedimentary basins that are likely to be suitable reservoirs for CO2.
Due to the scale of the challenge and the transboundary nature of potential geological reservoirs (Figure 2), it is possible that the implementation of CCS at a commercial scale will involve cooperation between countries. Such cooperation will have to consider the fact that, if the storage capacity is available, it may be more cost efficient to use common formations for regional storage of CO2, provided an integrated transport and storage network can be developed and that it is less expensive over time than isolated infrastructures developed independently in each country.
For an optimal planning and design of transport infrastructure it is necessary to take into account the synergies and interferences between its own development and the development of the energy supply system and other major CO2 emitters. This involves taking into account timing (e.g. development of the energy system and new CO2 sources in each country) and spatial aspects (e.g. availability and location of local sinks and CO2 sources over time) while at the same time assuring the cost-effectiveness of the CCS chain.
Optimizing transport costs requires a balanced decision on transport modes and a rigorous matching of CO2 sources and sinks over time. The three factors named above, i.e. the existence of common transport network (i), the existence of transboundary sedimentary basins (ii) and an energy and industrial sector becoming increasingly interlinked (iii), constitute the rationale for COMET to assess the economic and technical effectiveness of a common infrastructure for CCS development at a Trans-Mediterranean scale.
Figure 1 – Existing pipeline network linking Portugal, Spain and Morocco (COMET, 2010)
Figure 2 - Sedimentary basins in the West Mediterranean region and their estimated CO2 storage capacities. Notice the transboundary offshore basins. The symbol for ‘Sedimentary structure’ in some offshore areas refers to the location of a suitable structure, but is not related to the structure size or shape (COMET, 2011)
The overall objective of COMET was to study the techno-economic feasibility of integrating carbon dioxide transport and storage infrastructures in the West Mediterranean area (Portugal, Spain and Morocco). The feasibility study has taken into account several scenarios of energy system development for the time period 2010-2050, the location of the major CO2 point sources and the available potential for geological storage in each of those countries.
COMET aimed to be a first large-scale integrated study of the costs, barriers and challenges to the deployment of a large CO2 transport and storage infrastructure in the West Mediterranean area. The results of COMET have provided a major step forward in the safe and commercial deployment of a regional CCS strategy and infrastructure. Moreover, the results of the project, namely its technical and economic cost analysis, may provide a framework for similar studies across Europe and other parts of the world.
COMET comprised seven work packages (WPs) (Figure 3) distributed along the three years of the project:
WP1: Project management and coordination
WP2: Identification of the location and the amounts of CO2 emissions from the sources (Portugal, Spain and Morocco).
WP3: Identification of the locations and the storage capacity of potential sinks in the region (Portugal, Spain and Morocco)
WP4: GIS integration of all the information and elements of a CO2 transmission network
WP5: Analysis of the national energy systems and modelling via MARKAL/TIMES of Portugal, Spain and Morocco
WP6: In depth assessment of most promising infrastructure options (scenario building, transport costs, technical-economic evaluation of different options); identification of synergies and barriers
WP7: Promotion, Dissemination and International collaboration
Figure 3 - Flow chart of the COMET project
This section presents the main outcomes of the project by answering to the key questions that the project proposed to tackle:
- What is the forecasted evolution of energy and industry sectors?
Presentation of the identification of sources and their modeled evolution.
- Are the estimated storage volumes in each country sufficient for the foreseen capture volume?
Presentation of the identification of CO2 sinks in the West Mediterranean Region and their potential use in the future.
- What would be the possible routes of a CO2 transport infrastructure?
Presentation of the identification of pipeline trajectories and the comparison with other mode of transport.
- What would be the transport and storage costs of a common, transboundary, CCS infrastructure?
Presentation of the least cost transboundary infrastructure.
- What is the temporal and spatial development of the least cost demanding transport network?
Presentation of the TIMES-COMET model, its novelty and its results.
- Are there economic advantages in developing a common transport and storage network? What would be the possible advantages and opportunities of the extension of such a network to neighbouring countries?
Presentation of the conclusion on sharing CCS infrastructure and storages.
- Would a Western Mediterranean transport network be more cost effective for Portugal and Spain than linking to a Central Europe network?
Presentation of the conclusions on connection with central Europe network.
What is the forecasted evolution of energy and industry sectors? CO2 sources in the West Mediterranean Region and their evolution.
COMET has identified 288 large point sources, where CCS could potentially be deployed in the three countries. Figure 4 presents these point sources and range of emissions in 2009. An access database with extended information was created and all the information is online GIS tool, GEOPORTAL (username and password are needed.
Figure 4 – Location of large CO2 point sources in the West Mediterranean area in 2009 (COMET, 2011)
The CO2 point sources were distributed in seven classes: Power and Heat Generation, Oil Refineries, Cement Plant, Pulp & Paper, Iron & Steel, Glass and Other Industry (includes, among others, chemical, food, wood and ceramics industry as well as incineration installations (Figure 5).
Figure 5 – Distribution of emissions by sector in the West Mediterranean Area included in COMET in 2009.
CO2 emissions in 2005MoroccoPortugal Spain
TOTAL (MtCO2/a)37 77 381
Can be captured (concentrated sources >0.1 MtCO2/a)57% 38% 30%
Cannot be captured: other ETS (sources <0.1 MtCO2/a)0% 21% 25%
other non-ETS industrial sectors(+) 0% 6% 7%
Agriculture, Commercial, Residential, Transport43% 35% 38%
ETS=European Emission Trading sectors; (+) industrial sectors where ETS is not applicable
Comparing the detailed study of large point sources with the national emission inventories in the 2005-10, only 30-40% of total Portuguese/Spanish emissions, and 57% of Moroccan emissions can be captured (Table 1).
Table 1 - CO2 emissions in 2005: total and capture potential
Future and possible evolution
The technical potential of capture is highly dependent on the share of concentrated CO2 emission sources in the ETS sectors compared to the total emissions. In this study the concentration factor of the ETS sectors is projected constant to the level existing in the historical years, i.e. 55% in Spain and 65% in Portugal (Table 1). If the development of the ETS sectors tends to higher concentration levels, the market for CCS increases, and presumably the marginal price of CO2 decreases since it lowers the need to use other energy system mitigation options, which are more expensive.
Although these ratios are constant, the technical potential for CCS changes over the years depending on the scenario. The main determinants are the demand projections and the assigned mitigation level. The former determines the development of the industrial sectors where capture is possible, the latter changes the amount of electricity necessary to satisfy the consumers and the share of electricity generated by fossil fuels. The cumulative amount of CO2 emitted by large sources in the next forty years in the West Mediterranean Region remains always below 7 GtCO2.
Linked to the technical potential is the economic potential, which depends also on the technical economic characterisation of future capture technologies. In this project the values reported in Table 2 are assumed. The economic potential is calculated by means of the technical economic TIMES-COMET model (see below), as illustrated in Figure 6. The cumulative amount of CO2 that can be economically captured in the next forty years does not exceed 50% of the technical potential, and never reaches 3.5 GtCO2.
Figure 6 - CO2 emissions and CO2 capture by country, scenario and sector
CCS reaches its maximum annual global market when CO2 emissions have to be reduced by 60% compared to the 2005 level: at lower reduction targets lower amounts need to be captured, at higher targets more carbon free technologies have to be used and the amount that can be captured decreases.
Table 2 - Characteristics of the capture technologies in the model
Fuel Capture ELC in Fuel in Investment costs [M€2007/(ktCO2/a captured)]
Sector Group Rate, % GJ/tCO2 GJ/tCO2 2020 2030 2040 2050
ELE COA 902.70.141 0.139 0.121 0.105
ELE ǂ COA903.30.162 0.148 0.130 0.094
CEM Any 850.7 4.4 0.175 0.175 0.175 0.175
GLS Any 901.3 4.7 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.132
IIS a Any651.2 4.5 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032
IOI Any 901.3 4.7 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.132
PnP Any 901.1 3.6 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.092
REF Any 852.90.233 0.233 0.233 0.233
A: blast furnaces with CCS consume less coke (-4.9 GJ/ktCO2); this amount was not modeled; however this approximation is not likely to influence the main results; fuel input of power plants reduces in 2050 to 1.4 for coal, 2.0 for gas; lifetime=30 years; fixed O&M is 5% of the investment cost; learning goes with an assumption of doubling the cumulative production each 4 years; industrial sectors: CEM=Cement plant, ELE= Power, heat, CHP plants, GLS=Glass, IIS= Iron & Steel, IOI= Other Industry, PnP= Pulp & Paper, REF=Oil Refineries.
Figure 7 represents the geographic distribution of CO2 production, for each cluster, from 2020 to 2050. With few exceptions, the clusters with significant expected CO2 productions are located close to the coastal regions of the three countries. It is also along coastal regions that the most significant increases of CO2 production are likely to occur from 2020 to 2050, especially along the north the Mediterranean coast of Spain. Source cluster along the coast of Morocco also, show, in general show a trend of increasing CO2 emissions.
The CO2 emissions evolution of large sources by sector and year, for the conservative scenario are presented at Figure 8. The cement and power sectors, in the conservative scenario, are presenting the major differences. In the case of the cement sector the expected CO2 emissions will increase from 38 Mt/year in 2020 to 65Mt/year in 2050, and the power sector will decrease from 61 to 50 Mt/year. The total emissions of CO2 will increase 20%, from 2020 to 2050, in the conservative scenario.
Figure 7 – Temporal evolution of CO2 production, per source cluster, in the Conservative CCS scenario.
Figure 8 – CO2 Emissions by large sources in the WMR in the central CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario (in MtCO2)
Are the estimated storage volumes in each country sufficient for the foreseen capture volume? - CO2 sinks in the West Mediterranean Region
COMET has developed deep geological work in the three participant countries, covering a total territory of over 1,000,000 km2 onshore and offshore. Thousands of seismic profiles have been reviewed and included in geological models used to draw the limits of those structures that have been considered as a potential site for storage of CO2. Also a large collection of data coming from deep exploration boreholes has been used in order to define a complete setting of geological parameters, included in databases and employed for different calculations regarding storage capacity, operation costs and potential uncertainties.
Spain, Portugal and Morocco are not well explored countries or data are not always publicly available. Lack of hydrocarbon resources is most of the times the cause of the reduced number of wells and the limited number of kilometres of seismic profiles that are available. Very frequently, data was acquired between 1960 and 1990 and, therefore, formats needed to be updated in order to be used in COMET. Therefore, numbers obtained in COMET have to be evaluated with the appropriate levels of uncertainty in order to take acceptable decisions.
In any case, the values of CO2 storage capacity that have been obtained in COMET and supplied to project databases give a certain confidence about the availability of storage in the West Mediterranean region. In the three countries have been identified geological formations that can be considered as porous and permeable enough to confine CO2 at the appropriate depths. However some parameters are especially difficult to obtain because of the lack of specific tests in the previous explorations, such as permeability (injectivity) or salinity. In these cases some default values have been assumed based in knowledge from other regions.
As an example of the results that have been obtained by COMET, it can be said that ca. 160 sinks were identified in the region, both onshore and offshore, including three areas with a potential to be shared by two countries as a transboundary site, Porto – Galicia and Algarve – Gulf of Cádiz between Spain and Portugal and the Alborán Sea between Spain and Morocco. Total capacity ranges between 15 and 35 Gt of CO2 although it is very likely that Moroccan capacity will be much larger than the one estimated in COMET, as very large areas were not evaluated because of unavailability of data from the Oil and Gas industry.
Figure 9 - Spatial geological distribution map of the areas delimited as CO2 stores within the Ebro Basin (Source: IGME)
But one of the most important outcomes of COMET is not strictly related to the databases obtained but to the data that was used. A lot of geological information that existed in old formats has been digitized and has become available for modern software tools, including seismic profiles, well logs, depth maps, thickness maps, etc (Figure 10). The amount of information adapted to modern formats is very significant, both because of its quantity and its relevance, although the quality is not always so good for the older ones. Undoubtedly, this achievement will produce relevant publications in the field of geology in participant countries, not only by COMET Project partners, but also from other universities and research centres. In this sense, it is particularly notable the progress achieved in the knowledge of the geological properties of the Portuguese marine platform, where there were no previous integrated studies of the deep geology.
Figure 10 - Top and Bottom of Torres Vedras Formation interpreted in TWT
Although the evaluation of the Moroccan storage capacity could not be complete because of confidentiality issues with oil and gas exploration and production, which is now a national priority, COMET is the first study related to CO2 storage. This issue had never been raised before in this country and, therefore, nothing was known about any storage opportunities there.
Another very relevant progress made by COMET was the estimation of storage costs in each sink of the region. This estimation is by far the most detailed and complete evaluation of storage costs that has ever been done in the region, because of the large number of parameters used (Site development costs, drilling, surface facilities, monitoring etc.), but also because of the numerical simulation instruments used to define the number of wells needed. Of course, values for economic parameters have been supplied or at least reviewed by industrial stakeholders of the three countries.
Of course, COMET cannot be considered the ending point in the search of geological storages in the West Mediterranean region. All mentioned uncertainties need to be reduced and real parameters assessed through the acquisition of new geological data (boreholes and seismic profiles) that may lead to a better definition and more exact calculation of capacities and injection rates. But COMET can provide a first picture, not only of the location of storage sites, but also on their capacity, cost of development, and proximity to emission sources or expected lifetime.
All these issues have been synthesized in an aggregated parameter “quality rank” reflecting expert judgement. This parameter can only have three values (low, medium or high) based on several criteria, like storage formation quality, sealing formation quality, social issues, etc. This parameter only pretends to be used as a first step in a further decision making process.
Finally, as a result of the work carried out in COMET it can be suggested that the West Mediterranean Region could be considered as a very promising area for pilot and demonstration projects of the CCS technology. There are storage opportunities in saline aquifers and depleted hydrocarbon fields, offshore and offshore, close to the coast and far from it, close to emission sources, at many different depths, in carbonated and sandstone reservoirs. Therefore, further work in the storage capacity identification needs to be done, to be able to identify the best opportunities to start demonstrating the technology and its commercial deployment in the future. Moreover, the development of roadmaps, storage atlas, consortia proposals, etc. should be considered the necessary next steps in the upcoming years.
Figure 11 - Schematic 3D model of the cover rock (Cenomanian to present) in the Tadla Basin (BRGM – EarthVision, view from SW)
Storage Potential and actual storage by scenarios
Figure 12 summarizes the distribution of storage capacity in the three countries. Figure 13 provides an overview of the locations of the potential injection sites and storage capacity. The total storage capacity amounts to nearly 30 Gt. Spain holds a capacity of around 22 Gt (118 sinks), Portugal 7.5 Gt (36 sinks), while Morocco has a storage capacity of only 0.4 Gt (9 sinks). Notice, however, that offshore storage in Morocco was not assessed. As expected, the number of potential structures identified in Spain is very large, totalling 118, which reflects in the complexity of the clustering process. Because the site screening process in Portugal and Morocco was conducted at the sedimentary basin level, a much lower number of potential injection sites were identified, 36 in Portugal and only 9 in Morocco. Storage locations with a capacity lower than 3 Mt were not considered in the clustering process, nor are shown in the resulting maps.
Figure 12 – Number of sinks and storage capacity per country [COMET, 2012]
Figure 13 – Location of potential injection sites (either an existing borehole or the centre of the polygon defining the sedimentary basin /structure) and storage capacity [COMET, 2012]
The number of structures available for CO2 and its geographical dispersion implied that multiple source-sink match combinations were possible and that the least-cost solution would be largely influenced by the storage costs. Obviously, these costs have a strong variation depending on the type of storage (saline aquifers, hydrocarbon fields), location (onshore, offshore), surface of the potential storage formation or the previous existence of wells or facilities. Furthermore the estimation of costs includes Investments needed, Capital costs and Operational costs, including monitoring and verification. Investment costs were estimated per potential CO2 storage site, on the basis of depth, thickness, injection rate per well and number of wells per storage site.
An admissible pressure build-up of 20% of the reservoir pressure was the relevant criteria to define the injection rate and the number of wells that can be considered in each specific storage site, which were computed using available analytical solutions. An assumption was made that no well should have an injection rate above 1Mt/yr. The radius of influence of each well was used to estimate the number of wells in each structure, considering assumptions of pressure interference varying from 0% to 25%, and the area of the structure. Since most of the storage sites are onshore, brine production wells were not considered as an option to control pressure build-up.
The investment costs for each specific sink were then estimated according to equation 1. The Operating, Maintenance, and Monitoring (O&M&M) costs of a sink are always based on a fixed percentage of the investment costs of the development of the CO2 storage site from scratch. Table 3 also shows the CO2 storage costs components.
I = W * (Cd * H + Cw) + Csf + Csd (1)
I = Investment costs sink (€).
W = Number of wells per sink. The number of wells depend on the storage potential of the sink and the injection rate per well for the sink.
Cd = Drilling costs (€ per meter). Cd = 0 if old wells can be re-used.
H = The drilling distance being the depth of the reservoir starting at the bottom of the sea (for offshore sinks) or the ground surface (for onshore sinks) plus the thickness of the reservoir (in meter)
Cw = Fixed costs per well (in €). In case of re-use, these are the costs for the workovers of the old wells (i.e. to make the well suitable for CO2 storage).
Csf = Investment costs for the surface facilities on the injection site and investments for monitoring (e.g. purchase and emplacement of permanent monitoring equipment) (in €)
Csd = Investment costs for the site development costs. E.g. site investigation costs, costs for preparation of the drilling site and costs for environmental impact assessment study. It also includes monitoring investment costs in pre-operational phase. In general it is expected that for ‘empty’ gas and oil fields geological and geophysical data are available (in €).
Table 3 – Storage costs compoents. Units in k€, except for Operating&Maintenance&Monitoring (which are given as a % of investment costs)
The total injections rate for the 43 storage clusters was estimated in 558 Mt/yr. However, 11% of the estimated injection rates are less than 0.1 Mt/year/well, and 33% of storage sites allow injection rates less than 0.5 Mt/yr. Taking into account the development costs, the variation of injection rate per site result in a considerable variation in storage costs, ranging from as low as 0.9 €/t for the most favourable clusters onshore to values much higher than 100 €/t for very low injection rates in offshore areas.
The resulting cost – cumulative capacity graph, in the two alternative geological model assumptions (HIGH and LOW, assuming more optimistic and less optimistic injection rates per storage site), is reported in Figure 14.
Figure 14 - Cumulative storage cost curve in Spain, Portugal and Morocco
What would be the possible routes of a CO2 transport infrastructure?
Possible CO2 pipeline trajectories
The possible routes of CO2 pipelines were defined combining a Geographic Information System (GIS), describing the spatial and geographical variables influencing the pipeline costs and routes, with an energy system model (TIMES-COMET) that integrates spatial, temporal, as well as techno economic aspects to determine the role of CCS in the energy system and the development of the CCS infrastructure up to 2050 (Figure 15).
Figure 15 - Flow diagram illustrating the GIS modelling strategy
The GIS includes twelve primary themes that mostly relate to the cost of building pipelines, and eight auxiliary themes, used mainly for visualization or building maps purposes. The GIS files and databases can be visualized through the online GIS tool, GEOPORTAL (username and password are needed.
The GIS finds the least-cost transport routes by implementing a linear investment cost model considering a standardized cost factor of 1357 €/m.m and simulating the local variations imposed by land use, crossing of existing transport infrastructures, such as roads, railways and high-speed railways; the possibility of following existing hydrocarbons pipeline corridors, and topographical conditions (terrain slope). Weights assigned to each of the variables considered were elected after extensive literature review and input from stakeholders experienced in managing natural gas pipelines (table 4). High terrain factors to environmental protected areas and to very steep slopes were imposed to force routes avoiding those areas, in order to match the feedback from stakeholders. This modelling approach allows distinguishing between 20 different local conditions. Multi-criteria Analysis (MCA) applied to this range of conditions, resulted in pipeline investment costs varying from 1,221 €/m.m to 122,130 €/m.m depending on the local conditions.
Given that 288 individual sources and 163 potential sinks were identified in the study area, to take advantage of economies of scale, it is necessary to envisage a transport network composed of trunk lines collecting the CO2 from several nearby sources (the source clusters) and conducting it to groups of nearby injection sites (the sink clusters). Furthermore, in each cluster (source or sink) secondary transport infrastructures must be considered for connecting the individual sources/sinks to hubs from which the backbone trunk line derives. The individual sources were grouped in 55 clusters, with further 23 sources being left isolated due to distance from any other sources. The 163 individual sinks were clustered in 29 clusters, of which three are transboundary clusters, with 14 remaining isolated (Figure 16).
Table 4 - Investment cost model, standardized cost factor and terrain factors.
Designation Description COMET value
Standardized cost factor (Bc) €2010/(m*m) 1357
Land use (Flu) Unpopulated 1
Urban and associated areas 1.8
Protected areas 10
Cultivated land 1.1
Bare areas 1.1
Regularly flooded 1.2
Water bodies 4
Crossings (Fci) Roads 3
High speed railways 3
Corridors (Fc) Offshore (dev. from exist. pipelines) 3
Offshore (fol. exist. pipelines) 2.7
Onshore (fol. exist. pipelines) 0.9
Onshore (dev. from exist. pipelines) 1.0
Slope (Fs) <10% 1
Investment cost model *
*N is the number of crossings in each cell, D is pipeline diameter and L is the pipeline length in each cell. The summation refers to the GIS cells along the pipeline route.
Figure 16 –Source clusters (left) and sink clusters (right) [COMET, 2011]
Least cost path analysis (LCPA) were applied to compute the least-cost trunk lines between cluster hubs (source to source, source to sink and sink to sink, as intermediate connections can result in economies of scale when gathering/distributing the CO2 from/to multiple clusters). This approach resulted in a total of 7260 possible pipeline routes, which were input to the TIMES-COMET model to conduct the source-sink match and defined the optimised hub connections for six scenarios of energy system and CO2 emissions reduction from 2020 to 2050 (Figure 17).
Secondary networks were also simulated, using a similar procedure, for seven selected clusters, with the main aim of reflecting their cost in the trunk line costs optimised in the TIMES-COMET model.
CCS infrastructures were critically reviewed and refined by stakeholders experienced in managing pipeline infrastructures, and insights were obtained to improve the models and the input parameters. Overall the modelling approach, combining the GIS with a TIMES-COMET partial equilibrium optimization model, proved very effective for generating the least cost transport networks and conduct a source-sink match that not only reflects the CO2 volumes captured and the available porous space, but that actually optimises the match by considering the storage costs and the transport costs.
Figure 17 – Example of translation of the CO2 fluxes and source-sink match resulting from TIMES COMET modelling (left) into the corresponding least-cost path pipeline routes (right) [COMET, 2012]
Comparison of CO2 transport cost be mode
Within COMET, costs of CO2 transport by vessel and CO2 transport by ship are compared. Appropriate cost models of both types of transport are applied for a few relevant cases in the West Mediterranean region. This assessment shows at which distances and CO2 volumes, vessel transport is the advantageous transport mode.
Using the cost models of transport by ship and transport by vessel, it was assessed which transport mode is more cost-effective in a few relevant cases in the West Mediterranean region. Cost reduction potentials from the use of vessel transport instead of pipeline transport are identified in only a few cases on the Iberian Peninsula and Morocco. These are cases with low transport volumes, such as in Morocco, North Portugal and Faro. However, it needs to be identified whether these volumes justify CO2 storage at all.
Least cost CCS common trans-boundary infrastructure
One of the main COMET project objectives aimed to assess “the transport and storage costs of a common, trans-boundary, CCS infrastructure and the temporal and spatial development of the least cost demanding transport network”. In order to carry out this assessment the project had to answer the following CCS related policy questions:
(i)When and in what sectors CCS will become a cost-effective mitigation option within the framework of the energy systems of the three countries? What the optimal level is of captured as a function of the emission reduction level and future economic projections?
(ii) How a cost-effective CO2 pipeline transport network that optimizes source-to-sink transmission will develop across the countries’ territory? What is the impact of restrictions on the configurations of the pipeline network?
(iii) What conditions foster the deployment of a CCS network in the three countries? How robust are the conclusions in relation with technical economic development assumptions?
These are complex policy questions. Answers have to take into account several quantitative and qualitative factors. Since the answers depend on the assumptions about the future development of uncertain events, a new TIMES-COMET model was developed and the traditional scenario approach was used to provide an initial set of quantitative elements useful for the answers.
What is the temporal and spatial development of the least cost demanding transport network?
The TIMES-COMET model of the WMR and related research challenges
The main research challenge of the modelling tasks has been to integrate in a single model the time development of the national energy systems with the spatial dimension of the CCS infrastructure within these systems. In other words, an energy-transport model was necessary. The TIMES-COMET model achieves this objective and goes much further than previous experiences introducing several methodological innovations in the field of modelling and result analyses.
Although the regional dimension is embedded in MARKAL-TIMES models, so far it did not accept specific geo-referenced information. Furthermore all of the multi-regional models built so far tacitly assume that the regions are contiguous.
The first challenge was to represent in the TIMES framework, which was built for energy technology systems, the geo-referenced CCS infrastructure system, which is a typical transport model. This was achieved by building the TIMES-CCS mode. It takes advantage of the high flexibility of the TIMES model generator in defining regions and trade processes among regions. It has achieved the objective by adding to the traditional Reference Energy/Commodity System, which deals with the technologies inside a region, a sort of geo-referenced infrastructure system (Figure 18). Any emission/capture region can be connected to any other emission or storage region, through as many as desired intermediate knots of the network; in general any sort of complex network can be represented. In the TIMES-CCS model the geo-referenced network system remains separate from the reference commodity (CO2 in this case) system.
The second challenge was to represent in a single consistent model a system which envisages two different kinds of regions – “nested regions” or “regions inside the regions” – interacting among each other:
• Full countries like in the examples mentioned above – Morocco, Portugal and Spain, in this case – referred to as macro-regions; their energy models, without geographical details, follow the traditional patterns; and
• Emission hubs / storage points, which are points inside the main regions – sub-regions.
Using technicalities which are described in the deliverables of the project, this is achieved in the TIMES COMET model which merges the three national energy models with the TIMES-CCS model.
Figure 18 - High level block diagram of the integrated TIMES-COMET model
Running a unique hard-linked model is different than running four separate models with consistent exogenous assumptions: it means that the change in one component model changes the solution of the others, because the variables of the component models are linked by new equations and react to one another. In this new hybrid energy-transport model, regions and sub-regions interact in several ways, when the GHG emission reduction targets have to be met.
Figure 19: High level block diagram of the integrated TIMES-COMET model
In this model, if a bound is imposed to the national energy models, for instance the availability of renewable resources, the results of the geographical model change, and vice-versa. If unfavourable geographical or geological conditions make the cost of capture transport and storage too high, the regional models reduce emissions by increasing the use of other mitigation options. If the energy demanded to the country regions by the sub-regions to run CCS costs too much, the energy supply mix of the country regions changes. In the sectors where the capture of CO2 is most expensive in the sub-regions, the country regions tend to use more efficient technologies or to switch fuels.
A related challenge was to represent in a user-friendly manner spatially detailed TIMES results. In this field there has been a great progress with the enhancement of the web based VEDA vis(ualiser) or TSViewer software. It recomposes the geographical aspects of the model. In the static mode it illustrates the network as it is represented in the model, and the input assumptions on the relevant parameters. In the dynamic mode it illustrates for each scenario how the network develops over the years and displays in the map of the region the values of the geographically significant variables. In the comparison mode it illustrates the main changes among scenarios.
The final challenge was to enable separate teams to work on their own energy models independently – for instance for national energy policy analyses - and still take advantage of all the improvements in the joint West Mediterranean energy-CCS model, without having to update it every time something is changed in a component model. This objective was achieved by keeping the four models – three representing the national energy systems of Morocco, Portugal and Spain, and the fourth one representing the geographical network – separate and merging them only at run time to form a unique model. The procedure builds a unique Linear Programming model of half a million variables and constraints, sends it to the CPLEX solver, reads the result files and compiles a result data base. Users access the results either downloading the full DB on their computers or logging in the web interface and producing to the most important tables, graphs and maps.
The following six development axes (scenario drivers) have been explored, each one with at least two input assumptions:
- General energy system aspects (set 1):
• Economic growth (exploratory),
• National mitigation level (policy),
• CCS availability (policy),
- CO2 infrastructure aspects (set 2):
• Storage capacities (exploratory),
• National CO2 pipeline networks (exploratory), and
• Possibility to transport across country borders (policy).
Two economic developments have been assumed for Portugal and Spain. The high GDP growth (HD) assumes that in the next forty years economy in Spain grows by 158% (2.4%pa) and Portugal by 123% (2.0%pa); the low GDP growth (LD) assumes that in the next forty years economy in Spain grows by 58 % (1.1%pa) and Portugal by 43% (0.9%pa). Only one GDP growth was assumed for Morocco, namely 314% in the period 2010-2050 (3.6%pa). The 68 demands for energy services develop differently by sector and use, at a weighted average of 1.7%pa (per annum) in the high demand case in the three countries together, much less than the average growth of the GDP, equivalent to about 2.5%pa.
Compared to the 2005 CO2 emissions from energy systems and industrial processes – namely 460 MtCO2 in Portugal and Spain together – three emission reduction levels to 2050 where analysed:
• -20%, meaning that the emissions are kept constant after 2020, at the level prescribed by the EU,
• -40% (linearly interpolated), and
• -80% (linearly interpolated), the target of rich countries if the temperature increase is kept well below 3ºC under a wide range of mitigation assumptions in the rest of the world.
Also 0% reduction reference cases were run for comparison. Morocco has no commitments till 2050, but can sell permits to Spain and Portugal up to 20% of their mitigation commitments.
The CO2 permits provided by Morocco could be considered as equivalent to CO2 permits associated with Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, which could be CCS projects, or any other type of project. In other words, emission reductions implemented in Morocco are driven by the possibility for Spain and Portugal to purchase CDM permits from Morocco and not by any mitigation target imposed to Morocco.
Spain and Portugal can buy permits from the Rest of the Word (RoW), at prices increasing from 50€’2005/tCO2 in 2020 to the following prices in 2050: 150 in the -20% cases, 350 in the -40% cases and 500 in the -80% cases.
Seven main scenarios were run with the TIMES-COMET model; a central scenario, called CONESRVATIVE CCS, and six scenario variants, each one obtained by varying one driver with reference to the central CONESRVATIVE CCS scenario (Table 5). All scenarios assume the same technological developments, CCS technologies learning curves, CO2 unit transport costs, and policies of the whole energy sector. In the following pages only some results of the central scenario are summarised and the main conclusions illustrated.
Table 5 - Main project scenarios: list and composition
DESCRIPTIVE NAMEGDP Growth Mitigation level Storage PotentialNational Routes Cross-Frontier
CONSERVATIVE CCSHIGH40% LOWGAS NAT
HIGH MITIGATION HIGH80% LOWGAS NAT
NO-CCS HIGH40% NO CCS - - -
LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH and HIGH MITIGATION LOW 80% LOWGAS NAT
CONSERVATIVE CCSHIGH40% LOWGAS NAT
CROSS-FRONTIER PIPELINESHIGH40% LOWGAS REG
FREE ROUTESHIGH40% LOWFREENAT
OPTIMISTIC STORAGEHIGH40% HIGH GAS NAT
Domestic CO2 reduction and international trade
Compared to the 2005 emissions of 456 MtCO2, the central CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario is bound to reduce the net CO2 emissions in Portugal and Spain by 20% in 2020, 26.6% in 2030, 33.3% in 2040 (-136 MtCO2) and 40% in 2050 (-182 MtCO2). This reduction is achieved in the Iberian Peninsula adopting domestic measures and using international flexible mechanisms.
Figure 20: CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario: CO2 emission permits trade (left) and emissions by country
Under the development assumptions adopted in this study, the system represented by the TIMES-COMET model finds its optimal mix in the period 2040-50 in the following way (Figure 20, left):
• Buying 29-36 MtCO2/a CDM permits from Morocco,
• Avoiding 72-102 MtCO2/a with CCS in the Iberian Peninsula, equivalent to a gross capture of about 100-140 MtCO2, and
• Reducing domestic emissions in Portugal and Spain by about 35-41 MtCO2/a.
The 2005 emissions are reduced in the period 2040-2050 by more than 50% by CCS and about 25% of the energy systems at large.
In reaching the emission reduction targets of the Iberian Peninsula Morocco plays a complementary role. The country is not bound to any emission reduction, but can sell as emission permits the amount not emitted compared to the base line. In this scenario the model finds it economically rentable for Morocco to adopt some mitigation measures, including CCS, and sell about 30-35 MtCO2/a in the period 2040-50. In fact Spain and Portugal use the full potential of purchase of CDM permits from Morocco, generating an emission reduction in Morocco of up to 22% in 2050 (6% in 2020) compared to the reference case. The mitigation options portfolio implemented in Morocco is dominated by non-CCS mitigation options, especially in the power sector, while CCS covers 10% of the emission reductions (Figure 20, right).
Although the TIMES-COMET model gives the option to buy emission permits from the Rest of the World (RoW) in each scenario, Spain and Portugal do not buy them in the central CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario because their exogenous assumed cost is higher than the marginal price of CO2 calculated by the model.
Domestic energy systems and mitigation
Domestic emissions are reduced by changing the energy system at the level of final energy consumption and at the primary supply level. In a first approximation, the reduction at the final level is the reduction of Non ETS end use sectors, namely agriculture, commerce, residential and transport. In fact the emissions of Spain and Portugal in these sectors remain almost constant till 2020, and then they increase by 0.60 %pa in the following decade, and in 2050 return to the level of 2005-2020 (Figure 21). The supply sector more than compensate this behaviour by decreasing the ETS emissions from 258 MtCO2 in 2005 to 204 MtCO2 in 2020, at the annual average rate of 1.55%pa; in the following period 2030-2050 emissions fluctuate, and maintain the reduction of the energy system as a whole to just above 40 MtCO2. If compared to the 2005 emissions, it seems that only the supply system and the industrial ETS sectors contribute to reduce the emissions which are not captured and stored.
In fact also the Non ETS sectors contribute to the reduction of CO2 emissions. This becomes apparent if the emissions of the central CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario (-40% in 2050) are compared to the emission profile of the corresponding scenarios without emission reduction targets or with the target to continue to comply with the EU decision (-20% in 2020 compared to 2005) till 2050 (Figure 21). In the latter case the reduction between the -20% and the -40% cases in the Non ETS has the same order of magnitude as the ETS sectors.
Figure 21: CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario: ETS and Non ETS emissions in the Iberian Peninsula
Energy consumption in Agriculture, Commercial, Residential and Transport
If the CO2 emitted by the end use sectors that do not participate to the EU Emission Trading Scheme (NETS, namely agriculture, commerce, residential, transport, and non-energy intensive industrial sectors, not accounted here) grow as much as the GDP, the emissions of the Iberian Peninsula would be above 500 MtCO2 in 2050. Instead of growing as fast as the economy, final energy consumption (Figure 22) and emissions from NETS sectors stabilise in the CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario due to the contribution of four different effects (Table 6):
- Structural change,
- Price increase,
- Efficiency improvement and
- Switch to no/low carbon options.
The first component of this decoupling is the structural change of the country and a shift towards less energy intensive commodities. Observing past trends and more recent behaviours the national experts projected the demands for energy services to 2050 at growth rates lower than the GDP (DEM input in Table 6). This would result in a reduction of the hypothetical emissions from above 500 MtCO2 to just below 400 MtCO2 in 2050.
The remaining decoupling factors are endogenous to the TIMES-COMET model and scenario dependent.
The second decoupling factor is the price dependence of the demand: higher prices of energy services tend to reduce the amount demanded and to shift the demand to less expensive commodities. This is modelled by making the demands dependent on own prices via average national sectoral price elasticities – Except for Morocco: due to lack of reliable data, the demand for energy services does not depend on own prices. In the central CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario, the actual demand for energy services grows less than the input demand by 0.25% points in the last decade (DEM output in Table 6). This decoupling factor has the cumulative effect of reducing the virtual emissions to about 365 MtCO2 in 2050 in the Iberian Peninsula.
Figure 22: CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario: final energy consumption by sector
The third decoupling factor is the substitution of end use devices with more efficient ones, due to the energy price increases. This is modelled by declaring in the energy system several new and more efficient end use devices in order to enable more efficient, although more expensive choice in the future. In the central CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario, the total final energy consumption grows yearly in the last decade 0.19% points less than the actual demand for energy services in Spain and Portugal (Figure 22). This third decoupling factor has the cumulative effect of reducing the virtual emissions down to about 315 MtCO2 in 2050. For instance in Spain the consumption in the residential sector decreases by about 10% also for the use of better insulated buildings, new and retrofitted.
Figure 23: CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario: final energy consumption by fuel
As a consequence of these three factors the sectoral share of final energy consumption changes over time (Figure 22).
The forth and most important contribution to decoupling emissions from growth is ‘switching’ to no/low carbon technologies and fuels (Figure 23). In the central CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario this factor reduces the direct emission down to the value of 200 MtCO2 (Figure 20 and Figure 21), hence about 115 MtCO2 are reduced in Portugal and Spain in 2050. It is important to specify here that these emission reductions refer only to the ‘direct’ emissions, i.e. the decentralised emissions coming out from the end use devices located by the consumers. This reduction also includes for instance the shifts from fossil fuel heating to electric heat pumps or from gasoline to electric hybrid or plug-in cars, which in fact shift the emissions from the end use sectors to suppliers. This shift takes place because at the supply side, mainly in the electricity generation, more and more convenient no/low carbon options are available.
Energy intensive industrial sectors
Industry contributes only partly to this reduction because factories in the sectors of cement, iron & steel, glass, pulp and paper, and other sectors with large emissions (more than 0.1 MtCO2/a) can use the capture technologies (Figure 24).
Table 6: CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario: GDP, final energy & emission growth (%pa)
Country Variable 2005 Unit 2010-20 2020-30 2030-40 2040-50
Spain GDP 870 €Bn’05 1.23 2.51 2.74 2.77
DEM, input 1 Index 1.54 1.39 1.59 1.59
DEM, output 1 Index 1.31 1.17 1.55 1.33
Final energy 4350 PJ fin 1.06 0.89 0.97 1.14
Emissions NETS 169 MtCO2 0.23 0.55 -0.33 -0.24
Portugal GDP 149 €Bn’05 1.13 2.11 2.34 2.54
DEM, input 1 Index 0.53 1.31 1.04 1.10
DEM, output 1 Index 0.27 1.18 0.92 0.91
Final energy 865 PJ fin -0.15 0.73 0.30 0.72
Emissions NETS 31 MtCO2 -1.32 0.98 -0.66 -0.07
Iberian GDP 1019 €Bn’05 1.22 2.51 2.74 2.77
Penin- DEM, input 1 Index 1.38 1.38 1.51 1.52
Sula DEM, output 1 Index 1.15 1.17 1.46 1.27
Final energy 5215 PJ fin 0.86 0.87 0.88 1.08
Emissions NETS 200 MtCO2 0.00 0.60 -0.37 -0.22
%pa=average per cent increase per year; GDP 2010: PT=153€’2005, ES=909€’2005
In Spain the fuels used in the industry in 2005 were natural gas (48%), electricity (19%), and oil (17%), which together represented 84% of the total consumption, being the other energy carriers coal, biofuels and hydro. In 2050 the mix changes: natural gas (47%), electricity (27%), and biofuels (13%), with 8% of gas consumed in the facilities with CCS. Regarding coal consumption, it means 9% of the total in 2050 from which 6% is consumed in facilities with CCS. CCS in coal fuelled facilities starts in the iron and steel sector in 2030, and in the cement and pulp and paper sectors in 2040. CCS in gas fuelled facilities starts in 2050.
In Portugal the final energy mix changes considerably from 2005 to 2050 with a strong reduction of oil consumption (-95% in 2050) and an increased use of natural gas, electricity and biofuels (194%, 56% and 120% respectively). The option of CCS in industry appears as cost-effective in the consumption of gas in 2050, representing 18% of the overall final energy consumption and 45% of the fossil final energy consumption. CCS in coal technologies will be in place 10 years earlier in cement (i.e. 2040), representing just 1% of the total energy consumption. In the industry sector, technologies with CO2 capture will appear very slightly in 2040 (1% of the total energy consumption) and with 19% in 2050.
Actually the industrial sectors where CCS is not applicable contribute to mitigation less than expected for at least two reasons.
The first one is related to the expected technological development in the energy intensive sectors: the amount of energy necessary now to produce 1 ton of cement, or iron and steel, or glass in the up-to-date processes cannot be expected to reduce much since the theoretical limits are almost reached. The best way to further reduce the consumption of energy in these industrial sectors is to recycle or to reduce the demand for cement, iron & steel, glass, etc. These options are only partly accounted for in the technology database and the demand projections.
Table 7: Percentage of sectoral emissions which are concentrated in sources >0.1 MtCO2/a
Sector Spain Portugal Morocco
GLS = Glass76%90% 100%
IIS = Iron&Steel 70%38% 100%
IOI = Other ind.29%16% 100%
PnP = Pulp&Paper 30%0% 100%
Figure 24: CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario: consumption in industry
The second reason is the assumption that the location of the plants is not going to be endogenously optimised. In fact in this study it is assumed that the fraction of emissions from small plants (<0.1 MtCO2/a) remains constant at the 2008-10 values reported in Table 7. If we assume that over the decades the production tends to concentrate in few big factories, the fraction of CO2 eligible for capture increases and the emissions of the remaining industries reduce more than in this central CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario.
The electricity generation sector is by far the most dynamic part of the energy system in the Iberian Peninsula, in terms of growth, technological change and contribution to mitigation. The electricity generated by fossil fuels also contributes, with efficiency improvements and fuel switching from coal to gas: the unit emission falls from 925 gr CO2/kWh in 2005 to 420-450 gr CO2/kWh in the period 2040-50 when the emission reduction target is 40% or more. In the central CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario the power generation grows from 270 TWh in 2005 to 470 TWh in 2050, with an average annual growth of 1.25%pa (Figure 25).
In Spain from 2005 to 2011 there has been a big increase in the electricity generation with natural gas combined cycle (88%) and the corresponding reduction in coal and oil power plants production (around 40%), followed by a strong increase in the share of renewable technologies, from 22% in 2005 to 31% in 2011 (Figure 26). In Portugal the generation mix evolved considerably from 2005: the fossil generation reduced by 80%, wind onshore grew from around 6.4PJ in 2005 to more than 34PJ in 2012. The capacity of natural gas power plants has increased from around 2.2GW in 2005 to 3.8GW in 2012. In the central CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario the generation mix continues to evolve along the same path.
Figure 25: CONSERVATIVE CCS: Electricity generation in the West Mediterranean
In Spain in 2020 the share of wind onshore is 25% (it was 7% in 2005) and wind offshore starts. From 2005 to 2020, gas and coal technologies reduce their share to 28% and 15% respectively. The year 2030 marks a transition: electricity from nuclear starts declining to completely disappear in 2040 and coal continues to decrease; at the same time gas and wind power increase. Finally in 2050 the composition of the electricity system is mainly based on renewables with the share of natural gas and coal reduced to 24% and 3%. The share of renewable technologies in the power system goes from 46% in 2020 to 73% in 2050, with 23% of solar, 39% of wind (onshore and offshore) and 3% of ocean technologies (13 TWh). In the long term Spain will import electricity from Portugal where renewables are cheaper.
Figure 26: Evolution of the Spanish electricity system from 2005 to 2011
Portugal takes advantage of the huge potential of renewable energy sources. Along the time horizon, wind, mostly onshore, and hydro slowly tend toward their maximum potential. Geothermal and solar technologies play a minor role in 2050 portfolio (only 1% of generate electricity). Biogas and biomass technologies for electricity production are not competitive in this scenario. Ocean and wave start contributing to the generation of electricity from 2040 onwards, wind offshore in 2050. In 2030 natural gas power plants with CO2 capture are introduced to reach share of almost 40%, and in 2040 all natural gas capacity without CO2 capture are phased out. The existing coal power plants will be decommissioned in 2020 and no additional coal capacity will be installed, either with or without CO2 capture. The share of fossil fuel electricity drops from 80% in 2005 to 20% in 2050. Also the trade of electricity with Spain is reversed: from being a net importer in 2005, to a neutral one from 2020 to 2040, to turn into a net exporter in 2050 (around 9TWh, representing 11% of the Portuguese production).
In Morocco the total electricity generated in the CONSERVATIVE CCS case remains very close to the reference case (Figure 28). However, coal based electricity generation is substituted by low carbon options in the power sector: gas-based generation represents up to 1/3 of the electricity generation and remains without capture; CO2 capture occurs only at the level of coal fired power plants (around 30% of coal power plants.
Wind plus solar reaches up to 40% of the electricity generation, while coal is the dominating source of electricity in the REFERENCE case. It is interesting to observe that the increase of renewable electricity generation occurs more rapidly (as soon as 2020) than the penetration of gas-based generation.
Moreover, while solar is considered as a competitive option in the longer term in the REFERENCE case, wind remains small in the REFERENCE case but becomes the dominant renewable source in the CONSERVATIVE CCS case. About 30 MtCO2 out of 36 MtCO2 emission permits sold by Morocco to Portugal and Spain are achieved in the electricity generation sector.
Figure 27: CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario: input to electricity generation
All these changes, and in particular the substitution of inefficient pulverised coal steam cycle plants with highly efficient natural gas combined cycle plants, have two impressive effects. The input necessary in 2050 to generate 75% more electricity than in 2005 does not grow in the Iberian Peninsula (Figure 27).
The second effect is even more important in this study: emissions from the electricity generation sector reduce at an average annual rate of 3.1%pa from 2005 to 2050 in the central CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario. In absolute values the emissions instead of growing like the output decrease from 130 to 32 MtCO2, including the emissions from plants equipped with capture.
Figure 28: Emissions and electricity in Morocco
Conclusion of the scenario analysis
Figure 29: Dependence on energy system drivers: net emission
The actual mix of mitigation measures depends on the assigned mitigation level (Figure 29) and the marginal price of CO2 (Figure 30). CCS is chosen as soon as the cheapest energy related mitigation options are exploited. The capture of CO2 becomes competitive at increasing CO2 price levels: from 35 to 50 €’2005/tCO2 in coal fired power, at about 70 €’2005/tCO2 in natural gas fired plants, around 80 €’2005/tCO2 in cement, iron & steel and pulp & paper industries, to the maximum of 125 €/tCO2 in glass plants.
If CCS is not available more expensive domestic mitigation options have to be adopted. Since domestic policies and measures are not sufficient to meet even medium reduction targets, emission permits have to be bought from the Rest of the World. Morocco can offer to Spain and Portugal rather cheap emission permits under the ‘Clean Development Mechanisms’.
CCS is competitive and largely exploited under wide assumptions about possible future developments of the national energy systems and the CCS infrastructure system in the West Mediterranean region.
CCS reaches its maximum annual global market when CO2 emissions have to be reduced by 60% compared to the 2005 level: at lower reduction targets lower amounts need to be captured, at higher targets more carbon free technologies have to be used and the amount that can be captured decreases.
Figure 30: Dependence of CO2 prices on scenarios
CCS remains a robust mitigation option under a wide set of possible future developments of the economy; lower economic growths reduce the market for CCS and delay the need to deploy it, but does not change its competiveness nor the main suggested infrastructures in the area.
What is the spatial development of the least cost demanding transport network?
At the geographical level (Figure 31), the five most important emission clusters – located in Aboño (C02), Barcelona (C11), La Mancha (C05), Euskadi (C24), Valencia (C30), all located in Spain – capture about one third of the total amount of CO2 captured; the following ten capture clusters – located in Almería (C32), Gibraltar (C22), As Pontes (C03), Huelva (C20), Cartagena (C09), Tarragona (C27), Navarra (C23), Compostilla (C04), and Soto (C01) in Spain plus Sines (C71) in Portugal – capture another third of the total.
The sink clusters located in the area of Alcañiz (S13) and Úbeda (S25) in Spain cumulatively store 50% of the CO2 captured; another 44% is stored in the sink clusters located in Aranda de Duero (S19), Logroño (S15), Moratalla (S31) and Cuenca (S22) in Spain, Lusitanian Onshore (S05) in Portugal and Essaouira (S08) in Morocco.
Improving the assessment of the storage potential in Morocco and Portugal onshore seems a good research and development investment. Indicatively every increase in the amount of CO2 that can be stored in Essaouira (S08), Doukala-Safi (S28) and Kenitra (S43) in Morocco and Lusitanian onshore (S05) in Portugal is worth about 10 €’2005. The most important CO2 transport pipelines are located in the north east of Spain from Navarra (C23) to Logroño (S15), in the east of Spain from Barcelona (C11) to Alcañiz (S13), in the south of Spain from Huelva (C20) and Gibraltar (C22) to Úbeda (S25), and in Portugal from Sines (C71) and Coimbra (C73) to the Lusitanian onshore (S05) sink cluster.
The above example of ‘robust’ infrastructures can be a guide to identify the location of the most interesting CCS infrastructures, for which detailed feasibility studies open the possibility to implement commercial projects.
Since the cost difference between the scenarios with free routes and the scenarios with routes following natural gas pipelines is negligible in terms of cost and cumulative storage, it seems that there is room for negotiating socially acceptable infrastructures layouts.
Some conclusions can be extended outside the area of this study. If there is enough storage potential within a range of say one thousand kilometres from the sources, CCS is generally competitive and important amounts of CO2 emitted by large sources can be cost-effectively captured under wide assumptions about storage potentials and costs, transport routes and costs, capture technologies emissions and costs, costs of the main other mitigation technologies.
Figure 31: Capture (C) and storage (S) clusters, and pipeline network
The competitiveness cost thresholds of capture by sector are robust and can be extended with little change to different areas since they depend on global technologies and international prices more than on local circumstances. If CCS is not available, less CO2 emissions are generated at a higher cost, using other more expensive mitigation options and buying expensive permits.
The amount of CO2 that can be actually captured and stored heavily depends on the national reduction targets and the spatial concentration level of domestic industrial plants, namely the fraction emitted by large CO2 sources.
These conclusions of the scenario analyses assume that by the end of this decade it will be demonstrated that the full chain of CCS is compatible with health, environment and social needs and by the beginning of the next it will be commercially available with the technical-economic characteristics projected today. This seems the most challenging research field for CCS. According to the results of this study, to improve the efficiency of the capture process and reduce energy consumption seems another very important area for research and development capable of improving the competitiveness of CCS.
The contribution of the stakeholders
Stakeholders (industrials and policy makers) were consulted regularly during the project: through stakeholders meetings in the three countries, or individual interviews where necessary. The three stakeholder workshops were held: 27 March 2012 in Marrakesh, Morocco; 11 April 2012 in Lisbon, Portugal; 12 April 2012 in Madrid, Spain. Before and afterwards, interviews have been held with the stakeholders.
Based on the outcomes of the workshops, input data of the model have been re-assessed for new runs with the energy system model TIMES/MARKAL of the West-Mediterranean region. Among others, terrain factors for difficult terrains were adapted. Furthermore, based on the stakeholder workshops, the 6 main scenario variants were selected. The underlying main assumptions of these scenarios were considered realistic, and at the same time the mix of scenarios gave a broad overview of the possible CO2 network configurations in the West Mediterranean region.
Figure 32 – Stakeholders meeting in Lisbon, April 2012 [COMET, 2012]
What would be the transport and storage costs of a common, transboundary, CCS infrastructure?
The transport infrastructure in the West Mediterranean region is characterized by an extensive transport infrastructure in Spain with long pipelines, and a limited network in Portugal and Morocco (Figure 33). Overall the total length of the pipelines is relatively long compared to the amounts of CO2 which are being captured.
Figure 33 - Transport network in the Conservative CCS scenario in 2030 (left) and 2050 (right) [COMET, 2012]
In the scenarios, CO2 is captured in 60 of the 78 source clusters and stored in 15 out of the 43 sink clusters (Figure 35). In 38 of the source clusters more than 25 MtCO2 is captured between 2020 and 2050. Around half of the source clusters in which less than 10 Mt CO2 was captured, were discarded, because the pipelines were too expensive in relation to the amount of CO2 transported. The other source clusters in which very little was captured, were more conveniently located (close to other clusters in which CO2 was captured or stored).
Most of the investments in trunkline transport infrastructure will be needed in the periods 2020 and 2030 (Figure 34). In the Conservative CCS scenario, pipeline investments amount up to 3.9 billion € in these periods out of 4.6 billion € in total. However, Free Routes with more freedom of selecting pipeline routes shows that investments in the 2020 period may be substantially lower while being able to store the same amount of CO2: investments around 2020 are 0.6 billion € in Free Routes instead of 1.4 billion € in Conservative CCS. Another option to cut down the costs in the first period(s) is to postpone the construction of a number of pipelines which are highly oversized in the beginning. In a further evaluation it needs to be assessed which investments related to oversized pipelines (e.g. around 0.9 billion € in the period 2020 in Conservative CCS) is wiser to postpone or to convert to investments in smaller pipelines.
Figure 34- Transport and storage investment costs in million € [COMET, 2012]
The required Investment costs to store CO2 over the whole modelling horizon (2020 and 2050), are similar to the transport costs (4 billion €), but they are distributed more evenly over the horizon. The reason is that part of the investment costs consists of costs for drilling wells. These wells can be added gradually to increase the injection capacity. However, also in the case of storage sites high investment costs are needed upfront. These relate to mainly the site development costs. Further analysis, of the individual sinks within the clusters should indicate how much investments are needed at an earlier stage for these site development costs.
Figure 35 – CO2 capture (left) and CO2 storage (right) in the Conservative CCS scenario. [COMET, 2012]
The CO2 storage volumes in WMR: of the 30 Gt, around 2.5 Gt is stored in the Conservative CCS scenario and the maximum amount in the scenarios was 3.0 Gt in High Mitigation. Even if the role of CCS would be higher, storage capacity volumes do not seem to pose a problem.
However, the injection rate based on the assumption that pressure-built up should be limited, is the restraining factor. For this reason, the number of wells per storage site has been limited depending on the characteristics of the storage site. In the Conservative CCS case in Spain, 50% of the maximum injection rate (241 Mt/yr) is being used in 2050, in Portugal 15% (of 106 Mt/yr), and in Morocco 90% (of 4 Mt/yr). Although, in Portugal, the injection rate does not seem to be a problem, it should be noted that the onshore injection rate is used to its maximum. In Spain, the amount of CO2 being stored could also double. However, CO2 storage would then need to be done in many more storage clusters. Instead of using around 9 clusters in our scenarios, each of the 32 clusters in Spain needs to be used. In general, CO2 storage clusters with an injection rate of more than 7 Mt/yr in Spain are considered cost-effective by the model.
In the optimistic storage scenario, more optimistic assumptions were made to calculate annual injection rate (Figure 36) which resulted in the possibility of more wells per storage site, and also slightly higher injection rates per well. Consequently, the maximum annual injection rate increased to 382 Mt/yr in Spain, and 8 Mt/yr in Morocco, and remained unchanged in Portugal. In this scenario, the selection of CO2 storage clusters was hardly affected because the selected clusters already had a high injectivity rate in the Conservative CCS scenario with pessimistic storage assumptions. Only the amount of CO2 stored was different per cluster.
Summarizing, CO2 injection rates are sufficient for the CO2 storage requirements in the scenarios, but they determine the layout of the CCS infrastructure in WMR to a large extent. Possibly, other ways can be explored that could decrease pressure-built up, such as the addition of water production wells. However, costs of drilling wells would be much higher, let alone costs for dealing with the highly saline water which is being produced, especially onshore. Further study may reveal whether these types of measures are realistic (also in view of associated environmental impacts), and could benefit the cost-effectiveness of CO2¬ storage in the Portuguese offshore fields, where it may be easier to discharge saline water at the sea bottom.
Figure 36 - Limitation of injection rate to use full storage capacity. From left to right: full storage capacity of WMR; maximum yearly injection rate if all sinks are being used; maximum amount of CO2 that can be stored if all sinks are being used; storage capacity that is left over after 30 years of maximum storage.
Five sink clusters, all located in Spain, store more than three quarter of the cumulative amount in the WMR (Table 8).
Table 8 - CONSERVATIVE CCS scenario: storage clusters by amount sunk
Input boundsActual flows % share
No. MC Location Code annual cummax annual cum cum /
MtCO2/a MtCO2MtCO2/a MtCO2 total
1 ES Alcañiz S13 75.8 204046.1 930 27.6
2 ES Úbeda S25 25.5 108225.5 780 50.7
3 ES Aranda de Duero S19 10.3 56810.3 339 60.7
4 ES Logroño S15 35.7 416113.4 284 69.1
5 ES Moratalla S31 7.3 4137.3 274 77.2
6 PT Lusitanian Onshore S05 10.7 33010.7 247 84.6
7 ES Cuenca S22 16.5 103513.7 224 91.2
8 MO Essaouira S08 2.9 2662.9 94 94.0
9 ES Almansa S23 15.5 9594.7 90 96.7
10 PT North Lusitanian 1 S03 11.8 22114.6 59 98.5
11 ES Reinosa S16 1.7 541.7 31 99.4
12 PT Algarve 1 S42 13.0 8450.73 9.5 99.7
13 ES Alborán S36 0.5 2180.50 6.5 99.9
14 MO Kenitra S43 0.4 3.80.30 3.8 99.98
15 PT Porto Basin 1 S01 17.1 12050.05 0.7 100.0
MC=model country; total cumulative stored=3375 MtCO2 in 40 years; yellow cells: the maximum annual flow is hit; orange cell: the cumulative capacity has been reached.
Are there economic advantages in developing a common transport and storage network? What would be the possible advantages and opportunities of the extension of such a network to neighbouring countries? Would a Western Mediterranean transport network be more cost effective for Portugal and Spain than linking to a Central Europe network?
Transboundary CCS infrastructure
Transboundary transport has a limited role in the West Mediterranean CCS infrastructure configurations. However, it could offer a few advantages. Spain with its huge storage capacity onshore could provide cheap storage options to Portugal and Morocco. Portugal does have enough storage options availabe, but these are located offshore and are, therefore, more expensive. The current assessments of storage capacity in Morocco imply a very limited storage capacity, and in this case, connections with other countries are necessary for CCS to be able to play any substantial role in Morocco. However, further assessment of the Moroccan underground, especially offshore, could reveal more CO2 storage potential in Morocco.
One of the questions within the COMET project was to explore possible benefits of using trans-boundary sites jointly by two or more countries. Three transboundary storage clusters (Figure 13) were identified in the COMET project of which two are shared by Portugal and Spain, and one by Spain and Morocco:
• The first cluster, S01, spreads across the Portuguese Porto basin and the Spanish Galicia basin in the Northeast of the Iberian Peninsula. This cluster contains 5 storage sites with a total storage capacity of 1200 Mt. The two deeper storage sites contribute the most to the storage capacity (>170 m below sea level).
• The second cluster, S07, joins storage sites in the offshore Portuguese Algarve basin and in the offshore Spanish Cadiz Gulf Basin. This cluster contains 4 storage sites with a high total yearly injection. However using this high injection rate would fill the cluster with an estimated capacity of 400 Mt quite fast (3 storage sites within 10 years). Furthermore, the storage site are far below sea level (> 400 meters below sea level) which makes drilling wells very expensive.
• Finally, in the Alboran sea separating the South Spain and North Morocco, cluster S36 defines the third offshore transboundary cluster. This one only contains one storage site with a capacity of 218 Mt and at a depth of 345 meters below sea level.
None of these clusters is identified to be favorouble in the CCS infrastructure configurations in the West Mediterranean region for two reasons. First, onshore storage is preferred above onshore storage due to the higher costs offshore. Overall the storage costs in these sinks is estimated to be between 11 and 32 €/tCO2 while onshore storage in Spain and Portugal varies but is usually far below 10 €/tCO2. Secondly, the clusters were far away from the CO2 sources. In the cases, the model choose these clusters, the flows were too small to justify the pipeline investment costs.
In the COMET project, no scenario with only offshore storage was studied. In such a scenario, the clusters S01 and S07 may become more interesting candidates for trans-boundary CO2 storage.
Connection to CCS infrastructure rest of Europe
CO2 storage in the North Sea is the only realistic option for Iberian CO2 to connect to a CCS infrastructure in the rest of Europe. Based on the analysis of costs and revenues, it was found that in combination with EOR, this could be a cost-effective option. However, this would depend on the North-Sea CO2 storage demand of other European countries, North-European storage policy, and CO2 and oil prices. However, our analysis also has shown that Iberian Peninsula has a disadvantage in a competition for scarce storage sites in the North Sea due to the transport cost.
Components for a CCS roadmap in the West Mediterranean region
In the West Mediterranean region (WMR) CCS can contribute in a mitigation portfolio to reduce the CO2 emissions to 180-390 Mt in 2050 (reduction of 21% - 63% compared to 2005). For CCS to play this role, around 100 Mt of CO2 has to be avoided by CCS in 2050. Only with low economic growth 50 Mt would be sufficient. Although, in 2050, this amount is similar in both the low as high mitigation scenarios, in 2030 it is clearly different: 74 Mt is avoided by CCS in the high mitigation scenario versus 44 Mt in the low mitigation scenarios.
Without the option of CCS, also CO2 emissions can be reduced to 390 Mt, but WMR depends then for 28 Mt on emission permits from outside the region. Furthermore, without CCS, emissions in WMR cannot be reduced to 180 Mt. Within the COMET project, important components for a roadmap for large-scale deployment of CCS in the West Mediterranean region are made available.
These components include detailed overviews of CO2 sources and CO2 sinks in WMR, detailed descriptions of possible CO2 transport network infrastructures and finally, an overview of drivers, synergies, and barriers related to such an infrastructure. The detailed descriptions which resulted from the modelling work show among others when, where, and how much CO2 is captured, transported and stored in the different scenarios (among others in tables, figures and GIS maps). These also include information on associated costs and investments and are meant to give an elaborate impression of possible development trajectories of a CCS infrastructure in the West Mediterranean region over time. The overview of drivers, synergies and barriers (DBS), provides an inventory of the DBS in the international literature, and this was supplemented by information found at the national level (i.e. in Portugal, Spain, and Morocco). Based on this inventory, actions were identified to overcome the barriers and enhance synergies
The basis is laid for identifying and assessing promising CO2 transport networks in the West Mediterranean region. Many lessons have been drawn which are related to physical aspects of the network (e.g. where, when, how large, costs) as well as issues which are encountered during the implementation process. The models and tools developed and data collected within COMET, provide opportunities to further refine these lessons and translate them into a CCS roadmap
Stakeholder involvement and awareness
Stakeholders (industrials and policy makers) were consulted regularly during the project: through stakeholders meetings in the three countries, or individual interviews where necessary.
The involvement of stakeholders throughout the whole duration of the project had multiple benefits:
- Regular presentation and update on the work planned and done in COMET allowed checking and maintaining the relevance of the work done in the project for the stakeholders.
- The different hypothesis taken in the various steps of the project (such as costs, economy development, etc.) could be checked against their practical experience, ensuring the validity in the region of the results provided by COMET. They gave feedback on the scenarios chosen, the energy modelling results, and the CO2 transport network. They advised to discard also specific trajectories going through difficult terrains.
- Stakeholders also were involved to identify synergies and barriers for the development of a CO2 infrastructure network.
- The stakeholders were kept aware of the different results of COMET.
The TIMES-COMET implements most ideas first put forwards in the COMET project proposals. It demonstrates that the technology rich partial economic equilibrium TIMES model generator can build spatially detailed hybrid energy-transport models. However new developments are necessary to make the TIMES-COMET model become a full GIS model, capable of providing for each suggested combination “emission cluster, pipeline, storage” a location specific engineering project and a more detailed economic and financial cost-benefit analysis. Although it was possible to represent in a single (hard-linked) bottom-up model the national energy technology systems with continuous variables and the capacity of CO2 pipelines with integer variables, the model had too many integer variables to solve with the best available solvers (CPLEX). In this field further research is needed.
The findings in the COMET project present possible configurations of where, when, and how much CO2 can be captured and stored in the West Mediterranean region. Additional analysis with the models developed and data collected in the COMET project, could further optimize the design and planning of this infrastructure.
These improvements would be related to all three elements in the CCS chain, capture, transport, and storage.
First, adjustments to the CCS role in a mitigation portfolio can follow from more detailed analysis of the future plans of the sources (e.g. by taking into account new large point sources), the interaction with renewables, and additional CCS options in the transport fuel sector. From this analysis, also insights can be obtained how CO2 capture can be more concentrated in a limited amount of clusters.
Secondly, an in-depth assessment of important transport connections and their alternatives is needed.
Thirdly, as the capacity and injection rate of storage sites are determining factors for the whole infrastructure, but are also uncertain, strategies are needed to design the infrastructure so that it can cope with these uncertainties.
5 The potential impact and use of expected final results (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications) and the main dissemination activities and exploitation of results
COMET was conceived to be the first concerted effort to the deployment of CCS in the West Mediterranean area, with common energy and development interests. COMET aimed to generated insights into cost-effective strategies that take into account scale effects induced by integrating multiple sources and sinks in three different countries.
Amongst the main barriers identified by ZEP (Zero Emissions Technological Platform) that slow down the demonstration of CCS (Survey of EU CCS demo Project Nov 2011) are listed: Uncertainties in the storage capacities, lack of outlook for CCS in general. One of the main impacts from COMET are to provide tools and knowledge that can participate to overcome these two barriers.
Standardised estimation of potential CO2 storage capacities
The first identification of potential storage sites and the estimation of available capacities in Portugal and Morocco were done in COMET. No work in that area has been conducted so far for these two countries. In Portugal the onshore and offshore capacities were estimated and this, with the work of nationally funded activities, lead to the idea of a potential pilot for test injection of CO2 onshore. The site was proposed in unsuccessful EUROSCOOPS 7FP proposal and funds are being looked for. The knowledge of the actual storage capacity distribution in Portugal (mainly offshore) should allow the administration to shift the focus of the regulations away from onshore considerations (that was in the center of the discussions in the transposition of the directive)
In Morocco the capacity estimates were conducted in a selection of basins on shore. The results of different scenario in comet showed the necessity to further study the storage capacity in Morocco especially offshore, as it was the limiting factor for deployment of CCS in that country.
The estimation of potential CO2 storage capacities in Portugal, Spain and Morocco was done with the same set of criteria following the Geocapacity methodology. In that sense, Spain has updated the database including a large amount of information that was not available for GeoCapacity and including a certain evaluation offshore, although very little can be said about that because of confidentiality issues. All information has been compiled in a database that is very valuable information for stakeholders wish to undertake CCS in the region.
The methodology followed to assign storage costs was largely based on the number of wells, injection rates, surface area and many other parameters characterising each site. The results clearly indicate where and which data should be acquired and how that can affect the storage costs. This information can be used in subsequent studies to prioritise research efforts in the region to reduce uncertainty in the storage sites parameters and in the storage costs.
As a side effect of the storage capacity assessment work (but still very valuable) the general knowledge of the deep underground in the region has greatly improved. New digitalized data has been made available for other researchers to perform further study on the topic but also others such as geothermal energy or shale gas.
Optimization of transport mode:
The identification of sources (with expected emissions volumes) and sinks (with expected storage capacities), has enabled to define clusters of sources and sinks, and to identify isolated sources. The GIS tool used in in the project has produced optimal source and sink matches, in terms of proximity, volume of emissions and availability of storage capacity. COMET was able to retrieve the cost effective transport option for each cluster source over different periods of time.
In this respect, COMET has looked at different scales of transport, from local to transnational, dealing with the most suitable transport mode(s) from every cluster of sources to either the storage or the higher scale transport mode over time. It is thought that this approach is of great relevance to the deployment of CCS, since ultimately each major source will have to decide upon the economic viability of deploying CCS.
The methodology on the optimization of transport mode can be used and applied in other regions. The results of the project, namely its technical and economic cost analysis, provide a framework for similar studies across Europe and other parts of the world.
The European Directive on Carbon Capture and Storage, approved in 2009 by the European Council specifically mentions that the provision that storage of EU emissions can only occur within EU border limits. The Directive establishes a legal framework for the environmentally safe geological storage of CO2 and covers all CO2 storage in geological formations in the EU, and lays down requirements covering the entire lifetime of a storage site.
The CCS Directive lays down extensive requirements for the site selection, which is a crucial stage for ensuring the integrity of a project. A site can only be selected for use if a prior analysis shows that, under the proposed conditions of use, there is no significant risk of leakage or damage to human health or the environment. The amount of pre-existing data, current knowledge and geological complexity of a site will influence the decision as to what is required to search for, prove, and develop a geological storage site at any given location. As such, some sites and storage types may more rapidly be able to reach levels of proof than others. COMET has contributed extensively to improve the current knowledge of CO2 potential in the WMR to make an informed and knowledgeable decision on a development plan for storage.
The Directive was already translated to the Spanish and Portuguese law and will be revised during this year. In COMET considerable knowledge has been acquired about the regulatory, drivers and barriers, and political implications of CCS projects involving European partners and Moroccan. This experience can be translated in a valid contribution for the revision of the European Directive, thus leading to a more robust definition of the regulatory issues governing the deployment of CCS in Europe and third countries.
The overview of drivers, synergies and barriers for the development provided an inventory of the the international literature, and this was supplemented by information found at the national level (i.e. in Portugal, Spain, and Morocco). Based on this inventory, actions were identified to overcome the barriers and enhance synergies. The involvement of stakeholders throughout the whole duration of the project had multiple benefits ensuring the validity in the region of the results provided by COMET.
Contribution to policy developments
COMET’s results can contribute for policy development at national and transnational level.
At the national level, the MARKAL-TIMES models gathering the necessary information on the energy system development can compare the cost effectiveness of different CO2 mitigation options. The impact of different policies or scenarios can be studied, as for example the low economic growth scenario or high CO2 reduction targets. Coupled with the GIS, it also allows seeing the spatial evolution over time. This is of interest in policy making to compare potential impacts of different policies and for industrial to get insight of potential developments of the technology and the energy sector. For instance knowing that even in case of low growth scenario, CCS results as necessary to reach the targets in the most cost effective way, could bring policy makers to reach timely decisions on supporting CCS.
In countries such as Spain, where regional autonomy is an important part of the decision process, the spatial development of the transport and storage infrastructure across several regions can provide a motivation for different regions to discuss how best to operationalize the CCS infrastructure.
The model constitutes therefore a tool to help overcome the lack of outlook for CCS in general. The UK government has recognized the necessity of such insight in its 2012 CCS roadmap:
“Development of a new industry at the scale and in the timeframes envisaged will require:
• An enabling regulatory framework;
• A storage strategy that ensures sufficient capacity is available when required;
• People with the right skills and supply chains capable of providing the required goods and services;
• A clear vision of how, where and when to develop transport and storage infrastructure. ”
At a transational level (European and international) COMET results allow to give insight in the opportunity of international collaboration and of setting up common infrastructures. The comparisons of the scenarios allowing transnational transport to the ones without allow quantifying the economy of scale that it permits.
The taking into account of the regional specificity in identifying the barriers and drivers for the CCS infrastructure development in the region make the outcomes of COMET relevant to the considered countries, while the identified transboundary storage opportunities and cross-frontier pipelines in some scenarios, promote the need for transnational cooperation of these three countries in the CCS domain.
In addition the methodology developed in COMET could be used somewhere else in Europe or in the world to assess the development of CCS infrastructure and the opportunity of Common network between different countries. For instance in the Baltic region (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland), where the storage capacity and CO2 emissions are very unevenly distributed, could get very valuable insight on possible CCS development.
There are several significant legal issues when considering transboundary projects including: the classification of CO2; the legality of its transportation under international and domestic agreements; the likely impact upon nascent or pre-existing liability and CO2 infrastructure regimes; as well as the interplay between jurisdictions and regulators.
Within the COMET project, important components for a roadmap for large-scale deployment of CCS in the WMR are made available. These components include detailed overviews of CO2 sources and CO2 sinks, detailed descriptions of possible CO2 transport network infrastructures and finally, an overview of drivers, synergies, and barriers related to such an infrastructure. The detailed descriptions which resulted from the modelling work show among others when, where, and how much CO2 is captured, transported and stored in the different scenarios (among others in tables, figures and GIS maps).
Economy of Scale Effects
The commercial deployment of CCS has a cost burden that is not at all negligible for the economies of Morocco, Portugal and Spain. However, economies of scale can play an important role, since the interlinking between the energy sectors in the three countries and some continuity in geological features allow for investors to envisage the deployment of CCS in the West Mediterranean as a unified case.
The concept of COMET relied on an integrated approach between neighbour countries, Portugal, Spain and Morocco. The ultimate objective of the project was to allow the deployment of CCS as a tool that enables European and neighbouring countries to comply with the European Union goals of reduction of greenhouse gases from the energy and industrial sector.
COMET allowed for the West Mediterranean countries to benefit from the knowledge and experienced gained by entities in Germany, Netherlands, France and Italy.
Furthermore, the outcomes of COMET were also relevant for CCS projects across Europe. COMET has allowed a better sharing and, in the end a better spreading, of the results towards other transboundary areas. This is further reinforced by the involvement of a North Africa country, a region with which the EU wants to cooperate increasingly towards the development of the region and towards a safe fossil fuel supply to Europe.
COMET has compared the advantages of building such transnational infrastructures against more nationwide focused alternatives. The outcome of this analysis is a major step forward in the deployment of CCS in the West Mediterranean area and may serve as a base case that could be referred to for other transnational CCS analyses.
Dissemination and capacity building in fast developing countries
Analyses of potential CO2 reduction options for the energy supply and conversion sectors have indicated that about half of the potential mitigation should be achieved in developing countries. The importance of deploying CCS in these countries is considered a main priority if CCS is to play a significant role as a mitigation option Nevertheless, assessments and efforts conducted so far to speed the deployment of CCS in developing countries has been limited. Many developing countries are in a phase of massive infrastructure build up, delays and/or failures in technology transfer could result in a lock-in in high CO2 emissions power systems for decades to come. COMET involved developed and developing countries in a common effort to find the best common solution to jointly address deployment of CCS.
Strong effort was made to raise awareness on the technology that was before unknown to most. Special training sessions have been organized towards key industrials and key state representatives. Interest was expressed by them especially in the frame of the Clean Development mechanism. The results of the models were presented to them and
Capacity building was effective in making the Moroccan research teams up to date with the technology and the storage capacity assessment methodology. Training was also presented to students in different universities in order to touch the next generation of scientist. The Stakeholders meetings had also a very important component of capacity building.
Awareness raising, capacity estimates, study of potential development of CCS over time and capacity building constitute the first steps towards enabling CCS projects in the country.
In a broader view the construction of the first MARKAL TIMES model for Morocco opens also many perspectives for new study on the energy system development in the country, such as:
Direct exploitation of results
COMET produced two databases and a GIS model. The information is online in GIS tool, GEOPORTAL that can be a starting point for a creation of a CCS Atlas in the WMR.
COMET produced also many elements for a CCS roadmap in the West Mediterranean region: detailed overviews of CO2 sources and CO2 sinks in WMR, detailed descriptions of possible CO2 transport network infrastructures and finally, an overview of drivers, synergies, and barriers related to such an infrastructure. On-going efforts strive to gather all these results on a full regional or national roadmap. However additional funding is necessary for this. Negotiations are on-going with the GCCSI for support a Portuguese or Iberian CCS roadmap. Other opportunities nationally or internationally are being looked for. The information compiled in the GIS is very extensive and relevant for every part of the CCS chain, and can provide the blue-print for development in the near future of a CCS roadmap for the WMR.
COMET has been contacted by the Spanish Platform on CO2 (PTECO2), a national association of industrial companies from different sectors and research organizations, in order to cooperate in the generation of a study on the main impacts that the deployment of CCS technologies can have in Spain. This study is oriented to economic parameters, such as generation of employment, R&D investment, use of national coal, etc. COMET consortium should supply information on sources, sinks and potential scenarios for 2030 and it will be quoted as the main source of the PTECO2 report. This cooperation may lead to further ones, in order to have a wide exploitation of the data obtained by COMET. Some of the associates of PTECO2 are ENDESA, Gas Natural Fenosa, Repsol, Oficemen, Ciuden, CIEMAT, IGME.
The methodology used in COMET, creating an interface between the GIS and the MARKAL-TIMES can be used in further studies, in the energy sector, like wind and solar capacity. The small consulting companies which participated to the project will be able to take advantage of these new features to provide and use geo-referenced energy-transport model base on the MARKAL-TIMES system.
List of Websites:
Grant agreement ID: 241400
1 January 2010
31 December 2012
€ 3 125 087
€ 2 343 129
Laboratorio Nacional de Energia e Geologia I.P.
Deliverables not available
Grant agreement ID: 241400
1 January 2010
31 December 2012
€ 3 125 087
€ 2 343 129
Laboratorio Nacional de Energia e Geologia I.P.
Grant agreement ID: 241400
1 January 2010
31 December 2012
€ 3 125 087
€ 2 343 129
Laboratorio Nacional de Energia e Geologia I.P.