Atmospheric and geological CO2 damage costs in energy scenarios

Smekens, Koen; Zwaan, Bob van der

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.01.004

Cited by 28 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…DEMETER shares the endogenization of technical change through learning curves with bottom-up models as developed by Messner (1997), reported in e.g. Nakićenović et al (2001) and used in a series of engineering energy systems models (such as in Smekens and van der Zwaan, 2006). In this sense, DEMETER is fundamentally hybrid and, because of its endogenous cost definition, fit for analysing long-term energy technology cost dynamics and deriving practical insight for climate policy making (Jaccard et al, 2003).…”

Section: Demeter With Ccs and Leakagementioning

confidence: 99%

The Economics of Geological CO2 Storage and Leakage

Zwaan¹,

Gerlagh

2008

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Demeter With Ccs and Leakagementioning

confidence: 99%

The Economics of Geological CO2 Storage and Leakage

Zwaan¹,

Gerlagh

2008

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While for many pollutants such environmental damage analyses have been performed in the ExternE (External costs of Energy) project series of the European Commission, these studies do not cover quantifications of externalities resulting from geological CO 2 storage [5]. In the absence of more complete experimental data required for proper CO 2 storage damage cost calculations, in a prior study we made assumptions about their possible ranges to perform externality-inclusive energy scenario analysis [32]. This paper builds on that work by investigating the behaviour of energy technology deployment scenarios under different assumptions regarding the rate of leakage of CO 2 stored underground.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Earth's storage capacity, in depleted oil and gas fields, coal seams, and aquifers, is likely to be large [17]. Given that CCS may soon play an important role in reducing CO 2 emissions, it is presently included in climate-change integrated assessment models [7,18,22,28,32,40]. Yet our knowledge about the potential external impacts of geologically stored CO 2 is still incomplete.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

CO2 Capture and Storage with Leakage in an Energy-Climate Model

Zwaan

Smekens

2007

Environ Model Assess

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geological CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) is among the main near-term contenders for addressing the problem of global climate change. Even in a baseline scenario, with no comprehensive international climate policy, a moderate level of CCS technology is expected to be deployed, given the economic benefits associated with enhanced oil and gas recovery. With stringent climate change control, CCS technologies will probably be installed on an industrial scale. Geologically stored CO 2 , however, may leak back to the atmosphere, which could render CCS ineffective as climate change reduction option. This article presents a long-term energy scenario study for Europe, in which we assess the significance for climate policy making of leakage of CO 2 artificially stored in underground geological formations. A detailed sensitivity analysis is performed for the CO 2 leakage rate with the bottom-up energy systems model MARKAL, enriched for this purpose with a large set of CO 2 capture technologies (in the power sector, industry, and for the production of hydrogen) and storage options (among which enhanced oil and gas recovery, enhanced coal bed methane recovery, depleted fossil fuel fields, and aquifers). Through a series of model runs, we confirm that a leakage rate of 0.1%/year seems acceptable for CCS to constitute a meaningful climate change mitigation option, whereas one of 1%/year is not. CCS is essentially no option to achieve CO 2 emission reductions when the leakage rate is as high as 1%/year, so more reductions need to be achieved through the use of renewables or nuclear power, or in sectors like industry and transport. We calculate that under strict climate control policy, the cumulative captured and geologically stored CO 2 by 2100 in the electricity sector, when the leakage rate is 0.1%/year, amounts to about 45,000 MtCO 2 . Only a little over 10,000 MtCO 2 cumulative power-generation-related emissions are captured and stored underground by the end of the century when the leakage rate is 1%/year. Overall marginal CO 2 abatement costs increase from a few €/tCO 2 today to well over 150 €/tCO 2 in 2100, under an atmospheric CO 2 concentration constraint of 550 ppmv. Carbon costs in 2100 turn out to be about 40 €/tCO 2 higher when the annual leakage rate is 1%/year in comparison to when there is no CO 2 leakage. Irrespective of whether CCS deployment is affected by gradual CO 2 seepage, the annual welfare loss in Europe induced by the implementation of policies preventing "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (under our assumption, implying a climate stabilisation target of 550 ppmv CO 2 concentration) remains below 0.5% of GDP during the entire century.

show abstract

“…Energy price elasticities are usually assumed to be lower than one, which is in correspondence with limited possibilities of substitution. See for example Rafaj (2005) and Smekens and van der Zwaan (2006) and the references therein. However, this approach does not consider the scarcity of sources to finance investments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%