GROUP RECOMMENDS CCS FOR GAS PLANTS IF GOV’TS WANT TO MEET EMISSIONS TARGETS

Tamar Hallerman
GHG Monitor
11/9/12

Natural gas is often seen as the low cost, low emissions alternative to coal in the power generation sector, but if governments are serious about meeting emissions reduction targets they must install carbon capture and storage on those facilities, according to an international group of environmental NGOs. In the first of a planned series of op-ed pieces, the ENGO Network on CCS, a recently-created group of NGOs looking to further develop CCS technology, argues that the widespread deployment of CCS on both coal and gas capacity is needed if governments want to maintain emissions levels deemed acceptable by organizations such as the International Energy Agency and the United Nations. “Between now and 2030, world fossil use for power is projected to almost double. Without CCS on both gas and coal, it’s ‘game over’ on climate change,” wrote co-authors John Thompson of the Clean Air Task Force and Camilla Svendsen Skriung of the Norwegian Zero Emission Resource Organization, on behalf of ENGO.

While natural gas processing facilities quickly became the early test beds for the first CCS projects, the deployment of the technology on gas-fired power generation facilities has remained fairly untested. Few—but a slowly increasing—number of gas CCS projects have been proposed in recent years, most prominently Shell and SSE’s 385 MW retrofit project at Peterhead in Scotland, which recently made the short list for U.K. government funding. “We’re sort of seeing the beginnings of CCS projects being proposed on natural gas power plants,” Thompson said in an interview this week. “Ultimately, I see natural gas CCS expanding in niche markets in places like Texas, California or Colorado, where it can be built on other kinds of low-carbon power subsidies. If that happens, natural gas CCS can expand.”

Unmitigated Gas Could Go From ‘Solution’ to ‘Problem’

Natural gas generation has skyrocketed in the U.S. in recent years due in no small part to the fracking of shale plays. While unmitigated gas has roughly half of the CO2 emissions associated with coal, Thompson and Skriung warn that it is still releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. “While a 50 percent reduction is helpful, it’s only a half step and a solution that may, in fact, delay the development of CCS technology,” Thompson and Svendsen wrote, adding that CCS will ultimately need to be installed on most gas capacity if the country wants to meet long-term emissions reduction targets set by several international organizations. “CCS needs to be commercialized now to make genuine progress in reducing greenhouse gases from fossil power,” the analysis says. The op-ed mirrors an argument made by two IEA officials earlier this summer who warned that gas could ultimately shift from being part of the solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to part of the problem as governments move to meet tightening international emissions reduction targets. 

Thompson acknowledged that it might take some time for the U.S. to feel compelled to install CCS on its gas capacity but that deployment could be incentivized if low-carbon power is at some point mandated. “When you start looking at what’s the lowest cost low-carbon power option, natural gas with CCS seems to be among the cheapest options. It’s comparable to wind, solar and nuclear, and it may be cheaper than all of those once you start removing the subsidies from the alternatives,” he said. “While it’s more expensive than an uncontrolled gas plant, if you’re looking at trying to find the cheapest source of low-carbon power, natural gas CCS is right there with any of the others.”