Exploring the improvement of CO2 storage and CCS representation in Integrated Assessment Models

Background:

Undertaking climate mitigation is a hugely complex task requiring choices to be made on which technologies and resources to apply and when and where to apply them, all under changing conditions of amongst others population, energy demand, food production need and social perspectives. Key instruments to explore and advise these choices are Integrated Assessment Models. These combine socio-economic, resource, energy, technology availability and deployment, and climate change modelling to develop, assess and understand decarbonisation scenarios and strategies consistent with achieving climate policy objectives such as those negotiated at the UNFCCC conference in Paris in December 2015.

Founded in 1992 following the Rio Earth Summit the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is a leading centre of Integrated Assessment Model research with their models extensively used in the development and analysis of global and regional decarbonisation scenarios. These analyses contribute to climate mitigation policy advice and formulation e.g. through Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 3 assessments of climate mitigation.

Integrated Assessment Models assessments have very strong consensus on the critical role of deploying substantial quantities of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in achieving climate mitigation objectives, both to decarbonise on-going usage of fossil fuel resources and potentially to enable net CO2 removal ‘negative emissions’ through the deployment of Bio-Energy with CCS. Much of this CCS deployment is suggested to occur in developing world regions where energy demand and industrial development is increasing.

As with all models, the results are to some extent sensitive to the quality and uncertainty of the underlying information used. With respect to CCS, this includes knowledge on the energy system, the costs of fuels, the efficiencies and costs of CO2 capture, and the availability of geological CO2 storage capacity and the capabilities and infrastructures to enable access to this CO2 storage.

Following discussion at several conferences we decided it would be useful to try and bring together expertise from the Integrated Assessment Models and CO2 storage to explore how the representation of CO2 storage capacities, capabilities and infrastructures might be improved, and what the results of the models suggest for future CO2 storage and CCS research and development. We applied for funding to the UKCCSRC International Research Collaboration fund (Call 4) and were successful – thanks UKCCSRC!

Our visit:

In early September 2016, Vivian Scott, Gareth Johnson and Niklas Heinmann from the University of Edinburgh and SCCS headed for a weeks visit to PIK. Our hosts – Nico Bauer and Jessica Strefler in PIK’s Integrated Assessment Modelling team welcomed us to PIK’s fantastic new research building – a clover-footprint design set amongst woods on Potsdam’s famous Telegrafenberg research institute campus.

Following introductions we started the week sharing and discussing our perspectives on CCS development and deployment, its expected role in energy system decarbonisation, and the factors and conditions influencing the scale and timing of its potential applications. Nico and Jessica introduced us to the PIK Integrated Assessment Model and some of its scenarios and results. Gareth presented how CO2 storage capacities are assessed and defined and reflected on his different experiences working on CO2 storage assessment in Canada and South Africa. The former is a compelling example of a very well explored region with very robust potential for huge amounts of CO2 storage, with its development well-facilitated by existing infrastructures, experienced sub-surface industries and regulators. By contrast, South Africa has had little detailed geological exploration applicable to CO2 storage, and has very little existing experience in relevant sub-surface industry and regulation. We discussed how these contrasting levels of preparedness might perhaps be better reflected in model inputs.

Huge thanks to Nico and Jessica and PIK for hosting and working with us and we look forwards to continuing our collaboration.
Vivian, Gareth, Niklas