![Atmospheric and geological CO"2 damage costs in energy scenarios [An article from: Environmental Science and Policy]](https://www.ebooknetworking.net/books/B00/0RR/bigB000RR9782.jpg)
Atmospheric and geological CO"2 damage costs in energy scenarios [An article from: Environmental Science and Policy]
Book Details
Author(s)K. Smekens, B. van der Zwaan
PublisherElsevier
ISBN / ASINB000RR9782
ISBN-13978B000RR9784
AvailabilityAvailable for download now
MarketplaceUnited States 🇺🇸
Description
This digital document is a journal article from Environmental Science and Policy, published by Elsevier in 2006. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description:
Geological carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is currently seriously considered for addressing, in the near term, the problem of climate change. CCS technology is available today and is expected to become an increasingly affordable CO"2 abatement alternative. Whereas the rapidly growing scientific literature on CCS as well as experimental and commercial practice demonstrate the technological and economic feasibility of implementing this clean fossil fuel option on a large scale, relatively little attention has been paid so far to the risks and environmental externalities of geological storage of CO"2. This paper assesses the effects of including CCS damage costs in a long-term energy scenario analysis for Europe. An external cost sensitivity analysis is performed with a bottom-up energy technology model that accounts not only for CCS technologies but also for their external costs. Our main conclusion is that in a business-as-usual scenario (i.e. without climate change intervention or externality internalisation), CCS technologies are likely to be deployed at least to some extent, mainly in the power generation sector, given the economic benefits of opportunities such as enhanced coal bed methane, oil and gas recovery. Under a strict climate (CO"2 emissions) constraint, CCS technologies are deployed massively. With the simultaneous introduction of both CO"2 and CCS taxation in the power sector, designed to internalise the external atmospheric and geological effects of CO"2 emissions and storage, respectively, we find that CCS will only be developed if the climate change damage costs are at least of the order of 100@?/tCO"2 or the CO"2 storage damage costs not more than a few @?/tCO"2. When the internalised climate change damage costs are as high as 67@?/tCO"2, the expensive application of CCS to biomass-fuelled power plants (with negative net CO"2 emissions) proves the most effective CCS alternative to reduce CO"2 emissions, rather than CCS applied to fossil-based power plants.
Description:
Geological carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is currently seriously considered for addressing, in the near term, the problem of climate change. CCS technology is available today and is expected to become an increasingly affordable CO"2 abatement alternative. Whereas the rapidly growing scientific literature on CCS as well as experimental and commercial practice demonstrate the technological and economic feasibility of implementing this clean fossil fuel option on a large scale, relatively little attention has been paid so far to the risks and environmental externalities of geological storage of CO"2. This paper assesses the effects of including CCS damage costs in a long-term energy scenario analysis for Europe. An external cost sensitivity analysis is performed with a bottom-up energy technology model that accounts not only for CCS technologies but also for their external costs. Our main conclusion is that in a business-as-usual scenario (i.e. without climate change intervention or externality internalisation), CCS technologies are likely to be deployed at least to some extent, mainly in the power generation sector, given the economic benefits of opportunities such as enhanced coal bed methane, oil and gas recovery. Under a strict climate (CO"2 emissions) constraint, CCS technologies are deployed massively. With the simultaneous introduction of both CO"2 and CCS taxation in the power sector, designed to internalise the external atmospheric and geological effects of CO"2 emissions and storage, respectively, we find that CCS will only be developed if the climate change damage costs are at least of the order of 100@?/tCO"2 or the CO"2 storage damage costs not more than a few @?/tCO"2. When the internalised climate change damage costs are as high as 67@?/tCO"2, the expensive application of CCS to biomass-fuelled power plants (with negative net CO"2 emissions) proves the most effective CCS alternative to reduce CO"2 emissions, rather than CCS applied to fossil-based power plants.
