Global future role of power CCUS technologies

CCUS technologies are essential for meeting global temperature targets because of their ability to decarbonize hard to abate sectors and provide negative emissions when paired with bioenergy. In the power sector the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS) foresees an average global CCUS build rate of 16 GW/year from 2020 to 2040. However, current deployment rates languish far below this level, as there are currently only two operational power CCUS plants with a combined capacity of 355 MW. Both are retrofitted coal plants, but most future climate models require a diverse CCUS portfolio consisting of coal/gas CCUS plants, bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) and using CCUS in a hydrogen power generation chain. This study is commissioned by IEAGHG and aims to understand the evolving future roles of different CCUS technologies in various power markets and policy measures which can overcome current barriers to deployment. The UK, USA, People’s Republic of China (China) and Australia are selected as model power markets as they represent some of the leading countries in the CCUS space. First, a techno-economic analysis is undertaken which compares the economic feasibility of CCUS options with counterfactual technologies (nuclear, unabated gas/coal, battery storage) under different operational modes (baseload, mid-merit, peaking generation) for each country. Later, a literature review is undertaken to determine policy recommendations which may overcome deployment barriers for post-combustion CCUS, BECCS, power generation through hydrogen, CCUS retrofits and flexible CCUS operations. Finally, the existing CCUS policy support in each of the four countries is reviewed along with region specific recommendations to make CCUS technologies more viable in each country. It is found that globally BECCS, gas CCUS and hydrogen are viable options for baseload, mid-merit and peaking generation, respectively. Hydrogen power generation is the lowest cost low-carbon option for flexible backup generation for sustained periods (>8 hours) of high demand, complimenting batteries which are cheaper for shorter periods. However, peaking hydrogen would require a higher support mechanism in the USA and Australia compared to other regions due to relatively more expensive hydrogen costs. Gas CCUS is likely to be one of the most economic mid-merit and baseload technologies, even in regions without domestic gas resources due to its lower costs than alternatives. BECCS is expected to be a strategic technology for climate targets due to the associated negative emissions, thus it is expected to be deployed in all regions to a certain extent, even if it is not the lowest-cost CCUS option. China is the only region where coal CCUS is competitive with other CCUS technologies at high load factors and hydrogen power is very cost-effective irrespective of operational mode. The two main reasons for this divergent result for China are the low-cost domestic coal availability and the opportunity for cheap hydrogen production through coal gasification with CCS. Economic constraints relating to high upfront capital investment requirement and lack of mechanisms to recover high operational expenses are found to be the two major barriers to CCUS deployment. Capital challenges can be alleviated by tax credits, public procurement, grants, concessional loans, direct equity investment, progressive financing, international financing institutions and export credit agencies. Operational expenses can be addressed through policies such as feed-in-tariffs, contract for differences, emission performance standards, CCUS obligations with tradable CCUS certificates or additional revenues from CO2 utilization. Each country is likely to use some combination of these policies to incentivize capture plants, while the transport & storage part of the supply chain may be handled by dedicated companies that are publicly owned or supported through regulated models. The above measures must be supplemented by specific policies that focus on different CCUS applications. Retrofits would benefit from imposing retrofit readiness criteria to all new plants, while BECCS would require recognition of negative emissions and establishing strong biomass sustainability criteria. Developing appropriate business models for the low-carbon hydrogen supply-chain would be vital for deploying hydrogen power. Lastly, flexible CCUS is extremely understudied for policy purposes and new policies, such as flexible contract for differences, must be developed and tested to encourage peaking plant operation. The four countries studied have varying levels of regulatory and policy support for CCUS, but all must improve their financial incentives through adopting some of the measures proposed above. Regulatory improvements, such as fossil fuel phase-out plans, CCUS readiness requirements and limiting post-closure liabilities of CO2 storage companies are some of the common recommendations for each country. Additionally, each country may improve on their existing schemes, policies and use their existing financial institutions more efficiently to incentivize mass deployment of CCUS technologies at levels consistent with global climate models.