Assessing European capacity for geological storage of carbon dioxide–the EU GeoCapacity project

Vangkilde-Pedersen, Thomas; Anthonsen, K.L.; Smith, Nikki; Kirk, Karen; Neele, Filip; Meer, Bert van der; Gallo, Yann Le; Bossie-Codreanu, D.; Wojcicki, A.; Nindre, Yves-Michel Le; Hendriks, Chris; Dalhoff, Finn; Christensen, Niels Peter

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.034

Cited by 121 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The higher estimates were considered to be too optimistic and several of the potential storage sites are located too remotely to be considered as realistic storage options. The GeoCapacity project uses conservative estimates and claim that the storage capacity in Europe is 117GtCO 2 , which corresponds to 62 years of storage of the yearly point source emissions (Vangkilde-Pedersen et al 2009). …”

Section: Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions

Stigson

Hansson

Lind³

2012

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potential for CO 2 emission reductions through carbon capture and storage (CCS) is depending on investments that can bring the technology from the current R&D through to commercial applications. The intermediate step in this development is demonstration plants that can prove the technical, economic, social, and ecological feasibility of CCS technologies. Based on a CCS stakeholder questionnaire survey and a literature review, we critically analyse discrepancies regarding perceptions of deployment obstacles and experiences from early demonstration plants. The analysis identifies discrepancies between CCS policies versus important deployment considerations and CCS stakeholder policy demands. The discrepancy gap is emphasised by lessons from restructured, postponed, and cancelled CCS projects. To bridge this cognitive gap towards proving CCS through demonstration activities, the article highlights policy implications of establishing a broad understanding of deployment obstacles. Attention to these obstacles is important for policymakers and industry in channelling efforts to demonstrating CCS, hence validating the current focus on CCS as a key abatement potential. Under present conditions, the findings question the robustness of current CCS abatement potential estimates and deployment goals as established by policymakers and in scenarios.

show abstract

Section: Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions

Stigson

Hansson

Lind³

2012

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bachu et al (2007) developed a potential CO 2 reservoir ranking based on the exploration and knowledge level which is currently being used in many assessments of CO 2 storage capacity (e.g. Vangkilde-Pedersen et al, 2009;Halland et al, 2014). The ranking uses four categories: theoretical, effective, practical and matched.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have indicated that storage capacity is available in Europe, although it is not evenly distributed (Christensen & Holloway, 2004;Vangkilde-Pedersen et al, 2009). Long-distance and cross-border transport may therefore become inevitable (Neele et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A techno-economic approach for capacity assessment and ranking of potential options for geological storage of CO2 in Austria

Welkenhuysen¹,

Brüstle²,

Bottig³

et al. 2016

Geol. Belg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage (CCS) is a means to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This paper shows an application to the Austrian context of a newly developed methodology for the assessment of geological reservoirs, based on expert opinions on the Schönkirchen Tief, Höflein, Schönkirchen Übertief, Reyersdorfer Dolomite, Aderklaa, AtzbachSchwanenstadt and Voitsdorf reservoirs. Because of a lack in reservoir-specific research for the storage of CO 2 , large uncertainties on the behaviour and use of the Austrian reservoirs exist. Therefore the potential of the reservoirs remains unknown. Geological, technological and economic simulations are performed which integrate different uncertainties. The results show that there is a significant potential for CO 2 storage in Austria. The total practical and matched capacity for Austria is assessed at about 120 and 40 MtCO 2 respectively. An exploration priority ranking, based on reservoir development probability, shows that the Schönkirchen Übertief reservoir has the highest potential for storage and should be a primary target for further exploration.

show abstract

“…The conservative estimate of Romania's total storage capacity is 9 Gt (Vangkilde-Pedersen, Allier, Anghel et al 2009). Using data from Vangkilde-Pedersen, Kirk, Smith et al (2009) on annual CO 2 emissions from large point sources in Romania and applying them for forty years, the respective emissions over this period of time would amount to 2.7 Gt (this method has also been applied in Höller and Viebahn 2011 to other countries) and thus the available storage capacity is rather high compared to the storage needs of Romanian large point sources.…”

Section: Pioneers and Laggards In The Eu-27mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 At the same time Poland is ranked 9 th among the largest coal producers worldwide in 2011 (World Coal Association 2012) which implies that Poland has a strong interest in the deployment of technologies allowing for a 'clean' use of coal as it might help to ensure demand for its coal exports. 6 14.4 Gt is the conservative estimate of storage capacity in the UK (Vangkilde-Pedersen, Allier, Anghel et al 2009). large point sources (3.7 Gt CO 2 ).…”

Section: Pioneers and Laggards In The Eu-27mentioning

confidence: 99%