By Amrita Goldar & Diya Dasgupta
As the country prepares for realizing its five-pronged ambitious climate targets announced at COP 26, it is prudent to review the arsenal of technologies that are at its disposal. Moving beyond tapping low-hanging fruits of efficiency improvements and augmenting the share of renewable energy, one needs to rely on technologies that can aid in achieving carbon neutrality of the economy. With specific reference to the goals of reducing projected carbon emissions by one billion tonnes by 2030 and turning net zero 2070, the role of Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) becomes pronounced. It involves capturing CO2 from point sources and recycling it for producing oils, chemicals, fertilisers, construction material etc. or permanently storing the captured CO2 in geological formations. CCUS must be perceived as a part of the portfolio of existing technologies which needs to be deployed alongside the others. The versatility of this mitigation pathway in terms of its applicability across multiple industries and the power sector makes it an attractive choice. Unfortunately, India is lagging when it comes to the groundwork required for this technology to take off.
India’s involvement with CCUS dates back to 2007 with the establishment of the Indian CO2 Sequestration Applied Research Network, under the aegis of the department of science and technology (DST). However, barring a few standalone mentions of this technology in the National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC) document, the Second National Communication (SNC) and the Second and Third Biennial Update Reports, there has been no dedicated policy action with regard to CCUS. The launch of the Carbon Capture Innovation Challenge under Mission Innovation (MI) somewhat reignited the discussion. Till date, apart from these MI DST led projects, there have been no other government mandated dedicated research programmes that have been carried out in the country. While there are a few bilateral partnerships that India has formed with countries such as the US (under the Strategic Energy Partnership for collaboration on CCUS technologies amongst others), not much has emerged from this either. Nevertheless, this technology has garnered much interest from private entities off late with numerous pilot projects being undertaken. These include those conducted by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) & Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) at the Koyali Refinery for reducing carbon emissions using CCUS, and by Dalmia Cement for setting up its carbon capture cement plant in Tamil Nadu.
It is interesting to note that for a technology that has been active globally for nearly five decades and one that India has dabbled with on and off for almost fifteen years, there is a dearth of domestic data for the same. The first course of action with regard to storage of sequestered carbon should be to identify and map out possible storage sites. The next step would involve ascertaining these sites fulfil the basic minimum requirements of possessing adequate capacity and injectivity rates, requisite cap rock containment capacity, sufficient depth, favourable geothermal characteristics, exposure to low seismic activity, etc. According to a report by the IEA (2020), these processes alone can take up close to ten years to complete, thereby underlining the need for swift action.
While costs associated with CCUS have been known to be a critical disincentive, it is important to note that these costs also vary based on the application and scale of operation. For instance, as per IEA estimates, cost of capturing carbon can vary between $15-25/ t CO2 to $40-120/t CO2 depending on whether it is sourced for producing pure or diluted CO2 streams respectively. Similarly, the cost of transporting and storing CO2 is a function of the volume being carried, the distance travelled and the storage conditions. The costs incurred for transporting CO2 via onshore pipelines in the US varies between $2-14 per tonne. Following the principle of ‘learning by doing’, there exists evidence to support the claim of declining technology costs. For instance, the carbon capture costs fell by 35% within a three-year period at the Petra Nova facility (US) as compared to those incurred at the Boundary Dam facility (Canada). However, missing from all these calculations is the fact that recovered carbon could be put to economically viable uses as well. This will serve two objectives- (a) creation of CCUS hubs would deliver economies of scale and reduce transportation costs by bundling together CO2 supply and demand, and (b) the recovered gas could translate into a critical feedstock for industrial usage. Additionally, as and when India’s own carbon markets develop, these ventures would become even more lucrative with money from carbon credits also flowing in.
To sum up, CCUS must not be disregarded solely on the basis of current high costs. Being the only technology option that can help reduce as well as remove unavoidable emissions from the atmosphere, it would perhaps be misguided to overlook its potential contribution in the Indian scenario. This is particularly true given the country’s expected fossil fuel dependence in the foreseeable future and its net-zero pledge.
The writers are, respectively, senior fellow, and research associate, Icrier.
