Does Air Matter More in China?

This is the first part of a two-part post on the state of CCS in China

As mentioned previously on this blog, dealing with emissions originating from coal-based electricity generation will form a crucial part of both China’s and India’s development strategies for the near future. In China, the future has collided with reality. Coal consumption has brought increased air pollution in major urban centers that has prompted a response from the Central Government to specifically deal with air pollution. While the Central Government’s focus is on dealing with the more immediate problems associated with air pollution, we have advocated for a longer-term approach that incorporates investments in Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology across China. It is important to consider, however, if the goal of incorporating CCS technology and the goal of reducing air pollution are at odds with one another.

AIR POLLUTION AND CCS

CCS is promising in its potential as a bridge technology towards a lower-carbon economy. While this may be the case, CCS yields additional challenges for emissions reductions through its “energy penalty.” The energy penalty refers to the 15-20% extra fuel that the CO₂ capture process requires. This additional consumption of fuel can yield additional emissions (those associated with the immediate CCS process) as well as indirect emissions (those originating in the fuel production and transportation) that reduce the magnitude of emissions reductions from CCS. The worry is not the additional CO₂ emissions, but rather the level of additional sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter and nitrogen oxide (NO), and ammonia (NH₃) resulting from additional coal consumption.

According to a 2011 study from the European Environment Agency, the energy penalty has the following direct effects for the three main sub-level emissions.

• Particulate matter and nitrogen oxide levels increase according to the amount of the energy penalty. That is, as coal consumption increases, the level of these pollutants correspondingly increases.
• Sulfur dioxide emissions decrease because their removal is a requirement of the overall CCS process.
• Ammonia emissions increase substantially due to the degradation of amine-based solvents used in the CCS process. This level of increase, however, is still small relative to the overall level of ammonia emissions originating in agriculture (94% in Europe).

The indirect increases in emissions originate in the extraction and transport of the 15-20% more coal that the process requires. This includes any additional emissions that arise from the mining and excavating process to the process of transporting the extra fuel to the plant. Advocates for lower carbon energy point to these indirect costs as falling outside of the spectrum of the CCS process and will persist regardless of the efficiency and effectiveness of CCS.

The specific impact of the energy penalty on air pollution is unclear, as the European Environment Agency’s report uses preliminary data and suggests that a more fully mature CCS process could deal with these other pollutants to increase the appeal of CCS. The report offers no absolute assessment, but it does temper enthusiasm for CCS’s prescription as a panacea for the climate ills of coal-dependence.

The report states that while CCS “is considered to be generally beneficial both in terms of air quality and climate change…” the increase in emissions of ammonia, Nitrogen Oxide, and particulate matter “means that CCS would not be ranked very high on the beneficial for air quality’ axis.” These mixed emissions reductions diminish the potential for CCS in China in the present. Given that Chinese policymakers refer to air pollution in terms of a national struggle that the entire nation will overcome, they may require additional incentives to focus their efforts on immediate air pollution as well as CO₂ emissions.

The renewed focus on air pollutants from China’s leaders has not yet wrought a change in direction with respect with CCS. This combined with the details of the action plan on air pollution suggests that the leadership views CCS as an important step in dealing with carbon emissions. The statement also suggests that leaders are more interested in implementing changes such as modifying the industrial structure and enforcing higher industrial and generation efficiency standards to have a more immediate effect on the levels of air pollution rather than only carbon levels. Policies that can create benefits towards both of these goals will likely appeal to leaders who are working to both reduce carbon dependency as well as improve air quality throughout China.

The next post will discuss the state of CCS in China as well as the regulatory environment around CCS.