Acknowledgements and CitationsThe contributing researchers were:• Allan Amey, ICF <strong>International</strong>, Canada• Rubab Bhangu, ICF <strong>International</strong>, USA• Joel Bluestein, ICF <strong>International</strong>, USA• Rodney Boyd, Aurecon, Australia• Caroline Cochran, ICF <strong>International</strong>, USA• David Gerhardt, ICF <strong>International</strong>, USA• Elizabeth Gormsen, ICF <strong>International</strong>,USA• Hal Gunardson, IMC, Canada• Deborah Harris, ICF <strong>International</strong>, USA• Dermot Lane, IMC, Canada• John Venezia, ICF <strong>International</strong>, USA• Tom Mikunda, ECN, The Netherlands• Steven Kluiters, ECN, The Netherlands• Ruud van den Brink, ECN, TheNetherland23 February 2010 v
Executive SummaryExecutive SummaryCarbon dioxide capture and s<strong>to</strong>rage (<strong>CCS</strong>) technology provides an option for powergenera<strong>to</strong>rs and industries that are reliant on fossil fuels <strong>to</strong> continue <strong>to</strong> use these fuels in acarbon-constrained future. For this reason, <strong>CCS</strong> is expected <strong>to</strong> play a large role in futureglobal greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation from power plants and other industrial facilities.<strong>CCS</strong> has not yet been widely deployed on the commercial scale, because there existtechnical, economic, regula<strong>to</strong>ry, and policy barriers <strong>to</strong> its widespread deployment.Governments and industry have been working <strong>to</strong> reduce these barriers, but in the meantimenew fossil-fuel power plants and industrial plants continue <strong>to</strong> be designed and builtworldwide. Long-term operation of these new plants could result in a carbon “lock-in,” asituation in which plants continue <strong>to</strong> emit large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) ifmitigation through <strong>CCS</strong> is technically and economically infeasible due <strong>to</strong> equipment and siteconstraints. <strong>An</strong>other potential adverse result is the emergence of “stranded assets,” inwhich plants may be closed before the end of their planned period of operation if they areuneconomic <strong>to</strong> retrofit <strong>to</strong> <strong>CCS</strong>.The desire <strong>to</strong> avoid these risks has led <strong>to</strong> a concept known as “<strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong>,” in whichcarbon-emissions-intensive plants prepare for <strong>CCS</strong> during their design and planning phases.<strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong> policy can facilitate a smooth transition <strong>to</strong> <strong>CCS</strong>. However, there is currently nooperational and internationally standardised definition of a <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong> plant. Such adefinition would increase the ability of countries <strong>to</strong> efficiently develop and implement policyframeworks <strong>to</strong> deploy <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong> plants by providing a thorough, widely recognizedfoundation for <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong> plant requirements.This document aims <strong>to</strong> fill this void by proposing a definition of <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong> that could beinternationally recognised. The proposed definition (presented in the Exhibit ES-1) reflectsthe key principles listed below. These principles and the definition are based on an analysisof existing <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong> literature and legislation, and informed by <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong> stakeholderperceptions gleaned from a series of international <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong> roundtables held by theGlobal <strong>CCS</strong> Institute.Key Principles for <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong>• Capture, transport, and s<strong>to</strong>rage are best addressed holistically in order <strong>to</strong> increase thefeasibility of a smooth transition <strong>to</strong> retrofitting <strong>CCS</strong>;• A degree of flexibility (in terms of stringency) is advisable <strong>to</strong> allow jurisdictions <strong>to</strong> adaptthe definition according <strong>to</strong> their own regional-specific issues;• The initial cost of building a <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong> plant is most easily justified when the cost isoffset by the future cost savings for a <strong>CCS</strong> retrofit; and• Identifying and addressing early the potential barriers for a future retrofit <strong>to</strong> the extentpossible is good practice.The definition identifies various <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong> requirements for a plant, such that satisfyingthese requirements could deem a plant as being <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong>. Some components of thedefinition are specific <strong>to</strong> only one element of a <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong> plant (e.g., pertaining only <strong>to</strong>capture, transport, or s<strong>to</strong>rage of CO 2 ), whereas other components are common <strong>to</strong> allelements of <strong>CCS</strong> <strong>Ready</strong>.23 February 2010 1