2011 IEEE First Conference on Clean Energy and Technology CET

Carbon capture and storage for developing

economies: the case for Malaysia
Lai Nai Yeen Gavin*, Lee Chan Wai, and Yap Eng Hwa
Department of Mechanical, Materials & Manufacturing Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Malaysia
Email: gavin.lai@nottingham.edu.my Tel: +60389248622, Fax: +603 89248017
Abstract- Climate change is fast becoming the environmental
and energy concern of the world. There is a dilemma between the
continued reliance on fossil fuel for energy and the pressing need
to address the problem of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
combustion. A potential technology that allows for the
consumption of fossil fuel with a minimized emission rate is
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Malaysia is a fast
developing economy with a historical trend of high reliance on
fossil fuel for its energy needs. Therefore, there is compelling
motivation to consider CCS for the country's GHG emission
reduction initiative. This paper reviews the potential for carbon
capture and storage (CCS) as a part of the climate change
mitigation strategy for the Malaysian electricity sector using a
technology assessment framework. The suitability and
practicality of the technology was reviewed from a broad
perspective with a consideration of Malaysia specifc conditions.
There had been a number of prior assessments on the suitability
of CCS as a mitigation technology. Nonetheless, most of these
assessments are typically more inclined towards the review from
an economic viewpoint and are centered towards the case of
developed economies. This study aims to fulfll this gap of
knowledge and assess the technology from a broad sense in the
Malaysia settings. It is apparent to this assessment that CCS has
the potential to play an important role in Malaysia's climate
change mitigation strategy. However, this study also identified
key criteria that would need to be in place for CCS to be an
effective climate change mitigation technology for the case of
Malaysia.
Keywords- CCS;clmate change; viabilt study; Malaysia
I. INTRODUCTION
Climate change is rapidly becoming the toughest
environmental and energy concer of the world. The pursuit is
on to fnd an amicable solution to the problem fast. There is a
major dilemma faced by policy makers worldwide between the
continued reliance on fossil fel for energy and the need to act
on the threat of climate change. Many nations, including
Malaysia still have a heavy reliance on fossil fel for the
generation of electricity. Figure I illustrates the major role of
natural gas and coal in the Malaysia electricity generation mix
in 2008. Unfortunately, the side effect fom the use of fossil
fel is the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere and therefore,
978-1-4577-1354-5/11/$ 26.00 2011 IEEE
182
directly contributing towards the climate change issue. There is
no clear technology option available that could solve the
emissions issue fom our energy needs and likely a portfolio of
technology solutions would be required in order to prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system
[1-4]. Uncertainty and the lack of clear technological solution
for clean, reliable and accessible energy have compounded the
complexities of eforts needed to stop climate change [5].
There has been intense competition for fnding critical towards
the research, development and deployment of these mitigation
technologies. For this reason, proper screening and assessment
for the selection of possible technological propositions is
required. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been projected
as a potential solution for minimizing the emissions of CO2
fom power plants, industries and other large CO2 emission
point sources but doubts about its suitability still remains. This
paper seeks to assess CCS fom a broad perspective in order to
assess its suitability for inclusion into Malaysia's portfolio of
GHG mitigation options.
NYW W5U WmWWCCBMm
T(MW
Figure I. Malaysia 2008 installed generation capacity mix by fuel type
(MW) [6]
II. METHODOLOGY
Technology assessment is an important tool for the review
of possible technological solutions. It has been a gowing feld
of technology management study and receives considerable
attention by researchers in the public and private domains. The
2011 IEEE First Conference on Clean Energy and Technology CET
concept was frst pioneered in the 1960s in the United States
through the establishment of the Ofce of Technology
Assessment (OT A) to flfll the U.S. Congress policy needs.
Technology assessment has been classically defned as "a class
of policy studies to systematically examine the effects on
society that may occur when a technology is introduced,
extended or modifed" [7].
There are many diferent approaches for technology
assessment (see e.g. [8-11]), but this paper utilizes a famework
based upon earlier works by MacGiII and others [12-14]. It is
essentially a risk based technology assessment famework for
GHG mitigation technologies and serves as a screening tool for
the suitability of the technology for its intended purpose. Of
the assessment methods available, this particular famework
was selected for this study due to its ability to assess the
specifc mitigation technology fom a broad perspective.
Technologies are reviewed fom a number of diferent aspects
which in tum provides a valuable presentation on the potential
and impact of a proposed introduction. In addition to the above
famework, this paper also covers the evaluation of the
technology readiness level (TR) of CCS in order to obtai a
comprehensible indicator on the technology technical
readiness. The TR concept was pioneered by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the
evaluation of its space shuttle programs and later was adapted
by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the assessment of
its major research programs. The concept has since been
adopted by other agencies and organizations worldwide for the
assessment of a wide range of technologies. The TR
evaluation introduced frther complements the famework
technical status assessment and thus provides a comprehensive
review on the techology readiness.

.Technicalstatus
-
.
Cost - Now

and
potential
future cost
Other possible social
outcomes
Figure 2. Schematic representation of a risk based technology assessment
framework for CCS
III. THE CASE FOR CCS I MALAYSIA
A. Technical status
The carbon capture and storage concept is made up of
established technological components. The concept requires
the separation and capture of CO2, the compression and transfer
of the gas and fnally the safe and permanent storage of the gas
in suitable mediums. Figure 3 provides an overview of the CCS
concept. Although it is noted that the CCS concept builds upon
curently existing technologies, there are still many technical
978-1-4577-1354-5/11/$ 26.00 2011 IEEE
183
challenges involved in the commercial deployment of the
technology. The integration of the separate technology
components to handle the large amount of captured C02
expected fom power plants would be a challenge. The high
cost and the need to frther improve the process efciency
would also require much attention. Technically, the
components of CCS have been rated between 2-9 as illustrated
in Table I .
O OSSIDC LL 5y5lCH5
Figure 3. Schematics diagram of possible CCS systems [15]
TALE I.
Capture
Transport
Storage
J bLL!b L LLb J!L"LILLX LLNL"!"Jb

C t

.'.
'.
Post Combustion Capture
Pre Combustion Capture
Oxyfuel Combustion
.

2-7
9
5
9
9
Source: [16-20]
Malaysia has limited capabilities in developing cost
effective CO2 separation technologies. There has been no large
scale fnded research initiative for CCS in Malaysia and the
capture technology as with most climate change mitigation
technologies would most likely have been developed by
industrialized nations [21].
Gilberts and Chalmers has also suggested in their
models that the roll out of CCS would frst take place in
developed nations and then followed by the developing nations
[22]. It would be pragmatically easier for the deployment of
CCS in Malaysia if the technology has already reached a
certain level of maturity and there are already sufcient
experiences with a wide scale rollout. Currently, for power
plant technology, there has not been any established local
provider of the technology and there has been a tendency for
Malaysian companies to form ventures with technology
providers fom the industrialized nations. It is envisioned that
the same approach might be adopted for the deployment of
CCS in Malaysia. As an example, there has been a major
capture and separation C02 facility in service for urea
2011 IEEE First Conference on Clcan Energy and Technology CET
production in Malaysia [23] which was set up with the
assistance fom a Japanese technology provider.
In terms of transportation for C02, Malaysia could
beneft fom its well established oil and gas industry. As the
challenge fom the transportation of C02 would likely be
similar to that of the transfer of other hydro carbon gasses,
Malaysia would likely be well prepared to support this
undertaking. There has already been the layout of 1700km of
pipelines for natural gas tansmission in peninsular Malaysia
[24], even though there has not been any pipelines specifc for
CO2 transfer. Expertise in these felds could also support the
development of CO2 transportation pipelines in the fture.
Although there has not been any specifc geological
storage for CO2 in Malaysia, there have been a number of
proposals for it. A notable proposal is the COM project
application (under UFCC-NM0168) for a mitigation project
in Bintulu, Malaysia for the capture of CO2 and H2S fom a
natural gas processing facility for storage in deep saline
aquifers [25]. There were also numerous plans for the
introduction of enhance oil recovery (EaR) for Malaysian oil
felds [26].
There also had been limited studies on the availability of
geologic storage for Malaysia [27]. Hence, a more detailed
study on the actual potential capacity for geological storage in
Malaysia and its surrounding would be a key priority in any
serious consideration for the deployment of CCS.
B. Delivere
d
services
The main advantage of CCS for Malaysia is the capability
to address the C02 emissions fom its fossil fel based power
plants. As of 2007, up to 90% of Malaysia's electricity
generations still originate fom the combustion of fossil fel
[28]. Coal power makes up to 30% of the generation capacity
and there are plans to frther increase this fgure. CCS is the
most suitable technology to be deployed with conventional
thermal power plants for C02 emission reductions. There had
been efforts to increase the contribution fom renewable energy
in the generation mix, but if a percentage of fossil fel power
plants are to be maintained for source diversifcation and
energy security purose, CCS offers a path for C02 emission
reductions. Terefore, the use of CCS would be a sensible
option for reducing emissions while awaiting a cleaner, reliable
and sustainable energy alterative to fossil fuels.
c Cost - Now an
d
potential future costs
The initial deployment cost of CCS technology in Malaysia
would be high and comparable to implementation elsewhere.
The implementation cost would be lower if;
CCS has already been widely deployed in
industrialized countries and certain maturity in the technology
has been achieved
For the initial implementation, certain fnding are
received (i.e. COM)
Prior experiences elsewhere of wide scale deployment of
the technology would be benefcial to frther deployment of
the technology. Therefore, if the technology were to be
978-1-4577-1354-5/11/$ 26.00 2011 IEEE
184
implemented at a later stage in Malaysia, the cost would be
expected to be lower relative to the frst of its kind
implementation project cost. However, there tends to be
fnancial assistance available for pioneering project
implementation. Financial benefts in the form of fmancial
assistance, subsidy and tax rebates are just some examples of
possible policy instruments that would help to ofset the high
implementation cost.
At the moment, Malaysia as a developing nation enjoys the
beneft of participating and gaining fom the Clean
Development Mechanism (COM) incentive. However, this
status might change in the near fture as Malaysia envisions its
transformation into a developed nation by year 2020.
D. Potential scale of abatement
The scale of abatement would highly depend upon the
available storage capacity for captured CO2 fom large point
sources. Prior study on the potential storage capacity lists the
possibility of storage in deep saline aquifers in the Malay Basin
off the coast of peninsular Malaysia [27]. However, a more
comprehensive study would be required to verif the capacity
attainable and also to consider other forms of geological
storage available, including EaR.
Majority of the Malaysia's existing power plats with high
emission rates of CO2 are located in the west coast of
Peninsular Malaysia. It could be likely that these and fture
power plant emissions could be piped over for storage within
suitable geologic formation in the Malay basin (see Figure 4).
Penyu basin could also offer additional storage potential for the
power plants in the peninsular while the power plants located
in the state of Sabah and Sarawak could make good use of their
respective offshore sedimentary basins, which are suitable for
geologic storage of CO2
1( 40 > 4m ----- 20 WI!R
Figure 4. Distribution of Malaysia's sedimentary basin 129J
E. Potential spee
d
of
d
eployment
The speed of deployment would likely be in line with the
speed of deployment elsewhere. Numerous factors would affect
the speed of deployment, including motivations and regulations
requiements. Malaysia would likely be able to deploy frst if
some form of fnancial incentive (via mechanisms like COM or
equivalent) is available. There is also the likelihood that once
Malaysia sigs up to a legally binding emissions target, there
would be a bigger and more instant demand for the deployment
of CCS. Nevertheless, this would still depend on the technical
2011 IEEE First Conference on Clean Energy and Technology CET
readiness and maturity of the technology fom the
demonstration and deployment elsewhere.
F Other possible social outcomes
The introduction of CCS would likely increase the cost of
electricity for the producers. Tere has been a tendency for the
utilities to pass on the cost to consumers, but utilities tarifs are
regulated by the goverent in Malaysia. Therefore, it would
still be within the purview of te legislator to decide if the fll
cost increase should be passed on to the consumers. A higher
utility pricing would help to cultivate energy efciency
practices but the needs of the lower income consumers should
also be considered. The industries with high electricity
intensity in thei operations would also be afected by higher
electricity pricing. A higher electricity cost might deter
investment fom investors of energy intensive activities (e.g.
aluminum smelting, pulp and paper, chemical processing).
IV. DISCUSSION
Malaysia is a rapidly developing nation with growing
industrial settings. The energy needs have been projected to
increase although there are also eforts to reduce the nation's
energy intensity through the country Economic Transformation
Plan (ETP). Through its steps towards moderization and
industrialization, the country has continuously enjoyed a stable,
reliable electricity supply at relatively low prices. The threat of
climate change would bring upon change towards this scenario.
The support and participation towards GHG emission
reductions would be required fom all nations. Malaysia is fast
becoming an industrialized nation and therefore, has a greater
role in the fght against climate change. CCS in its cuent
form is expensive and in the fture afer considering all te
possible cost improvement would still be more expensive than
the curent conventional fossil fel based energy. This is a hard
fact which is difcult to be accepted by many. The legislator,
the industries and the general public must be prepared to adapt
to a more costly energy scenario if there is to be any real
progress towards climate change mitigation.
When Malaysia commits towards emission targets as per
the current developed nations in the Kyoto Protocol, policy
makers would be called upon to enact and roll out a national
carbon emissions mitigation plan. The plan may include
measures that would reduce te emissions fom the electricity
sector. There are a number of options available for te
reduction of C02 emissions whilst supporting the demand for
electricity to power the nation growing economy. CCS would
be an attractive technology that can complement current
existing and planned emission reduction measures. However,
the concer on the technical reliability and safety,
implementation cost and availability of quality storage capacity
must frst be addressed.
On the surface, efforts to mitigate climate change including
CCS might look expensive. Nonetheless, with the onset of
climate change, mitigation efforts might help to prevent fture
devastation, which could cost even more [3, 30].
978-1-4577-1354-5/11/$ 26.00 2011 IEEE
185
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the feasibility of CCS as a carbon emissions
mitigation technology for Malaysia has been investigated.
From the assessment famework, it was shown that te
practicality of CCS for Malaysia will depend on a few key
criteria'S, namely the climate change policies on the
interational and local font, the maturity of the technology, te
economic competitiveness of the technology, the speed in
which the technology can become available and also the
availability of quality storage capacity. It has been shown that
there must be appropriate climate policies to gover and
motivate the control of GHG emissions (see [31-33]). In tis
initial assessment, it was determined that certain variants of
CCS capture have greater potential for wide scale deployment,
and the lage scale demonstration projects would provide much
needed certainty on the maturity of the technology. Cost wise,
CCS technology is still more expensive if compared to current
electricity generation practices which feely emit carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere. Then again, the cost of CCS
remains comparable to other available GHG mitigation
technologies curently available [34]. The availability of
quality storage capacity would be a limiting factor for te
mitigation of C02 emissions through CCS, although some
studies believe that there is an excess of geologic storage
capacity for mitigation purose [35].
The answer to the question of climate change prevention
does not lie in any single technology or approach. It is
established that CCS could contribute towards that portfolio of
options for climate change mitigation. However, other pressing
factors, including the need for reliable and dependable energy
supply and security must also be addressed when seeking an
amicable solution towards the challenge. CCS provides te
beneft of continued exploitation of fossil energy resources
while providing a solution towards containing carbon
emissions. It can be considered as an insurance policy towards
the risk of climate change and serves as a bridge towards
sustainable energy sources of te fture.
CCS thus has the potential to become an importat C02
emission mitigation technology in Malaysia, particulaly if te
technology is matured for deployment, the cost is competitive
and there is available storage capacity.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Pacala and R. Socolow, "Stabilization wedges: solving the climate
problem for the next 50 years with current technologies," Science, vol.
305, p. 968, 2004.
[2] M. 1. Hofert, K. Caldeira, G. Benford, D. R. Criswell, C. Green, H.
Herzog, A. K. Jain, H. S. Kheshgi, K. S. Lackner, J. S. Lewis, H. D.
Lightfoot, W. Manheimer, J. C. Mankins, M. E. Mauel, L. J. Perkins, M.
E. Schlesinger, T. Volk, and T. M. L. Wigley, "Advanced Technology
Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet,"
Science, vol. 298, pp. 981-987, November 1,2002 2002.
[3] N. Ster, The economics of climate change: the Ster review.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[4] V. Bosetti, C. Carraro, R. Duval, A. Sgobbi, and M. Tavoni, The role of
R&D and technology difsion in climate change mitigation: New
Perspectives using the WITCH Model: OECD, 2009.
[5] R. G. Newell, "Interational Climae Technology Strategies," Harvard
Project on Interational Climate Agreements Discussion Paper, 2008.
2011 IEEE First Conference on Clean Energy and Technology CET
[6] Suruhajaya Tenaga (Energy Commission), "Installed Generation
Capacity by Fuel Type (MW). " vol. 2011,2011.
[7] 1. F. Coates, "Technology assessment-a tool kit," Chemtech, vol. 6, pp.
372-383, 1976.
[8] 1. F. Coates, "The role of formal models in technology assessment,"
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 9, pp. 139-190, 1976.
[9] 1. Van Den Ende, K. Mulder, M. Knot, E. Moors, and P. Vergragt,
"Traditional and Modem Technology Assessment: Toward a Toolkit,"
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 58, pp. 5-21, 1998.
[10] A. L. Porter, F. A. Rossini, S. R. Carpenter, and A. T. Roper, A
Guidebook for Technology Assessment and Impact Analysis New York:
North-Holland, 1980.
[11] T. A. Tran and T. Daim, "A taxonomic review of methods and tools
applied in technology assessment," Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, vol. 75, pp. 1396-1405,2008.
[12] 1. MacGill, H. Outhred, and R. Passey, "The Australian Electricity
Industry and Climate Change: What Role for Geosequestration,"
Electricity Restructuring Group, UNSW, Sydney. Draf Discussion
Paper, vol. 503,2003.
[13] 1. MacGill, R. Passey, and T. Daly, "The limited role for Cabon Capture
and Storage (CCS) technologies in a sustainable Australian energy
fture," Interational Joural of Environmental Studies, vol. 63, pp. 751-
763,2006.
[14] 1. MacGill, "Assessing Australia's Sustainable Energy Technology
Options: Key Issues, Uncertainties, Priorities and Potential Choices,"
Asia Pacifc Joural of Environmental Law, vol. 11, pp. 85-100,2008.
[15] B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer,
"IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Prepared
by Working Group III of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate
Change," Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[16] 1. Chevallier, "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies and
economic investment opportunities in the UK," Global Business and
Economics Review, vol. 12, pp. 252-265, 2010.
[17] N. Florin and P. Fennell, "Carbon capture technology: fture fossil fel
use and mitigating climate change " Imperial College London, London
2010.
[18] H. A. H. Courtright, "C02 Capture and Storage," Electric Power
Research Institute" Sacremento 2010.
[19] G. Ofen, "C02 Capture - Technology Overview " Electric Power
Research Institute, Sacremento 2010.
[20] Global CCS Institute, "Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon
Capture and Storage," Global CCS Institute, Canberra 2009.
[21] S. Peterson, "Greenhouse gas mitigation in developing countries through
technology transfer?: a survey of empirical evidence," Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, vol. 13, pp. 283-305, 2008.
[22] 1. Gibbins and H. Chalmers, "Preparing for global rollout: A developed
country frst' demonstration prograre for rapid CCS deployment,"
Energy Policy, vol. 36, pp. 501-507,2008.
[23] Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, "MHI to License Flue Gas Cabon Dioxide
Recovery Technology To Indian Fertilizer Company. " vol. 2010:
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries" 2008.
[24] Gas Malaysia, "Peninsular gas utilisation project," Gas Malaysia, Ed.,
2010.
[25] IEA, C02 capture and storage, a key carbon abatement option. Paris:
OECDIIEA, 2008.
[26] Y. Samsudin, N. Darman, D. Husain, and K. Hamdan, "Enhanced Oil
Recovery in Malaysia: Making It a Reality (Part II)," in SPE
Interational Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacifc, Kuala
Lumpur" 2005, pp. 95931-MS.
[27] 1. K. Newlands, R. P. Langford, and R. Causebook, "Assessing the C02
storage prospectivity of developing economies in APEC-applying
methodologies developed in GEODISC to selected sedimentary basins
in the Easter Asian region," in Proceedings of the Eigth Interational
Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 2006.
[28] Pusat Tenaga Malaysia (PTM), "National Energy Balance 2007," 2007.
[29] PETRONAS, "Sedimentary Basins. " vol. 2011, 2011.
978-1-4577-1354-5/111$ 26.00 2011 IEEE
186
[30] S. Fankhauser ad R. S.J. Tol, "On climate chage and economic
growth," Resource and Energy Economics, vol. 27, pp. 1-17,2005.
[31] C. Fischer and R. Newell, "Environmental and technology policies for
climate change and renewable energy," Resources for the Future,
Washington, D.C. 2004.
[32] J. M. Buriaux, 1. Chateau, R. DUVal, and S. Jamet, "The Economics of
Climate Change Mitigation: Policies and Options for The Future," 2008.
[33] A. B. Jafe, R. G. Newell, and R. N. Stavins, "Energy-efcient
technologies and climate change policies: Issues and evidence," Climate
change economics and policy, pp. 171-181,2001.
[34] R. E. H. Sims, H.-H. Rogner, and K. Gregory, "Carbon emission and
mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fel, nuclear and renewable
energy resources for electricity generation," Energy Policy, vol. 31, pp.
1315-1326,2003.
[35] R. 1. Myhre and M. Stone, "Opportunities for carbon capture ad
geologic storage," Southwest Hydrology, vol. 8, pp. 18-20,2009.