Okay, so I would like to welcome all of you to my presentation on the topic of carbon capture and storage in future options for Switzerland. I would like to start with a short introduction of why we need to talk about CCS. If we want to mitigate climate change,

we need to limit global temperature increase, which is indicated over there. We need a variety of technologies to reduce global CO2 emissions. And to reach the very stringent target of two degrees, indicated here, a large share, indicated in purple,

is expected to be done by CCS. So actually, CCS is really one of the key technologies if we want to reach stringent emission reduction targets. If we come to Switzerland, we see CO2 emissions in million tons,

and we see that a large share stems from the ability sector and also household services and industry contribute at the moment. Electricity indicated in gray, contributes very little. If we then look into the future, I will refer to the BFA energy perspective for 2050

and there, I refer to the new energy policy scenarios and I refer to a very stringent scenario with a centralized fossil and also a new renewable. And this looks as follows, so we see that the CO2 emissions of total Switzerland

decrease significantly, but in the electricity sector, indicated in gray, we see a large increase. And if we go back to the slide we saw in the morning, this is the Swiss electricity sector. We see that these CO2 emissions stem from natural gas, fire power plants,

which are expected to be built in the future. So shortly about CCS technology itself, here I show you the CCS chain. So we start with CO2 sources, which can be power plants, but also industrial sources such as cement plants or waste incineration plants. Then we have the CO2 capture part

with several technologies. Then we have CO2 transport, pipeline, truck, ship, and then finally CO2 storage, which can be done onshore, for example, in the electric ferries or gas fields, and also offshore.

We come back to the Swiss point sources. We see that out of the top six here, which in it round off, a megaton of CO2 a year, we find five cement plants, some green ones. Then we have two refineries, which are large point sources where CCS could be implemented.

And then we have a variety of blue bars, which are the waste incineration plants. To put it into perspective, I put two German plants. So the home plant, which is a natural gas combined cycle power plant, it meets in the range of 1.5 megatons. And then I put the meteorizing brown coat power plant,

this is nine blocks, and it meets 28 megatons a year. So just to show you the relation. But still we are talking about point sources for which CCS could be suitable. If you look at the distribution of these point sources,

we see that there is a period between Geneva and Serif Lake of Constance. So maybe basically in the middle of it. Then we also have to care about storage, not only the CO2 sources. And for this purpose, there was a detailed study by Larry Diamond and Val Verloy

and they assessed the CO2 storage potential for Switzerland. Red means not suitable, green means suitable. They used a variety of parameters. For example, the aquifer thickness where CO2 could be put. They looked at seismicity, they looked at the hydrogeology.

So it was a very detailed study carried out in 2010. And if you go back to the sources, we see that the sources and the things more or less match. So for Switzerland, as I mentioned, the future we expect them to be natural gas-fired plants.

We have large point sources of cement plants. Then we look at post-combustion only because we expect them to be plants to be retrofitted. So we have to choose post-combustion capture. We use pipelines because of capacity constraints of the other two options.

And then we are of course all-chores with some of them and we look at the solar energy first because we don't have depleted oil and gas fuels. So now I come to the DRCA of CCS we conducted. And here I show you a system we looked at for the power generation.

So we had the natural gas mining processing and transport, power plant operations, CO2 capture, transport and storage. And we referred to one kilowatt hour of electricity per use. First, I show you the results for using the IPCC method and the results are given in kilograms of CO2 equivalents

per kilowatt hour of electricity. And if we have a natural gas combined cycle plant and without CCS, we are around 400 grams of CO2 equivalents mainly stemming from the direct operation phase so the emission from the stack. Then we also have the upstream contribution

natural gas exploitation and transport. If we implement CCS, we see that the green part the direct emissions are reduced as intended. We see a blue contribution from the CO2 capture. And we also see that the upstream phase is increased because we have to burn more fuel

in order to power CO2 capture and transport. If we go to the other environmental versions, I present you the recipe midpoint results and the plant without CCS, the dark blue is always set to one and the light with CCS is set relatively.

So for human toxicity, we see the effect that we have to burn more fuel so we have more direct emissions so CCS performs worse than the plant without CCS. If we go to the particular matter formation we have two effects actually. So one is the increased fuel use.

So we have more, more effects there but we also see that CCS can somehow limit the particular matter formation. If we then go to other chemical oxidant formation we see that the CCS actually provides a benefit

because in this case we have nitrogen oxalumetions that are reduced due to the implementation of CCS. For example, by the increased requirements for fuel-based cleaning. Then we have two more categories, terrestrial acidification, freshwater dehumidification

which are chosen here. And then again, you see the effects that we burn more fuel so we have an increased effect in those categories. Now I go to the cement production. There I show you a scheme how cement production works.

So we have the raw material coming in up here. We have the raw milk, cyclones, the oven where the clicker is produced, clicker cooler, and then finally the cement production and cement to be able to blend. In this case we refer to one kilogram of cement produced.

For CCS we have to look for high concentrations of CO2 so whether we could capture the CO2. And actually the highest concentration would be around here above the cyclones, around 30% which is very high. But there we have a very high dust load so it's not possible to capture here. So we first have to go through the electric filter

and then capture the CO2 back there. We are no longer at the power plant so we need to provide energy for the CO2 capture. This needs to be steamed and the electricity and for the CO2 compression to make it better for transport

we again need electricity. This can be provided by different energy uses. So again I show you the IPCC results, greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of cement. If we start with a plant without CCS

we have around 670 grams of CO2 equivalents and mainly stemming from the clinker production. So there we have, we need a lot of heat which has to be provided, which is usually done by vertical. And we also have the emissions from the raw material which actually can be avoided in the clinker production.

As a first case to provide the heat and electricity for CO2 capture, I said, okay, we produce the steam from hard coal industrial furnace to take the electricity from the grid. And this results in a decrease with CCS

to around 400 grams of CO2 equivalents. We see that the heat in purple contributes really a lot because it's provided by hard coal and the grid in blue and the electricity from the grid also contributes. If we then accept what we receive also from the grid

which is not very efficient but which can be done, we see some more decrease. And then if we think about taking a natural gas from high heat and power plant, we see that the share of electricity is slightly increased but again the contribution of the heat is decreased.

And finally, I'll show you, in this case, the optimal one which is that there is waste heat away from a plant nearby. So we completely omit the purple part and then we have to do the parking lot.

Now I come to the other environmental burdens and then the rest of the midpoint results and the worst in each category is set to one and the other is set to three. So if we have the case without CCS in blue

and then we have the other colors with CCS and we see that the hard coal case is the worst in neurotoxicity, mainly due to the emissions of, the air emissions of the industrial furnace. And here we have the effect that actually the waste heat option in purple is worse

and the CHP option that this is mainly related to the effects of the green. So we assume that electricity mix results in worse results for the waste heat option and for the CHP option. For particular metal formation, again we see the direct emissions

of the hard coal industrial furnace and the same holds true for all the chemical oxygen formation and also the other two, we see that the hard coal option forms bad whereas the waste heat forms very good. Here again we see the effect of the electricity provision

but in general we must say that in any of these shown categories there is a benefit from CCS so it's always decreased. Or that the results are worse with CCS cases as opposed to the case of power generation

where we could see a benefit or at least in one of the categories I showed. And in general waste heat and CHP seem to be better solutions than hard coal and also green only. I come to the conclusions of the life cycle assessment.

So I have to say that CCS has the potential to strongly reduce the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas electricity generation and also from cement production. So overall CCS can really contribute

to a low carbon electricity and low carbon cement production. But we have to keep in mind that there are trade-offs related to other environment aspects such as human toxicity or particular metal formation which I mentioned before. For Switzerland we saw that

based on the future electricity mix that there may be a need for CCS especially if we implement very stringent CO2 emission reduction targets. So if CO2 law is very decisive CCS will be implemented or not.

CO2 capture and transport are proven technologies but the CO2 storage is still subject to considerable uncertainties. So to prove the feasibility of CCS in Switzerland we need a full cycle pilot project especially including an injection site.

With that I come to the last part which is related to the road map and the CCS pilot project for Switzerland. So if we want to have a pilot project in Switzerland we need to develop a road map which is actually done at the moment and the key issues for such a CCS pilot project

are CO2 storage site as I mentioned. So we really need to prove that the storage site is safe and is also feasible to store CO2 in such an atmosphere. Then we have the legal aspect. So if you want to store CO2 in the ground

there is the mining law, the waste law, the water protection law, whatever you can think of. And of course the costs are relevant so the costs of the CO2 capture and storage should not increase the cost of electricity too much. And then which is very important

also related to storage is the acceptance issue. So we have to talk to the public. The objective of the CCS roadmaps are in specific the adequacy of the target formations for CO2 storage. Then they want to demonstrate the safety of the CO2 injection.

They want to test their modeling results which they have developed during the past years. Then they want to assess the economics and also they want to transfer the knowledge they gained over the last years to public policy makers and also authorities.

In the end the idea is really to provide the knowledge from this road map to then develop a full CCS chain for Switzerland. The timeline is the following. At least the date of timeline let's say. So we have the risk dialogue starting this year

and also next year. Then we have the seismic exploration following. We have the drilling permit installation operations. And then from 2019 they expect to have CO2 injection operation. And this operation phase will then be followed by monitoring phase of at least 10 years.

So from the LCA results we saw that CCS can really contribute to reduce CO2 emissions but it also increases other environmental burdens and the practical feasibility will hopefully be shown

during the next decade. This I would like to thank my colleagues and I'm open for questions.

The report on the CCS states there might be a leakage in the order of 0.001% per year or something like that. How did you incorporate that or did you consider the value of delaying CO2 emissions

because what you do is you have instead of one flash of CO2 within 100 years you have very, very low dose rate over thousands of years over time. Did you discuss that issue? Yes, we discussed it but in the results I showed it's not included because we are aware of this leakage rate but it's still quite uncertain

how large it is or if it is even there. Depends on the income. And yes, it's not included in these results, yes. One is related to the reliability of the underlying data

and the uncertainty that is now in your LCA studies so how certain are you about the result? And the second is about scaling. Did you look at scaling if in Switzerland we have many small stock sources if this is something else than having a CCS installed

for the big power plants? Okay, so first question was related to the uncertainties. So I mean, of course we have to take a lot of assumptions but for the time being we are quite sure

about there's a significant reduction to the greenhouse gas emissions if it's 130 grammes or 110 grammes. Okay, but I think that the reduction is significant. I mean, there are assumptions about the future efficiencies of power plant, for example, which are,

I mean, we talk to people but I mean, no one knows so this is one, for example, one of the key uncertainties. I think the general idea that the reduction is really significant, this can be stated. And second one was?

About the scaling, if there is a difference or if you look at the difference if it's a small building. I mean, for this analysis we assumed a point-to-point connection of 200 kilometres of pipeline so that's, I mean, not the most efficient way of course of doing it so it would be more efficient to connect

different sources and then maybe have one injection point. This is not yet included but when you recall the results, for example, the greenhouse gas emissions and then you see that the storage and transport part is already in this case negligible.

So if you even go to a more efficient transport system then it would be even more negligible. So I think this is, at least what our results show is it's not a significant effect based on greenhouse gas emissions. Last question. The economics of carbon capture and sequestration

are mainly driven by the carbon price in the European emission trading system so someone is negotiating this process to link our system to their system. Now, and the carbon price in the perspectives of the carbon price to 2020 are not very optimistic

or at least the price is probably going to be very low. Is it still feasible to make a pilot project in Switzerland for carbon capture when the output was poor?

Also, the project, the Chevalon project with the most of the, which is the most advanced the gas power plant project in Switzerland has been abandoned weeks ago. So right now there's not a very strong need

to pursue this technology to a certain extent. Are you there for that or? Yeah, I mean, I agree. I mean, I think in general CCS is probably more interesting for countries like Germany with brown coal, power plants,

really large point sources. So I mean, the economics become better. I mean, economics escape basically. I mean, what I know is that this road map is currently developed, so people are working on it. So it's actually decided to do so.

For the pilot project, I know that there is the interest from industry. I mean, they will provide a gas turbine to really capture the CO2. So I think there is still some interest, but I agree that Switzerland's maybe not

the most optimal place to put CO2. But as I mentioned, I mean, if it's CO2 law is very strict, then you never know when you have to do something. Okay, thank you once again for your interesting presentation.