Technology List and

Perspectives for Transition

Finance in Asia
1st Version
September 2022
Introduction

The importance of transition technology and finance in Asia

The urgent need for decarbonisation is globally recognised, though significant uncertainty
remains regarding how countries will make the transition to net-zero CO2 emissions within the
timeframe set out in the Paris Agreement.
There are numerous opportunities to reduce CO2 emissions in Asia. These, however, must take
account of the continent’s growing demand for energy to support its economic development –
consumption is likely to grow by more than 30% between 2020 and 2040.1 It is also important to
recognise that some countries, particularly those in South and Southeast Asia, currently rely
heavily on emission-intensive energy sources such as coal, while some have limited ability to
develop renewable energy, for instance because of weather conditions or geography.
The transition to net-zero will have to safeguard energy supplies against this backdrop, which
means that climate sustainability cannot be the sole consideration when choosing technologies
that will reduce emissions. The transition to net-zero emissions should be ‘just and orderly’,
meaning that it should be sustainable, affordable, and reliable if it is to avoid abrupt dislocation
and potentially social instability (Exhibit 1).
Exhibit 1: Important Factors for a Just and Orderly Transition2

​Important factors for a just and orderly transition

Challenges
 Not only promote climate sustainability but
​Sustainability also ensure the reliability of energy supplies
and their affordability for governments and
their citizens, maintaining social stability
 Striking a subtle balance among
sustainability, reliability and affordability to
maintain social stability
Social stability
Reliability Affordability

Source: Asia Transition Finance Study Group.

As widely recognised, green technologies – that is, those with zero-emissions throughout their
operation – are important components of the technology solution package. In addition, there is
broad acknowledgement that the net-zero transition will also have to include so-called transition
technologies which reduce carbon emissions but do not completely eliminate them, and this is
particularly the case to achieve the transition in a just and orderly manner. Financial institutions

1
IEA (2021) World Energy Outlook, www.iea.org/statistics. Forecast is based on existing policy frameworks and
those under development in each country.
2
Developed by the ATF Study Group.
2
will play an important role in mobilising private capital to fund both sets of technologies, but to
date there has been little guidance on what constitutes a transition technology.

The need for guidance on what constitutes a transition technology

Various governments and international organisations have established standards and guidelines
to ensure financial flows are consistent with a pathway towards net-zero CO2 emissions.
However, these tend to focus on green technologies rather than transition technologies and often
have limited geographic relevance. For example, green technologies are the focus of the
European Union’s (EU) taxonomy for sustainable development. And because the EU’s
decarbonisation pathway is steeper than Asia’s, it rejects some of the technologies Asia is likely
to consider. Likewise, Singapore is developing a taxonomy that includes green and some
transition technologies and Japan has published a technology roadmap for a just and orderly
transition. Yet these may not be appropriate for other Asian countries, many of which have yet to
develop a decarbonisation pathway or supporting references that help define transition
technologies. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), meanwhile, is developing a
regional perspective. The ASEAN Taxonomy Board (ATB) published its first version of taxonomy
in 2021, recognising the criticality of establishing a regional common taxonomy for sustainable
finance to succeed across the region. The taxonomy aims to foster credibility and secure global
acceptance, but does not yet include thresholds and the list of eligible activities that could be
used to assess if a technology in a targeted project is aligned with the Paris Agreement as a part
of a transition finance suitability assessment.
Other initiatives seek to explain relevant green and transition technologies at an industry level.
But as they are not specifically for a financial audience, they seldom include guidance on how to
evaluate the technologies when considering transition finance – an intrinsically complex task.
The International Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) Energy Technology Perspective is a case in point.
The result is that many financial institutions still hesitate to fund transition technologies in Asia,
thereby hampering efforts to decarbonise economies. This document seeks to help unlock that
funding and so facilitate the just and orderly transition to net-zero emissions. The document
examines each candidate technology in a manner that will help financial institutions make an
initial assessment of its suitability for transition finance.

How to use the framework

Not all potential transition technologies are examined in the first version of this report. The focus
is on technologies that will have most impact on reducing emissions, and for that reason it
focuses primarily on the power sector and related upstream activities that together account for
more than 50% of the region’s CO2 emissions. Future versions of this report will revise and widen
its scope, and lack of inclusion here does not disqualify a technology from being considered as a
transition technology (Exhibit 2).

3
Exhibit 2: Focus of First Version
Guiding principles Energy sector is responsible for the largest share of CO2 emissions
 This first version CO2 emissions by sector1 ​Annual investment by sub-sector in energy industry
focus on sectors MtCO2; 1990–2019 in Asia Pacific US$ billion; average of 2018–2020, global
that ​18,000
511
‒ have large
461
emissions
footprints
‒ attract large Power
investments generation2 271
249
 Future versions are ​10,000 239

expected to expand
Upstream3
and are not
restricted to the Industry
sectors identified 31
here.
Transport ​Upstream ​Power ​Electricity M​ id/down ​Efficiency ​Renewable
oil, gas, generation Network stream fuels
​0 and coal
​1990 ​95 ​2000 ​05 ​10 ​15 ​2019 production

1. IEA data excludes non-fuel emissions, such as land-use change and forestry
2. Include the following; emissions from electricity production, combined heat and power plants and heat plants.
3. Include the following: emissions from fuel combusted in oil refineries, for the manufacture of solid fuels, coal mining, oil and gas extraction and other energy producing industries

Source: IEA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy (August 2022); IEA, World Energy
Investment 2020.
Importantly too, the framework is not a tool for making a final decision on whether to provide
transition finance. It does not consider a particular technology’s suitability as a transition
technology in a particular context, for example, and does not indicate the potential financial
performance of a particular technology. Rather, the framework is intended to help stakeholders
gain an overview of potential transition technologies, functioning as an interim reference until
such time as more Asian governments publish technology roadmaps or taxonomies.
Finally, although the framework is intended primarily as a guide for financial institutions, it may
also prove useful to other organisations in both the public and private sectors. It could, for
example, assist corporations seeking to decarbonise their operations or identify new business
opportunities, and it could assist policy makers in understanding the technology landscape in
Asia and so informing their technology roadmaps, taxonomies, and decarbonisation policies.

The criteria for inclusion in the technology list and the

assessment framework

The first version of this report considers technologies that meet two criteria, described below, and
it gives guidance on how to assess their suitability for transition technology with reference to six
elements of a just and orderly transition to net-zero emissions.

The technologies included

This version focuses on technologies that meet the following two criteria:
• As mentioned earlier, they pertain to the power sector and related upstream activities
such as the production and treatment of gas (Exhibit 3).
• They drive decarbonisation by directly reducing CO2 emissions, but they are not zero-
emission technologies. The latter, such as renewable energy or green hydrogen
production, are green technologies, and clear guidelines exist that help financial
institutions consider their suitability for funding. Zero-emission technologies are therefore
excluded from consideration here. Excluded too are technologies that may be part of the
4
 value chain of a transition technology but do not themselves reduce CO2 emissions.
Hence, while use of low-carbon fuels such as hydrogen and ammonia are within the
scope of the analysis as they have a direct impact on emissions, the transportation of
those fuels is not.
Exhibit 3: Coverage of Technology by Sectors and by Technology Types

Sector and Technology: The First Version Covers Upstream and Power
Sector Under Transition Technology (May Expand in Future Revisions)
NON EXHAUSTIVE
Included in the first version Not included in the first version
Energy sector activities Other sectors
Upstream Power
Mid-stream Downstream End-use
(fuel production) (electricity generation)

​Green/ zero ​Green hydrogen/ ammonia ​Hydro, Solar, Wind, ​Power transmission and ​Retail ​Industry
emission production Geothermal, Biomass, BECCS, distribution  EV charging  Cogeneration/CHP2
technology Nuclear, green fuel etc.  
​Biogas production Storage system  Low carbon hydrogen fuel Electrification
 Grid interconnectors, smart station ​Transport
grid Services to end users  EVs, FCVs
Fuel transport  Provision of energy  Sustainable fuels (e.g.,
 Pipeline efficiency services to end biofuels)
 Low carbon fuel shipping users (e.g. ESCO1)
 Hybrid
​Transition ​Fugitive emissions reduction ​CCGT (for coal avoidance or and storage
Buildings
technology (LDAR) higher efficiency conversion)  LNG terminals to promote
electrification or fuel
 Smart metering
​Process electrification ​W aste to energy power plant
switching  Insulation
​Blue ammonia/hydrogen ​Biomass or low-carbon fuels  Heat pumps
production (ammonia, hydrogen) co-firing
Agriculture
​CCUS in gas production ​CCUS in coal/gas power plant  Electrification of machines

​Brown ​Coal mining ​Unabated coal-fired3 ​Note that the distinction between green/zero emission
technology and transition technology becomes blur after mid-stream
​Oil extraction ​Unabated oil-fired (incl. diesel)

1. Energy Service Company

2. In majority of cases of cogeneration/CHP, heat generated during electricity generation is transferred to neighboring manufactures or building, saving their heat consumption. Therefore, the
emission reductions occur in industry or building sector and thus is categorized in industry.
3. Given that the Glasgow climate pact stipulated the phase-down of unabated coal power, this document assumes any type of coal fired plants without co-firing or CCUS falls under unabated,
regardless of its efficiency (subcritical, super critical, ultra supercritical, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) etc.)

Source: ERIA.

Ten major technologies meet these criteria, though they may differ by their emission intensity
and hence their suitability for deployment at different stages of the decarbonisation trajectory.
They can be split into the following groups:
• Early decarbonisation transition technologies have lower emission intensity than a
legacy technology but still emit greenhouse gases (GHGs). They can be deployed in the
early phases of a country’s transition pathway and may be retired before reaching net-
zero emissions.
• Partial emissions reduction transition technologies have lower emission intensity than
early decarbonisation ones but still emit GHGs. They can be deployed in the early and
middle phases of a country’s transition pathway.
• Deep decarbonisation transition technologies have near-zero emissions or are likely to
have zero emissions in the near future and are essential for achieving net-zero
emissions. They can be deployed throughout a country’s transition pathway.

The elements assessed

Guidance is given on how to assess each technology’s suitability for transition technology with
reference to six elements of a just and orderly transition to net-zero emissions. Three pertain to
the technology (the technology characteristics) and three to an additional, broader set of
considerations.

5
Technology characteristics
The following characteristics of a technology determine the extent to which it contributes to a just
transition to net-zero emissions.
• Emissions impact. This relates to the sustainability element of a just transition,
measuring the extent to which the technology directly reduces emissions and so
contributes to the decarbonisation of a project, company, and country.
• Reliability. This relates to the need to safeguard energy supplies, assessing the maturity
of a technology. One that is commercially available at scale is likely to be more reliable
than one still being piloted, for example.
• Cost. The cost of the technology will influence the affordability of the transition, be that
the cost of abatement for upstream technologies or the lifetime cost of energy for power
sector technologies.
Additional considerations
Three additional considerations will help financial institutions determine whether a technology is
suitable for transitional technology.
• Lock-in prevention considerations. Will the technology enable a transition to net-zero
emissions within a Paris Agreement-aligned timeframe, or are other plans in place to
avoid becoming locked in with non-compliant assets?
• Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) considerations. Will the technology negatively impact
other environmental objectives, such as a healthy ecosystem, biodiversity, resource
resilience and a circular economy? And what preventative measures could be
implemented?
• Social considerations. Will the technology negatively impact society by, for example,
reducing job opportunities?
Various data sources are used to guide the assessment of the six elements. The emissions
impact of a technology is estimated using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
report, analysis by The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ, hereafter), and a literature
search of relevant case studies. Affordability is based on IEEJ analysis, reports by the Danish
Energy Agency and the International Renewable Energy Agency, and relevant case studies.
Reliability is gauged using the IEA’s Technology Readiness levels.
The three additional considerations – lock-in prevention, DNSH, and social considerations – draw
on literature searches.

Ten potential transition technologies: the analysis

Exhibit 4 shows the ten technologies considered in this document (the first version). In the
second part of this report, we describe each technology and detail the considerations required to
assess its suitability for transition technology.

6
Exhibit 4: The Ten Technologies Considered
​Sector
The first version of
​Technology tier ​Power (Electricity generation) ​Upstream (Fuel production)
the document
prioritises
​Early 1 ​CCGT1 (coal avoidance, higher 6 ​Leak detection and repair (LDAR)
technologies decarbonisation efficiency conversion) for fugitive emissions reduction
based on 2 ​Waste to energy power plant
 Direct and sizable
impact on ​Partial 3 ​Biomass co-firing 7 ​Process electrification in gas
emissions emissions production and processing
reduction reduction 4 ​Low-carbon ammonia co-firing
 Neither zero 5 ​Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing
emissions/green,
nor brown ​Deep 8 ​CCUS2 in coal/gas power plant 9 ​Blue hydrogen and blue ammonia
 Involving sizable decarbonisation production
deployment scale
or investments 10 ​CCUS in gas processing

1. CCGT = Combined cycle gas turbine

2. Carbon capture, utilisation, and storage

Source: ERIA.

The Way Forward

Transition technologies will be essential to both promote and accelerate the decarbonisation of
Asia’s economies, but many financiers still hesitate to fund them in the absence of clear
guidance on what constitutes a transition technology. This report will, we hope, play an important
role in unlocking that funding. It will help financiers and other stakeholders understand certain
potential transition technologies, and it provides for the first time a clear framework to guide their
assessment of a technology’s suitability for transition finance. Importantly, that assessment
includes not only the technology’s ability to reduce CO2 emissions but the extent to which it will
contribute to a just and orderly transition to net-zero emissions in Asia.
We hope you find it useful, and we look forward to expanding our work soon to cover additional
sectors and technologies.

7
Technology List and Perspectives
for Transition Finance in Asia
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)

Version 1 (September, 2022)

Introduction
Details of Potential Transition Technologies

Appendix

2
Introduction

The scope of this document (the 1st version)

How the technologies are assessed

Details of Potential Transition Technologies

Appendix

3
Background and objectives

Background Objectives
 Decarbonisation is an urgent need. Transition  This document functions as an interim reference
technologies supplement green ones and play a until governments in Asian countries establish
critical role in achieving a just and orderly energy their technology roadmaps or taxonomies.
transition
 This document provides simplified views on
 Whilst the importance of transition technologies is major transition technologies. Readers are
widely recognised, industry stakeholders face a series encouraged to use this as an entry point to gain
of hurdles when assessing how to move forward with an overview of transition technologies
potential transition projects:
 Financial and industry stakeholders can use this
‒ Most Asian countries have not developed a as a reference when assessing whether a
decarbonisation pathway or supporting references technology meets the important elements of just
to define 'transition technologies' and orderly transition and is suitable for
‒ Evaluating transition technologies is intrinsically transition finance
complex, hinging on the differential emissions
 This is meant to be a living document, to be
impact over time and in the local context
updated and expanded as context and
 To facilitate a just and orderly transition in Asia, ERIA technologies evolve
sees the importance of developing an assessment
framework for transition technologies in Asia

4
The document aims to provide a framework for assessing transition
technology suitability, rather than a rigid classification

The document The document

 Provides a framework for assessing a potential  Does not provide absolute criteria for what
transition technology constitutes a transition technology.
 Provides relevant, practical information on  Is not restricted to offering a set of principles; it
various potential transition technologies in a fact- provides example information on individual
based manner technologies
 Focuses upon major potential transition  Is not an exhaustive list of potential transition
technologies, initially in a limited number of technologies in Asia
sectors. (Other sectors will be addressed in
future updates.)

5
How to use: this document can be used by different stakeholders
under multiple scenarios
ILLUSTRATIVE NON-EXHAUSTIVE

Example scenarios where the document can be

used are… The document can be used to …
What technologies should be  Identify potential transition technologies to finance
considered for financing  Understand the nature of a transition technology, including
arrangements? environmental impact and other considerations, such as
Financial
institutions lock-in preventions

What business opportunities could  Learn what could be considered transition technologies for
arise during decarbonisation? the sake of business discussion
Corporations What levers are out there to  Plan potential projects or better understand consideration
decarbonise their operations? points for execution

What technologies could be relevant  Understand the technology landscape in Asia quickly and
to achieving just and orderly use it as a reference to build technology roadmaps,
transition? taxonomies, and decarbonisation policies
Policymakers

6
Introduction

The scope of this document (the 1st version)

How the technologies are assessed

Details of Potential Transition Technologies

Appendix

7
Transition technologies play a critical role in achieving decarbonisation
in Asian countries
Transition technologies complement green ones for successful
Major challenges in Asia decarbonisation – ASEAN power example
 Diverse starting points for Power generation CO2 emissions in
decarbonisation (e.g. several ASEAN1
countries are dependent on MtCO2 Increased demand due to economic
coal) development and electrification
1,200
BAU
1,100
 Varying natural resource 1,000 Transition Transition technologies
endowments for renewable 900 technology play an important role in
energy 800 ensuring a just and
700 orderly transition.
 Difference in economic 600 However, transition
growth stages 500
Green technologies have not
400
technology been properly funded,
300 partially due to lack of
200 SDS scenario1 recognition, frameworks,
100 and references
0
2020 25 30 35 40 45 2050

Renewable energies Hydrogen and ammonia

CCUS Decrease in emissions intensity of fossil
fuel thermal power generation

1. IEA Sustainable Development Scenario.

Note: BAU, business as usual. RE, renewable energy. CCUS, carbon capture, utilisation, and storage.

Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2021, Asia Transition Finance Guidelines 8
The first version focuses on transition technologies with direct impact
on the highest emissions sectors
Applicable sectors Features of technology

In this first edition, the document covers The document covers technologies that:
technologies applicable to the power  Have direct impact to carbon emissions
(electricity generation) and its upstream reduction
(fuel production), which together accounts for  Are not green/zero emissions technology
more than 50% of CO2 emissions in Asia1 (those with zero carbon emissions through
operation)

• This is the first version of the Assessment Perspectives for Transition Technologies in Asia. Though
the scope of this document is limited as above, it may expand in future revisions
• This document is not an exhaustive list of potential transition technologies. Lack of inclusion in this
document does not disqualify technologies from being considered as transition technologies
1. Detail on the next page

Source: IEA 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy' (Aug, 2022) 9

Sector coverage initially focuses on power generation and related
upstream fuels productions, but may be extended in future versions

Guiding principles Energy sector is responsible for the largest share of CO2 emissions
 This first version CO2 emissions by sector1 Annual investment by sub-sector in energy industry
focus on sectors MtCO2; 1990-2019 in Asia Pacific USD Billion; average of 2018-2020, global
that 18,000
511
‒ have large
461
emissions
footprints
‒ attract large Power
investments generation2 271
249 239
 Future versions are 10,000
expected to expand
Upstream3
and are not
restricted to the Industry
sectors identified 31
here.
Transport Upstream Power Electricity Mid/down Efficiency Renewable
oil, gas, generation Network stream fuels
0 and coal
1990 95 2000 05 10 15 2019 production

1. IEA data excludes non-fuel emissions, such as land-use change and forestry
2. Include the following; emissions from electricity production, combined heat and power plants and heat plants.
3. Include the following: emissions from fuel combusted in oil refineries, for the manufacture of solid fuels, coal mining, oil and gas extraction and other energy producing industries

Source: IEA 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy' (Aug, 2022) and IEA 'World Energy Investment 2020' 10
Technology: this document covers transition technologies, in contrast to
intrinsically 'green' and 'brown'
POWER SECTOR EXAMPLE - ILLUSTRATIVE

Classification of technologies/solutions relative to fulfilling decarbonisation goals Focus of this document (the first version)

Green technologies  Renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass, small hydro, geothermal…)
 Battery storage & other storage solutions
Zero or near-zero  Grid interconnections, grid flexibility Focus of green finance
emissions  BECCS1 taxonomies
 Direct air carbon capture
 Large hydro and nuclear (subject to DNSH2 considerations)

Transition  Coal avoidance by early retirement and/or gas power generation

technologies  Inefficient plant phase out or upgrade (e.g. OCGT3 to CCGT4)
 Co-firing of low-carbon fuels
Significantly lower  Venting and fugitive emissions reduction by leak detection and repair Focus of this document
emissions  Process electrification in gas production and processing
 Low-carbon fuels production (ammonia, hydrogen)
 CCUS5

Brown technologies  Unabated coal-fired power generation6 Progressively restricted from

 Unabated oil (including diesel)-fired power generation financing

The first version covers technologies that have direct impact on emissions reduction and does not cover enabling technologies, such as
energy storage and grid extension
1. Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage 5. Carbon capture, utilisation, and storage
2. Do no significant harm 6. Given that the Glasgow climate pact stipulated the phase-down of unabated coal power, this document assumes any type of coal fired plants without co-firing or CCUS
3. Open-cycle gas turbine falls under unabated, regardless of its efficiency (subcritical, super critical, ultra supercritical, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) etc.)
4. Combined-cycle gas turbine

11
Sector and technology: the first version covers upstream and power
sector under transition technology (may expand in future revisions)
NON EXHAUSTIVE
Included in the first version Not included in the first version
Energy sector activities Other sectors
Upstream Power
Mid-stream Downstream End-use
(fuel production) (electricity generation)

Green/ zero Green hydrogen/ ammonia Hydro, Solar, Wind, Power transmission and Retail Industry
emissions production Geothermal, Biomass, BECCS, distribution  EV charging  Cogeneration/CHP2
technology Nuclear, green fuel etc.  Storage system  Electrification
Biogas production  Low-carbon hydrogen fuel
 Grid interconnectors, smart station Transport
grid Services to end users  EVs, FCVs
Fuel transport  Provision of energy  Sustainable fuels (biofuels),
 Pipeline efficiency services to end e.g.
 Low-carbon fuel shipping users (e.g. ESCO1)  Hybrid
Transition Fugitive emissions reduction CCGT (for coal avoidance or and storage Buildings
technology (LDAR) higher efficiency conversion)  LNG terminals to promote  Smart metering
Process electrification Waste to energy power plant electrification or fuel  Insulation
switching
Blue ammonia/hydrogen Biomass or low-carbon fuels  Heat pumps
production (ammonia, hydrogen) co-firing Agriculture
CCUS in gas production CCUS in coal/gas power plant  Electrification of machines

Brown Note that the distinction between green/zero emissions and

Coal mining Unabated coal-fired3 transition technology becomes blur after mid-stream
technology
Oil extraction Unabated oil-fired (incl. diesel)

 This is the first version. Though the scope of this document is limited as above, it may expand in future revisions
 This document is not an exhaustive list of potential transition technologies. Lack of inclusion in this document does not disqualify technologies from being considered as transition technologies

1. Energy service company

2. In majority of cases of cogeneration/CHP, heat generated during electricity generation is transferred to neighboring manufactures or building, saving their heat consumption. Therefore, the emissions reductions occur in industry or building
sector and thus is categorised in industry.
3. Given that the Glasgow climate pact stipulated the phase-down of unabated coal power, this document assumes any type of coal fired plants without co-firing or CCUS falls under unabated, regardless of its efficiency (subcritical, super critical,
ultra supercritical, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) etc.)
12
Technology tiering: transition technologies can be classified in 3 tiers
based on decarbonisation level and deployment timeline
POWER SECTOR EXAMPLE - ILLUSTRATIVE

Sample transition solutions/

Three tiers of transition technologies and their definitions technologies in power sector

Emissions
 Coal avoidance:
intensity Early decarbonisation
‒ Early retirement of legacy assets
Transition technologies that have lower emissions intensity than a legacy
technology, but still emits GHGs. Can be deployed in the early phases of a ‒ Coal to gas substitution
country’s transition pathway and may be retired or shifted to partial emissions  Inefficient plants phase out/upgrade (e.g. OCGT
reduction or deep decarbonisation technologies before reaching carbon neutral. to CCGT)

 Co-firing of biomass or low-carbon fuels

Partial emissions reduction ‒ Biomass or low-carbon fuel (ammonia or
Transition technologies that have even lower emissions intensity than an early hydrogen)
decarbonisation technology, but still emits GHGs. Can be deployed in early to mid ‒ Venting and fugitive emissions reduction
phase of a country’s transition pathway.  Process electrification in gas production and
processing

Deep decarbonisation  CCUS

Transition technologies that have near-zero emissions or are likely to have zero  Green/blue low-carbon hydrogen or low-carbon
emissions in near future, and thus are essential for achieving decarbonisation. Can ammonia full fuel shift
be deployed in mid-to-late phase of a country’s transition pathway.

Year
13
First version scope: 10 covered technologies
Transition technology scope for the first edition
Covered in 'Power' section in this document
Sector Covered in 'Upstream' section Covered in 'CCUS' section

The first version of

Technology tier Power (Electricity generation) Upstream (Fuel production)
the document
prioritises
Early 1 CCGT (coal avoidance, higher 6 Leak detection and repair (LDAR)
technologies decarbonisation efficiency conversion) for fugitive emissions reduction
based on 2 Waste to energy power plant
 Direct and sizable
impact on Partial 3 Biomass co-firing 7 Process electrification in gas
emissions emissions production and processing
reduction reduction 4 Low-carbon ammonia co-firing
 Neither zero 5 Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing
emissions/green,
nor brown Deep 8 CCUS in coal/gas power plant 9 Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
 Involving sizable decarbonisation production
deployment scale
or investments 10 CCUS in gas processing

 This is the first version of the Assessment Perspectives for Transition Technologies in Asia. Though the scope
of this document is limited as above, it may expand in future revisions
 This document is not an exhaustive list of potential transition technologies. Lack of inclusion in this document
does not disqualify technologies from being considered as transition technologies
14
Introduction

The scope of this document (the 1st version)

How the technologies are assessed

Details of Potential Transition Technologies

Appendix

15
Transition technologies are assessed on 6 framework dimensions to
address important factors for a just and orderly transition Deep dive

Important factors for a just and orderly transition 6 key framework dimensions

Challenges Emissions impact

 Not only promote
1 Sustainability climate sustainability Lock-in prevention
but also ensure the 1
considerations
reliability of energy
supplies and their
affordability for DNSH1 considerations
governments and their
3 2 citizens, maintaining
Reliability Affordability social stability 2 Affordability
4 Social stability  Striking a subtle
balance amongst
sustainability, reliability
3 Reliability/maturity
and affordability to
maintain social stability
4 Social considerations

1. Do no significant harm

Source: Asia Transition Finance Guidelines 16

Assessments along the 6 framework dimensions leverages specific
questions and data sources
ILLUSTRATIVE

Framework dimensions Description Reference

Technology Emissions GHG emissions intensity and/or reduction impact IPCCs, IEEJ
characteristics impact required to contribute to decarbonisation of a country
or company
Affordability Estimated cost for technology IEA, IEEJ, DEA, IRENA
etc.

Reliability/ Readiness for technology (e.g. commercial at scale, Technology Readiness

maturity pilot, etc.). Level1 by IEA (deep-dive
page to follow)

Additional Lock-in Eventual emissions reduction plan to reach zero or EU Taxonomy and ASEAN
considerations prevention near-zero emissions. Taxonomy for Sustainable
considerations Finance2
DNSH 'Do No Significant Harm' to environmental objectives
considerations other than GHG emissions.

Social Mitigate the negative effects of transition activities to

considerations the society, e.g. unemployment

1. IEA, ETP Clean Energy Technology Guide

2. All the environmental objectives in EU taxonomy are covered in the 6 framework dimensions. All environmental objectives and essential criteria in ASEAN
Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance are similarly covered in the 6 framework dimensions.

17
【Reference】Reliability dimension is assessed with the Technology
Readiness Levels1 (TRL, hereafter) published by IEA
Level Description
Mature 11 Proof of stability reached – Predictable growth

Market uptake 10 Integration required at scale – Solution is commercial and competitive, but requires further integration
efforts

9 Commercial operation in relevant environment – Solution is commercially available. requires

evolutionary improvement to stay competitive

Demonstration 8 First of a kind commercial – Commercial demonstration. Full- scale deployment in final conditions

7 Pre-commercial demonstration – Prototype working in expected conditions

Large prototype 6 Full prototype at scale – Prototype proven at scale in conditions where it will be deployed

5 Large prototype – Components proven in conditions where it will be deployed

Small prototype 4 Early prototype – Prototype proven in test conditions

or lab
3 Concept requires validation – Solution must be prototyped and applied

2 Application formulated – Concept and application have been formulated

1 Initial idea – basic principles have been derived

1. IEA, ETP Clean Energy Technology Guide

18
【Reference】Framework for DNSH and Social considerations

Framework
dimensions Considerations/Key questions Reference
DNSH Protecting  Would the technology be detrimental to the health and EU Taxonomy and ASEAN
conside- healthy resilience of ecosystems and biodiversity? What Taxonomy for Sustainable
rations ecosystems and preventative measures should be implemented? Finance
biodiversity  Beside GHG, would the technology lead to a significant
increase in the emissions of pollutants into the air, water,
or land? What preventative measures should be
implemented?

Promotion of  Would the technology run on sustainably-sourced raw

transition to materials?
circular economy  Would the technology increase the generation,
incineration, or disposal of waste? What measures
should be taken to avoid or minimise waste?

Social Are there plans  Would the technology lead to negative changes in job
conside- to mitigate the opportunities?
rations negative social
impacts of the  Would the technology lead to negative changes in
technology? working environments?

Source: EU Taxonomy, ASEAN Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance 19

Introduction

Details of Potential Transition Technologies

Power

Upstream

CCUS
Appendix

21
5 major potential
Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)
transition
technologies in the
power (electricity Waste to energy (WtE) power plant
generation) sector are
featured
Biomass co-firing

Low-carbon ammonia co-firing

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing

22
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) – Technology schematics and overview

Exhaust Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)

Power Steam turbine power plants utilise two thermodynamic
cycles:
 Gas turbine
 Steam turbine (utilising exhaust heat
Generator of gas through a heat recovery steam
generator)
Condenser
A CCGT power plant can achieve higher
Steam thermal efficiency of about 60% when
Air inlet Cooling air compared to about 40% for open cycle
Gas turbine gas turbines (OCGT) and coal power
plants
Generator
Hot Generating capacity can vary from
exhaust around 300 to over 1,000 MW per plant,
Water depending on configuration and number
Power
Heat recovery steam generator (boiler) Stack of units

Gas pipeline Plant availability is typically over 80%

as per international benchmarks, with a
technical life of over 25 years

Source: Literature search 23

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) – Transition suitability assessment overview

Framework
dimensions Description
Emissions  Lowest emissions factor amongst fossil fuel thermal power generation1 (0.35-0.5 tCO2/MWh), below average emissions factor
impact in most ASEAN countries
 Comparative emissions reduction if displacing OCGT plants and legacy/upcoming coal plants
 Load flexibility characteristics can support intermittent renewable generation uptake
Affordability  LCOE2 dependent on load factor and gas price; historical range of 60-120 USD/MWh1 estimated for ASEAN, competitive at least
for mid-merit use within most power systems
 Higher incidence of variable fuel costs vs. upfront CAPEX in LCOE. Actual economics are sensitive to fuel price fluctuations
Reliability  Commercialised technology with 55-60% thermal efficiency, availability typically over 80%, technical life over 25 years
 Installed at scale (total capacity of 1,822 GW globally in 2020)
Lock-in  Long term Paris-alignment requires one of the following pathways: transition to co-firing/full-firing with low-carbon fuels,
prevention retrofitting with CCUS, retirement or shift to peaking/reserve use within largely decarbonised power systems
considerations  Inflexible long-term gas/power procurement contracts may hinder transition
DNSH  Methane emissions from purchased gas must be monitored and addressed to limit indirect GHG emissions
considerations  Environmental assessment on ecosystems required - especially for released waste-water from cooling, and pipeline or LNG
jetty/regas infrastructure
 Residual heat or cold energy could be productively deployed, depending on specific plant location
Social  HSE3 practices to be verified, e.g. HSE policies in line with local regulation and industry standards, HSE track record of operating
considerations entity in other plants (if available)

1. Historical estimate assuming 40-60% load factor and a range of local ASEAN gas input prices – future values highly sensitive to inputs and variable by country
2. Levelised cost of electricity
3. Health, safety, and environment

24
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Emissions impact – CCGT emissions intensity range is generally below grid

average for ASEAN countries
IPCC data range (Global) IPCC median data (Global) IEEJ data (ASEAN) ASEAN emissions range5

Estimated power generation emissions1, tCO2/MWh

Coal Coal
Low-carbon ammonia co-firing (20%) 2

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 2,3

Biomass co-firing (20%) 2

Biomass firing (100%) 2

Coal with CCUS

Gas Gas OCGT4

Gas CCGT

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 2

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing (20%) 2

Low-carbon hydrogen firing (100%) 2

Gas with CCUS

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1. Direct emissions for power generation only; other lifecycle emissions not included; IPCC data for 2018; IEEJ data for 2017
2. Emissions for co-firing/firing of biomass or low-carbon fuels are estimated based on the co-firing/firing ratios and the base emissions in respective Coal or Gac CCGT
3. The range for 100% ammonia firing in a steam turbine is shown as it could be technologically possible even though it may not be economically viable
4. Emissions for OCGT are estimated based on CCGT emissions and the efficiency of OCGT over CCGT
5. The range of the emissions intensities of ten ASEAN member states (see the ‘country-specific power generation emissions’ section in the appendix )

Source: IEEJ, IPCC Annex III Technology-specific cost and performance parameters (2018) 25
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Affordability – LCOE is highly sensitive to input gas prices, but is competitive at

least for mid-merit use within most power systems
Estimated range of LCOE in 2020 Estimated range of LCOE in 2030

Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) per technology1 in ASEAN countries2, USD/MWh;

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Coal Coal 3,4

Low-carbon ammonia co-firing (20%) 4,5

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 4,5,6

Biomass co-firing (20%) 7

Biomass firing (100%) 7

Coal with CCUS 3,4

Gas Gas OCGT n/a

Gas CCGT 4

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 4,5

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing (20%) 4,5

Low-carbon hydrogen firing (100%) 4,5

Gas with CCUS 4

1. Direct emissions from power generation only; other lifecycle emissions not included
2. Data in Indonesia is used as representative
3. LCOE range for subcritical and supercritical coal fired power plants are shown here
4. LCOE is calculated based on technology data from the DEA using uncertainty range for investment and O&M costs. Coal and gas fuel costs are based on historical range in 2017-2021 from World Bank and Enerdata (coal as 60~140 USD/Mt,
gas as 6~11 USD/mmbtu), low-carbon ammonia cost is based on IEA’s estimates as of 2018 (240~790 USD/t) and as of 2030 (240~450 USD/t). Hydrogen costs are based on IEEJ and Hydrogen Council’s estimates as of 2020 (4~11 USD/kg)
and as of 2030 (2~7 USD/kg). Assumptions on other parameters include technical lifetime (coal: 30 years, gas: 25 years), discount rate (8%), capacity factor (coal: 60%, gas: 40~60%), and thermal efficiency (coal: 41%, gas: 56%). Please note
that LCOE is highly dependent on fuel cost, and LCOEs shown here are based on fuel costs as written above and do not reflect the current LCOEs. In particular, LCOE here does not reflect recent gas and coal price surge after Ukraine incidents.
5. Additional costs for ammonia/hydrogen co-firing and firing are based on incremental costs by fuel mix and additional CAPEX is not considered.
6. The range for 100% ammonia firing in a steam turbine is shown as it could be technologically possible even though it may not be economically viable
7. Data from IRENA report, LCOEs for biomass co-firing during 2010-2021. The 5th and 95th percentile amongst reported power plants are indicated.

Source: IEEJ, DEA Technology data for the Indonesian power sector (2021), IRENA Renewable Power Generation Costs (2021), World Bank Commodity Prices (2022), Enerdata Global Energy & CO2 Database - POLES-Enerdata model - 26
EnerFuture scenarios (2021), Hydrogen Council Hydrogen Insights Report (2021), and IEA The Future of Hydrogen (2019)
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Reliability – CCGT technology has been commercialised for decades, with sizeable
installed base globally and in Asia

Estimated
commercialisation status Recent project examples
 Commercialised Details
technology with
55-60% thermal efficiency, CCGT power plant at  In 2021, SMC Global Power began construction of a power plant
availability typically over Batangas by SMC with 4 CCGT units at a total 1,313 MW capacity in Batangas, which
80%, technical life over 25 Global Power is expected to be completed by 2024.
years  Electricity generated from this power plant will be supplied to Meralco
 Installed at scale (total based on a long-term electricity supply contract. This contract is
capacity of 1,822 GW notable in that it is the first-time a gas-fired power plant has
globally in 2020) replaced coal to be awarded greenfield baseload capacity in the
Philippines

Son My 1 CCGT power  In 2018, Electricité de France (EDF) has signed MoU on the
plant at Binh Thuan development of Son My 1 powerplant with 3 CCGT units with total
by EDF 2,250 MW capacity at Binh Thuan by 2028.
 The Son My 1 power plant was initially planned as coal-fired power
plant, but switched to gas-fired power plant to align with the
national Power Development Plan (PDP VIII) of Viet Nam, which
indicates a shift to gas and renewables from coal to lower carbon
emissions

Source: IEA, literature search 27

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Lock-in prevention – Three possible long-term decarbonisation pathways, with

inflexible gas/power contracts a possible risk
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
Lock-in What are the paths for the  Three paths exist for CCGT to be zero or near-zero emissions;
prevention technology to be zero or near- ‒ Path 1: Co-firing/firing of low-carbon fuels to achieve progressively lower GHG emissions
considerations zero emissions? intensity
‒ Path 2: Retrofitting with CCUS
‒ Path 3: Retiring or switching to peaking use / ancillary services provision (reserve)
 Transition-suitable newbuild CCGT plants should articulate an envisioned pathway as part of
their proponents’ strategy, or relevant countries’ long term power plans

What (lock-ins) may hinder the  Path 1: Co-firing/firing with low-carbon fuels, such as ammonia and hydrogen
above paths to zero or near- ‒ To be discussed in detail in 'Low-carbon ammonia co-firing' and 'Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing'
zero emissions? sections.
Considerations include ‒ Current high costs of low-carbon ammonia/hydrogen. Technological maturity is in early
 Financially viability commercialisation or pilot phases.
 Technological maturity  Path 2: Retrofitting with CCUS
 Sourcing and contracting ‒ To be discussed in detail in 'CCUS in coal/gas fired power plant' section
‒ Abatement cost estimated at 90-160 USD/tCO2 as of 2017. Technologically in an early
commercialisation phase (TRL 8-9), with concerns on transport and long-term storage of CO2.
 Path 3: Retiring or switching to peaking use / ancillary services provision (reserve)
‒ Long-term gas procurement contracts may hinder retirement or reduced usage of CCGTs, especially
if Take-or-Play clauses with high thresholds are present
‒ Power purchase agreements (PPAs) with very long tenures and minimum utilisation commitments
may also hinder retiring or reduced usage of CCGT

Source: Literature search, Global CCS Institute Global cost of carbon capture and storage 2017 Update. 28
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

DNSH/social considerations – Methane emissions in the gas value chain and

waste heat discharge can be the main environmental concerns
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
DNSH Protection of healthy  Waste heat running into river/sea from a gas power plant may cause negative impacts on local
considerations ecosystems and ecosystems. Temperature monitoring and control of wastewater should be in place
biodiversity  Environmental viability assessment (or equivalents) should be conducted for major new infrastructure
installations associated with the CCGT plant – including LNG regas terminal/jetties or gas pipelines
 Non-GHG pollutants in exhaust gas streams should be monitored and mitigated (e.g. through filtering or
leakage prevention systems)

Transition to circular  Gas should be sourced from suppliers who measure, disclose, minimise, and potentially offset GHG
economy emissions along the value chain - including methane
 Assessments should be conducted on whether residual heat from the CCGT plant or cold energy from
the regas terminal (when present) could be used for heating/cooling, eliminating additional dedicated
energy needs

Social Plans to mitigate the  Positive employment impact expected from new CCGT plants across the construction and operation
considerations negative social impact phases (engineering, fuel procurement, plant operation and maintenance)
of the technology  HSE practices to be verified, e.g. HSE policies in line with local regulation and industry standards, HSE
track record of operating entity in other plants (if available)

29
Source: Literature search
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

4 types of waste-to-energy power generation

Waste-to-Energy technologies for power generation
Focused in this document

Waste treatment Technology Feedstock Details

Incineration Direct  Waste is burned in a controlled process to produce high-pressure steam to rotate
combustion turbines that electricity. Steam can be also used in district heating and cooling
(incineration)  Plant is typically designed to treat mixed and largely untreated domestic waste
MSW 1, RDF2,
 Three types of combustion technologies can be applied: grate system, fluidised bed,
agricultural
and rotary kiln
residues, energy
crops, wood
Thermochemical residues  Syngas is converted from carbon in organic waste and burned to produce heat
gasification energy
 Producing gas from waste consists of four zones inside a gasifier: drying, pyrolysis,
combustion, and reduction

Anaerobic Agricultural waste,  Biogas is produced in a chamber by decomposing organic waste

digestion industrial waste,  Gas turbines are used to generate electricity using biogas
energy crops, food  Biogas can be upgraded to bio-methane with higher methane content of up to 98% to
waste substitute natural gas

Landfill Landfill gas MSW, RDF,  Plant consists of extraction system and flaring system, of which landfill gas
capture agricultural resides, consists of 35-55% methane generated by anaerobic digestion of organic matter
energy crops, wood  The plant extract gas from landfills using vertical/horizontal perforated pipes and
residues ditches

1. Municipal solid waste

2. Refuse-derived fuel

Source: ADB Waste to energy in the age of the circular economy (Nov. 2020) 30
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Waste-to-energy power generation (direct combustion) – Technology schematics

and overview
Exhaust Waste-to-Energy (WtE) generation
utilises waste as feedstock to generate
thermal for generation
Power
Steam turbine
 MSW2 is used amongst other forms
of waste, including agricultural/wood
residues and RDF3
 Emissions impact depends on
Generator Steam waste components: biogenic (plant-
based) vs non-biogenic (e.g. plastic)
Cooling Flue gas Energy efficiency is lower than fossil
treatment fuel generation (up to 30%)
Combustion Transition plans must be aligned with
chamber waste management, including
increased recycling and additional
Waste
Preparation and emissions reduction by e.g. CCUS
APC1
material Boiler residue
processing

Bottom ash

1. Air Pollution Control

2. Municipal Solid Waste
3. Refuse Derived Fuel

Source: Literature search, EIA, ADB Waste to energy in the age of the circular economy (Nov. 2020) 31
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

[Reference] Waste management principles must be reviewed before WtE to be

considered as a transition technology
Measures of waste management
Most Target of waste-to-energy WtE can become
preferred Prevention transitional technologies
but one should consider the
following waste
The 3Rs1 must be prioritised
Reduction management principles
before considering energy
recovery  Prioritise recycling and
composting
Reuse  Use incineration with
Recovery through thermal
(e.g. direct combustion), WtE to reduce disposal
thermochemical (e.g. amounts, especially in
Recycle/compost gasification) and biochemical urban area
conversion (e.g. anaerobic
digestion) is available
 Add landfill gas
Energy recovery if available
recovery
Landfills are a common
Dispo- practice, varying from open
sal dumping to sanitary landfills.
Some countries still rely on
Least open burning and disposal on
preferred the street etc.
1. Reduce, reuse, recycle

Source: UNEP Guidelines for national waste management strategies (2013) 32

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Waste-to-energy power generation – Transition suitability assessment overview

Framework
dimensions Description
Emissions  Must be carefully assessed and consider GHG emissions by waste combustion, emissions reduction by substituting landfill or
impact untreated waste, and grid emissions intensity.
 All the above factors vary by situation. Careful, recurring assessments are required to judge if the WtE power plant qualifies as a
transition technology
 Components of waste and its separation must be monitored to minimise waste combustion emissions

Affordability  LCOE range is (50 - 250 USD/MWh) and is dependent on factors such as feedstock costs (incl. sorting costs), capacity, and
efficiency

Reliability  Conventional technologies (MSW 1 direct combustion, landfill gas recovery, and anaerobic digestion) are at commercial scale
 Thermochemical gasification is at early commercialisation stage. CCUS requires further R&D to capture small-scale emissions
source
Lock-in  Must have plan of reduced usage in line with the societal shift towards circular economy
prevention  Transition plans must consider the increased rates of waste biogenic components in combination with gasification
technologies and CCUS
considerations

DNSH  3Rs and composting should be prioritised as a waste management method

considerations  Air pollution beyond GHG (particulate matter, heavy metal, dioxin) must be properly addressed
 Use incineration with WtE to reduce disposal amounts, especially in urban areas
 Add landfill gas recovery if available

Social  HSE risks, especially waste treatment and air pollution, must be properly addressed based on HSE policy across value-chain
considerations  Waste collection/treatment may stimulate local employment in entire waste value-chain and improve public health in local
community

1. Municipal solid waste

33
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Emissions impact – Three emissions changes have to be considered when

assessing emissions impacts of waste management and power generation
Increase in emissions Reduction in emissions

GHG emissions impact of direct combustion WtE compared to the landfill in the Kwinana project
Considerations (landfill disposal = 100); %
130
WtE could have both positive and 2 2
120 1
negative impacts. The net effect
must be carefully assessed 110 21
Number may change
Specific considerations include: 100 significantly, depending on
 Potential positive impacts: 90 72 energy mix in electricity grid
emissions reduction from 80 Numbers may change
baseline (e.g. methane 70 significantly, depending on
emissions in landfill) waste components and how
60
 Potential negative impacts:
50 100 they are managed 3
waste combustion emissions
40
 Grid emissions intensity
30
The circular economy must be 51
20 58
assessed so as not to hinder the
3Rs. You will find this consideration 10
point under DNSH 0
-7
-10
Landfill GHG Quicklime for Waste Boiler ash Avoided Avoided WtE emission Avoided WtE
emission emissions waste water collection and APC methane waste electricity emissions
from waste treatment and transport disposal emissions transport emissions (incl.
combustion to landfill from landfill avoided grid)

Change in GHG emissions from waste by substituting landfill with WtE Additional change in Net emissions
GHG emissions from change by
power generation shifting from
landfill to WtE

Source: ARENA Kwinana waste to energy project (2018), Frontier economics Assessing emissions from waste to energy (2021) 34
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Affordability – Direct combustion WtE is more often installed for waste

management purposes, as power generation costs tend to be higher vs. fossil fuel
thermal plants

 WtE LCOE tends to be higher than fossil fuel thermal power plants LCOE range1
USD/MWh; 2000-22, globally
‒ Waste to energy power plants are often constructed to solve waste 300
management issues rather than on electricity price competitiveness.
‒ Municipal waste is not a suitable fuel. It generally has low energy 250
content, high moisture, and heterogenous composition.
200

 LCOE varies significantly by installation and feedstock costs (incl.

150
sorting costs), capacity, and efficiency (e.g. matching the plant size to
the feedstock amount). Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs tend
100
to have lower impact.
50

0
WtE (Municipal waste)

1. LCOE range based on 5th percentile and 95th percentile of 48 renewable municipal waste power plant projects are shown

Source: ADB Waste to energy in the age of the circular economy (2020), IRENA Renewable Power Generation Costs (2021), US DOE Waste-to-Energy from 35
Municipal Solid Wastes (2019)
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Reliability – Technology is mature, but commercialisation depends on the supply

of waste, economics, and availability of alternative waste management systems

Estimated
commercialisation status Recent project examples
 Technologies are mature Details
 Typical generation capacity
New WtE plant in  Thailand’s Metropolitan Energy Authority has signed a MoU with
is in the range of below
Bangkok private firm Newsky Energy Thailand on co-investment arrangements
100MW
for two new waste-to-energy power plants in Bangkok
 Commercialisation of
 Each will generate 35 MW of electricity using 1,000 tons of waste
individual cases depends on
as fuel each day
the supply of waste and its
economic feasibility  Construction will start later in 2021, and the new plants are slated to
come online in the electricity grid in 2024.
 Investment cost is approximately THB 10 billion (USD 320.1 million)

WtE plant with CCU in  Saga City has MSW waste-to-energy plant of 4.5MW
Saga City  Since 2016, a Toshiba-designed CO2 capture plant has operated
at this site capturing 10 tonnes/day for use in the local agricultural
sector.
 In 2022, Saga City, Saga University, Itochu Enex, and Fuji Oil began
a demonstration project to utilise captured CO2 for enhanced
soybean cultivation

Source: Literature search 36

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Lock-in prevention considerations – Reduced usage has to be considered as the

society shifts toward circular economy
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
Lock-in What are the paths for the  Three pathways to be zero or near-zero emissions; increase biogenic (non-fossil related)
prevention technology to be zero or components from waste, CCUS, and retiring
considerations near-zero emissions? ‒ Path 1: Further CO2 reductions can be achieved by targeting biogenic components of waste
through gasification or enhanced combustion systems
‒ Path 2: Near-zero emissions can be achieved using bio-methane with gas turbines or
retrofitting CCUS
‒ Path 3: Reduce usage in line with the societal shift towards circular economy
 Waste management should prioritise recycling and compositing, and use others for WtE feedstock

What (lock-ins) may hinder  Targeting waste biogenic components

the above paths to zero or ‒ Requires gasification or mechanical biological treatment to form RDF, which has higher heat
near-zero emissions? content with appropriate waste sorting
Considerations include ‒ Requires financial support and understanding from the local government for an enhanced
 Financially viability waste treatment system
 Technological maturity  Retrofitting CCUS
 Sourcing and contracting ‒ Currently not economical. Technologically, in early commercialisation phase (TRL 8-9).
 Reducing usage
‒ Unused capacity of WtE plants should not encourage incineration over 3Rs and composting of
waste (see DNSH consideration next page).
‒ Similarly, when installing a new WtE plant, the plant size has to be properly determined to
prevent plant overcapacity.

Source: Literature search 37

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

DNSH/social considerations – Prioritisation of 3Rs and composting over WtE is

needed to promote transition to circular economy
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
DNSH Protecting healthy  Air pollution (particulates, heavy metals, dioxins) from exhaust should be mitigated by setting filters
considerations ecosystems and  Location of final disposal must be evaluated based on local regulations and environmental
biodiversity assessments

Transition to circular  WtE should not hinder below waste management principle
economy ‒ Prioritise 3Rs and composting
‒ Use incineration together with WtE to reduce amount of disposal especially in urban area
‒ Add landfill gas recovery if available

Social Plans to mitigate the  Waste collection/treatment may stimulate local employment in the entire waste value-chain
considerations negative social impact  HSE risks must be properly addressed, especially for waste treatment and air pollution impacts on
of the technology human health

Source: Literature search 38

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Biomass co-firing – Technology schematics and review

Power Steam turbine Biomass (e.g. wood, agricultural

residues, grasses) can be co-fired with
coal in a coal-fired power plant with
adjustments in the combustion chamber.
Depending on the quality of input
Generator Steam biomass and the resulting substitution
ratio, the co-firing system can produce
electricity with little to no loss in
efficiency.
Cooling The suitable co-firing ratio varies across
feedstock options:
Coal mill  Agricultural residues – modest:
Coal Pulverised coal higher ash content and problematic
ash compositions
 Wood - higher: tends to have lower
Biomass Biomass powder ash content (only higher grade and
Biomass mill more expensive wood materials are
Co-firing currently suitable for pure biomass
Burner firing)
To stack
Boiler

Source: Literature search 39

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Biomass co-firing – Transition suitability assessment overview

Framework
dimensions Description
Emissions impact  Emissions reduction directly proportional to co-firing ratio and net lifecycle emissions of the biomass source; an estimated
emissions intensity range of 0.55-0.70 tCO2/MWh with 20% co-firing and reaches zero emissions with 100% firing.

Affordability  LCOE highly subject to biomass type, which affects feedstock costs and pre-treatment costs, and proximity to the biomass
sources

Reliability  Commercialised technology, with pilots implemented on a limited scale (adopted in 228 plants worldwide) and co-firing
ratio up to 100% in several cases

Lock-in  Increasing the co-firing ratio or combining with CCUS (BECCS) required for deep decarbonisation
prevention  Further R&D required for BECCS
considerations

DNSH  Sustainably sourcing biomass so as to avoid potential deforestation

considerations  Monitoring and mitigating non-GHG air pollution (PM 2.5) from biomass combustion
 Coupling biomass co-firing/firing with forestation to promote transition to a circular economy

Social  Verifying HSE practices (e.g. Are HSE policies in line with local regulations and industry standards? What (if available) is the
considerations HSE track record of operating entity in other plants?).

40
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Emissions impact – Reduction is directly proportional to the co-firing ratio attained

with the potential to reach zero emissions with pure firing
IPCC data range (Global) IPCC median data (Global) IEEJ data (ASEAN) ASEAN emissions range5

Estimated power generation emissions1, tCO2/MWh

Coal Coal
Low-carbon ammonia co-firing (20%) 2

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 2,3

Biomass co-firing (20%) 2

Biomass firing (100%) 2

Coal with CCUS

Gas Gas OCGT4

Gas CCGT

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 2

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing (20%) 2

Low-carbon hydrogen firing (100%) 2

Gas with CCUS

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1. Direct emissions for power generation only; other lifecycle emissions not included; IPCC data for 2018; IEEJ data for 2017
2. Emissions for co-firing/firing of biomass or low-carbon fuels are estimated based on the co-firing/firing ratios and the base emissions in respective Coal or Gac CCGT
3. The range for 100% ammonia firing in a steam turbine is shown as it could be technologically possible even though it may not be economically viable
4. Emissions for OCGT are estimated based on CCGT emissions and the efficiency of OCGT over CCGT
5. The range of the emissions intensities of ten ASEAN member states (see the ‘country-specific power generation emissions’ section in the appendix )

Source: IEEJ, IPCC Annex III Technology-specific cost and performance parameters (2018) 41
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Affordability – LCOE highly sensitive to price of input biomass

Estimated range of LCOE in 2020 Estimated range of LCOE in 2030

Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) per technology1 in ASEAN countries2, USD/MWh;

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Coal Coal 3,4

Low-carbon ammonia co-firing (20%) 4,5

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 4,5,6

Biomass co-firing (20%) 7

Biomass firing (100%) 7

Coal with CCUS 3,4

Gas Gas OCGT n/a

Gas CCGT 4

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 4,5

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing (20%) 4,5

Low-carbon hydrogen firing (100%) 4,5

Gas with CCUS 4

1. Direct emissions from power generation only; other lifecycle emissions not included
2. Data in Indonesia is used as representative
3. LCOE range for subcritical and supercritical coal fired power plants are shown here
4. LCOE is calculated based on technology data from the DEA using uncertainty range for investment and O&M costs. Coal and gas fuel costs are based on historical range in 2017-2021 from World Bank and Enerdata (coal as 60~140 USD/Mt,
gas as 6~11 USD/mmbtu), low-carbon ammonia cost is based on IEA’s estimates as of 2018 (240~790 USD/t) and as of 2030 (240~450 USD/t). Hydrogen costs are based on IEEJ and Hydrogen Council’s estimates as of 2020 (4~11 USD/kg)
and as of 2030 (2~7 USD/kg). Assumptions on other parameters include technical lifetime (coal: 30 years, gas: 25 years), discount rate (8%), capacity factor (coal: 60%, gas: 40~60%), and thermal efficiency (coal: 41%, gas: 56%). Please note
that LCOE is highly dependent on fuel cost, and LCOEs shown here are based on fuel costs as written above and do not reflect the current LCOEs. In particular, LCOE here does not reflect recent gas and coal price surge after Ukraine incidents.
5. Additional costs for ammonia/hydrogen co-firing and firing are based on incremental costs by fuel mix and additional CAPEX is not considered.
6. The range for 100% ammonia firing in a steam turbine is shown as it could be technologically possible even though it may not be economically viable
7. Data from IRENA report, LCOEs for biomass co-firing during 2010-2021. The 5th and 95th percentile amongst reported power plants are indicated.

Source: IEEJ, DEA Technology data for the Indonesian power sector (2021), IRENA Renewable Power Generation Costs (2021), World Bank Commodity Prices (2022), Enerdata Global Energy & CO2 Database - POLES-Enerdata model - 42
EnerFuture scenarios (2021), Hydrogen Council Hydrogen Insights Report (2021), and IEA The Future of Hydrogen (2019)
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Reliability – Biomass co-firing/firing has been commercialised for decades, with

recent pilot projects of BECCS

Estimated
commercialisation status Recent project examples
 Biomass co-firing with coal Details
and pure firing has already
been commercialised at Pure biomass firing  In 2020, Toshiba Energy Systems & Solutions (Toshiba ESS)
scale. It has been in use for (with CCUS) at the converted its 50MW Mikawa power plant from a coal-fired to 100%
over 20 years and continues Toshiba Energy biomass-fired plant and commenced operations.
to be further developed. Systems & Solutions  The Mikawa power plant also has CCUS facilities and is the world’s
Mikawa power plant first bioenergy power plant with a large-scale Carbon Capture and
 However, commercialisation Storage (BECCS) capability. It captures over 50% of total emissions,
in individual cases depends
which makes it a negative-emissions plant, given that biomass is
on the supply of biomass
carbon neutral.
and its economic feasibility.
 Biomass cofiring with CCUS Pure biomass firing  During 2012-16, Drax converted four of its six 660MW power plants
(BECCS) is in early (with CCUS) at Drax’s from coal-fired to 100% biomass-fired plants (and closed the
commercialisation stage; power plants remaining two units).
TRL 8  Drax is piloting CO2 capture in these plants and expects its first
BECCS system to become operational by 2027.

Source: Literature search 43

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Lock-in prevention considerations – While reaching zero or negative emissions is

foreseeable, sourcing greater amount of biomass could be a hurdle
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
Lock-in What are the paths for the 2 paths exist for biomass co-firing to be zero or near zero emissions
prevention technology to be zero or near-  Increasing the co-firing ratio
considerations zero emissions?  Combining with CCUS. In particular, pure biomass firing with CCUS (BECCS) has negative
emissions and desirable

What (lock-ins) may hinder the Path 1: Increasing the co-firing ratio
above paths to zero or near-  Companies need proactive plans for securing greater amounts of biomass to accommodate
zero emissions? higher co-firing ratios.
Considerations include
Path 2: Combining with CCUS (BECCS)
 Financially viability
 Discussed in greater detail in the 'CCUS in coal/gas-fired power plants' section
 Technological maturity
 BECCS technology is in the early commercialisation phase.
 Sourcing and contracting
 Companies need to identify and enter into contracts for CO2 storage space and transportation
means.

Source: Literature search 44

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

DNSH/social considerations – Release of PM2.5 needs to be mitigated, while

ensuring sustainable sourcing of the biomass fuel
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
DNSH Protection of healthy  Biomass combustion emits pollutants (e.g. PM2.5); their release into the air has to be monitored and
considerations ecosystems and mitigated.
biodiversity

Promotion of  Biomass needs to be sustainably sourced, and potential deforestation has to be monitored.
transition to circular  Companies are encouraged to have plans and budgets for contributing to forestation and for promoting
economy societal transition to a circular economy.

Social Plans to mitigate the  There are potential positive impacts in terms of an increase in employment and supply-chain
considerations negative social impact development for the local biomass industry due to biomass supply and pre-treatment requirements.
of the technology  Worker exposure to air pollutants (e.g. PM2.5) should be monitored and workers should be given
regular health checkups.
 HSE risks must be properly addressed.

Source: Literature search 45

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Low-carbon ammonia co-firing – Technology schematics and review (1/2)

Cofiring in coal-fired power plant Low-carbon ammonia co-firing can be

(steam turbine)
done in a coal-fired power plant with
modifications to the existing boiler and
Power Steam turbine
investment in additional facilities, such
as ammonia tanks and vaporisers.
As for the boiler, ammonia should first
be mixed with pulverised coal before it
Generator Steam enters the burner zone together with
combustion air.

Cooling
Optimising boiler design for a stable
flame and NOx reduction is key to
ammonia co-firing.
Advancement in technology may enable
Coal mill
Coal Pulverised coal higher co-firing ratios. However, when
co-firing ratios exceeds a certain
NOx threshold, replacing the steam turbine
removal with gas turbine may be beneficial due
Ammonia reactor to the higher thermal efficiency of a gas
tank Ammonia
Ammonia Co-firing turbine over a steam turbine.
vaporiser Burner
Boiler

Source: Literature search 46

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Low-carbon ammonia co-firing – Technology schematics and review (2/2)

Cofiring in gas-fired power plant Low-carbon ammonia co-firing at a higher

(gas turbine) co-firing ratio and full ammonia firing
Exhaust
(100%) can be done in gas-fired power
Power Steam turbine
plants with modifications to the burner and
combustion systems and investment in
additional facilities, such as ammonia
NOx tanks.
removal
Generator reactor Specifically, ammonia can be fired solely or
together with gas by either
Condenser
 vaporising as gas and injecting into the
Steam burner, or
Air inlet
Cooling air
 directly atomising in the burner

Generator The direct use of ammonia has been

Hot successfully demonstrated in micro gas
exhaust Water turbines (about 50kW). In larger gas
turbines, there are some remaining
Power challenges, such as:
Heat recovery steam generator (boiler) Stack
 slow reaction kinetics of ammonia with
air
Gas Ammonia  flame instability
Ammonia vaporiser tank
 NOx emissions

Source: Literature search 47

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Low-carbon ammonia co-firing – Transition suitability assessment overview

Framework
dimensions Description
Emissions impact  Emissions reduction directly promotional to co-firing ratio and net lifecycle emissions of the ammonia source
 Estimated emissions intensity of about 0.65 tCO2/MWh with 20% co-firing and about 0 tCO2/MWh with 100% firing
 Low-carbon fuel co-firing can both supplement the initial transition to RE1 generation and also potentially assist in the
eventual shift to near zero-emission ammonia firing

Affordability  Estimated LCOE range of 80-170 USD/MWh with 20% co-firing and 150-430 USD/MWh with 100% firing in coal-fired power
plant, and 100-320 USD/MWh with 100% firing in gas-fired power plants (as of 2020).
 LCOEs are highly subject to low-carbon ammonia fuel prices, which are expected to decline over time; in 2030, they are
projected to be 80-140 USD/MWh with 20% co-firing and 150-270 USD/MWh with 100% firing in coal-fired power plant, and
100-210 USD/MWh with 100% firing in gas power plant.
Reliability  20% co-firing is in the pilot phase (TRL 5), and 100% firing is in the pilot or in early prototype phase (TRL 3-4)

Lock-in  Increasing co-firing ratio, shifting from blue ammonia to green ammonia, retrofitting CCUS, or retiring are required for
prevention achieving zero or near-zero emissions
considerations  Technological advancements and the development of an ammonia fuel supply chain are required for achieving
higher co-firing ratios.
 Long-term coal supply contracts may hinder retirement or piloting of high co-firing ratios
DNSH  Leakage prevention measures for ammonia are essential given its toxic nature
considerations  Implementation of NOx-abatement measures are required for reducing air pollution
 Low-carbon ammonia sources must be certified for their low-carbon footprints.
Social  HSE risk management, including guidelines and training for ammonia handling, must be properly addressed.
considerations  Co-firing can avoid displacement of local workforce at existing plants
1. Renewable energy
48
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Emissions impact – Favorable for ASEAN countries if co-firing ratio can be

improved to well beyond 20%
IPCC data range (Global) IPCC median data (Global) IEEJ data (ASEAN) ASEAN emissions range5

Estimated power generation emissions1, tCO2/MWh

Coal Coal
Low-carbon ammonia co-firing (20%) 2

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 2,3

Biomass co-firing (20%) 2

Biomass firing (100%) 2

Coal with CCUS

Gas Gas OCGT4

Gas CCGT

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 2

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing (20%) 2

Low-carbon hydrogen firing (100%) 2

Gas with CCUS

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1. Direct emissions for power generation only; other lifecycle emissions not included; IPCC data for 2018; IEEJ data for 2017
2. Emissions for co-firing/firing of biomass or low-carbon fuels are estimated based on the co-firing/firing ratios and the base emissions in respective Coal or Gac CCGT
3. The range for 100% ammonia firing in a steam turbine is shown as it could be technologically possible even though it may not be economically viable
4. Emissions for OCGT are estimated based on CCGT emissions and the efficiency of OCGT over CCGT
5. The range of the emissions intensities of ten ASEAN member states (see the ‘country-specific power generation emissions’ section in the appendix )

Source: IEEJ, IPCC Annex III Technology-specific cost and performance parameters (2018) 49
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Affordability – LCOE highly sensitive to price of input low-carbon ammonia, which

may improve with low-carbon ammonia fuel production uptake
Estimated range of LCOE in 2020 Estimated range of LCOE in 2030

Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) per technology1 in ASEAN countries2, USD/MWh;

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Coal Coal 3,4

Low-carbon ammonia co-firing (20%) 4,5

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 4,5,6

Biomass co-firing (20%) 7

Biomass firing (100%) 7

Coal with CCUS 3,4

Gas Gas OCGT n/a

Gas CCGT 4

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 4,5

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing (20%) 4,5

Low-carbon hydrogen firing (100%) 4,5

Gas with CCUS 4

1. Direct emissions from power generation only; other lifecycle emissions not included
2. Data in Indonesia is used as representative
3. LCOE range for subcritical and supercritical coal fired power plants are shown here
4. LCOE is calculated based on technology data from the DEA using uncertainty range for investment and O&M costs. Coal and gas fuel costs are based on historical range in 2017-2021 from World Bank and Enerdata (coal as 60~140 USD/Mt,
gas as 6~11 USD/mmbtu), low-carbon ammonia cost is based on IEA’s estimates as of 2018 (240~790 USD/t) and as of 2030 (240~450 USD/t). Hydrogen costs are based on IEEJ and Hydrogen Council’s estimates as of 2020 (4~11 USD/kg)
and as of 2030 (2~7 USD/kg). Assumptions on other parameters include technical lifetime (coal: 30 years, gas: 25 years), discount rate (8%), capacity factor (coal: 60%, gas: 40~60%), and thermal efficiency (coal: 41%, gas: 56%). Please note
that LCOE is highly dependent on fuel cost, and LCOEs shown here are based on fuel costs as written above and do not reflect the current LCOEs. In particular, LCOE here does not reflect recent gas and coal price surge after Ukraine incidents.
5. Additional costs for ammonia/hydrogen co-firing and firing are based on incremental costs by fuel mix and additional CAPEX is not considered.
6. The range for 100% ammonia firing in a steam turbine is shown as it could be technologically possible even though it may not be economically viable
7. Data from IRENA report, LCOEs for biomass co-firing during 2010-2021. The 5th and 95th percentile amongst reported power plants are indicated.

Source: IEEJ, DEA Technology data for the Indonesian power sector (2021), IRENA Renewable Power Generation Costs (2021), World Bank Commodity Prices (2022), Enerdata Global Energy & CO2 Database - POLES-Enerdata model - 50
EnerFuture scenarios (2021), Hydrogen Council Hydrogen Insights Report (2021), and IEA The Future of Hydrogen (2019)
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Reliability – Co-firing ratios up to 20% are being piloted, while technology is still
under development for pure ammonia firing
Estimated
commercialisation status Recent project examples
 Low-carbon ammonia co- Details
firing with coal is currently
20% ammonia co-firing at  In 2021, JERA started a project on ammonia co-firing at a large-scale commercial
in the pilot or earlier phases Hekinan Power Plant by coal-fired power plant at Hekinan Thermal Power Station (1GW)
and classified as below by JERA  Hekinan Thermal Power Station is expected to demonstrate 20% ammonia co-
IEA firing in FY 2023
‒ Co-firing (≦20%): TRL 5  Through this project, JERA looks to start operation of the 20% ammonia co-firing
‒ Firing (100%) : TRL 3-4 in coal-fired power plant by late 2020s
 Low-carbon ammonia co- 35% ammonia co-firing at  In 2022, China Energy successfully demonstrated ammonia co-firing with coal at
firing with coal is still being Huaneng Yantai Power Huaneng Yantai Power Plant (40MW)
developed, for example, in Plant by China Energy  35% ammonia was added to coal-fired power plant in Huaneng Yantai Power
Japan. It is expected to be Plant
commercialised by the late
2020s (for 20% co-firing) as
Plan to develop a gas
stated by METI, Japan.  Targeting commercialisation of the novel 100% ammonia-capable gas turbine in
turbine that can combust
 The establishment of an up to 100% ammonia by
or around 2025
ammonia supply chain and Mitsubishi Heavy Industry  Will be a small-to-medium scale (40MW) gas turbine, suitable for industrial
reduction in blue/green (formerly, Mitsubishi applications and on remote islands.
ammonia prices are major Power)
hurdles to be cleared.

Source: IEA, literature search 51

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Lock-in prevention considerations – Combinations of multiple paths may be

required to reach zero emissions
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
Lock-in What are the paths 4 paths (or combinations of them) exist to reach zero or near-zero emissions
prevention for the technology  Path 1: Increasing co-firing ratio
considerations to be zero or near-  Path 2: Retrofitting CCUS
zero emissions?
 Path 3: Switching from blue ammonia to green ammonia
 Path 4: Retiring

What (lock-ins) Path 1: Increasing the co-firing ratio

may hinder the  Companies need to invest in R&D to achieve technological maturity. Ensuring combustion speed is especially
above paths to important. Companies may also need to consider replacing steam turbines with gas turbines when a co-firing ratio
zero or near-zero increases.
emissions?  Companies need proactive plans for securing contracts of greater quantities of ammonia.
Considerations
include Path 2: Retrofitting CCUS
 Financially  Discussed in detail in the 'CCUS in coal/gas-fired power plants' section
viability Path 3: Shifting from blue ammonia to green ammonia
 Technological  A company needs to search for green ammonia provider when available, and needs to actively secure green
maturity ammonia contract
 Sourcing and Path 4: Retiring old technology/switching for flexibility purposes
contracting  Long-term coal procurement contracts may hinder retirement.
 Power purchase agreements, minimum commitments and term lengths in particular, may also hinder retirement.

Source: Literature search 52

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

DNSH/social considerations – NOx abatement measures and HSE

policies/trainings around ammonia handling are required
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
DNSH Protection of healthy  NOx-abatement measures (e.g. low NOx burner, flue gas NOx removal equipment) must be in place.
considerations ecosystems and Measures to detect and prevent leakage of ammonia and toxic compounds are also essential.
biodiversity

Promotion of  Companies must source ammonia with a low-carbon footprint.

transition to circular  Measures for the detoxification of collected NOx must be in place.
economy

Social Plans to mitigate the  There is a potential positive impact in terms of increased demand for skilled workers, e.g. for ammonia
considerations negative social impact procurement, engineering, operations.
of the technology  Companies must set guidelines and train operators to handle ammonia fuels appropriately.
 HSE risks must be properly addressed.

53
Source: Literature search
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing – Technology schematics and review

Exhaust
Low-carbon hydrogen can be fired on its
Power Steam turbine own or together with natural gas in a gas-
fired power plant with modifications to the
burner and combustion systems.

Low co-firing ratio up to 5% can be

Generator
accommodated in most gas turbines today
without major modifications. The current
Condenser
standard gas turbines may run on hydrogen
Steam co-firing up to 60% may be possible, while
Air inlet the peripherial infrastructure such as valves
Cooling air
and seals need to be updated. The risks
include
Generator
Hot  Risk of autoignition and flashback
exhaust Water
 Risk of combustion instabilities
Power Heat recovery steam Stack Pure hydrogen firing is in early pilot phase
generator (boiler) with several demostration made.
Gas pipeline Hydrogen intake Hydrogen
storage

Source: IEA, literature search 54

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing – Transition suitability assessment overview

Framework
dimensions Description
co-firing (20%) Firing (100%)

Emissions impact  Emissions reduction directly proportional to the co-firing ratio and net  Deep decarbonisation technology that can
life cycle emissions of the hydrogen source; an estimated emissions achieve up to 0 tCO2/MWh with 100% co-
intensity range of about 0.3 tCO2/MWh with 20% co-firing firing.
 Technology can initially supplement the use of RE for power generation, and the rest of the power station could turn into an RE
power station

Affordability  Estimated LCOE range of 90-220 USD/MWh with 20% co-firing and 230-650 USD/MWh with 100% co-firing (as of 2020).
 However, LCOEs are highly subject to low-carbon hydrogen fuel prices, which are expected to decline over time; estimated
LCOEs in 2030 are 70-170 USE/MWh with 20% co-firing and 130-420 USD/MWh with 100% firing.

Reliability  Early commercialisation (TRL 9) phase  In the pilot phase (TRL 7)

Lock-in  To be zero or near-zero emissions, increasing co-firing ratio, shifting from blue hydrogen fuel to green hydrogen fuel,
prevention and retrofitting CCUS are required
considerations  A hydrogen supply chain and infrastructure need to be developed.
 Long-term gas procurement contracts may hinder transition

DNSH  Low-carbon hydrogen sources must be certified for their low-carbon footprints.
considerations

Social  Appropriate HSE risk management, including guidelines and training for handling hydrogen, given its flammability, are
considerations essential
55
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Emissions impact – Proportional to co-firing ratio, but the resulting emission is

intensity substantially lower than grid average for ASEAN countries
IPCC data range (Global) IPCC median data (Global) IEEJ data (ASEAN) ASEAN emissions range5

Estimated power generation emissions1, tCO2/MWh

Coal Coal
Low-carbon ammonia co-firing (20%) 2

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 2,3

Biomass co-firing (20%) 2

Biomass firing (100%) 2

Coal with CCUS

Gas Gas OCGT4

Gas CCGT

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 2

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing (20%) 2

Low-carbon hydrogen firing (100%) 2

Gas with CCUS

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1. Direct emissions for power generation only; other lifecycle emissions not included; IPCC data for 2018; IEEJ data for 2017
2. Emissions for co-firing/firing of biomass or low-carbon fuels are estimated based on the co-firing/firing ratios and the base emissions in respective Coal or Gac CCGT
3. The range for 100% ammonia firing in a steam turbine is shown as it could be technologically possible even though it may not be economically viable
4. Emissions for OCGT are estimated based on CCGT emissions and the efficiency of OCGT over CCGT
5. The range of the emissions intensities of ten ASEAN member states (see the ‘country-specific power generation emissions’ section in the appendix )

Source: IEEJ, IPCC Annex III Technology-specific cost and performance parameters (2018) 56
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Affordability – High LCOE due to current cost of low-carbon hydrogen, but

significant reductions expected in the coming decade
Estimated range of LCOE in 2020 Estimated range of LCOE in 2030

Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) per technology1 in ASEAN countries2, USD/MWh;

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Coal Coal 3,4

Low-carbon ammonia co-firing (20%) 4,5

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 4,5,6

Biomass co-firing (20%) 7

Biomass firing (100%) 7

Coal with CCUS 3,4

Gas Gas OCGT n/a

Gas CCGT 4

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 4,5

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing (20%) 4,5

Low-carbon hydrogen firing (100%) 4,5

Gas with CCUS 4

1. Direct emissions from power generation only; other lifecycle emissions not included
2. Data in Indonesia is used as representative
3. LCOE range for subcritical and supercritical coal fired power plants are shown here
4. LCOE is calculated based on technology data from the DEA using uncertainty range for investment and O&M costs. Coal and gas fuel costs are based on historical range in 2017-2021 from World Bank and Enerdata (coal as 60~140 USD/Mt,
gas as 6~11 USD/mmbtu), low-carbon ammonia cost is based on IEA’s estimates as of 2018 (240~790 USD/t) and as of 2030 (240~450 USD/t). Hydrogen costs are based on IEEJ and Hydrogen Council’s estimates as of 2020 (4~11 USD/kg)
and as of 2030 (2~7 USD/kg). Assumptions on other parameters include technical lifetime (coal: 30 years, gas: 25 years), discount rate (8%), capacity factor (coal: 60%, gas: 40~60%), and thermal efficiency (coal: 41%, gas: 56%). Please note
that LCOE is highly dependent on fuel cost, and LCOEs shown here are based on fuel costs as written above and do not reflect the current LCOEs. In particular, LCOE here does not reflect recent gas and coal price surge after Ukraine incidents.
5. Additional costs for ammonia/hydrogen co-firing and firing are based on incremental costs by fuel mix and additional CAPEX is not considered.
6. The range for 100% ammonia firing in a steam turbine is shown as it could be technologically possible even though it may not be economically viable
7. Data from IRENA report, LCOEs for biomass co-firing during 2010-2021. The 5th and 95th percentile amongst reported power plants are indicated.

Source: IEEJ, DEA Technology data for the Indonesian power sector (2021), IRENA Renewable Power Generation Costs (2021), World Bank Commodity Prices (2022), Enerdata Global Energy & CO2 Database - POLES-Enerdata model - 57
EnerFuture scenarios (2021), Hydrogen Council Hydrogen Insights Report (2021), and IEA The Future of Hydrogen (2019)
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Reliability – Commercial use of up to 30% co-firing is on the horizon, while

technology is still under pilot phase for hydrogen pure firing

Estimated
commercialisation status Recent project examples
 Low-carbon hydrogen co- Details
firing with gas is currently Up-to 15% hydrogen  In 2021, Snowy Hydro ordered two M701F gas turbines from MHI for
classified as below by the co-firing at Snowy its Hunter power station, which is set to commence operations in
IEA: Hydro’s Hunter power 2023.
 Co-firing (generic): station  M701F turbines are capable of 30% hydrogen co-firing with current
‒ Early commercialisation technology and can be configured to operate on 100% hydrogen co-
‒ TRL 9 firing in the future.
 Firing (100%) :  Snowy Hydro aims for 15% hydrogen co-firing in the future.
‒ In pilot phase Up-to 30% hydrogen  In 2021, JERA started a project to demonstrate the use of low-carbon
‒ TRL 7 co-firing by JERA hydrogen in a gas-fired power plant in Japan.
 The establishment of a  JERA aims to demonstrate 30% hydrogen co-firing by FY2025.
hydrogen supply chain and  JERA hopes this project will lead to the commencement of hydrogen
significant reduction in the co-firing in gas-fired power plants by the 2030s.
price of blue/green hydrogen Equinor leads UK’s  Equinor’s low-carbon hydrogen to Humber Saltend (H2H Saltend)
are major hurdles to be H2H Saltend project project enables the power plant at Saltend Chemicals Park to switch
cleared. to a 30% hydrogen and natural gas blend in 2026.
 The project is expected to also include carbon capture technology in
the future.

Source: IEA, literature search 58

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Lock-in prevention considerations – Needs R&D to improve co-firing ratios, while

the evolution of the low-carbon hydrogen market and supply chain are also key
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
Lock-in What are the paths for the 3 paths exist to zero or near-zero emissions
prevention technology to be zero or near-  Path 1: Increasing co-firing ratio
considerations zero emissions?  Path 2: Retrofitting CCUS
 Path 3: Shifting from blue hydrogen to green hydrogen

What (lock-ins) may hinder the Path 1: Increasing the co-firing ratio
above paths to zero or near-  Companies need to invest in R&D to achieve technological maturity. Ensuring combustion
zero emissions? speed is especially important. Companies must also prepare to potentially replace boilers with
Considerations include gas turbines when the co-firing ratio surpasses 50%.
 Financially viability  Companies need proactive plans for securing greater volumes of hydrogen.
 Technological maturity Path 2: Retrofitting CCUS
 Sourcing and contracting  Discussed in greater detail in the 'CCUS in coal/gas-fired power plants' section
 This is currently not economical. The technology is in the early commercialisation phase (TRL
8-9). Methods for storing and transporting captured CO2 must be further considered.
Path 3: Shifting from blue hydrogen to green hydrogen
 A company needs to search for green hydrogen provider when available, and needs to actively
secure green hydrogen contract

Source: Literature search 59

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

DNSH/social considerations – Mainly centered around wastewater heat and

flammability risks, since firing hydrogen emits no pollutants
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
DNSH Protection of healthy  Waste heat running into river/sea from a gas power plant may cause negative impacts on local
considerations ecosystems and ecosystems. Temperature monitoring and control of wastewater should be in place
biodiversity  Environmental viability assessment (or equivalents) should be conducted for major new infrastructure
installations associated with the hydrogen co-firing
 Non-GHG pollutants in exhaust gas streams should be monitored and mitigated (e.g. through filtering or
leakage prevention systems)

Promotion of  Companies must source hydrogen with a low-carbon footprint through the entirety of their supply chains,
transition to circular including production, transport, and storage.
economy  Hydrogen pure firing does not generate waste, and can thus contribute to the transition to a circular
economy.

Social considera- Plans to mitigate the  Companies must set guidelines and train local operators to handle hydrogen appropriately.
tions negative social impact
of the technology  HSE risks must be properly addressed.

60
Source: Literature search
Introduction

Details of Potential Transition Technologies

Power

Upstream

CCUS
Appendix

61
2 major potential
transition Fugitive emissions: Leak detection
technologies in the and repair
upstream sector are
featured

Process electrification in gas

production

62
GHG emissions in gas production and processing derive both from gas
combustion and methane leaks
Focused in this document

Production (including processing) Transport + Storage Power generation

Gas production & Long-range pipeline

Gas-fired power plant
processing

LNG plant LNG tanker LNG re-gas

(liquefaction) terminal

Source of GHG emissions within production, processing, Decarbonisation technologies

and transport of gas; %CO2-eq
Fugitive emissions: leak detection and repair (LDAR)
7% Methane emissions
2% Process electrification in gas production
Onsite gas combustion for
power1
30% CCUS in gas production (Discussed in CCUS section)
61% Venting CO2
The document focuses on 3 upstream technology that resolves more
Others than 80% of upstream emissions

1. During gas production and processing, energy is required to power the drilling equipment, maintain pressure in the reservoir and power additional equipment. This is often powered by onsite combustion of gas, which emits CO 2.
63
Source: IEA World energy outlook, 2018
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Fugitive emissions: Leak detection and repair (LDAR) – Technology schematics

and overview

Why is LDAR important? How is LDAR implemented?

Methane emissions are the second largest Survey Fugitive
cause of global warming. The oil and gas Site surveys performed by emissions
industry emitted 70 Mt of methane drone and satellite imaging.
(approximately, 2.1 GtCO2-eq) in 2020 Ground surveys to pinpoint root
causes
Fugitive emissions accounts for 25% of these
emissions. LDAR is a cost-effective strategy
to address this issue

Fugitive emissions occur throughout the value

chain in pipes and equipment in well site,
compressor station, gas plant, etc. Quantify
LDAR systems measure and quantify fugitive Leaks and emissions are
emissions before repairing the leak recorded and quantified on the
system

Repair
The maintenance team is notified. Repair work is planned and executed depending on the maintenance
model and leak threshold

Source: IEA, Carbon Limits, literature search 64

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Fugitive emissions: LDAR – Transition suitability assessment overview

Framework
dimensions Description
Emissions impact  Fugitive emissions account for 440 MtCO2-eq methane emissions (about 440 MtCO2-eq) in oil and gas production
 LDAR is the primary abatement strategy and can achieve up to 95% leak emissions reduction (depending on leak detection
threshold)

Affordability  Abatement costs under 3 USD/tCO2-eq and is one of the most economical decarbonisation levers

Reliability  Commercialised with TRL 11. The majority of supermajors and national oil companies have implemented LDAR
 Further scale is required to achieve OGCI1 target methane intensity of 0.2% by 2025 from baseline 0.3% in 2017 (500,000 t of
methane annually)

Lock-in  Mitigate prolonged reliance on fossil fuel by ensuring decommission plan in place with clear time horizon defined
prevention
considerations

DNSH  Overall positive impact on ecosystem and biodiversity due to reduced methane leaks to the air
considerations

Social  A positive impact is expected. Job opportunities increase for LDAR surveys and maintenance
considerations  Must ensure HSE policies and practices are in place to protect surveyors working in potentially high fugitive emissions
concentration areas (e.g. competency, permit to work process, risk assessment)
1. Oil & Gas Climate Initiative

65
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Emissions impact – 440 MtCO2-eq are estimated globally from fugitive methane
emissions. LDAR can abate up to 95%
Fugitive emissions baseline Emissions impact by adopting LDAR
Global annual fugitive methane emissions for upstream oil
and gas (O&G) operation, MtCO2-eq Emissions reduction of LDAR at wellsite based on different leak threshold1; % (t/t)
450
400
350
300 ~75%
~90%
250 ~95%
200
150
100
50
0
Onshore Offshore Onshore Offshore Pipeline Total Baseline 0 Mcf/year 20 Mcf/year 50 Mcf/year
oil oil gas gas & LNG
An analysis by Carbon Limit considers an optical gas imaging ground survey. All leaks
IEA estimated a total of 17.5 Mt of fugitive methane emissions will be fixed, depending on leak intensity (leak threshold of 0, 20 and 50 Mcf/year 2)
(about 440 MtCO2-eq) from upstream oil and gas operations.
These can be addressed with LDAR LDAR achieves 75-95% emissions reduction, depending on the leak threshold definition

1. Result from an empirical analysis of LDAR implementation with over ~1800 surveys conducted on different onshore wellsite in USA
2. Mcf/year, thousand cubic feet per year

Source: IEA, Carbon Limit, literature search 66

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Affordability – LDAR is one of the most economical decarbonisation levers, with

abatement costs under 3 USD/tCO2-eq

LDAR abatement costs at wellsite by leak threshold; USD/tCO2-eq Resolved leaks contribute
to production. Analysis
2.8 shows it is economical to
2.6 repair most leaks at the
2.4 wellsite.
2.2
Depending on
2.0 maintenance philosophy,
1.8 LDAR abatement cost
under 3 USD/tCO2-eq
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 Mcf/year 20 Mcf/year 50 Mcf/year

1. Cost estimated based on gas price of 4 USD/Mcf, survey cost of 400-1,200 USD per survey and all leak repaired according to leak threshold

Source: Carbon Limit , literature search 67

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Reliability – LDAR solutions are already commercialised, but require further

scaling to achieve targets from the Oil & Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI)

Estimated
commercialisation status Recent project examples
The technology is Details
commercialised at scale. The
majority of supermajors and Shell partner with  After two years of testing Avitas’ drone in the Permian area, Shell is
national oil companies have Baker to implement planning to roll out methane detecting drones in 2022 throughout its
implemented LDAR drone based LDAR operating area of over 1,300 wells
Under IEA classification:  The drone is equipped with an optical gas-imaging camera and laser-
 Predictable growth at scale based detection system. It has been utilised on- and offshore
 TRL 11
Further scale is required to
achieve OGCI1’s target
methane intensity2 of 0.2% by
2025 from baseline 0.3% in CNPC’s LDAR  Leak detection and repair pilot campaigns were expanded into
2017 (500,000 tonnes of program across full Dagang and other oil fields in 2019, which yielded a 12.3% reduction
methane annually) value chain in total methane emissions over the year

 Continuing the success of their downstream operations, LDAR

coverage is expanding to all operated sites

1. Oil & Gas Climate Initiative

2. Methane intensity calculated based on total methane emissions as a percentage of total natural gas throughput

Source: IEA, OGCI, literature search 68

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Lock-in prevention/DNSH/social considerations – Limited concerns from LDAR

application
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
Lock-in What are the paths for a  Mitigating the risk of prolonged reliance on fossil fuels
prevention technology to be zero or near-
considerations zero emissions?

What (lock-ins) may hinder the  An evaluation is required to ensure that a fossil fuel decommissioning plan is in place with
above paths to zero or near- clearly-defined time horizon
zero emissions?  Long-term gas sale agreements may hinder the fossil fuel decommissioning plan.

DNSH Protection of healthy  Positive impact by reducing methane leaks, but drones may impact local wildlife. Ensure drone
considerations ecosystem and diversity operations comply with local regulations and industry standards

Promotion of transition to  Reduces hydrocarbon leaks and promotes efficient use of natural resources
circular economy  Ensure equipment and contractors sourced from certified suppliers/vendors who measure,
disclose, minimise, and potentially offset GHG emissions along the value chain

Social Plans to mitigate the negative  Positive impact on job opportunities are expected. Skilled labor will be required for emissions
considerations social impact of the technology surveys and repairs
 Surveyors working in potentially high fugitive emissions concentration areas will require policies
for prevention and mitigation measures (e.g. competency, risk assessment, permit to work
process)

Source: Literature search 69

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Process electrification in gas production – Technology schematics and overview

Energy Demand

Production platform LNG liquefaction plant

Power Source Distribution Consumption
Direct drive Electric drive
compressors compressors

Off shore 1
Heat exchanger Refrigerations Heat exchanger

AGRU,
NGL
Distribution hub Driers, Precooling Liquefactions Storage
Rejection
Hg Removal
Subsea
On shore
cables 2 Natural Gas
CO2 NGLs2
(Feed gas) Fractionation

Gas production can be electrified through: LNG liquefaction plant runs on direct drive compressors for driving refrigerants
and gas turbine for power requirements, which constitutes about 70% of plant’s
1
(1) Offshore power sources which requires a microgrid system consisting
CO2 emissions
of renewable power source, distribution hub and system of cables on
top of platform modification Process electrification by replacing direct drive compressors with electric drive
compressors powered by renewable electricity reduces emissions
2
(2) Grid integration which requires subsea power cables from shore and
platform modification to import and utilise power
1. AGRU = Acid gas removal unit
2. NGL = Natural gas liquid
Source: NSTA Orcadian microgrid electrification concept, 2022; Air Products Decarbonised LNG production via integrated hydrogen fueled power generation, 2021 70
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Process electrification in gas production – Transition suitability assessment

overview
Description
Framework dimensions Production platform LNG plant
Emissions impact  Up to 80% emissions reduction depending on  30-70% emissions reduction depending on availability of
electrification implementation and emissions intensity renewable energy
of local grid

Affordability  Cost highly dependent on distance to shore, cost of power  Local grid power cost and fuel cost contributes to majority
and platform modification level of production cost and is the key deciding factor for
 Cost effectiveness can be achieved through large scale electrification implementation
implementation thus requiring partnership with operators  Availability and growth of local renewable power supply
 Abatement cost of 110-200 USD/tCO2 and cost need to be considered
 Abatement cost of 50-350 USD/tCO2

Reliability  Technology is commercialised (TRL 9) but current deployment still limited due to cost and concentrated in the North Sea
and North America assets
Lock-in prevention  Transition plan for incorporating full renewable power source and/or CCUS implementation is required for Paris-alignment
considerations  Mitigate prolonged reliance on fossil fuel by ensuring decommission plan in place with clear time horizon defined

DNSH  Environmental viability assessment against local regulation required for new infrastructure and grid power source to ensure
considerations no or minimal harm on ecosystem and biodiversity

Social  Positive impact is expected as job opportunity increases due to larger power grid requirement especially in renewable energy
considerations sector
 HSE risk with regards to remote location operation, especially for windfarm and distribution hub operation, should be
assessed and opportunity for unmanned operation should be leveraged
71
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Emissions impact – Studies show up to 80% GHG reduction, highly dependent on

local grid emissions intensity and renewables capacity
Production platform LNG liquefaction plant Range

Emissions intensity by different power source1 Emissions source breakdown and electrification emissions reduction
kgCO2/MWh % GHG emissions
Electrification can reduce 40-100%
800 of combustion-related emissions

600
Up to 80% ~80%
400

200

0
Existing system Switch to grid Switch to offshore Total Emission4 Feed gas Combustion- Emissions
(On-site OCGT) integration2 wind farm3 emission5 related emission reduction % with
(Microgrid system) (Process CO2) electrification
powered by
local grid6
Switching to grid integration can reduce up to 80% of emissions, depending on A typical LNG liquefaction plant has about 70% combustion-related emissions
the emissions intensity of local grid depending on CO2 concentration in feed gas
Microgrid system which incorporates offshore wind farm and distribution hub Depending on renewable powered grid mix and availability, LNG electrification
can potentially reduce emissions by 80% compared to conventional offshore can potentially reduce all combustion-related emissions
production platform
1. GHG emissions estimated with Crondall Energy in-house emissions estimation tool and verified with IOGP and NSTA data 4. Emissions breakdown and reduction based on an AP-C3MR liquefaction process with 4.5 Mt of LNG
2. Emissions reduction range estimated based on APAC country’s power grid production per year & 4mol% CO2
3. Emissions estimated with wind power as primary and back-up gas turbine as secondary power source based on North Sea 5. Feed gas emissions represents CO2 vented from acid gas removal unit and can be reduced via CCUS
assets by Orcadian Energy 6. Emissions reduction depends on renewable energy mix in local power grid

Source: NSTA Orcadian microgrid electrification concept, 2022; Air Products Decarbonised LNG production via integrated hydrogen fueled power generation, 2021; Our world in data Carbon intensity of electricity, 2021 72
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Affordability – Wide range of abatement contingent on local endowment, with

offshore applications in particular requiring incentives
Production platform LNG liquefaction plant
Abatement cost by different technology1 Abatement cost by different configuration2
USD/tCO2 USD/tCO2; 2012

200 400

300
150

200
100
100

50
0

0 -100
Grid integration Offshore wind farm Electic drive powered Electric drive Electric drive powered
(Power from shore) by onsite gas turbine3 powered by 20% grid by 100% grid5
and 80% gas turbine4
Economics of platform electrification depends heavily on implementation Electric drive powered by onsite gas turbine achieves negative abatement cost
design such as distance to shore, cost of power, platform clusters and from improved availability and energy efficiency. Abatement cost of grid
variability in platform modification integration depend heavily on local natural gas price and electricity price.
1. Abatement cost based on power from shore implementation of John Sverdrup field phase 1 and 3. Onsite powered with 60 MW generators on gas turbines with heat recovery for steam turbine
offshore wind farm of Hywind Tampen project and Orcadian energy proposal for NSTA 4. Onsite power with 180 MW generators on gas turbines with heat recovery for steam turbine and 250 MW from grid
2. For a large LNG facility with 5 trains of total 25 Mt per year production, CAPEX annualised over 15 5. Powered by local grid with 100% renewable energy source
years at 10% discount rate and varying natural gas and electricity prices in Asia Pacific

Source: NSTA Orcadian microgrid electrification concept, 2022; Equinor Reducing CO 2 emissions from offshore oil and gas production, 2021; ABB Electrification 73
and energy efficiency in oil and gas upstream, 2012; Enerdata Gas and electricity price database
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Reliability – Commercial technology with limited implementation

Estimated
commercialisation status Recent project examples
Process electrification relies on Details
existing technology that is First world-scale  The Freeport LNG terminal consists of three liquefaction trains
commercially available. electric LNG plant in producing over 15 Mt of gas per year (commissioned in 2019)
However, implementation is low North America  Freeport LNG has successfully implemented an all-electric eDrive
and concentrated in North system as their main refrigerant compressor drivers and remaining
America and North Sea assets, rotating equipment at the PreTreatment Facility, achieving a site
due to its cost combustion reduction of 90% while focusing on environmental
TRL: 9 (assessed by OGTC1) stewardship
Johan Sverdrup  In 2019, Johan Sverdrup came on stream while being powered from
electrified production shore to achieve 0.67 kg CO2 per barrel (compared to average 15 kg
platform per barrel globally)
 Sverdrup phase 2 looks into supplying shore power to adjacent fields
(such as Sleipner in Utsira High)
Clean power supply  In 2021, Petronas signed a contract with Sarawak Energy to
contract at Petronas’s purchase predominantly renewable power to Petronas’s LNG
LNG Complex complex in Bintulu
 The 90 MW of power supply will start in 2024 for a term of 20 years.
 The low-carbon electricity will be used to decarbonise the operations
of the LNG complex

1. The Oil and Gas Technology Centre

Source: Gastech technical conference, Equinor, OGTC Technology Prioritization and Phase #2 Plan (2020), literature search 74
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Lock-in prevention – Three possible long-term decarbonisation pathways, together

with transparent decommissioning plans
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
Lock-in What are the paths  Three paths exist for process electrification to be zero or near-zero emissions;
prevention for the technology ‒ Path 1: Fully-renewable grid-powered
considerations to be zero or near- ‒ Path 2: CCUS implementation to capture process CO2 and residual emissions
zero emissions?
‒ Path 3: Co-firing/firing low-carbon fuels for backup onsite power generation
 Mitigating the risk of prolonged reliance on fossil fuels by evaluating transition plans to ensure fossil fuel
decommissioning plans are place with clearly-defined time horizon

What (lock-ins)  Path 1: Sourcing fully renewable grid power

may hinder the ‒ Renewable energy power generation is commercialised at scale (IEA TRL 8-11), but the renewable energy
above paths to supply is expected to be a bottleneck on the local power grid and requires an FI evaluation
zero or near-zero ‒ Onsite renewable power sources can supplement, but will be CAPEX-heavy and reliant on incentives to be
emissions? economical
Considerations
 Path 2: CCUS implementation to capture process CO2 and residual emissions
include
‒ CCUS technology is commercial, with offset potential for enhanced oil recovery. However, CAPEX is heavy
 Financially with abatement costs (15-70 USD/tCO2 requiring low-carbon incentive to compete in the market)
viability
‒ Concern centers around efficacy and long-term storage of CO2. A monitoring and verification plan is required
 Technological
 Path 3: Co-firing/firing low-carbon fuels for backup onsite power generation to reduce emissions
maturity
‒ Co-firing gas turbines is commercialised (IEA TRL 9). Hydrogen fuel gas turbines are maturing (IEA TRL 7),
 Sourcing and requiring increasing amounts of low-carbon fuel supplies and equipment upgrades overtime and reliant on low-
contracting carbon incentive to be economical
‒ Partnerships may reduce low-carbon fuel costs (natural gas to hydrogen), but relies on local availability to
achieve cost effectiveness, limiting opportunities

Source: Literature search 75

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

DNSH/social considerations – Environmental viability assessment may be

required for new infrastructure and grid power source
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
DNSH Protection of healthy
considerations ecosystems and
 An environmental viability assessment (or equivalent) should be conducted for major new infrastructure
associated with process electrification (including offshore windfarms all the way to offshore platform
biodiversity
modifications and electric motors to grid connections for LNG plants)
 Power sources should be evaluated to ensure no harm is inflicted on the ecosystem or biodiversity.
Local regulations and industry standards shall apply, especially for hydropower and windfarms

Promotion of  Ensure equipment and grid power are sourced from certified suppliers who measure, disclose,
transition to circular minimise, and potentially offset GHG emissions along the value chain
economy  Electrification incorporates renewable energy sources, limiting demand for conventional fossil fuels

Social Plans to mitigate the  Electrification of equipment leads to lower on-site maintenance requirements
considerations negative social impact  Larger power grids are required, increasing job opportunities in the renewable power sector
of the technology  HSE risks with electrification implementation (especially to maintenance at remote locations). Wind
farms and distribution hubs must be assessed on prevention and mitigation measures. Opportunities for
unmanned operation should be leveraged

76
Source: Literature search
Introduction

Details of Potential Transition Technologies

Power

Upstream

CCUS
Appendix

77
CCUS transition
CCUS in coal/gas power plant
technologies in
3 major applications
are featured Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia production

CCUS in gas production

78
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

【Reference】 Overview of the Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage

(CCUS) Value Chain Deep dive in subsequent sections

CO2 sources Capture Transport Storage & Utilisation

Description Point sources which generate CO2 as CO2 capture at post-combustion, pre- CO2 transport mode from emissions site to CO2 final injection site
part of energy generation or process combustion, and during combustion storage site
CO2 can be utilised for feedstock and
stream (oxy-fuel method).
high value products such as cements

Technology High Purity sources Multiple capture technologies Optimum value determined by volume, Storage: Multiple options based on
options /  Natural gas production (LNG  Liquid solvent (incl. chemical distance, and carrier capacity and logistic considerations
liquefaction plant) absorption and physical absorption)  Pipeline  Onshore vs. offshore
concepts  Chemical production (hydrogen &  Solid absorbent  CO2 barge  Saline aquifers, depleted gas
ammonia production)  Membrane separation, etc  CO2 rail reservoirs
Low Purity sources Conditioning depends on transport  CO2 truck Utilisation: End-use for CO2 such as
 Power plants (coal and gas-fired mode : Compression or liquéfaction cement, aggregates, bio-char, specialty
power plants) chemicals
 Iron and steel plants

Cost 50-140 3-25 3-551

(USD/tCO2)

Cost drivers  CO2 purity (required)  Phase /physical prop of CO2 in transit  Reservoir depth and temperature
 System complexity (required)  Mode of transport  Archetype (onshore / offshore)
 Volume at source gas (i.e., Single large plant or multiple smaller sources) — Marine – vessel characteristics  Injection rate (volume, location,
 Composition of source gas (contaminants, by-products) (size), port location, distance sailed temperature)
— Pipelines – pipeline pressure,  Synfuel plant demand
pipeline characteristics (overground,
underground), pipeline length,
pipeline location (sea, urban, rural)
1. Storage only

Source: Global CCS institute, IEA, literature search 79

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

【Reference】CCUS Technical Considerations

CO2 capture efficiency depends on

source concentration 3 major CO2 capture technologies
CO2
CO2 Example capture
conc. situations efficiency Technology Maturation/usage
High Post AGRU (acid High Chemical Most widely used. Amine-based solvents
(80%) gas removal unit) absorption are used. (TRL 9-11)
step solvent in
LNG processing
Physical Used only in selected cases such as
absorption natural gas processing, etc. (TRL 9-11)
Low Post combustion Low
(about flue gas
10%) Membrane Used in natural gas processing (TRL 9)
separation

Source: Global CCS Institute 'Technology Readiness and Costs of CCS' (2021), IEA, literature search 80
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

CCUS in coal- and gas-fired power plant (post-combustion) – Technology

schematics and overview
EXAMPLE IN GAS-FIRED POWER PLANT1

Exhaust CCUS in coal- or gas-fired power

Power Steam turbine
plant captures CO2 emitted from
power generation instead of
releasing it into the atmosphere

There are different approaches,

Generator Carbon including chemical absorption.
Carbon
capture
capture unit There, CO2 is separated from the
Condenser unit combustion flue gas by reaction of
Steam CO2 with a chemical solvent (e.g.
Air inlet amine-based) to form a weakly
Cooling air
bonded intermediate compound,
Gas turbine which may be regenerated with the
Generator application of heat to produce the
Hot original solvent (for further operation)
exhaust and a concentrated CO2 stream
Water
Power CCUS in coal- or gas-fired power
Heat recovery steam generator (boiler) Stack
plant can capture approximately
Gas pipeline 90% of the CO2 emitted

1. Carbon capture unit can be similarly fitted to a coal-fired power plant in its exhaust pipe

Source: Literature search 81

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

CCUS in coal/gas-fired power plant – Transition suitability assessment overview

Framework
dimensions Description
Emissions  Up to 90% emissions reduction by retrofitting CCUS in coal or in gas fired power plants, respectively. This results in near-zero
impact emissions (0.03-0.10 tCO2/MWh) and emissions factor well below ones of ASEAN countries

Affordability  Retrofitting CCUS increases LCOE by about 50 and 40 USD/MWh in coal and gas fired power plant, respectively.
 LCOE highly dependent on CAPEX. Current estimated range of 90-180 USD/MWh in coal-CCUS and 80-170 USD/MWh in gas-
CCUS (as of 2020), while this could be more competitive once higher carbon prices are set. The cost of CO 2 transport and
storage could also increase LCOE, if CO2 storage location is distant.

Reliability  Amongst the CCUS methods, post-combustion chemical absorption is most matured and in early commercialisation (TRL: 8-9)
 Pre-combustion physical absorption and post-combustion membrane polymeric in coal-fired plants are still under pilot or large
prototype phase (TRL: 7 and 6, respectively)

Lock-in 2 paths exist for zero or near-zero emissions

prevention  Increase CO2 capture rate; need to invest in R&D to increase CO2 capture rate above 90%
considerations  Retire the plants; need to have clear retirement plans which consider timing to retire, finance to demolish, obligations due to
procurement or PPA contracts, assessment on environmental stress during demolition, amongst many.

DNSH  Potential leakage of CO2 from storage has to be monitored and, if leak is discovered, it has to be repaired.
considerations  Waste management should be evaluated according to local regulation to ensure safe disposal of hazardous solvent
 Evaluate and incorporate potential utilisation of captured CO2 to promote circular economy

Social  Positive impact on job opportunity expected as CCUS requires additional skilled labor across its value chain
considerations  HSE risk management needs to be in place, especially around handling of amine solvent as it is hazardous

82
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Emissions impact – Retrofitting CCUS can reduce emissions by up to 90%,

resulting in well below grid average for ASEAN countries
IPCC data range (Global) IPCC median data (Global) IEEJ data (ASEAN) ASEAN emissions range5

Estimated power generation emissions1, tCO2/MWh

Coal Coal
Low-carbon ammonia co-firing (20%) 2

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 2,3

Biomass co-firing (20%) 2

Biomass firing (100%) 2

Coal with CCUS

Gas Gas OCGT4

Gas CCGT

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 2

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing (20%) 2

Low-carbon hydrogen firing (100%) 2

Gas with CCUS

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1. Direct emissions for power generation only; other lifecycle emissions not included; IPCC data for 2018; IEEJ data for 2017
2. Emissions for co-firing/firing of biomass or low-carbon fuels are estimated based on the co-firing/firing ratios and the base emissions in respective Coal or Gac CCGT
3. The range for 100% ammonia firing in a steam turbine is shown as it could be technologically possible even though it may not be economically viable
4. Emissions for OCGT are estimated based on CCGT emissions and the efficiency of OCGT over CCGT
5. The range of the emissions intensities of ten ASEAN member states (see the ‘country-specific power generation emissions’ section in the appendix )

Source: IEEJ, IPCC Annex III Technology-specific cost and performance parameters (2018). 83
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Affordability – Retrofitting CCUS increases LCOE by about 50 and 40 USD/MWh

in coal and gas fired power plant, respectively
Estimated range of LCOE in 2020 Estimated range of LCOE in 2030

Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) per technology1 in ASEAN countries2, USD/MWh;

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Coal Coal 3,4

Low-carbon ammonia co-firing (20%) 4,5

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 4,5,6

Biomass co-firing (20%) 7

Biomass firing (100%) 7

Coal with CCUS 3,4

Gas Gas OCGT n/a

Gas CCGT 4

Low-carbon ammonia firing (100%) 4,5

Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing (20%) 4,5

Low-carbon hydrogen firing (100%) 4,5

Gas with CCUS 4

1. Direct emissions from power generation only; other lifecycle emissions not included
2. Data in Indonesia is used as representative
3. LCOE range for subcritical and supercritical coal fired power plants are shown here
4. LCOE is calculated based on technology data from the DEA using uncertainty range for investment and O&M costs. Coal and gas fuel costs are based on historical range in 2017-2021 from World Bank and Enerdata (coal as 60~140 USD/Mt,
gas as 6~11 USD/mmbtu), low-carbon ammonia cost is based on IEA’s estimates as of 2018 (240~790 USD/t) and as of 2030 (240~450 USD/t). Hydrogen costs are based on IEEJ and Hydrogen Council’s estimates as of 2020 (4~11 USD/kg)
and as of 2030 (2~7 USD/kg). Assumptions on other parameters include technical lifetime (coal: 30 years, gas: 25 years), discount rate (8%), capacity factor (coal: 60%, gas: 40~60%), and thermal efficiency (coal: 41%, gas: 56%). Please note
that LCOE is highly dependent on fuel cost, and LCOEs shown here are based on fuel costs as written above and do not reflect the current LCOEs. In particular, LCOE here does not reflect recent gas and coal price surge after Ukraine incidents.
5. Additional costs for ammonia/hydrogen co-firing and firing are based on incremental costs by fuel mix and additional CAPEX is not considered.
6. The range for 100% ammonia firing in a steam turbine is shown as it could be technologically possible even though it may not be economically viable
7. Data from IRENA report, LCOEs for biomass co-firing during 2010-2021. The 5th and 95th percentile amongst reported power plants are indicated.

Source: IEEJ, DEA Technology data for the Indonesian power sector (2021), IRENA Renewable Power Generation Costs (2021), World Bank Commodity Prices (2022), Enerdata Global Energy & CO2 Database - POLES-Enerdata model - 84
EnerFuture scenarios (2021), Hydrogen Council Hydrogen Insights Report (2021), and IEA The Future of Hydrogen (2019)
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Reliability (1/2) – CCUS technology in coal power plant is in early

commercialisation stage, with recent installation examples seen

Estimated
commercialisation status Recent project examples
CCUS in coal-fired power plant Details
is currently classified as below
by IEA Up to 90% CO2  Since 2014, amine-based post-combustion CCUS is installed in
Maturation level capture rate and 1 Boundary Dam unit #3 coal-fired power plants in Canada, which
Post-  Early comer- MtCO2/year CCUS on produces 115 MW of power.
combustion cialisation Boundary Dam coal  CO2 capture rate up to 90% is achieved and 1 million tonnes of CO2
(chemical  TRL 8-9 fired plant is sequestered every year.
absorption)  The project cost $1.24 billon, which is used for CCS installation and
Pre-  Under pilot plant modernisation
combustion  TRL 7
(physical
absorption)
Post-  Large 90% CO2 capture rate  In 2016 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, ltd. started Petra Nova Carbon
combustion prototype is achieved and 4,766 Capture project at a coal-fired power plant in the USA
(membrane  TRL 6 tCO2/day is stored in  Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, ltd. Demonstrates CO2 storage of up to
polymeric) Petra Nova Carbon 4,766 tCO2/day and CO2 capture rate reaches 90%
Cost reduction and finding Capture project
 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, ltd. captures CO2 by chemical absorption
appropriate CO2 storage could (Amine)
be potential challenges to
overcome

Source: IEA, DEA, literature search 85

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Reliability (2/2) – CCUS technology in gas power plant is in early

commercialisation stage, with multiple installations planned

Estimated
commercialisation status Recent project examples
CCUS in gas-fired power plant Details
is currently classified as below
by IEA CCUS installation plan  By 2025, Net Zero Teesside (NZT) Power plans to start operation of
in gas-fired power CCUS in 860MW CCGT power plant. NZT Power claims that this
Maturation level plant in Humber by plant will be the world’s first commercial scale gas-fired power station
NZT Power with carbon capture.
Post-  Early comer-  NZT Power plans to capture and store over 95% of the CO2 emitted,
combustion cialisation which amounts to 2 MtCO2/year.
(chemical  TRL 8
absorption)
Technology  In 2022, Chiyoda Corporation (Chiyoda), JERA, and the Research
prototyping and Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE) commenced
Super-  Prototype demonstration study demonstration project on large-scale post-combustion CCUS in gas-
critical CO2  TRL 5-6 on large-scale CCUS fired power plant.
cycle in gas-fired power  Chiyoda, JERA and RITE plan to develop innovative and economical
plant by Chiyoda, CO2 capture and recovery technology and reduce the required area
Cost reduction and finding
JERA and RITE for gas turbine combustion exhaust.
appropriate CO2 storage could
be potential challenges to
overcome
1. Technology Readiness Level; details explained in the appendix
2. Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund

Source: IEA, literature search 86

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Lock-in prevention – Two possible long term decarbonisation pathways, with

technological roadblocks and inflexible gas/power contracts possible risks

Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
Lock-in What are the paths for the  Two paths exist for zero-carbon emissions
prevention technology to be zero or near-
‒ Increase CO2 recovery rate from current 90% to near 100%
considerations zero emissions?
‒ Retire coal or gas power plants

What (lock-ins) may hinder the  Path 1: Increase CO2 recovery rate
above paths to zero or near- ‒ A company needs to invest in R&D to achieve higher CO2 recovery rate
zero emissions? ‒ Availability of CCUS infrastructure for transportation and storage is expected to be the
Considerations include bottle neck and thus a company needs to develop partnership to secure them
 Financially viability  Path 2: Retiring or switching to peaking use / ancillary services provision (reserve)
 Technological maturity ‒ Long-term coal or gas procurement contracts may hinder retirement or reduced usage
 Sourcing and contracting of coal or gas power plant
‒ Power purchase agreements (PPAs) with very long tenures and minimum utilisation
commitments may also hinder retiring or reduced usage of coal or gas power plant

Source: Literature search 87

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

DNSH/social consideration – Leakage of CO2 to atmosphere and handling of

hazardous amine solution being potential risks
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
DNSH Protection of healthy  CCS monitoring and verification plan needs to be evaluated against local regulation to prevent CO 2
considerations ecosystem and plume migration to surface which includes but not limited to leak detection, atmospheric and subsurface
diversity monitoring to ensure CCS operation do not contribute more emissions as it is produced through out
CCS value chain
 Environmental viability assessment (or equivalents) should be conducted for major new infrastructure
installations associated with CCS implementation
 Waste management should be evaluated according to local regulation to ensure safe disposal
especially solvent waste

Promotion of  Ensure equipment is sourced from certified suppliers who measure, disclose, minimise, and potentially
transition to circular offset GHG emissions along the value chain
economy  Evaluate and incorporate potential utilisation of captured CO2 such as construction materials (e.g. CO2
cured cement and construction aggregates), fuel supplements (e.g. synfuel), plastic and chemical raw
materials (e.g. polycarbonate and carbon fiber) and fertiliser (e.g. biochar and greenhouse fertilisation)

Social Plans to mitigate the  Positive impact on job opportunity expected as CCUS requires additional skilled labor across its
considerations negative social impact process chain in capturing, transporting and gas injection
of the technology  HSE risk with CCUS implementation especially with regards to chemical used in CO2 separation need
to be assessed with prevention and mitigation measures implemented based on local regulation and
industry standard

Source: Literature search 88

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia production – Technology schematics and overview
Target for CCUS
EXAMPLE IN PRODUCTION OF BLUE HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA FROM NATURAL GAS

Combustion Blue hydrogen production emits

Ammonia Production related CO2 GHG through process CO2 and
<20% conc.
Heat NH3 + N2H2 combustion- related emissions
exchanger

Process CO2 accounts for about

Recycled N2rH2
Hydrogen Combustion

Condenser
Production related CO2 70% of emissions and is a cost-
<20% conc. H2 , N2 effective opportunity for CCUS

Reactor
implementation, given high
NH3 concentration of over 80% CO2
Reaction chamber

Refrigerated
unit
Steam
The remaining 30% are low CO2
CO2 Separation concentration sources of industrial
Tail gas
Process CO2 flue gas that is expensive to capture
Rich/Lean > 80% conc.
Heat and can be reduced via hydrogen
exchanger captured and
transported for co-firing or replaced with hydrogen
sequestration
Natural gas fuel turbines

Regenerator
Absorber Ammonia production consists of a
Reboiler similar hydrogen production process
(simple methane reforming) with the
addition of Haber-Bosch synthesis

Source: Literature search 89

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia production – Transition suitability assessment

overview
Framework
dimensions Description
Emissions • CCUS implementation for capturing only process CO2 can achieve about 50% emissions reduction while full CCUS including
impact combustion related CO2 capture achieves up to 95%

Affordability • Abatement cost for blue hydrogen ranges from 50-80 USD/tCO2 while blue ammonia 60-90 USD/tCO2 depending on scope of
capture and associated capture technology

Reliability • CCUS technology is commercialised (blue hydrogen has TRL of 8-9 and blue ammonia TRL of 9-11) but adoption is low,
accounting for only 1% of total annual 120 Mt of hydrogen production

Lock-in • Further R&D required to improve CCUS capture rate beyond 90%.
prevention • The heat for blue hydrogen and blue ammonia should be provided from a low/zero carbon source.
considerations • Retirement of blue hydrogen production should be planned especially if substantial uptake of green hydrogen technology occurs

DNSH • CO2 capture rate monitoring and verification plan needs to be evaluated against local regulation to ensure efficacy and prevent
considerations CO2 leak
• Evaluate and incorporate potential utilisation of captured CO2 to promote circular economy

Social • HSE risk of chemical use of CO2 separation technology needs be to assessed and measurements in place to be evaluated
considerations against industry standard and local regulation

90
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Emissions impact – CCS can achieve up to 90% emissions reduction for

hydrogen/ammonia production, depending on scope of capture

Emissions intensity of hydrogen production; Emissions intensity of ammonia production; Implementing CCS on
kgCO2/kgH2 kgCO2/kgNH3 process CO2 with higher
concentrations reduces
10 3.0 emissions by about
50%
Total capture (including
8 process and
combustion-related flue
-55% 2.0 gas) reduces
6 -45%
emissions by about
~90% 90%
~95%
4
1.0

0 0
Without CCS With CCS only With CCS Without CCS With CCS With CCS
on process CO2 on process & only on on process &
combustion- process CO2 combustion-
related CO2 related CO2

Source: IEA, literature search 91

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Affordability – Appropriate carbon pricing or end user green premia are required to
incentivise blue hydrogen/ammonia implementation
Abatement cost depends on CO2 capture
Abatement cost of hydrogen and ammonia production implementation and associated capture
with CCUS; USD/tCO2 technology
100
The abatement cost for CCUS in hydrogen
90 production ranges from 55-80 USD/tCO2,
depending on capturing process CO2 only or full
80 capture.
70 The abatement cost for CCUS in ammonia
production ranges from 60-90 USD/tCO2
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hydrogen production Ammonia production
with CCUS with CCUS

Source: IEA Future of hydrogen, 2019; IRENA Renewable ammonia (2022), literature search 92
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Reliability – Commercialised technology but limited adoption at only 1% of total

annual hydrogen production

Estimated
commercialisation status Recent project examples
CCUS technology is Details
commercialised but adoption is
relatively low accounting for Quest blue hydrogen  In 2005, Shell commissioned the Quest CCS facility to capture CO2
only 1% of total annual 120 Mt production at Alberta from the Scotford Upgrader hydrogen production using amine-based
of hydrogen production solvents with an annual capacity of about 1 Mt per year.
 CO2 was then transported via pipeline to Radway field and
Under IEA classification:
sequestered in a saline aquifer
 Blue hydrogen:  To date, Quest has captured over 6 Mt of CO2, with an annual capture
‒ Early commercialisation rate about 80% from hydrogen units
‒ TRL 8-9
 Blue ammonia:
Air Product Port  Air Product commissioned Port Arthur CCUS project in 2013, in which
‒ Physical absorption Arthur CCUS project two SMRs1 were retrofitted with vacuum swing adsorption system to
TRL 9
in Texas separate CO2 from process gas stream, followed by compression and
‒ Chemical absorption drying processes
TRL 11
 CO2 is transported to the Denbury pipeline for transport to Texas
EOR2 projects in West Hasting Fields. The project has a capacity of 1
Mt per year.
1. Steam methane reforming
2. Enhanced oil recovery

Source: Global CCS Institute Blue hydrogen, 2021; IEA Clean energy technology guide,2021; Shell Quest carbon capture and storage project, MIT Energy 93
Initiative Quest; US DOE Air products & chemicals, Inc., Literature search
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Lock-in prevention – Two possible long term decarbonisation pathway with risk of
substantial green hydrogen uptake
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
Lock-in What are the paths for the  Three paths exist for blue hydrogen and ammonia production to be zero or near-zero
prevention technology to be zero or near- emissions;
considerations zero emissions? ‒ Path 1: Ensuring high CCUS efficacy and improving CO2 capture rate up to 99%
‒ Path 2: Utilising low/zero carbon source for heat requirement, to achieve progressively lower
GHG emissions intensity
‒ Path 3: Retirement of blue hydrogen production should be planned especially if substantial
uptake of green hydrogen technology occurs
What (lock-ins) may hinder the  Path 1: Ensuring high CCUS efficacy and improving CO2 capture rate up to 99%
above paths to zero or near- ‒ Further R&D is required to improve capture rate up to 99%
zero emissions? ‒ A detailed monitoring and verification plan is required to ensure accurate reporting of CCUS
Considerations include efficacy
 Financially viability  Path 2: Utilising low/zero carbon source for heat requirement, to achieve progressively lower
 Technological maturity GHG emissions intensity
 Sourcing and contracting ‒ Low emissions heat could be obtained by hydrogen co-firing gas turbines, in which the
technology is commercialised (IEA TRL 9).
 Path 3: Retirement of blue hydrogen production should be planned especially if substantial
uptake of green hydrogen technology occurs
‒ Electrolysis technology is maturing with polymer electrolyte membrane and alkaline at TRL 9,
and solid oxide electrolyser cell at TRL 7, requiring a full replacement of hydrogen
production process in order for transition
‒ Long-term gas procurement contracts may hinder retirement especially if Take-or-Pay
clauses with high thresholds are present
Source: Literature search 94
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

DNSH/social considerations – Leakage of CO2 to atmosphere and handling of

hazardous amine solution being potential risks
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
DNSH Protection of healthy  CCS monitoring and verification plans must be evaluated against local regulations to prevent CO 2
considerations ecosystems and plume migration to the surface (includes but not limited to leak detection, atmospheric, and subsurface
biodiversity monitoring) to ensure CCS operations do not contribute to emissions in the CCS value chain
 Environmental viability assessment (or equivalents) should be conducted for major new infrastructure
associated with CCS implementation
 Waste management should be evaluated according to local regulations to ensure safe disposal

Promotion of the  Ensure gas is sourced from certified suppliers who measure, disclose, minimise, and potentially offset
transition to a circular GHG emissions along the value chain, such as methane emissions, CO2 venting, and onsite gas
economy combustion for power.
 Evaluate and incorporate potential utilisation of captured CO2 such as construction materials (e.g. CO2
cured cement and construction aggregates), fuel supplements (e.g. synfuel), plastic and chemical raw
materials (e.g. polycarbonate and carbon fiber) and fertiliser (e.g. biochar and greenhouse fertilisation)

Social Plans to mitigate the  Positive impacts on job opportunities are expected. CCUS requires skilled labor across its process
considerations negative social impact chain in capturing, transporting, and in gas injection
of the technology  HSE risks on CCUS implementation (especially with chemicals used in CO2 separation) must be
assessed, with prevention and mitigation measures implemented based on local regulations and
industry standards

Source: Literature search 95

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

CCUS in gas production – Technology schematics and overview (1/2)

Deep dive in next page Target for CCUS

Combustion related CO2 Combustion related CO2 capture type

CO2
Combusting fuel for power requirement especially in driving refrigerant cycles, <20% conc. Most mature CO2 capture technology is
generates low CO2 concentration emissions. Capturing this CO2 is a relatively solvent-based separation
higher-cost option as additional pre-combustion or post-combustion step is Solvent-based techniques utilise high-
required performance chemicals, such as amines-
based (MDEA) that selectively dissolve
CO2 from natural gas and release it as
Heat exchanger Refrigerations Heat exchanger
heat to regenerate

Natural gas
Storage and utilisation
Natural NGL
processing/se Precooling Liquefactions Storage Once captured, CO2 is transported to a
Gas Rejection
paration sink location and stored in variety of
(Feed
gas) geological formations (as below):

NGLs • Saline formation

Fractionation
• Depleted O&G reservoir

Process CO2 • Organic-rich shale

High concentration CO2 is also separated from natural gas (feed gas) An established and economically-viable
Process CO2 originating from the well with high CO2 content and is an inherent part CO2 usage is in enhanced oil recovery.
> 80% conc. of liquefaction process through AGRU1. This is a more cost-effective Alternate utilisation includes construction
option as it only requires purification and compression before being material, synfuel, plastic production, and
transported for sequestration fertiliser
1. AGRU = Acid gas removal unit; NGL = Natural gas liquid; MDEA = methyl diethanolamine

Source: Air Products Decarbonized LNG production via integrated hydrogen fueled power generation (2021), literature search 96
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

CCUS in gas production – Technology schematics and overview (2/2)

Acid gas
Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU)
Sweet gas for further (rich in CO2)
LNG process AGRU removes impurities such as H2S and CO2 to meet
sales requirements and environmental emissions
regulations
Natural gas is pumped into an absorber column, where
solvent-based capture techniques are applied using amine-
Rich/Lean based solvent (methyl diethanolamine [MDEA]). Impurities
Heat exchanger dissolve in this solvent and sweet gas (natural gas without
impurities) is piped downstream for further processing into

Regenerator
Absorber

LNG

Natural Gas
Solvents containing CO2 and H2S are then piped to the
(Feed gas) regenerator column, where the solvent is regenerated by
releasing H2S and CO2 via steam, where it can be reused
Depending on the composition of natural gas, the resulting
acid gas rich in H2S and CO2 goes through sulphur
Reboiler recovery unit to strip H2S.
For sequestration, the resulting rich CO2 stream is
dehydrated and compressed for transport to the
sequestration site
Source: Literature search 97
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

CCUS in gas production – Transition suitability assessment overview

Framework
dimensions Description
Emissions  Up to 95% reduction with both combustion-related and process CO2 capture
impact

Affordability  Implementation opportunities can be phased with first process CO2 capture at AGRU1, with abatement
costs of 15-20 USD/tCO2 (requires only compression and purification)
 Full CO2 capture with post-combustion capture included has an abatement cost of 55-65 USD/tCO2
Reliability  CCUS technology is mature, but adoption is low (less than 15 projects)
 CO2 capture in natural gas processing by chemical absorption and enhanced oil recovery is at TRL 11
Lock-in  Further R&D required to improve capture rates beyond 90%, as other methods (such as physical
prevention absorption and oxyfuel systems) are under pilot
considerations  Mitigate risk of prolonged reliance on fossil fuels through a clearly-defined time horizon
DNSH  CCUS monitoring and verification plans must be evaluated against local regulations to ensure efficacy
considerations and to prevent CO2 plume migration to the surface
 Evaluate and incorporate potential utilisation of captured CO2 to promote a circular economy
Social  HSE risk of chemical use of CO2 separation technology must be assessed and measurements taken to
considerations be evaluated against industry standards and local regulations
1. AGRU, acid gas removal unit

98
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Emissions impact – CCUS can reduce emissions up to 95%

CO2 emissions during gas production with different CO2 concentrations in feed gas
and with or without CCUS; tCO2/day In feed gas with low CO2
content, combustion related
10,000 Combustion related CO2 from CO2 from driving refrigerant
driving refrigerant cycles
cycles contributes to about
Combustion related CO2 from
other power requirement 90% of total emissions
8,000 Process CO2 from AGRU In feed gas with high CO2
Emission not captured content, emissions from
process CO2 quickly becomes
6,000 the major contributor
accounting for about 60% of
~95%
the total emissions
4,000 Emissions reduction is
around 90% with full CCUS
~90% implementation, which
2,000 includes both combustion-
related and process CO2

0
Without CCUS1 With CCUS2 Without CCUS With CCUS

2 mol% CO2 in feed gas 14 mol% CO2 in feed gas

1. Based on LNG plant with 4.5 Mt per year production capacity and feed gas CO2 concentration as indicated without CCUS and assumes liquefaction power requirement of 0.3 kWh/kg of LNG
2. Equivalent LNG plant with capture of both combustion related CO2 and process CO2 inclusive of purification and compression

Source: IEA GHG Techno-Economic Evaluation of CO2 Capture in LNG Plants (2019), Literature search 99
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Affordability – Abatement cost of 55-65 USD/tCO2 for full capture and 15-20
USD/tCO2 for process CO2 only

CO2 abatement costs by implementation1; USD/tCO2 Implementing full CO2

capture on both
70 combustion and process
CO2 cost around from 55 to
60
65 USD/tCO2
Capturing process CO2
only is about 70% cheaper
50
at from 15 to 20 USD/tCO2,
which accounts for over
40 60% of emissions at high
feed gas CO2 content

30

20

10

0
Full CO2 capture Process CO2 only Process CO2 only
(Process and combustion-related CO2) (2 mol% CO2) (14 mol% CO2)
1. Based on LNG plant with 4.5 Mt per year production capacity and feed gas CO 2 concentration as indicated and assumes liquefaction power requirement of 0.3 kWh/kg of LNG
Source: IEA GHG Techno-Economic Evaluation of CO2 Capture in LNG Plants (2019), literature search 100
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Reliability – Upstream CCUS technology is commercialised, but with limited

implementation

Estimated
commercialisation status Recent project examples
The required CCUS technology Details
is commercialised, but
implementation is low (less than Gorgon project  The Gorgon CCS project was commissioned in 2019 to capture CO2
15 projects as per IOGP) sequestrates CO2 from Gorgon LNG post AGRU, which has feed gas containing up to
from LNG liquefaction 14 mol% CO2
Under IEA classification: plant  Captured CO2 is piped over 12km for sequestration at a depth of 2 km
 CO2 Capture: in Dupuy formation. The project has a capacity of 3.4-4 Mt of CO2
‒ TRL 11 for natural gas capture per year.
processing
 CO2 Storage:
‒ TRL 7-11
‒ Enhanced oil recovery is Qatargas implements  In 2019, Qatargas commissioned the largest CO2 recovery and
commercialised at scale CCS-EOR project at sequestration facility in Middle East and North Africa region in the Ras
Ras Laffan LNG Laffan production of its North Field
 CO2 Transport: facility  Additional CCS facilities in Ras Laffan are expected to start in 2025,
‒ Pipeline TRL 10 which will increase existing CCS capacity to 5 Mt per year (with EOR
‒ Shipping TRL 4-7 integration planned)

1. IOGP = International Association of Oil and Gas Producers

Source: IEA CCUS in Clean Energy Transition (2020), IOGP, UNFCC, MITei 101
Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

Lock-in prevention – Further R&D required to improve capture rates,

while a fossil fuel decommission plan is required
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
Lock-in What are the paths for the 2 paths exist for gas production to be zero emissions
prevention technology to be zero or near-
 Path 1: Ensuring high CCUS efficacy and improving CO2 capture rates to up to 99%
considerations zero emissions?
 Path 2: Mitigating the risk of prolonged reliance on fossil fuels with CCUS

What (lock-ins) may hinder the  Path 1: Ensuring high CCUS efficacy and improving CO2 capture rates
above paths to zero or near- ‒ Amine chemical absorption is already commercialised. Other methods (physical absorption
zero emissions? and oxy-fueling) are under pilot, requiring further R&D to optimise capture routes and
Considerations include improve capture rates to up to 99%
 Financially viability ‒ A detailed monitoring and verification plan is required with evaluation to ensure accurate
 Technological maturity reporting of CCUS efficacy through surface and subsurface monitoring

 Sourcing and contracting ‒ CO2 storage capacity and integrity must be accounted for throughout the operational lifetime,
with significant margins of error to prevent storage capacity bottlenecks
 Path 2: Mitigating the risk of prolonged reliance on fossil fuels with CCUS
‒ Transition plan evaluations are required to ensure fossil fuel decommissioning plans are in
place with clearly-defined time horizon

Source: Literature search 102

Combined cycle gas turbine Waste to energy (WtE) power Fugitive emissions: Leak Process electrification in gas Blue hydrogen & blue ammonia
Biomass co-firing Low-carbon ammonia co-firing Low-carbon hydrogen co-firing CCUS in coal/gas power plant CCUS in gas production
(CCGT) plant detection and repair production production

DNSH/social considerations – Leakage of CO2 to atmosphere and handling of

hazardous amine solution being potential risks
Framework Considerations/
dimensions Key questions Details
DNSH Protection of healthy  CCUS monitoring and verification plans must be evaluated against local regulations to prevent CO 2
considerations ecosystems and plume migrations to the surface, which includes but is not limited to leak detection, atmospheric, and
biodiversity subsurface monitoring to ensure CCUS operations do not contribute more emissions as it is produced
through out CCUS value chain
 Environmental viability assessment (or equivalents) should be conducted for major new infrastructure
associated with CCUS implementation
 Waste management should be evaluated according to local regulations to ensure safe disposal

Promotion of  Ensure equipment is sourced from certified suppliers who measure, disclose, minimise, and potentially
transition to a circular offset GHG emissions along the value chain
economy  Evaluate and incorporate potential utilisation of captured CO2 such as construction materials (e.g. CO2
cured cement and construction aggregates), fuel supplements (e.g. synfuel), plastic and chemical raw
materials (e.g. polycarbonate and carbon fiber) and fertiliser (e.g. biochar and greenhouse fertilisation)

Social Plans to mitigate the  Positive impact on job opportunities are expected. CCUS requires additional skilled labor across its
considerations negative social impact process chain in capturing, transporting, and gas injection
of the technology  HSE risks with CCUS implementation (especially with the chemicals used in CO2 separation) must be
assessed and prevention and mitigation measures implemented based on local regulations and
industry standards

103
Source: Literature search
Introduction

Details of Potential Transition Technologies

Appendix
Country-specific power generation emissions

Policy landscape related to transition technology

Value chain of transition fuels

Acronyms and abbreviations

105
Power generation mix in ASEAN countries
Coal + oil Gas Hydro Others

Power generation mix, TWh, 2019

100% = 4 9 295 31 176 24 106 55 191 238
1% 2%
10%
19%
37%
52% 46% 51%
63% 58%
47%

99% 95% 64%

18%
37%
63% 21%
46% 21%
43%
8% 3% 28%
7%
15% 13% 14%
10%
2% 1% 3% 4%
Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Viet Nam

Source: National statistics, International Energy Agency

106
Estimated power generation emissions intensity by country

Estimated power generation emissions in ASEAN countries1; tCO2/MWh, 2020

Brunei
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Viet Nam

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

1. Emissions for electricity and heat generation in power sector

Source: IRENA Statistical profiles (Aug. 2022)
107
Introduction

Details of Potential Transition Technologies

Appendix
Country-specific power generation emissions

Policy landscape related to transition technology

Value chain of transition fuels

Acronyms and abbreviations

108
Indonesia plans to reduce emissions by lowering its
dependency on coal and leveraging low emissions
technologies such as biomass and CCS
De-carboni- Forecast of power
sation targets Major policy frameworks generation mix1,TWh
 Achieve Net-Zero  'The Electricity Supply Business Plan (RUPTL1) 2021-2030' Coal+Oil Hydro Others
emissions by 2060 as Released by the Government of Indonesia and PLN2, the national power utility, Gas Renewables
stated in RUPTL1 in 2021
 Reduce GHG emissions ‒ Ban new coal buildouts starting in 2022, except already planned ones 100% = 290 445

by 29 - 41% by 2030, ‒ Promote biomass co-firing (10-20%) in existing coal power plants;
compared to the new coal-fired power plants operating after 2025 must surpass 30% in co-
business as usual, with firing ratio
the baseline of 2016 ‒ Convert its existing 5,200 units of small-scale diesel power plants into
(Paris Agreement 64%
renewable energy based and gas-fired power plants
Pledge) 72% (286)
 'Long-Term Strategy for Low Carbon and Climate Resilience 2050' (207)
 Announced in COP26 in Submitted by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry to the UNFCCC5 in
2021 to retire 9.3GW of 2021. It expects to nearly decarbonise its power sector by 2050 through;
coal plants by 2030 and
completely phase out in ‒ Utilise renewables in large scale
2056 ‒ Equip most coal powerplants with CCS/CCUS
13%
‒ Biomass co-firing in coal power plants are connected to CCS (BECCS) (56)
16%
10%
(45)
(44)
6%
12% 1%
6% (19)
(53) (5)
(18)
1. Rencana Usaha Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik 2021 2030
2. Perusahaan Listrik Negara, a national power utility company; They also make a pledge on their net zero plans
3. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Source: Electricity Supply Business Plan (RUPTL) 109

Malaysia plans to reduce emissions intensity by
lowering its dependency on coal and promoting RE

De-carboni- Forecast of power

sation targets Major policy frameworks generation mix1,TWh
 Net zero goal in 2050  'The 12th Malaysia Plan (12MP)' Coal Hydro
 A commitment to Announced in 2021 by Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department Gas Renewables
reduce GHG emissions outlining a 5-year strategy including sustainability and economic goals
166 210
by 45% by 2030  'Peninsular Malaysia Generation Development Plan 2020' 100%
(Compared to 2005) Published in 2020 by JPPPET1 , a committee chaired by the Minister of Energy
and Natural Resources 27%
(57)
‒ The RE capacity is projected to increase from 17% to 31% by 2025 and to
40% level by 2035 56%
(93)
‒ Commitment on sustainable energy pathway will continue with new RE and
CCGT plants coming into the system post-2030
‒ Coal is projected to reduce from 37% in 2021 to only 22% in 2039, a net 45%
reduction of 4.24 GW (94)

 'The Malaysia Renewable Energy Roadmap (MyRER)'

Published by Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) to support 24%
further decarbonisation of the electricity sector (40)

‒ Biomass: Encourage studies on the improvement in bioenergy power 19%

generation technology to be conducted 16% (40)
(27)
‒ Low-carbon hydrogen: Prioritise and roll out cost-effective energy storage 9%
4%
solutions such as hydrogen solution (7)
(19)

2021 2035
1. Jawatankuasa Perancangan dan Pelaksanaan Pembekalan Elektrik dan Tarif

Source: the 12th Malaysia Plan, Report on Peninsular Malaysia Generation Development Plan 2020, the Malaysia Renewable Energy Roadmap 110
Philippines plans to shift towards lower emissions
technologies and has placed a moratorium on new
coal plants
De-carboni- Forecast of power
sation targets Major policy frameworks generation mix1,TWh
 75% reduction of GHG  'Philippine Energy Plan (PEP) 2020-2040' Coal+Oil Hydro
emissions between Issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) in 2022, formulating the Gas Renewables
2020 and 2030 transformational plan to bring in more of the clean energy fuels and
compared to business technologies 100% = 102 194
as usual ‒ Implement a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in 2020 and
 Target 35% RE carry out power plant decommissioning in order to redesign its power
generation mix by 2035 generation mix
45.7%
‒ Introduce LNG portfolio to easily adjust its electricity production relative to 56.0% (89)
demand fluctuations. Plan to start its LNG import from 2022 (57)
‒ Low-carbon hydrogen potential is explored by partnering with global
companies as alternative resource
‒ coal-fired power plants are reproposed into biomass waste-to-energy
19.3%
power plants. Biomass co-fired coal plants are also discussed (38)
‒ Targeting 35% RE generation mix by 2035 from currently 24%, which either 19.9%
stays at 35% until 2050 (RE35 scenario) or increases up to 50% in 2050 (20) 8.2%
(16)
(RE50 scenario)
8.5%
(9) 26.8%
15.6% (52)
(16)

2020 2030

1. Power Development Plan 2020-2040, in both RE35 and RE50 high demand scenarios

Source: Philippine Energy Plan (PEP) 2020-2040, Power Development Plan 2020-2040, literature search 111
Singapore plans to use CCUS to reduce CO2
emissions from gas-fired plants, while promoting
solar generation and low-carbon power imports
De-carboni- Forecast of power
sation targets Major policy frameworks generation mix1,TWh
 Net zero goal in 2060  'The 4 Switches' Coal+Oil Renewables
 Reduce emissions Developed by EMA1 in 2019, the key strategy for the power sector
Gas
intensity of GDP by 36% ‒ Natural Gas: Diversify the gas sources and improve efficiency of power generation
from 2005 levels by 2030 ‒ Solar: Deploy at least 2 GW of solar by 2030 and 200 MW of ESS2 beyond 2025 100% = 53 71 ~ 76
 1% (1)
Reduce carbon ‒ Regional Power Grids: Access more energy options and meet collective energy
emissions to 33 needs
MtCO2-eq by 2050
‒ Low-Carbon Alternatives: Capture CO2 and convert them into useful products.
 Increase solar installed Explore alternative energy carriers such as hydrogen No public
capacity five-fold from information
 'Charting The Energy Transition to 2050' available
2021 levels by 2030, to
meet about 3% of 2030 ‒ The Energy 2050 Committee, commissioned by the EMA, concluded that it is for future
realistic for the power sector to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 energy mix
projected demand
‒ Develop a national hydrogen strategy and work with local and international 96%
stakeholders to develop robust hydrogen supply chain (51)
‒ Maximise solar deployment and use Energy Storage System (ESS) to manage
solar intermittency
‒ Monitor developments in new supply technologies including CCUS
 Singapore’s government announcement
‒ Carbon Pricing (2022) : 5 SGD/tCO2-eq until 2023 and will be raised to 25
SGD/tCO2-eq in 2024-2025, and 45 SGD/tCO2-eq in 2026-2027, with a view to
reaching 50-80 SGD/tCO2-eq by 2030
‒ EMS’s grant call for advanced CCGT by 31 Dec 2023. Grant quantum will be 3% (1)
subject to a cap of $44 million 2020 2030
1. Energy Market Authority, 2. Energy storage systems

Source: Charting Singapore’s Low-Carbon and Climate Resilient Future, Charting The Energy Transition to 2050 112
Thailand plans to phase out some coal generation,
and leverage low emissions technologies such as
CCS, Solar, and Bio-energy
De-carboni- Forecast of power
sation targets Major policy frameworks generation mix1,TWh
 Net zero goal in 2050  'Power Development Plan (PDP) 2018 revision 1' Coal+Oil Hydro
 20% reduction in GHG National master plan for the development of power system in Thailand published Gas Renewables
emissions compared with by National Energy Policy Council under the prime minister office
Business-as-Usual ‒ reduce the electricity produced from coal to 11% 100% = 203 303
emissions by 2030
‒ Increase in gas security: Focus on importing more natural gas to increase capacity 13%
 Reduce CO2 emissions to 34.8 million metric tons/year by 2027 22% (39)
to 271 kgCO2 by 2037 (46)
 'Alternative Energy Development Plan (AEDP)'
 Increase the RE share to Published by the Ministry of Energy to develop appropriate RE production in 2020
50% by 20501
‒ The RE target for electricity has been set at 30% by 2037
‒ the proposed installed capacity of solar power generation is 15.6 GW
‒ Biofuels are anticipated to take over 44 % of oil consumption by 2021 63%
 The Mid-century, Long-term Greenhouse Gas Low emissions Development (189)
60%
Strategy (LT-LEDS) (121)
Submitted to the UNFCCC in 2021 by Thailand government working group with a
clear targets and measures to be implemented towards achieving its net zero
emissions
‒ the deployment of natural gas with CCS and coal with CCS power plants, will
increase to 43% in 2050 when compared to the current technology 11%
10% (34)
‒ the share of renewable electricity will increase to 33% of total electricity in 2050
(20) 13%
‒ Bio-energy with CCS (BECCS) power plant is needed to achieve the 2-degree 8%
(40)
target in 2050 (16)
2018 2030
1. Based on PDP 2018 revision 1

Source: Power Development Plan (PDP) 2018 revision 1, literature search 113
Viet Nam plans to restrict new coal fired power
plants, shifting toward gas and renewables (wind,
solar)
De-carboni- Forecast of power
sation targets Major policy frameworks capacity and mix, GW
 Commitment to reach  'Power Development Plan 8' Coal Hydro
net zero by 2050 is The latest draft is released by the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) in Gas Renewables
stated in COP26 in 2022 focusing on the development of power sources, transmission power grids
2021 in the period 2021-2030 and a vision to 2045 100% = 69 151
 Reduce 9% of its GHG ‒ Restrict constructions of new coal-fired power plants and shift towards
emissions compared to LNG power plants, except the coal-fired power plants already under 26.5%
31.4%
business as usual with construction during 2021-2025 (40)
(22)
domestic resources by ‒ Plan to install wind power capacity to generate 18-19 GW by 2030 and
2030 install solar power capacity to generate 19-20 GW by 2030
(base year of 2014)
 Long-term strategy on climate change of Viet Nam 12.9% 25.6%
(9) (39)
‒ Phase out coal-fueled power generation by 2040

30.2%
(21) 20.7%
(31)

25.5% 27.1%
(18) (41)

2020 2030

Source: Viet Nam latest PDP8, 26 April 2022, literature search. 114
Introduction

Details of Potential Transition Technologies

Appendix
Country-specific power generation emissions

Policy landscape related to transition technology

Value chain of transition fuels

Acronyms and abbreviations

115
The value chain for low-carbon ammonia fuel is currently in pilot phase

Power
Production Transport Storage
generation
Blue Green
Value Coal-fired power plant
chain H2 or H2 N2
Ammonia tanker Ammonia tank Ammonia
regasification units

Harbor-Bosch
process NH3
or Gas-fired power plant

NH3

Examples In 2021, NYK1 line  In 2022, KEPCO2, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines and
of large- started a project on Mitsubishi Shipbuilding have completed a
scale development and concept study on floating storage and (details under the
(details under the 'CCS: regasification unit for ammonia to lower cost
ongoing Blue ammonia &
operation of an 'Low-carbon
projects ammonia-fueled ammonia co-firing'
hydrogen' section)  In 2021, IHI3 started development of a large-
ammonia gas carrier section)
scale ammonia receiving terminal/storage to
to lower emissions
increase ammonia supply chain, to be completed
level
by 2025
1. NYK, Nippon Yusen Kaisha
2. KEPCO, Kansai Electric Power Company
3. Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

Source: Literature search 116

The value chain for low-carbon hydrogen fuel is currently in pilot phase

Power
Production Transport Storage
generation
Value Electrolysis of water (RE origin) Hydrogen carrier (e.g. MCH2)
production plant
Chemical tanker MCH dehydrogenation plant Gas-fired power plant

chain
H2

Green
Liquified hydrogen production LHC (liquid hydrogen carrier) Hhydrogen tanks /
plant Gasification plant
Steam reforming OR auto-thermal
reforming of methane
(Fossil fuel origin)
CCUS H2
Long-range pipeline
Blue

Examples AHEAD1 conducted a world’s HySTRA4 started a pilot project

of large- first pilot project on circular on liquified hydrogen carrier (details under the
(Details under the 'CCS:
scale hydrogen supply chain using called 'Suiso frontier (Low- 'Low-carbon
Blue ammonia &
MCH and toluene in 2020. carbon hydrogen frontier)' from hydrogen co-firing'
ongoing hydrogen' section) Planning to start commercial Australia to Kobe with KHI3, J- section)
projects operation in the mid of 2020s power, Iwatani Co.

1. AHEAD, The Advanced Low-carbon Hydrogen Energy Chain Association for Technology Development
2. Low-carbon hydrogen carriers include MCH (methylcyclohexane), ammonia, methanol amongst others.
3. KHI, Kawasaki Heavy Industries
4. HySTRA, CO2-free Hydrogen Energy Supply-chain Technology Research Association

Source: Literature search 117

The value chain for gas is well established: further emissions reduction
technologies are tested and/or commercialised

Power
Production (incl. processing) Transport + Storage
generation
Value Gas production Long-range pipeline Gas-fired power plant
and processing
chain plant

LNG plant LNG tanker LNG receiving

(liquification) terminal/re-gasification

Emissions Utilisation of cold

Co-firing with
reduction Leakage detection High-pressure energy from
hydrogen or
technolog and repair solidification of gas regasification for
ammonia
CO2 liquefaction
ies along
the LNG
value CCUS in gas processing, liquification, re-gasification, and power generation
chain
Electrification of machineries and equipment in every step of LNG value chain except LNG tanker

Source: Literature search 118

Introduction

Details of Potential Transition Technologies

Appendix
Country-specific power generation emissions

Policy landscape related to transition technology

Value chain of transition fuels

Acronyms and abbreviations

119
List of acronyms and abbreviations (1/6)

12MP 12th Malaysia Plan

3Rs Reduce, reuse, recycle

ABB ASEA Brown Boveri

AEDP Alternative Energy Development Plan

AGRU Acid gas removal unit

AHEAD Advanced Low Carbon Hydrogen Energy Chain Association for Technology Development

APC Air pollution control

BAU Business as usual

BECCS Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

CAPEX Capital expenditure

CCGT Combined-cycle gas turbine

CCS Carbon capture and storage

120
List of acronyms and abbreviations (2/6)

CCUS Carbon, capture, utilisation, and storage

CHP Combined heat and power

DEA Danish Energy Agency

DNSH Do no significant harm

EDF Electricite de France

EMA Energy Market Authority

EOR Enhanced oil recovery

ESCO Energy service company

ESS Energy storage systems

ETP Energy Technology Perspectives

EV Electric vehicle

FCV Fuel cell vehicle

121
List of acronyms and abbreviations (3/6)

GHG Greenhouse gas

HSE Health, safety, and environment

HySTRA CO2-free Hydrogen Energy Supply-chain Technology Research Association

IEA International Energy Agency

IEEJ Institute of Energy Economics, Japan

IHI Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

IOGP International Association of Oil and Gas Producers

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency

KEPCO Kansai Electric Power Company

KHI Kawasaki Heavy Industries

LCOE Levelised cost of electricity

122
List of acronyms and abbreviations (4/6)

LDAR Leak detection and repair

LHC Liquid hydrogen carrier

LT-LEDS Long-term Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions Development Strategy

MCH Methylcyclohexane

MDEA Methyl diethanolamine

MHI Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

MITei Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Energy Initiative

MoU Memorandum of understanding

MSW Municipal solid waste

MyRER Malaysia Renewable Energy Roadmap

NEDO New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization

NGL Natural gas liquid

123
List of acronyms and abbreviations (5/6)

NOx Nitrogen oxides

NSTA North Sea Transition Authority

NYK Nippon Yusen Kaisha

NZT Net Zero Teesside

OCGT Open-cycle gas turbine

OGCI Oil & Gas Climate Initiative

OGTC The Oil and Gas Technology Centre

PDP Power Development Plan

PEP Philippine Energy Plan

PPA Power purchase agreement

R&D Research & development

RDF Refuse-derived fuel

124
List of acronyms and abbreviations (6/6)

RE Renewable energy

RITE Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth

SDS Sustainable Development Scenario

SEDA Sustainable Energy Development Authority

SMC San Miguel Corporation

SMR Steam methane reforming

TRL Technology readiness levels

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

WtE Waste to energy

125
Units of measure (1/2)

% (t/t) Percent tonne to tonne

Gt Gigatonne

GW Gigawatt

kgCO2 Kilogram of carbon dioxide

kgCO2/kgH2 Kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram of hydrogen

kgCO2/kgNH3 Kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram of ammonia

kgCO2/MWh Kilograms of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour

Mcf/year Thousand cubic feet per year

MtCO2 Million tonne of carbon dioxide

MtCO2/year Million tonne of carbon dioxide per year

MtCO2-eq Million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent

MW Megawatt

126
Units of measure (2/2)

MWh Megawatt hour

SGD/tCO2-eq Singapore dollar per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent

t Tonne

tCO2/day Tonnes of carbon dioxide per day

tCO2/MWh Tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour

TWh Terawatt hour

USD/kg US dollar per killogram

USD/mmbtu US dollar per million British thermal units

USD/Mt US dollar per million tonne

USD/t US dollar per tonne

USD/tCO2 US dollar per tonne of carbon dioxide

USD/tCO2-eq US dollar per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent

127