a critical comparison of geological storage of carbon ... · abstract: nuclear power and carbon...

1

A critical comparison of geological storage of carbon dioxide and nuclear waste in Germany: status, issues, and policy implications

R. Alexander Roehrl and Ferenc Toth1 8th Conference on Applied Infrastructure Research (INFRADAY), Berlin, Germany, 9-10 October 2009

Keywords: technology, carbon capture and storage, radioactive waste, geological storage, Germany, greenhouse gas emissions, institutions. JEL: Q54.

___________________________________________________________________________ 1 International Atomic Energy Agency, Planning and Economic Studies Section, Wagramer Strasse 5, PO Box 200, 1400 Vienna, Austria. Corresponding author: R.A. Roehrl, Tel.: +43-1-2600-22773, email: [email protected].

Abstract: Nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS) are key greenhouse gas mitigation options under consideration across the world. Both imply long-term waste management challenges, evoke strong emotions and polarize the debate, especially in Germany. Geological storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) and nuclear waste have much in common, and valuable lessons can be learnt from a comparison. The paper defines a comparative assessment framework for the geological storage of CO2 and nuclear waste and applies it to the case of Germany, drawing also on insights from other parts of the world. The framework identifies the major differences and similarities in terms of geological formations and containment criteria, environmental and human impacts, risk assessment and monitoring, transport, and site engineering. Implementation issues are also considered, including economics and financing, regulation, liability, public acceptance, and institutional coherence. Potential conflict of use with toxic waste storage and future exploitation of geothermal energy is also discussed. The paper critically compares the characteristics and location of the both sources of and storage options for CO2 and nuclear waste in Germany. It discusses capacity and cost estimates, the level of public acceptance, and national policy issues, especially in the context of the overall debate on climate change. The full range of potential geological storage options is considered. The geological storage potential for CO2 in Germany is estimated at 19 to 48 GtCO2 which is on the order to 30 to 60 years of CO2 emissions from all large stationary for CO2 sources in Germany. Only a fraction of this may become economically feasible. The geography of CO2 sources and storage potential will require the construction of a large-scale CO2 pipeline infrastructure. Large uncertainties remain regarding costs, capacities and technical implementation of the complete CO2 chain. Even the most conservative estimates of nuclear waste storage capacity in Germany put it at more than 10 million cubic metres, i.e., one to two orders of magnitude larger than the country’s expected cumulative nuclear waste volume from all sources for 1970 to 2040, not assuming any waste minimization strategy. However, implementation has been stalled for decades by lacking public acceptance. Potentially diverging interests of German States (“Länder”) are identified in both the CO2 and nuclear waste cases. The current debate on CCS could benefit from lessons-learnt with geological storage of nuclear waste in the past where public acceptance has been the overriding constraint. Technical experts continue to be very optimistic about the potential of CCS despite large uncertainties in the current exploratory phase, essentially neglecting the perceived risks that will emerge in the public debate on CCS. The situation appears similar to the early phases of nuclear waste management. It is argued that realistic time scales for building stakeholder consensus and the actual infrastructure may turn out to be much larger than anticipated, and that the large amounts of CO2 will be a serious management challenge. Regional and ultimately global institutional solutions could go a long way in making large-scale geological disposal of CO2 and radioactive waste a reality. It is unclear which level of public and private sector involvement would be optimal.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the IAEA or its Member States.

Acknowledgement: This paper contributes to a larger effort, the first comprehensive comparative study of comparative assessment of CO2 and radioactive waste disposal (Toth, 2009) that reviews status, issues and policy implications on the national, regional and global levels. The authors are grateful for suggestions by Lars Schnelzer, IAEA.

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................3 1.1. RATIONALE ............................................................................................................................................................3 1.2. GLOBAL ENERGY CHALLENGES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ...........................................................4 1.3. THE PROMISES OF CCS AND NUCLEAR POWER FOR MITIGATING GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................5 1.4. WHY COMPARE CARBON DIOXIDE AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL?...............................................................6 1.5. ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK AND DATA ...................................................................................................................8 1.6. OUTLINE ................................................................................................................................................................9

2. CARBON DIOXIDE SOURCES AND GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL IN GERMANY: STATUS AND ISSUES ............................................................................................................................................................................9 2.1. FOSSIL-BASED ELECTRICITY AND CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS .............................................................................9 2.2. GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS FOR CARBON DIOXIDE DISPOSAL ...............................................................................11 2.3. PILOT PROJECTS AND FIELD TRIALS OF CO2 DISPOSAL IN GERMANY: LOCATION AND CAPACITY ESTIMATES .......14 2.4. NATIONAL GEOLOGICAL STORAGE POTENTIAL AND ESTIMATED COSTS................................................................16 2.5. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES: PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE, INSTITUTIONS, AND POLICY......................................................17

3. SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL IN GERMANY: STATUS AND ISSUES.................................................................................................................................................................19 3.1. NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS AND WASTE GENERATION ...........................................................................................19 3.2. GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL .........................................................................22 3.3. FIELD TRIALS AND TEST FACILITIES: LOCATIONS AND CAPACITY ESTIMATES .......................................................24 3.4. NATIONAL GEOLOGICAL STORAGE CAPACITY AND ESTIMATED COSTS .................................................................26 3.5. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES: PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE, INSTITUTIONS, AND POLICY......................................................26

4. COMPARISON OF GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN GERMANY ..............................................................................................................................................28 4.1. GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................................................29 4.2. ROCK TYPE AND CHARACTERISTICS .....................................................................................................................29 4.3. SAFETY POTENTIAL ..............................................................................................................................................29 4.4. MODE AND PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL........................................................................................................................30 4.5. VOLUME (DISPOSAL CAPACITY) ...........................................................................................................................30 4.6. DEPTH ..................................................................................................................................................................30 4.7. CONTAINMENT MODE...........................................................................................................................................30 4.8. SITE SELECTION AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE ..........................................................................................................31 4.9. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.....................................................................................................................................31 4.10. INSTITUTIONAL COHERENCE...............................................................................................................................31

5. POLICY CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................32

1. Introduction 1.1. Rationale Nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS) are key greenhouse gas emission (GHG) mitigation options under consideration across the world. Both imply long-term waste management challenges, evoke strong emotions and polarize the debate, especially in Germany. Geological storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) and nuclear waste have much in common, and valuable lessons can be learnt from a comparison which is the objective of this paper. It should be noted that this paper focuses on the issues related to storage of CO2 and radioactive waste in geological formations. It does not compare the other parts of the CCS and nuclear power chains, such as CO2 capture, pipelines, nuclear power plants, uranium mining and the nuclear fuel cycle. In view of ever more ambitious reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) put forward by governments, it has become increasingly clear that such reductions and an eventual stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations can only be achieved at an acceptable cost, if all mitigation options are being explored. The more stringent the targets, the higher have been the expectations for CCS to play a key role in mitigation. Yet, in contrast to most other mitigation options that are put forward, CCS is still in the development stage. To-date, not a single large-scale commercial plant with integrated CCS is operating in the world. There is only one small-scale demonstration plant which started operation in Eastern Germany in September 2008. It is one of five CCS demonstration plants in the world, the four others without a fuly integrated CCS chain). While most components of the CCS chain have been used commercially for decades, the chain has never been operated on an industrial scale, and techno-economic surprises are quite possible at the scale of billions of tonnes of CO2 that will need to be handled according to plans. Despite the rhetorics and many small-scale programmes, coal demand for power generation has increased steadily over the past 30 years and its share in world power generation has reached roughly 40 percent. In fact, in the last ten years with its relatively high oil and gas prices more coal-fired generation capacity has been added than all renewable capacity combined. Thus, it is not surprising that CCS is seen as the solution to make coal “climate friendly”. It is offered as a technical solution to a physical problem of planetary scale. While such scientific-technocratic assessment is important and indeed needed, one should not forget the socio-economic, political and especially institutional implications of CCS use on a large scale. This paper takes an integrated view and covers scientific, technical and implementation/institutional issues. Early signs of public acceptance problems with CCS in the midst of technological optimism surrounding the new technology is reminiscent of the early days of nuclear power and especially radioactive waste disposal, which also provides a good motivation for a comparison of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste disposal. In the CO2 and radioactive waste disposal cases, the available geology, technological capacity, politics, public acceptance, and especially institutions are rather country-specific. Thus, the national level is an appropriate level for the unit of analysis. It should also be noted that nuclear power and CCS are seen as part of the technical solutions to man-made global warming, a very global issue, while the institutional solutions and commitments continue to be on the national level. The case of Germany is particularly interesting, as the country has been one of the technological leaders in both nuclear and CCS technologies. At the same, it has early on encountered public acceptance problems with nuclear power and most recently with CCS. Thus, it also provides a glimpse of the future for other countries. In this context, it should also be noted that the German government has been a world leader in terms of pushing for ambitious GHG emissions targets. It will be interesting to see how it will meet its commitments and ambitions when at the same time phasing out nuclear power and encountering opposition to large-scale use of CCS in the future.

1.2. Global energy challenges and implications for climate change It is important to recognize the broader significance of nuclear power and CCS for meeting the global energy challenges for the 21st century. The provision of affordable, safe and environmentally-friendly energy services is a pre-requisite for sustainable socio-economic development. Reliable energy services facilitate learning, promote equity, are vital pre-conditions for investment, higher living standards and reduced poverty. Yet, worldwide, about 2.4 billion people still rely on traditional biomass as their primary source of energy, and 1.6 billion people do not have access to electricity (UNDP 2005). Global energy demand will increase significantly in coming decades under almost any reasonable assumptions and despite investments into energy efficiency. This is inevitable in view of population and economic growth and higher living standards in developing countries which today consume about 53 per cent of global primary energy but are home to 82 per cent of the world’s 6.8 billion people. The challenge of alleviating energy inequity is compounded by a growing world population which is expected to reach 9.2 billion by the middle of this century (UN DESA, 2009).2 Until 2030, world economic growth will continue at roughly 3 per cent per year, with developing countries catching up, their per capita incomes rising from US$ 1,550 in 2004 to US$ 4,650 in 2030 (World Bank, 2009b).3 The ETP4 reference scenario of the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects global primary energy demand to increase to more than 17 Gtoe by 2030 (IEA 2008a) and 23 Gtoe in 2050 (IEA 2008b). In the scenario, coal is expected to surpass oil as the largest primary energy source by 2040, due to the persistent high growth in demand for electricity in coal-rich countries such as China and India. Gas is projected to level out at around 4.5 Gtoe by 2050. Despite a 31 per cent increase in volume between 2005 and 2050, the nuclear share in the global primary energy balance is projected to decline from 6.3 per cent in 2005 to 4.8 per cent by 2030 and to 4 per cent by 2050. The climate change implications of the ETP reference Scenario are severe. Energy related CO2 emissions, the largest component of global GHG emissions, increase by 55 per cent in 2030 and by 130 per cent in 2050 relative to 2005. This would put the Earth on track towards atmospheric GHG concentrations on the order of 1,000 ppm CO2-eq. 5and an equilibrium warming of over 5°C in terms of global mean temperature increase above the pre-industrial level. Such business-as-usual trends sharply contradict international targets of member States. For example, the G8 declaration stresses the importance to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C mainly through deployment of low-carbon technologies. In addition to the challenges of increasing energy demand, providing affordable energy services to all, and reducing energy-related GHG emissions, energy security is prominent in energy policies and supports the role of nuclear power and CCS. This includes issues related to high and volatile prices of fossil energy fuels, supply disruptions, as well as energy-related domestic and international political conflicts. In many countries, continued reliance on large domestic coal reserves could help alleviate energy security fears but by using currently prevailing technologies, this would deteriorate the climate problem. In other countries, nuclear power could help mitigate supply security concerns and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time. The choice between establishing or expanding coal-based power generation with carbon capture and disposal (CCD) or nuclear electricity with the need to find safe disposal for the resulting

___________________________________________________________________________ 2 Medium variant of the latest projection of the United Nations estimates 3 The 2008/2009 global financial crisis is expected to make not more than a little dent in growth. After 0.9 per cent growth in gross world product in 2009, it is expected to rebound to 2 per cent in 2010 and 3.2 per cent in 2011 (World Bank, 2009a). 4 Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) study (IEA 2008b) 5 This assumes that other GHGs increase at comparable rates.

radioactive waste (RW) will be influenced by many factors and will depend on natural resource and environmental endowments as well as on social, economic and political preferences. 1.3. The promises of CCS and nuclear power for mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions Based on findings of research institutes and highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), governments have referred to various global targets to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations in this century. While a few years ago a target of 550 ppm (or roughly 2.5 degrees warming6) was most commonly cited, today there appears to be a consensus of “ambitious” governments to work towards a 450 ppm stabilization (or 2oC warming). In September 2009, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has requested and even more ambitious 350 ppm (or roughly1.5 oC) (AOSIS, 2009). These targets would have dramatically different implications for the need to use nuclear power and/or CCS. For example, the 450 ppm scenario by the International Energy Agency implies a peaking of global emissions by 2020, followed by a steep decline of more than one third to reach 26 GtCO2 in 2030. According to the scenario, 14 per cent of this reduction could arise from CCS, 9 per cent from expanded nuclear power, 23 per cent from renewables and biofuels, and 54 per cent energy efficiency. These percentages correspond to enormous absolute capacities: It implies an increase by about 50 per cent of the installed nuclear electricity generation capacity of nuclear power over the next twenty years, a formidable challenge. Globally, nuclear power has the largest and lowest cost GHG reduction potential, according to the IPCC (2007). Half of the reduction would be

possible at negative cost, the other at less than US$25 per tCO2. This has led to “rising expectations” especially in developing countries where more than forty countries have announced their intention to start a nuclear power programme. However, whether such expectations will actually turn into actual nuclear power plants remains an open question. In any case, lacking public acceptance of geological disposal of radioactive waste has held back expansion in many countries. Yet, nuclear power is already helping to avoid an estimated 2.4 GtCO2 emissions per year, compared to avoided emissions of 0.4 GtCO2 due to all renewables combined world-wide (IAEA (2008) based on OECD-IEA (2008) data).

___________________________________________________________________________ 6 depending on time frame and an uncertain climate sensitivity parameter

Figure 1. Share of CCS in total cumulative emissions reductions vs. total cumulative CCS deployment in GtCO2 from 2000 to 2100. The scatter plots depict values for individual mitigation scenarios for the IPCC reference scenarios (IPCC, 2000). The vertical dashed lines show the average share of CCS in total emissions mitigation across the 450 to 750 ppmv stabilization scenarios, and the dashed horizontal lines illustrate the scenarios’ average cumulative storage requirements across 450 to 750 ppmv stabilization. Source: IPCC (2005).

As detailed in the IEA CCS road map7, it implies deployment of 850 large-scale CCS plants by 2020, and 3,400 plants by 2050. This compares zero plants today and G8 leaders‘ recommendation to launch 20 CCS plants by 2010. In fact, such scale would only be the beginning, and CCS capacities would need to rise much higher, if a 450 ppm was to be sustained throughout the 21st century (figure 1). Figure 1 shows results from a wide range of emissions scenarios for the 21st century (2000-2100), based on a wide range of socio-economic and technological development assumptions for the future which are indicated by different colours. Figure 1 shows the cumulative amounts of CO2 that would need to be stored in the course of this century and the approximate shares that CCS would need to contribute to GHG reduction in these scenarios (IPCC, 2005). On average in 450ppm stabilization scenarios, about 2,000 GtCO2 would need to be stored and CCS would contribute on average more than half the GHG emissions reductions. In contrast, 550 ppm scenarios would more than half the cumulative amount of CO2 to stored to less than 1,000 GtCO2. It should be noted that not a single 350ppm stabilization scenario included in the IPCC Third Assessment Report published in 2001. The significant jump should be noted in importance of CCS when going from 550 ppm to 450 ppm scenarios. A 350 ppm scenario8 implies reducing the current CO2 concentration down from 384.8 ppm, which is a formidable challenge that might require enormous CCS and possible geo-engineering. In a 350 ppm scenario, cumulative amounts of CO2 to be stored in the 21st century would be larger than the 2,000 GtCO2 (545 GtC) which is the estimated technical storage capacity in geological formations world-wide (IPCC, 2005). Studies that include very optimistic assumptions about technological learning and improvements in new renewables, nuclear technology, and energy efficient technologies may lead to amounts that are one third or one half of the average amounts in figure 1.9 Regardless of the exact amounts, it is clear that any target below 550 ppm means CCS will be needed and an ever increasing share of it. Finally, while not focus of this paper, other challenges may lie ahead for CCS in capture10 as well the transport of CO2 through pipelines. In conclusion, nuclear power and CCS are required on a very large scale to achieve the ever more ambitious GHG reduction targets of governments. While the solutions are in principle technically feasible, the question remains whether they are institutionally and politically feasible. 1.4. Why compare carbon dioxide and radioactive waste disposal? The IPCC (2005) Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) provided a useful synthesis of then-available knowledge from a fast evolving research field. Research and technological development on geological storage of nuclear waste has a somewhat longer history but no recent international synthesis like the CCS report has been published. Except for a few sporadic efforts dealing with selected topics, no systematic comparison has been prepared so far about the issues involved in the geological storage of CO2 and NW. Among those focussing on a particular topic, most were on regulatory and management issues. Examples include the comparative analysis of the regulatory framework (Rossati, 2009), risk management issues (Leiss, 2009), and the international regulatory framework for risk governance (Vajjhala et al., 2007).

___________________________________________________________________________ 7 To be launched at the CSLF Ministerial meeting in October 2009 8 For comparison, the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1750 was about 280 ppm. Also, an approximate atmospheric life time of roughly 100 years for CO2 needs to be taken into account. 9 For example, Riahi et al. (2003) project 330–890 GtCO2 (90–243 GtC) of stored CO2 over the course of the current century for various 550 ppmv stabilization cases. Edmonds et al., (2000) project storage of 576–1370 GtCO2 (157–374 GtC) for stabilization scenarios that span 450 to 750 ppmv. Pacala and Socolow, (2004) estimate the installation of installation of CCS at 800 GW of baseload coal plants to reach 500 ppm by 2054 (i.e., leave emissions by 7GtC until 2054): 10 About 60 per cent of CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion can be attributed to large (>0.1 Mt CO2 yr-1) stationary emission sources which might be amenable to CCS. However, less than 2 per cent of fossil fuel-based industrial sources have CO2 concentrations in excess of 95 per cent which are easier to implement efficiently. The vast majority of large emission sources have CO2 concentrations of less than 15 per cent or less which implies technical challenges in the future.

Maul et al. (2007) discussed performance assessments for the geological storage of carbon dioxide and compared it to the earlier radioactive waste disposal experience. This paper is part of a larger study (Toth, 2009) that intends to fill this gap because it is worth reviewing the state-of-the-art in these two fields and to prepare an in-depth comparative assessment of the similarities and differences, the already resolved issues and the remaining key challenges, and to evaluate the policy implications emerging from the comparative study. The main objective of the project is to prepare a comparative assessment of CO2 and radioactive waste (RW) disposal (Toth, 2009). Information from such an assessment will foster future scientific research and will become a useful component of the knowledge base for policymakers in considering various options for future energy supply in their countries or regions. The main scientific objectives of the study are to explore: • what are the main issues/challenges in the geological disposal of CO2 and RW; • what is the state-of-the-art in these two fields: issues already resolved, remaining

open/unknown/uncertain issues; • what are the common issues in and the main similarities and differences between CO2 and RW; • what can scientists working in these two fields learn/adopt from each other.

The main policy-relevant objectives are to examine: • what are the key factors to consider in domestic decision-making (especially in formulating long-

term energy strategies); • what are the relative benefits and drawbacks in geological storage of CO2 and RW; • what issues/aspects require international coordination and treaties; • what are the main domestic regulatory requirements for implementation.

Implementing these ambitious objectives is not a simple task. According to the experience gained from this project, the links between the two communities working on CO2 and RW disposal are rather limited, both in the natural sciences (geology, environmental and engineering sciences) and in social sciences (ranging from legal to economic and public acceptance issues). However, the results indicate that there are many similarities between these two areas and that one can derive useful information from the differences as well. This section highlights only a few topics. Looking at the geological aspects firsts, we find interesting similarities as well as major differences between the geological disposal of CO2 and RW. Both substances require reasonable tectonic stability and locations with at least one natural barrier against migration. Post-emplacement monitoring is required in both cases, although, unless monitoring takes place very close to the disposal site, it is very unlikely that any releases of radioactivity will be detected in the case of RW for a very long time. Moreover, both substances will trigger local effects on the geological environment as a result of the emplacement, although the nature of the effects (e.g. thermal cooling versus heating, different geochemical and geomechanical effects, etc.) differs. The principal geological formation for CO2 disposal is certain types of sedimentary (soft) rocks while radioactive wastes can be disposed of in hard rock as well. Perhaps the largest differences can be observed in the volume and toxicity of the waste products for disposal. Gigatons of fluid CO2 will need to be injected into the disposal media whereas the volume of HLW accumulated so far amounts to a few hundred thousand tons. In contrast, the environmental and health hazards of CO2 are relatively modest (except extreme cases of seepage in valleys with human settlements) while HLW is contains radioisotopes which emit radiation exposure to which is harmful and can be fatal to some species, including humans.

Another important differences is in the disposal technologies. CO2 disposal goes through wells at great depths and is based on oil/gas drilling techniques in terms of engineering while engineering techniques from mining are used to create the tunnels and vaults at the depth of a few hundred meters for RW. The latter uses a combination of engineered and natural barriers. A comparable variety of similarities and differences can be observed in the issues concerning the implementation of CO2 and RW disposal. The timing of the disposal activity relative to the time of the waste generation has several implications. CO2 will require disposal within a short time after it was capture because temporary storage, albeit in principle possible, would be very expensive considering the huge volumes involved. In contrast, RW has been safely stored for decades in the past and this practice could continue for decades into the future before emplacement into the final repository. This means that CO2 disposal will require an upfront investment into exploration, site assessment, licensing, etc. that will be recovered during the operation time of the disposal site from the avoided CO2 emission costs (tax or tradable permits) while nuclear reactor operators can set aside a small fraction of their pro kWh sales for establishing the ultimate disposal site at a later time. At the boundary between economics and law is the question about the ownership of the underground space in which these waste products will be disposed of. Some legal systems (e.g., in the USA) grant property rights (including the right to extract resources) to the owner of the surface area. In most cases, however, the underground space is in public (government) ownership. In either case, securing the right to use this space for disposal involves contentious issues in both cases. CO2 is somewhat more complicated because RW will stay at the location of the engineered barrier system while CO2 can migrate underground to large distances depending on the geological formation. Another legal issue is liability. With the advent of the geological disposal of CO2, the fossil power industry enters a new legal terrain by the need to deal with the liability associated with the CO2 disposal sites possibly for hundreds of years. The final solution for the extremely long liability period is likely to be similar in both domains: a transfer to a state or government entity. The nature and magnitude of the payment from the operator of the disposal sites for the virtually infinite public liability will need to be resolved in both cases. The long struggle and many failures in various countries in earlier attempts to search for, explore and select sites for RW repositories and the experience from more recent and successful site selection procedures could be a valuable source of information for those working on CO2 disposal. The importance of openness and transparency, public information and public participation during not only site selection, but in all elements of RW disposal programmes cannot be overemphasized. A procedure involving these components will be beneficial not only in site selection, but in all other phases of a CO2 disposal programme (capture facilities, transport routes, etc.). 1.5. Assessment framework and data

Comparative assessment framework In this paper, we use a simple comparative assessment framework to compare the geological disposal of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste in Germany. We essentially identify the major differences and commonalities in terms of geological environment, rock type and characteristics, safety potential, mode and purpose of disposal, volume (disposal capacity), disposal depth, containment mode, site selection and public acceptance, and implementation issues. In addition, a comparison is made in terms of institutional coherence, with a view to draw conclusions on institutional change.

Data Data was collected from government-commissioned studies and scientific assessments, academic articles, descriptions of field trials and projects, as well as government publications. Public acceptance data are also drawn from newspapers and journals. In view of a generation of assessments and demonstration projects, the radioactive waste storage is extremely well documented in Germany. Data quality issues arise from the fact that there are also a large number of politically motivated studies, especially on the issue of radioactive waste storage. However, review studies of the status of research and demonstration conducted by the Bundesanstalt fuer Geowissenschaften and Rohstoffe (BGR), the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, the Institut für Angewandte Ökologie e.V., the Gesellschaft fuer Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit mbH., provided excellent sources of information and data for this paper. Key data resources on radioactive waste disposal in Germany include BGR (1995 and 2007), Kockel and Krull (1995), Brasser et al. (2008), Bräuer et al. (1994), Bräuer (2008), Fischedick et al. (2007), Hoth et al. (2007). Key resources on geological storage of CO2 in Germany include BGR (2009), May et al. (2005), and Stroink (2006). 1.6. Outline Section 2 provides an overview of status and issues related to carbon dioxide sources and geological disposal in Germany. Section 3 outlines the status of geological storage of radioactive waste in Germany. Section 4 applies the assessment framework to compare the CO2 and radioactive waste cases in Germany. Section 5 concludes.

2. Carbon dioxide sources and geological disposal in Germany: status and issues This Section provides a brief overview of the most salient large-point carbon dioxide (CO2) sources and geological disposal options for CO2 that are being explored in Germany. 2.1. Fossil-based electricity and carbon dioxide emissions

Overview of CO2 emissions and commitments In 2007, net CO2 emissions in Germany were 824.2 MtCO2 or roughly one fifth of EU-27 emissions (UBA 2009; EEA 2008). Carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector and all other energy-related activities were estimated at 755.3 MtCO2, of which 51% originated from the energy industries (385.5 MtCO2). Public electricity and heat production accounted for 345.7 MtCO2 of which 291.1 MtCO2 originated from solid fuels (coal, lignite), 40.7 MtCO2 from gaseous fuels (natural gas and other gases), 3.6 MtCO2 from liquid fuels, 10.4 MtCO2 from biomass, and 10.3 MtCO2 from other fuels (UBA 2009). In other words, 84 per cent of emissions from public electricity and heat production originated from coal and lignite power plants, 12 per cent from gas-based power plants. These large stationary sources are most suitable for the application of CCS. By 2007, net CO2 emissions in Germany had decreased by 18.2 per cent from their level in 1990 (UBA 2009), and per capita emission levels are now similar to 1950s levels (Marland et al. 2007). According to newest data from the Federal Environment Agency, Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 were down by 23.3 per cent over 1990, and thus it appears that Germany has already reached its 21 percent reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol and the EU burden sharing agreement (UBA 2009b). In 2007, the government announced an eight-point plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent from 1990 to 2020, corresponding to another reduction of 270 MtCO2-eq from the 2007 level. While the plan does not include CCS, the government has recognized the need to explore this option, as evidenced by the number of ongoing pilot studies and applications. The government also announced the need to reach GHG emissions reductions of 80 per cent by 2050, an ambitious target that will require the consideration of

all possible options including CCS. It should be noted that in 2006 the Federal Environment Agency issued a position paper that examined the storage potential and the environmental impacts of CCS and which concluded that CCS was only an interim solution and would not be available for large scale power plants in Germany before 2020 (UBA 2006). Fossil fuel reserves and resources There are considerable coal reserves and resources in Germany. Estimated lignite reserves (40,818 Mt) and resources (36,760 Mt) are some of the largest in the world and could serve current German consumption levels for another 430 years. Hard coal resources (82,947Mt) would not run out for hundreds of years. However, in 2007 hard coal reserves were estimated at 118 Mt which was equivalent to only 5 years of production. Estimated natural gas reserves and resources were relatively small (418Gm3) compared to consumption (96Gm3), and oil reserves and resources are relatively negligible (57Mt) (BGR 2008). Germany has become increasingly dependent on the import of fossil fuels. Almost all of the oil (97 per cent), most of the natural gas (82 per cent) and two thirds of the hard coal consumed in Germany was imported in 2007. Ten years ago, only one third of hard coal were imported. In contrast, almost all lignite was produced domestically in 2008 (BGR 2008). Coal resources are concentrated in the Rheinland in West Germany. Tagebau Garzweiler near Düsseldorf is the largest lignite surface mine in the world and produces more than one quarter of the fuel for Germany’s electricity. Other large coal mines are located at Heimbach and Inden close to the border with the Netherlands. Natural gas fields located in the North-Western German Basin, the Upper Rhine Graben and the Molasse Basin spread over 41 per cent of the German Territory. Currently, Germany’s natural gas refining and production occurs mostly in the north western state of Niedersachsen, but the country contains also sizable natural gas reserves in the North Sea. The country’s largest oil producing field, Mittelplate, is located off the western coast of the North German State of Schleswig-Holstein.

Map 1. Major stationary sources of CO2 (power plants), potential disposal in saline aquifers and natural gas storage facilities, and the existing gas pipeline network in Germany. Source: Fischedick et al. (2007).

Fossil fuel power plants and large stationary CO2 sources In 2007, electricity use in Germany was 5,490 PJ, with a mix of hard coal (24.5%), lignite (27.0%), gas (12.6%), hydro and wind (4.2%), nuclear (27.9%) and oil and other solids (2.4%) (AEB 2009). While overall coal use has decreased in recent years, more than half of electricity is still derived from coal and lignite. In view of the need for base load power together with Germany’s nuclear power phase-out decision and the high oil and natural gas prices in recent years, two dozen coal plants are currently in the planning or construction stage in Germany. In fact, the Environment Ministry of Germany (BMU) projects a continued reliance on coal for electricity production over the next decades. Therefore, CCS is expected to play an important role in CO2 mitigation strategies of Germany in the future. Map 1 shows the locations of major stationary sources of CO2 emissions (red circles) which are mainly coal power plants and some gas-based power plants. Such plants are located close to major coal mines and/or consumption centers (cities). For example, the “Schwarze Pumpe” in the Ruhrgebiet is the largest lignite power plant in Germany, with a capacity of 1,600 MW and more than 10 MtCO2 emissions per year (Kreft et al. 2007). Map 1 also indicates the locations of suitable geological formations for carbon dioxide disposal, as well as the existing gas pipelines. The EU project GeoCapacity developed a GIS mapping tool for the analysis of sources, potential sinks and CO2 transport scenarios (Fischedick et al. 2007). 2.2. Geological formations for carbon dioxide disposal In Germany, a wide range of geological formations are being explored for CO2 disposal (Stroink, 2006). Most disposal options are based on the permeability of high porosity geological formations. In particular, deep saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas fields, and deep (presently unexploitable) coal seams are

considered promising options. Fischedick et al. 2007 carried out an assessment of the pros and cons of the options and found closed coal mines and salt caverns (which have also been considered) as unsuitable.11 Map 2 provides an overview of the locations of main CO2 emission sources (red), as well as of the most promising formations for disposal: natural gas fields (yellow), sedimentary basins (blue), and coal mines (black) in Germany. In addition to the full range of CO2 disposal options in deep geological formations, disposal options in the sea and in biomass have been explored. However, the marine options (in the German seabed) were considered too risky and are no longer pursued (Stroink 2006). An increasing number of research and demonstration (R&D) activities on carbon dioxide disposal have been carried out in Germany, especially since the start of the EU Emissions Trading System in 2005 (Krooss and May 2006). Many of these R&D activities are partnerships between academia, government and private sector. In the following, we will summarize the research findings for each of the geological formations under consideration in Germany.

___________________________________________________________________________ 11 Their study draws on Gerling and May (2001), Herzog et al. (1997), and Gerling (2004), DIW (2006), and May et al. (2005).

Map 2. Location of natural gas fields (yellow), sedimentary basins (blue), coal mines (black), and main emission sources (red) in Germany. Source: BGR (2009).

Deep saline aquifers Deep saline aquifers have been identified as the option with the largest storage capacity in Germany, with estimates ranging from 12 to 28 GtCO2 (May et al. 2005; Fischedick et al. 2007). Earlier estimates were even higher on the order to 23-43 Gt (Bentham and Kirby 2005; based results of the GESTCO project) and 33 Gt (Kuckshinrichs et al. 2007; Kretschmar 2003). In fact, Germany’s saline aquifers show the largest capacities in Europe (BMWi 2009). However, significant research efforts will be needed to refine estimates and better assess the storage quality and potential of this option in Germany. Also, the risks of leakage from the geological formation (and from pipelines) require more research. Suitable saline aquifers are being explored at depths of roughly one kilometre. While the option is in principle technologically feasible, the costs of this disposal option are expected to be relatively high (Fischedick et al. 2007). The possibility of long-term fixation of the CO2 in the form of solid carbonate is being explored, but more research will be needed into the corresponding chemical reaction rates and the optimal mineral composition of the aquifer to support the formation of carbonates (Fischedick et al. 2007). Potential future conflicts with the use of geothermal energy (hydrothermal/hot-dry-rock approaches) and with the use of deep aquifers for seasonal energy storage have been noted, too. Depleted gas fields Depleted gas fields are the most promising option for CO2 disposal in Germany in terms of economics and technical feasibility. They are mainly located in the North and Middle German Sedimentary Basin in Permian and Triassic sandstones (Stroink 2004). CO2 is stored in liquid supercritical phase (May 2004). Depleted gas fields appear to be the cheapest options for geological disposal of CO2. This is due to the use of CO2 injection for enhanced recovery of residual natural gas (EGR), and due to the fact that the existing gas infrastructure and technology can be used with relatively few modifications. Key technical challenges relate to the development of new materials (different types of cement and steel), and simulation and monitoring. However, conflict of use may arise in the future due to the CO2 contamination of the remaining natural gas (Fischedick et al. 2007). The estimated CO2 storage capacity in depleted gas fields in Germany is 1.77 to 2.56 GtCO2 which is small compared to the annual emissions of almost 0.4GtCO2 from large (>0.1Mt) stationary sources (Fischedick et al. 2007). In fact, there are only 66 gas fields of adequate size in Germany to store CO2 (Stroink, 2006). An average German gas field would be large enough to hold roughly 3 to 5 years of the CO2 emissions of a typical German large lignite power plant which emits roughly 8 to 10 MtCO2 per year (BMWi 2009). Depleted oil fields The CO2 storage capacity in depleted oil fields in North and East Germany is very limited. It is estimated at less than 0.11 GtCO2. Proven technologies exist and it is expected to be a low cost option, in view of the extensive experience with Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). Similar to the disposal option in depleted gas fields, leakage and materials issues need to be addressed (Fischedick et al. 2007) Deep (presently unexploitable) coal seams Deep and presently unexploitable coal seams appear a promising CO2 disposal option for Germany, in view of large coal resources in close proximity to coal power plants, as well as due to the economic benefits of enhanced coal bed methane recovery (ECBM). However, much more research and technology development efforts will be needed, especially in the physico-chemical properties of coal under in-situ conditions (May 2004). The adsorption potential for CO2 depends on the type of coal and depth. The adsorption method requires depths of roughly 1.5 kilometres. CO2 storage in coal seams may make future recovery of such coal difficult or impossible. Also, it will be important to fully capture all the resulting coal bed methane which is also a greenhouse gas (Fischedick et al. 2007). While the estimated technical potential for CO2 disposal in deep coal seams in Germany is up to 3.7–16.7 GtCO2 in the regions of Münsterland and the Saar-Nahe Basin, the economic potential is probably much lower. Industrial pilot projects exist already, for example, with German participation in Katowice, Poland.

Closed coal mines CO2 disposal in closed coal mines appears an attractive option, as these mines are located in close proximity of major CO2 sources. However, very high safety risks have been noted, due to connections between closed mines and those in use, and due to the fact that some mines especially in the densely populated Ruhrgebiet are only a few metres below the surface. There is also a conflict of use with mine gas. The estimated storage capacity is 0.7 GtCO2, or 15 per cent of the mined coal seams, most of which are located in the Ruhrgebiet und Saar region (Fischedick et al. 2007). Salt caverns Salt caverns suitable for CO2 disposal exist mainly in the States of Sachsen-Anhalt and Thüringen. The estimated storage potential is only 0.03 GtCO2 in Germany, even smaller than in oil fields. The technology exists for disposal. Safety is a major issue, due to flooding with water as well as negative experiences with explosive leakage of natural gas stored in salt caverns. Salt caverns are preferred geological formations for the disposal of highly toxic and radioactive wastes, and even the storage of documents for the purpose of data security is being explored in Germany. In view of the small volumes of suitable salt caverns, such conflict of use is considered seriously (Fischedick et al. 2007). Table 1 summarizes the pros and cons of different geological formations for CO2 disposal in Germany. Type of disposal

CO2 storage capacity and location

Advantages Disadvantages

Deep saline aquifers

12-28 Gt ** Mainly in northern Germany

Availability in many locations Long-term storage of CO2 in carbonates

Potential usage conflict with geothermal energy production; Quality of storage uncertain and requires further research

Depleted gas fields

Cumulative production corresponds to 1.77 Gt including reserves 2.56 Gt. North and East Germany

Enhanced gas recovery Good storage quality Costs low due to available infrastructure

Ongoing natural gas production Contamination with CO2 can impact future use of the gas field.

Depleted oil fields (no EOR in Germany)

Cumulative production corresponds to 0.081 Gt including reserves 0.110 Gt North and East Germany

Enhanced oil recovery possible Good storage quality Already industrial practise

Small storage capacity in Germany Contamination of oil field with CO2

Deep coal seams

3.7–16.7 Gt in the regions of Münsterland and the Saar-Nahe Basin

Proximity to large CO2 sources Enhanced coal-bed methane recovery (ECBM) Low costs

Low injection rates Contamination conflicts with future use of coal mine Technology under development

Closed coal mines

Roughly 0.7 Gt. The volume amounts to 15 per cent of the mined coal seams, especially in the Ruhrgebiet und Saar region

Proximity to large CO2 sources Safety risks Usage conflict with mine gas

Salt caverns Volume estimated at 0.03 GtCO2, in the States of Sachsen-Anhalt and Thüringen

Very tight barriers Large CO2 density at low depths Technology feasibilty

Safety risks Usage conflict with disposal of nuclear and other wastes; only two remaining unused potassium mines in Germany Very high costs.

Table 1. Overview of geological disposal options for CO2 in Germany. Table adapted from Fischedick et al. (2007) which drew on Gerling and May (2001), Herzog et al. (1997), and Gerling (2004). * Data on energy-related emissions rates following DIW (2006); ** May et al. (2005).

2.3. Pilot projects and field trials of CO2 disposal in Germany: location and capacity estimates Next we summarize major pilot projects and field trials of CO2 disposal in geological formations in Germany. The section concludes with an assessment of overall German national storage capacity and expected techno-economic feasibility. German participation in R&D on geological disposal of CO2 has been carried out mainly through EU research projects together with foreign partners, including Joule II, GESTCO, GeoCapacity, NASCENT, RECOPOL, CASTOR, CO2SINK, CO2STORE, CO2GeoNet, ICBM and Dynamis. Noteworthy national research projects on CO2 disposal include the programme GEOTECHNOLOGIEN with ten projects (14 research institutions and 15 companies), CSEGR; and the “Speicher-Kataster”. It should be noted that government support for R&D on CO2 subsurface disposal has been relatively small, in view of the German government’s focus on renewable technologies (Krooss and May 2006). Sandstone aquifer at Ketzin A sandstone aquifer near the town of Ketzin (west of Berlin) is the location of a field trial of CO2 injection and disposal. The disposal site is located at the flank of an anticline above a salt pillow at a depth of 1,500 to 2,000 metres. The saline aquifer formation for CO2 injection is a Stuttgart Formation of Triassic age at a depth of 650 metres. It has a thickness of up to 80 metres and has a Triassic Weser Formation as top seal (Förster et al. 2008). The overburden of the storage formation contains several aquifers and aquitards, including an abandoned gas storage. Since April 2004, within the EU project CO2SINK preparations and measurements have been performed, including flow experiments with water and CO2 in various sandstones types. In 2004, a seismic survey provided 3D information of the formation. The research showed the good sealing properties of the caprocks at the Ketzin site. The CO2 injection started in June 2008, and by April 2009, 13,077 tCO2 had been injected (CO2SINK 2009). It is planned to inject at least 60,000 tCO2 over a period of two years (Förster et al. 2008). Gas field at Altmark Another noteworthy field trial of CO2 injection and storage is taking place in the Altmark natural gas field which is Europe’s second largest natural gas field. The field is located in the Altmark region in state of Sachsen-Anhalt in North-Eastern Germany, and it is roughly 120 kilometres southeast of Hamburg, Germany’s second largest city. In geological terms, the Altmark is part of the North German Basin and part of the Mid-European Basin. It contains several sub-reservoirs (Rebscher et al. 2006). The reservoir rocks are located at a depth of 3.5 kilometres and are made of red sandstone and siltstone with shale layers, with a wide range of porosity and permeability. Above the reservoir, there is a several hundred metres thick Zechstein salt bedrock with very low permeability which forms an effective cap rock. The CO2 injection and storage project is part of an Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR) project. CO2 has been injected in the depleted Altmark natural gas reservoirs, in order to test the technical feasibility. The storage capacity is estimated at up to 508 million tonnes or roughly one fifth of the total storage potential in German gas fields. It is the only depleted gas field available in Germany that can store the entire life-time CO2 emissions of a large coal power plant. The worlds’ first the carbon capture plant ("carbon-dioxide free" oxyfuel test facility) with a thermal power of 30 MW is being operated at nearby Schwarze Pumpe. Larger pilot testing facilities with 250–350 MWe are being planned by Vattenfall (2009), but their construction is still uncertain in view of a missing German CCS act.

Saline aquifer at Schweinrich In the context of the CO2STORE project, a field trial is being carried out in a saline aquifer below the village of Schweinrich, roughly 100 kilometres north-west of Berlin and 250 kilometres northwest of the “Schwarze Pumpe” power plant. The Schweinrich structure follows an elongated anticline which covers almost 100 square kilometres. The reservoir formations are within the Lower Jurassic and Uppermost Triassic, and are located between two large salt diapirs at a depth of roughly 1,500 to 1,600 metres. The reservoir is about 150 metres thick and consists of several layers of fine-grained, highly porous sandstones overlayed with thick Jurassic clay formations. The storage capacity is estimated to be at least 400 million tCO2 (Kreft et al. 2007; CO2STORE 2009). Natural CO2 reservoir at Oechsen In the context of the NASCENT project, the BGR and partners carried out a series of geological studies and soil gas surveys at Oechsen in the Vorderrhön region of Central Germany. In that region, natural CO2 occurs below and within Permian Zechstein salts and was previously produced commercially (Krooss and May 2006). Other sites In the context of the GESTCO project, two case studies were selected for numerical simulations of CO2 injection, the Buntsandstein aquifer near a planned power plant at Lubmin and the abandoned natural gas field Alfeld-Elze. Another site at Kalle was also analysed (Krooss and May 2006). Table 2 provides an overview of major national and EU projects in Germany. Project Time frame Activities/results related to CO2 staorage in

Germany Demonstration sites in Germany (or border proximity)

EU project:s Joule II 1993-1995 Techno-economic assessment of CO2 sources

and disposal options None

GESTCO 2000-2003 Assessed potential for geological disposal of CO2 in Germany; GIS mapping of potential sources and sinks,

Abandoned natural gas field Alfeld-Elze, and Buntsandstein aquifer close to planned power plant Lubmin

GeoCapacity European information system on CO2 sources and disposal possibilities, integrating results of the GESTCO and CASTOR projects.

None

NASCENT 2001-2004 Geological studies and analysis of leakage from natural CO2 reservoir that that occurs below and within Permian Zechstein salts.

Natural CO2 reservoir Oechsen in the Vorderrhoen region of central Germany

RECOPOL 2001-2005 Investigated feasibility of CO2 disposal in unminable coal seams with ECBM. Laboratory studies and field test.

First European field test, Silesian Coal Basin, near Katowice, Poland.

CASTOR 2004-2008 Development of new technologies for EGR and CO2 disposal. Investigation of 4 hydrocarbon reservoirs.

Natural gas field Atzbach-Schwanenstadt. Offshore gas field in Netherlands

CO2SINK 2004-2009 In-situ R&D laboratory for geological disposal of CO2. baseline geological survey, risk assessment, detection and monitoring.

Sandstone aquifer of several tens of metres thickness, at 700m depth near the town of Ketzin (west of Berlin)

CO2STORE 2003-2006 Aim to transfer experience of Statoil’s offshore CO2 injection to other geological formations. Field trials in four locations.

EGR at gas field Altmark (in the State of Sachsen-Anhalt) to provide 0.4 GtCO2 storage for lignite power plant

“Schwarze Pumpe” in East Germany. Vattenfall’s demonstrate-ion oxyfuel power station started operations at Schwarze Pumpe in 2008. Structure Schweinrich.

CO2GeoNet 2005- European network of excellence for CO2 capture and storage

None

ICBM 2003-2006 Technical challenges of the ECBM method None Dynamis 2006-2009 Investigate low-cost industrial hydrogen

production with integrated CCS None

National German projects: GEOTECH-NOLOGIEN

2005- 10 projects under the national research programme, to evaluate various rock formations and consider long-term integrity and safety

None.

Speicher-Kataster

2008-2011 Development of reservoir and barrier rock maps with detailed characterizations of suitable structures in Germany

None

CSEGR 2005-2008 Feasibility studies for EGR in various formations.

Natural gas fields at Altmark in Sachsen-Anhalt and the gas fields with Buntsandstein barriers in Niedersachsen.

BW and NRW

2003, 2006 Mapping of disposal options in the State of Baden-Württemberg (BW) and the State of Nordrhein-Westfalen (NRW).

None

Table 2. Selected European R&D projects with German participation and the national German projects (Krooss and May 2006; Fischedick et al. 2007; BGR 2009).

2.4. National geological storage potential and estimated costs

National geological storage potential The total geological storage potential for CO2 in Germany is estimated at 19 to 48 GtCO2 which is on the order to 30 to 60 years of CO2 emissions from all large stationary CO2 sources in Germany (based on 2007 emissions) (Fischedick et al. 2007). The alternative estimate of the BGR12 is similar: 20 ± 8 GtCO2 (BGR 2009). These are estimates of the technical potentials, only a fraction of which may become economically feasible. Generally, the CO2 storage potential is relatively large in the north of Germany and relatively small in the middle and south of the country, compared to current German CO2 emissions. A study commissioned by the German Environment Ministry and carried out by the Wuppertal Institute, DLR, ZSW and PIK assessed the storage potentials for Germany against ecological and techno-economic criteria. The study concluded that only deep saline aquifers, depleted gas fields, and deep coal seams were of practical relevance for CO2 disposal. Table 3 provides an overview of key results in terms of capacity, long-term stability, costs, state of technology, utilisation conflicts and general risks (Fischedick et al. 2007).

___________________________________________________________________________ 12 BGR = Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources

Type of disposal

CO2 storage capacity [Gt]

Long-term stability

Costs State of technology

Utilisation conflicts

General risks

Depleted gas fields

2.3-2.5 good good very good may be resolvable

good

Deep saline aquifers

12-28 good very problematic

good may be resolvable

good

Deep coal seam 3.7-16.7 good very problematic

may be resolvable

may be resolvable

may be resolvable

Depleted oil fields

0.11 good very good very good may be resolvable

good

Salt cavern 0.04 very problematic n.a. good very problematic very

problematic Disused coal mine

0.78 very problematic very

problematic very problematic very problematic may be resolvable

Table 3. Assessment of geological disposal options. Sources: Fischedick et al. 2007; May et al. (2005).

Estimated costs Fischedick et al. (2007) combined their German capacity estimates (based on ECOFYS 2004 and BGR) with cost estimates for Western Europe from the earlier GESTCO report to create cumulative capacity-cost curves for deep saline aquifers, depleted gas fields, and deep coal seams in Germany. 2.56 GtCO2 could be stored for roughly 6.5 EUR/t in depleted gas fields, 12-28 GtCO2 for roughly 8 EUR/t in saline aquifers, and 3.7-16.7 GtCO2 for roughly 13 EUR/t in deep coal seams (Fischedick et al. 2007). However, large uncertainties remain regarding both costs and capacities. Costs estimates were derived from German case studies and range widely, especially for CO2 transport and disposal in saline aquifers. 2.5. Implementation issues: public acceptance, institutions, and policy In addition to the techno-economic issues above, a range of political, social and institutional issues will determine the overall feasibility of carbon disposal options in Germany. Public acceptance and stakeholder perspectives Rostock (2008) reviewed public acceptance of CCS in Germany. While he identified public resistance as the biggest argument against CCS, especially with regard to the perceived risks during transport and disposal, he noted that the public was not yet debating the pros and cons of CCS. Whereas experts and industry representatives were generally optimistic, environmental organizations were either generally uneasy with or outright opposed to CCS. Hansson and Bryngelsson (2009) recently carried out interviews of CCS experts and reported a discrepancy between the uncertainties and the experts’ optimism. German environmental organizations have increasingly warned of the risks of CCS and its negative implications in terms of energy demand and coal lock-in. In particular, the concern has been voiced that CCS delayed efforts to move toward renewable, low-emission technologies. For example WWF has generally welcomed the development of CCS, but warns against fossil lock-in, intransparency and potential environmental consequences (WWF 2009). On a more extreme end of the spectrum, Greenpeace Germany strictly opposes CCS and uses language identical to that in its battle against transport and disposal of radioactive waste: “time bomb CO2 disposal” (“Zeitbombe CO2 Endlager”) (Greenpeace 2009). Prominent German research institutions have focussed on techno-economic assessments of CCS, typically without reference to the potential socio-political limits in Germany. For example, the PIK calls for carrying out as many as 12 CCS demonstration projects until 2015, which should demonstrate all steps from CO2

capture, transport to sequestration and show leakage below 0.01 per cent per year. The PIK also suggests to mandate operators to buy CCS-bonds for each unit of CO2 sequestered that would be held by a state authority and handed back after 30 years only. According to the Öko-Institut e.V., CCS can play an important role in addressing anthropogenic climate change, together with renewable energy, energy efficiency and combined heat and power. The Sustainability Council (“Nachhaltigkeitsrat”) of the German Government sees CCS as a necessary technology to support a transition to renewable energy, while the German Advisory Council on the Environment (”Der Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen”) expressed their concern that CCS may become available too late and turn out to be too expensive. The German Advisory Council on Global Change (“Wissenschaftliche Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderung“) advised against CO2 disposal in the sea and argued that safe storage would need to be provided for more than 1,000 years. The Environment Ministry itself (Umweltbundesamt) considers CO2 capture and disposal as an interim solution at best (UBA 2006). German Industry Associations are very optimistic about CCS. The German Lignite Association (DEBRIV) recommends CCS, and the Hard Coal Association (GVSt) categorizes CCS as a long term option, but focuses attention on the further increase in power plant efficiency. Map 3 provides an overview of plans by three of the major companies interested in CCS development in Germany. For example, the electric utility RWE plans to ship CO2 from a power plant near Cologne through a pipeline to the North Sea coast around Stadum/Hoerup. As a result, In 2009, a grassroots movement formed in the northern state of Schleswig Holstein to oppose these plans. Not only green party members but the conservative Christian Democratic mayors of the towns in the area called upon their citizens to refuse to allow the employees of electric utilities to set foot on their property. In the Weser River region, entire counties have blocked RWE's exploration activities (Spiegel, 2009). A 2006 survey conducted by University of Marburg showed that 93 percent of Germans considered climate change an important issue and that most people living close to power plants welcomed CCS. Legal basis Until very recently, the legal basis for CO2 disposal was unclear. In fact, elements of the mining act (Bundesberggesetz BBergG), recycling and waste act (Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz KrW/AbfG), and the federal water act (Wasserhaushaltsgesetz) applied. On 1 April 2009, the German government adopted a CCS act (“Gesetz zur Regelung von Abscheidung, Transport und dauerhafter Speicherung von Kohlendioxid“) that sets basic parameters and limits liability of private operators to 30 years after closing of the CO2 storage, after which the state takes over responsibility (BMU 2009). The act still needs to be enacted by parliament. It should be noted that the German CCS act is rather general and leaves a number of key questions open. The government plans to carry out an evaluation and impact report in the year 2015

Map 3. Energy companies’ plans for carbon sequestration in Germany. Source: Spiegel (2009).

based on the experience to be gained with CO2 from the three German pilot plants in Hürth (Nordrhein-Westfalen), Jänschwalde (Brandenburg) and Wilhelmshaven (Niedersachsen). In June 2009, the CCS act failed to pass the national parliament (“Bundestag”). In fact, opposition among members of parliament of the governing conservative CDU voted it down, which was a direct response to the public outcry to RWE’s plans in the state of Schleswig-Holstein (see above). This in turn triggered Vattenfall company to stop investments in its CCS plant in Jänschwalde (Spree-Neiße) (see map 3). It should be noted, however, that an EU directive exists on CCS which will sooner or later have to be implemented into national law. What is interesting to note is also the fact that there is no similar public opposition to underground storage of natural gas which is poisonous and explosive compared to CO2. The BGR is developing sub-law standards and criteria for CO2 disposal sites. To date, two relevant DIN standards exist. DIN EN 1918-1 (“Untertagespeicherung von Gas in Aquiferen”) provides functional and safety recommendations for design, construction, commissioning, operation, maintenance and surveillance of an underground gas storage in aquifers, and DIN EN 1918-2 (“Untertagespeicherung von Gas in Öl-/Gasfeldern”) describes procedures and practices which are safe and environmentally acceptable, covering the subsurface aspects of design, construction, testing, commissioning, operation and maintenance of underground storage facilities in oil and gas fields. The German CCS act has been criticized heavily by environmental organizations, such as Greenpeace and WWF. Among others, they criticized the characterization of CO2 as an economic good rather than waste which has important legal implications. For example, there are legal restrictions on the transport of waste, especially across national borders.

3. Sources of radioactive waste and geological disposal in Germany: status and issues This Section provides a brief overview of generation and geological disposal options for radioactive waste in Germany. 3.1. Nuclear installations and waste generation Nuclear power has been an important source of base load electricity in Germany since the 1970s. 31 per cent of electricity was generated by 19 nuclear reactors by the end of the 1990s. However, the government took a nuclear phase-out decision in 2000. An agreement between the government and nuclear power plant operators mandates early decommissioning of reactors (after 32 years of operation). The oldest two reactors were shutdown in 2003 and 2005, and the phase-out is expected to be completed by 2022. In 2008, 17 nuclear reactors were operated at 12 different sites (map 3) in Germany (Sailer 2008) with a capacity of 21.5 GWe (BMWi 2009). In 2007, 27.9 per cent of electricity in Germany was produced by nuclear power plants (AEB 2009) which provided 45 per cent of the national base load. Nuclear power is the second cheapest option of electricity generation in Germany after lignite, much cheaper than hard coal, hydro or renewables (BMWi 2009). Uranium is being supplied primarily from Canada, Australia, and the Russian Federation and amounts to 3,800tU per year. The construction of a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility at Wackersdorf was stopped amidst wide spread public protests in 1989, after which German nuclear fuel was reprocessed mainly at La Hague (86 per cent) and to a lesser extent at Sellafield and other locations. A smaller reprocessing facility was operated in Karlsruhe until 1990. Since 2005, transport of fuel from German nuclear power plants to reprocessing facilities is outlawed (due to a revision of the 1959 Atomic Energy Act) and transport from these facilities is limited. Thus, interim storage and eventual final geological disposal are the only remaining options since 2005. In addition to the international classification into high, medium and low level active waste, Germany distinguishes between heat-generating waste (HGW) and negligible heat generating waste (NHGW) (Sailer 2008). NHGW is basically defined as waste that will be disposed in the Konrad repository (Bund 1989),

i.e., by the Konrad waste acceptance requirements (Brennecke 1995). In practise, HGW is more or less the same as high-level waste (IAEA). In Germany, the utilities are responsible for interim storage of spent fuel, and they have formed joint companies to build and operate off-site surface facilities. By the end of 2007, 118,124 m3 of negligible-heat generating waste (NGHW)13 was stored at the 12 nuclear power plant sites (BFS 2008); interim-storage facilitites in Greifswald, Juelich, Karlsruhe, Mitterteich and Gorleben (map 4); as well as state facilities for radioactive waste from nuclear applications in research and the health, food, and industrial sectors (table 4). Another 36,753 m3 of NHGW had been disposed of in the Morsleben repository and 47,000 m3 in the Asse research mine (table 4). Seventeen experimental and commercial reactors have been shut down and are being decommissioned, including all reactors in former Eastern Germany after reunification in 1990, leading to roughly 10,000 m3 of radioactive waste (WNA 2009). Decommissioning of all the reactors that are currently operating in Germany may produce an estimated 115,000 m3 of radioactive waste (WNA 2009). Most of Germany’s nuclear high-level waste is kept in reactor pools and at dry interim storage facilities. Until the end of 2005, 11,810 tHM of HGW in terms of spent fuel had been produced by nuclear reactors in Germany, 5,140 tHM had been stored in Germany and 6,670 tHM had been shipped for reprocessing (Alter et al. 2006) (table 4). This corresponds roughly to a volume of 14,000 m3. Another 1,859 m3 of HGW had been produced from other sources.

___________________________________________________________________________ 13 Sailer (2008) estimates the amount of low and medium-level waste at 100,000 m3.

Map 4. Nuclear power plants and storage facilities in Germany (Brasser et al. 2008).

German radioactive waste, in cubic metres (m3), as of 31 December 2007

Untreated waste

Interim products

Conditioned waste

Total radioactive

waste

Conditioned waste added in 2007

Waste disposed in geological repositories

Negligible heat generation waste

18,506 8,541 91,077 118,124 2,383 36,753 (Morsleben) and 47,000 (Asse)

Without spent fuel*

63 1,252 544 1,859 0 0 Heat generating waste Spent fuel

from reactors

n.a. n.a. n.a. (~14,000m3) 11,810 tHM produced **

n.a. 0

Table 4. Inventory of radioactive waste in Germany, as of 31 December 2007 (BFS 2008; Alter et al. 2008; and author’s estimates). * but including spent fuel from a thorium high temperature reactor; ** by end 2005

The cumulative amount of NHGW is expected to increase to 277,000 m3 by 2040 (table 5), assuming the nuclear phase-out to continue as announced, i.e., a maximum life-time of nuclear power plants of 32 year (BFS 2008). This is based on an average 60 m3 of NHGW produced per reactor per year. More recently BFS (2008) quotes lower estimates of 45 m3 per reactor and year and 5,000m3 for decommissioning per reactor.

Projections for German radioactive waste (cumulative amounts), in cubic metres (m3) Year (end) 2000 2007 2040

BFS estimate (32 year licenses, no reprocessing)

2040 WRB estimate (32 year licenses, higher unit waste assumptions)

2040 EWN estimate (assuming waste minimisation strategy)

2040 BFS estimate, (license

extensions to 60 years)

Negligible heat generating waste

76,000 118,124 277,000 297,000 192,000 298,400

Heat generating waste

8,400 14,900 22,000*-29,000 (17,200 tHM)

24,000 n.a. 48,000 (28,.900 tHM)

Table 5. Projections for radioactive waste in Germany, in cubic metres, 2000-2040 (BFS 2008; WRB 2006; and author’s estimates. * Sailer (2008)

WRB (2006) reports a somewhat higher estimate of 297,000 m3 of NHGW by 2040 (table 5). Roughly two thirds of this amount is expected to originate from the public sector, one third from electricity utilities and the nuclear industry (NEA 2006). Energiewerke Nord (EWN) explored waste minimization strategies for electric utilities which would leads to significantly lower NHGW amounts of 192,000 m3 by 2040, assuming also mandated 32 year maximum licenses (table 5). Waste optimisation for public institutions (e.g., research, medicine and the reprocessing facility Karlsruhe) may prove more difficult. Thus, in this scenario only 45 per cent of NHGW would originate from electric utilities and nuclear industry. In 2005, the 17 operating nuclear power plants in Germany produced 417 tHM spent fuel, leading to cumulative total production of 11,810 tHM until the end of 2005 (Alter et al. 2006). The cumulative amount of spent fuel is expected to increase to 17,200 tHM or roughly 29,000 m3 by 2040 (BFS 2008). This amount includes 20,600 m3 spent fuel elements in pollux containers; 3,400 m3 components of waste conditioning facility; 660 m3 vitrified high-level waste; 1,340 m3 medium-active vitrified waste from reprocessing plants; 130 m3 from research reactors, and 2,000 m3 from (BFS 2008). Sailer (2008) reports lower estimates of 22,000 m3 of HGW in 2040.

The cumulative amount of HGW from all sources is expected to reach 22,000 (Sailer 2008) to 29,000 m3 (BFS 2008) by 2040, assuming the nuclear phase-out to proceed as announced. The BFS estimate corresponds to 17,200 tHM by 2040, 46 per cent higher than today (table 5). Uncertainty remains over the implementation of the nuclear phase-out in Germany. Assuming licenses would not be limited to 32 years, but extended to 60 years similar to what has been common practise in the USA, would imply and additional 21,400 m3 of NHGW by 2040 (table 5), or an increase by roughly 8 per cent (BFS 2008). In this scenario, cumulative amounts of HGW by 2040 would increase by 11,700 tHM or 68 per cent (BFS 2008). The difference in relative change is due to the large share for decommissioning in NHGW. 3.2. Geological formations for radioactive waste disposal Deep geological disposal of radioactive waste is the only legal option for final disposal of both NHGW and HGW in Germany since the amendment of the Atomic Energy Act in 1975. Disposal is considered a national responsibility and therefore disposal abroad is illegal. An extensive knowledge base has been built in Germany on suitable geological formations, especially salt domes, which have been thoroughly surveyed, researched and field tested since the 1960s. The focus has been on salt formations, but crystalline rock formations and more recently argillaceous rock formations have been explored in detail (BGR 2007). Results of this work have been summarized in a series of reports by the BGR that had been commissioned by the German government, in particular, on HGW disposal in salt formations (so-called “Salzstudie”; Kockel and Krull 1995), HGW disposal in crystalline formations (so-called “Kristallinstudie”; Bräuer et al. 1994), and NHGW disposal in claystone (Hoth et al. 2005 and 2007). In addition to these technical reports, the German environment ministry has commissioned a comprehensive review study of radioactive waste disposal that also includes socio-political issues (Brasser et al. 2008). Requirements and criteria for repository sites

Criterium 1st evaluation step 2nd evaluation step Seismic activity Must not exceed Earthquake Zone 1 (DIN

4149) -

Volcanic activity No quaternary or expected future volcanism - Thickness of the isolating rock zone

> 100 m; rock types with field hydraulic conductivity of < 10-10 m/s

> 500 m for rock salt deposits in salt domes (BGR 1995).

Depth of the top of the isolating rock zone

> 300 m Salt roof above repository zone > 300 m; cover rock over salt dome > 200m and impermeable to water.

Underground depth of the repository

< 1,500 m < 1,000 m for argillaceous rock formations

Minimum area of the isolating rock zone

> 10 km² in clay stone > 3 km2 (AKEnd 2002) and >9 km2 (BGR 1995) for salt dome.

Research findings No findings that raise doubt that field hydraulic conductivity, thickness and extent of the isolating rock zone can be fulfilled for 1 million years

-

Other - Rock salt not affected by any other mining or drilling. Table 6: Main requirements and criteria for repository sites suggested by AKEnd (2002). 2nd evaluation step supplemented with recommendations of BGR (1995) as reported in BGR (2007).

A long series of lists of minimum requirements and criteria for repository sites have suggested and used over the past 40 years (Appel 2008). “Official” criteria lists include IMAK (1976), BGR (1977), BMI/RSK (1983), BGR (1995), AkEnd (2002), BGR (2006) and BMU (2008). While the more recent lists also include socio-political elements that were not part of the earlier lists, there are hardly any differences in terms of the geological criteria (Appel 2008). The geological criteria recommended by the German government’s task force AkEnd (2002) are summarized in Table 6. The criteria contained in the first evaluation step imply that salt formations and argillaceous rock formations are the only suitable formations satisfying the criterium of very low permeability, since crystalline rock formations may be permeable due to fractures. Rock salt formations An extensive body of knowledge exists on rock salt formations in Germany which have been thoroughly researched for the past 60 years and which can also draw on several hundred years of salt mining experience in Germany. For example, the BGR draws on data sources from more than 25,000 bore holes across Germany at depths of more than 300 metres (Bräuer 2008). Storage of radioactive waste is planned in drifts and deep boreholes at a maximum depth of roughly 900 metres, using crushed salt as backfill. Rock salt has a number of favourable properties for radioactive waste disposal: In particular, it is almost impermeable to liquids and gas, has a very high heat conductivity and heat resistance, visco–plastic deformation behaviour. The design temperature is 200°C and no drift reinforcement structures are necessary, which makes rock salt suitable for disposal of both NHGW and HGW. Rock salt formations in Northern Germany (and to a lesser extent in Southern Germany) occur in the form of salt domes and stratiform rock salt deposits. BGR’s “Salzstudie” (Kockel and Krull 1995) assessed more than 200 salt formations in Germany for their suitability as repositories for radioactive waste. The BGR (2007) considers the Hauptsalz of the Staßfurt-Formation in North Germany to be the only formation which “is known to have uniformly good host rock properties throughout, and to form very thick deposits“. The stratiform salt deposits at the Zechstein Basin are considered as back-up option. While the Rotliegend rock salt in Northwest Germany is very thick in some places, it occurs “in salt domes with very complicated internal structures” (BGR 2007). The Zechstein salts of the Aller- to Mölln formation, as well as the Upper Bunter, Muschelkalk and Tertiary rock salts are too thin. The Keuper salts, the Upper Jurassic rock salts and the stratiform salt deposits of the Werra district are considered not suitable. In addition to the Gorleben salt dome, in 1995 the BGR re-assessed the salt domes in North Germany and identified a range of salt formations worth investigation in Northern Germany at Wahn, Zwischenahn, Gülze-Sumte, and Waddekath (Bräuer 2008) Argillaceous rocks (clay/claystone) Comparatively less knowledge exists on argillaceous rock formations and their suitability as respositories. Storage of the radioactive waste is planned in drifts or short boreholes at depths of roughly 500 metres, using betonite as backfill. Advantages of argillaceous rock formations are their low permeability and low dissolution behaviour. However, their low heat conductivity and low heat resistance is considered a problem and limits design temperatures to less than 100°C. There is also a need for human-made drift reinforcement structures, which would be a particular problem at great depths (BGR 2007). While argillaceous rock formations at desired depths and thickness are found in the Tertiary, Cretaceous and Jurassic in both Northern and Southern Germany (BGR 2007), a wide range of such formations have been considered unsuitable by BGR (2007) including the argillaceous rock formations in the Upper Rhine Graben (earthquake zone), Tertiary clays in Northern Germany (low level of consolidation), Tertiary clays and claystones of the Alpine Foreland Basin (minor consolidation only), Opalinus Clay Formation (proximity to exploited karst aquifer, some in earthquake zone), and areas with extremely steep bedding near salt structures. The investigation focus is thus on thick argillaceous rock formations in the Northern Cretaceous sequence and the North and South German Jurassic sequences (BGR 2007; Hoth et al. 2005 and 2007).

Crystalline rock formations Crystalline rock formations are geologically well mapped in Germany, and it is possible to draw on significant previous mining experience. Storage of the radioactive waste is planned in drifts or boreholes at a depth of 500-1,200 metres, using betonite as backfill (BGR 2007). Advantages of crystalline rock’s high strength and cavity stability, its low heat sensitivity, and very low dissolution properties. However, its brittle deformation behaviour and anisotropic in situ stress behaviour is considered problematic. Most importantly, crystalline rocks when fractured show unsuitably high permeability. Human-made drift reinforcement would be necessary in fractured zones, limiting design temperatures to less than 100°C (due to the betonite backfill). In 1995, the BGR identified 10 crystalline formations for further investigation, including formations at Saldenburg, Noerdlicher Oberpfaelzer Wald, Fichtelgebirge, Graugneis, Granulitgebirge, Pretzsch, Prettin, Pulsnitz, Radeberg-Loebau, and Zawidow (Bräuer 2008). In 2007, the BGR concluded that it is “unlikely that Germany has zones of homogenous and unfractured crystalline rocks large enough for the construction of a nuclear repository mine” (BGR 2007). 3.3. Field trials and test facilities: locations and capacity estimates Since the 1960s, Western Germany has stored a total of 47,000 m3 of NHGW at a “test disposal facility” in the Asse salt mine (Sailer 2008). Former Eastern Germany operated the Morsleben salt mine where 36,753 m3 of NHGW had been disposed of between 1971 and 1998. After a quarter-century of legal battles, a final court decision awarded an operating license for the Konrad iron ore mine (“unanfechtbarer Planfestellungsbeschluss”), and it is expected to open for NHGW disposal in 2013 (Sailer 2008). The Gorleben salt dome was selected as disposal site for HGW some thirty years ago, however, its development has been constrained by strongly opposing political views on the development of Gorleben. Next each of these national repositories for geological disposal of radioactive waste are described in more detail Konrad iron ore mine (for disposal of NHGW) The Konrad Mine is a former iron ore mine near the town of Salzgitter in the state of Lower Saxony in Northern Germany. Figure 1 shows a schematic view of the geological formations at Konrad. The target layer for disposal is the iron ore layer at depths of 800 to 1,300 metres. The ore deposit is rather unique in that it is very dry and rather deep and has been deposited in the Upper Jurassic 150 million years ago (Biurrun and Hartje 2003). The iron ore is overlaid by highly impermeable Cretaceous claystone and marlstone (Sailer 2008). From 1960 to 1976, iron ore was mined at Konrad at great depths of 900 to 1,300 metres. The mine extends over 1.4 by 3.0 kilometres. Only 6.7 million tonnes iron had been mined accounting for 0.5 percent of the resources. Extensive geoscientific exploration and investigations assessed

the site's suitability to host a final repository for radioactive waste which concluded the good suitability of the mine for disposal of both HGW and NHGW (Biurrun and Hartje 2003). From 1976 to 1982, the German government commissioned the Gesellschaft fuer Strahlen und Umweltforschung mbH (GSF) to conduct a geological, seismic and geotechnical study which showed that the site was ideal for final disposal of NHGW. From 1983 to 1990, the site was further investigated, and a

Figure 2. Geological formations at the Konrad site (ITC 2008).

safety report “Plan Konrad” was issued in 1991. While the Konrad mine could accommodate an estimated 650,000 cubic metres of waste, the approved license is only for 303,000 cubic metres which would be more than enough for all NHGW from German reactors including decomissioning and all other sources. Gorleben salt dome (for disposal of HGW and NHGW) The Gorleben salt dome is one of many salt domes in the North-German basin. The suitability of Gorleben as a final repository for disposal of all types of radioactive waste has been investigated since 1979. An extensive amount of seismological surveys and geophysical measurements have been carried out until the government moratorium on exploration in 2000. The salt dome consists of massive formations of Zechstein salt. Large homogeneous salt areas were found in the Staßfurt sequence of the Zechstein which are particularly suitable for radioactive waste disposal (Brasser et al. 2008). It should also be noted that an almost complete sequence of principally clayey-silty marine sediments from the Upper Paleocene onwards is preserved. The salt dome covers an area of about 14 by 4 kilometres. The top of the salt dome is 250 metres below the surface and the salt base at depths of 3,200 to 3,400 m. In 1986, two shafts (Gorleben 1 at 933 metres and Gorleben 2 at 840 metres) were constructed with the main gallery at a depth of 840 metres. In total, about 7 kilometres of drifts and galleries with a volume of 234,000 cubic metres have been excavated and geological and geotechnical boreholes with a total length of 16 kilometres have been drilled (Brasser et al. 2008). In order to become operational, political agreement would need to be reached and a site plan approval procedure completed. Asse former salt mine (former research repository) The former salt mine Asse close to the town of Remlingen in the district of Wolfenbuettel; has been explored and used as a repository for research and development from 1965 to 1995 (Brasser et al. 2008). From 1967 to 1978, low and intermediate level radioactive waste was stored at Asse in 13 chambers at depths of 511, 725 and 750 metres. In contrast to Gorleben, extensive salt mining has taken place at Asse from 1909 to 1964 which has led to mechanical instabilities which make the site unsuitable for long-term disposal. Morsleben former salt mine (formerly operated for disposal of NHGW) The Former German Democratic Republic (East Germany) licensed the Morsleben Repository for Radioactive Waste (“Endlager für radioaktive Abfälle Morsleben – ERAM”) in 1981. It was operated for NHGW until 1998. Storage of low and medium-level waste occurred in the twin salt mines of Bartensleben and Marie in the state of Saxony Anhalt near the villages of Morsleben and Beendorf. The twin mine is 5.6 kilometres long and 1.7 kilometres wide, whereas the overall salt deposit covers an area of 50 by 2 kilometres. Mining took place for 70 years until 1969 (Brasser et al. 2008). Two shafts connect to a system of drifts, cavities and blind shafts at depths of 320 to 630 metres below the surface, amounting to a volume of roughly 6 million cubic metres (Another two million cubic metres had been backfilled with crushed salt). The drifts for the final disposal are located in the mines periphery. The centre appears to be stressed (Kreienmeyer et al. 2004). The ERAM was constructed in Zechstein salt strata, with Staßfurt, Leine and Aller formations being exposed in the repository mine (Behlau and Mingerzahn 2001). ERAM is located in the “Allertalzone” structure which is a fault structure separating the Lappwald block and the Weferlinger Triassic block. Into the fault zone Permian evaporate strata intruded and accumulated to a plug forming the now existing salt structure. The Zechstein salt deposit has a thickness of 380 to 500 metres and the salt leaching surface is about 140 metres (maximum 175 metres) below mean sea level. The salt body includes a high amount of anhydrite layers of the Leine-sequence which stabilize the salt structure and lead to low convergence of mine excavations (Kreienmeyer et al. 2004). It also includes potash seams, mainly are carnallitite and kiseritic hard salt. The cap rock has a very low hydraulic conductivity and isolates the salt structure from the aquifers in the overlying upper Cretaceous formations. Above the aquifers, there are unconsolidated or semi-consolidated glacial sediments and the surface cover consists of Quaternary sediments (Kreienmeyer et al. 2004).

3.4. National geological storage capacity and estimated costs

National storage capacity Published overall national estimates of geological radioactive waste storage capacity could not be identified for Germany. Quoted capacities are 650,000 cubic metres for the Konrad mine, several million cubic metres for the Morsleben mines. Assuming conservatively that at least ten of the 140 earlier investigated salt domes in Northern Germany would prove suitable for geological disposal of radioactive waste, national capacity will be at least 10 million cubic metres. This exceeds the country’s cumulative expected radioactive waste volume from all sources for 1970 to 2040 by one to two orders of magnitude, implying that geological storage capacity is large enough for hundreds of years of large-scale nuclear power generation, not assuming any waste minimization strategy. Estimated costs A wide range of cost estimates exist for geological disposal of radioactive waste in Germany, many of which appear politically motivated. The most objective estimates are available for the Konrad repository. These data are most reliable as they relate to real financial liabilities of private and public sectors. Aggregate costs for the exploratory and planning activities for the Konrad repository amounted to €945 million by 2007. Costs for converting the mine will amount to approximately €900 million. Annual costs for keeping the Konrad mine open are €18.5 million. Overall life-cycle cost estimates are around €10,000 to €25,000 per m3 (Konrad 2009)14. 3.5. Implementation issues: public acceptance, institutions, and policy Compared to fossil-fired power plants, the use of nuclear power in Germany means that 100 to 150 MtCO2 emissions are “avoided” every year, which is similar to national annual emissions from vehicular traffic (BMWi 2009). This has been a convincing argument against the nuclear phase-out, as most Germans are increasingly concerned about anthropogenic climate change. In fact, a public survey carried out in June 2007 showed that 63 per cent of Germans did not believe in the phase-out and that there was a stable majority of Germans in favour of nuclear power in the long-run (Koecher 2007). In other words, a great deal of uncertainty remains about the future of nuclear power in Germany. In Germany, geological disposal of radioactive waste is governed by the Atomic Energy Act of 1959 and its subsequent revisions, as well as the mining law (“Bergbaugesetz”). Disposal of radioactive waste is a sovereign task of the German government. The Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) is responsible for nuclear safety and radiation protection. Operational tasks are managed by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) which is supervised by the ministry. The Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) supervises the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) which advises the German government in all geological and geotechnical matters. The issues of nuclear power in general and radioactive waste disposal in particular have been highly politicised both in the national public debate as well as at level of government. While a nuclear phase-out decision was taken by the government in 2000, rather opposing views are expressed within the main political parties and also within the current national government (as acknowledged explicitly by the coalition agreement of the current government). In fact, while the environment ministry has followed a rather anti-nuclear stance, the ministry of economics and technology has highlighted the importance of continued use of nuclear power and operationalization of geological repositories for radioactive waste ___________________________________________________________________________

14 The low estimate is based on low waste volumes (200,000 m3) and long life-cycle until 2080, and the high estimate assumes higher waste volume (290,000 m3) and short life-cycle until 2040

disposal. The anti-nuclear side succeeded in imposing an investigation moratorium on the Gorleben site and to set-up the government task force AKEnd in 1999 which suggested to start a new selection process for repository sites with a “white map of Germany” (Sailer 2008). Another point of a disagreement in the government concerns the issue of whether to pursue the development of a single national geological repository or to develop several ones. A recent study of the BFS and GRS showed that the single-repository concept would cause additional costs of several billion Euros which would be more than the total cost of constructing, operation and decomissioning of the Konrad repository. While the additional costs for the single-repository concept would have to be fully financed from public funds, two thirds of the cost of constructing and operating the Konrad repository needed to be borne by the industry (Pfeiffer 2007): Rather polarized views are also expressed by the public on the issues. However, whereas the majority of the public had been more concerned about nuclear issues in the late 1980s and early 1990s, now sides seem to have switched. In fact, in 2007, 63 per cent of Germans believed that Germany will not abstain from the use of nuclear power in the long-run, compared to only 18 per cent who believe the phase-out agreement will be completed (Koecher 2007). 80 per cent of German businesses are in favour of extending the operating life-time of the country’s nuclear power plants beyond the current phase-out dates, according to a survey of the German association of chambers of industry and commerce (WNN 2008). As a consequence of such polarization in Germany, the stories of operationalization of the geological repositories for radioactive waste have been characterised by decades of legal challenges and socio-political conflict. Konrad In 1982 the predecessor of BFS applied for a construction and operating license for a NHGW final disposal site at the mine Konrad. Following the “Plan Konrad” in 1991, extensive public consultations were held in which 289,387 persons formally raised issues that were summarized in more than 1,000 themes. In view of a political and legal opposition, the German state of lower Saxony approved the license only in 2002, and it took until 2007 for the highest administrative court ruling in favour of the site. All legal means have been exhausted (“unanfechtbarer Planfestellungsbeschluss”), but political opposition continues. The technology for storage and backfilling of the cavities is available and was tested by DBE. Planning for the facility is underway and it is expected to open in 2013 (Sailer 2008). While the Konrad mine could accommodate an estimated 650,000 cubic metres of waste of all types of waste, the approved license is only for 303,000 cubic metres of NHGW. Gorleben In 1976, the state government of Lower Saxony pre-selected four of a 140 salt domes that had been investigated as potential sites for NHGW/HGW repositories (Gorleben, Lichtenhorst, Mariaglueck and Wahn). Using geological and socio-political criteria, the state government selected Gorleben, also in view of the fact that it is one of the largest unmined salt domes in Germany. In 1977, the German federal government confirmed the choice (Brasser et al. 2008). As part of the nuclear phase-out policy decision in 2000, the government imposed a moratorium (of 3 to 10 years) on further exploration and preparation of the Gorleben site. In order to start operationalizing the site, a site plan approval procedure needs to be completed and all legal challenges considered. This process took 25 years in the case of the Konrad site. Morsleben The former German Democratic Republic (East Germany) carried out safety and techno-economic assessments and explored the disposal of low and medium level waste at Morsleben from the 1960s. The site was selected as geological repository in 1972, and between 1981 and 1998 some 36,800 cubic metres of radioactive waste were stored there. A few years after German reunification, the German government decided to stop waste disposal at the site in 1998 and to forbid it in 2002 (Preuss 2002). Since 2005, the site has been under licensing for closure. In the next 10 to 15 years backfilling and sealing is planned.

Nevertheless, some geologists continue to believe that the Potash and rock salt cavities would have been promising properties for a long term repository (Preuss 2002).

4. Comparison of geological disposal of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste in Germany This section compares the geological disposal of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste in Germany. It identifies the major differences and similarities in terms of geological environment, rock type and characteristics, safety potential, mode and purpose of disposal, volume (disposal capacity), disposal depth, containment mode, site selection and public acceptance, implementation issues, and institutional coherence. Table 7 summarizes the key results. Germany Carbon dioxide Radioactive waste Geological environ-ment

Primarily: deep, permeable, high porosity geological formations with low permeability caprock cover.

Low permeability rock with geological stability and low groundwater fluxes

Rock type and cha-racteristics

Sandstone and saline aquifers: Stuttgart Formation of Triassic age with a Triassic Weser Formation as top seal; or Lower Jurassic and Uppermost Triassic sandstone layers with Jurassic clay formations on top. Gas field: red sandstone and siltstone overlayed by Zechstein salt bedrock.

Rock salt formations: Hauptsalz of the Staßfurt-Forma-tion, or stratiform salt deposits at the Zechstein Basin. Thick argillaceous rock formations in the Northern Cretaceous sequence and the North and South German Jurassic sequences.

Safety potential

Long-term stability good for depleted oil/gas fields and for deep saline aquifers, and coal seams. Important challenges remain for saline aquifers and coal seams. Closed coal mines and salt caverns considered unsuitable.

Disposal in salt formations is a mature and safe technology, including the risks of earthquakes, tectonic movements and a new ice age. Radioactive exposure close to repository limited to less than the natural range (<0.8 mSv/year).

Mode and purpose of disposal

Mode: Injection of liquid supercritical CO2 through well and boreholes, or controlled heating of liquid CO2 at high pressures. Purpose: EGR, EOR, ECBM, or just storage in aquifer.

Mode: Emplacement in gallery via shafts and boreholes. Purpose: safe and secure, final disposal.

Volume (disposal capacity)

National technical disposal capacity: 19-48 GtCO2 or 30-60 years of CO2 emissions from all large stationary sources in Germany. By type: saline aquifers (12-28 GtCO2), depleted gas fields (2.56 Gt), oil fields (0.110 Gt), coal seams (3.7–16.7 Gt).

National technical disposal capacity: > 10 million m3 or hundreds of years of expanded nuclear power generation, not taking into account waste minimization. Konrad site alone: 650,000 m3, but licensed for 303,000 m3 (i.e., more than the country’s cumulative radioactive waste from all sources 1970-2040).

Depth 650 m – 3,500 m 320 – 1,300 metres Contain-ment mode

Natural barriers with very low permeability. Natural barriers of highly impermeable formations. Man-made barriers: (a) backfill/sealing with crushed salt or betonite, (b) drift reinforcement structures in clay and crystalline formations.

Site selec-tion and public ac-ceptance

Researchers and private sector select sites. No public debate due to limited knowledge. Experts and industry representatives are optimistic, environmental NGOs increasingly uneasy or opposed to CCS.

Government-organized selection process among over 200 salt formations. Forty years of official site selection criteria. Licensing of the Konrad site took 25 years. Radioactive waste issue highly politicised. Polarized views on government’s nuclear phase-out decision. Majority of Germans do not believe in the phase-out.

Implemen-tation issues

German CCS act passed in 2009, but strongly criticized by environmental NGOs. Sub-law standards and cri-teria for CO2 disposal sites. Estimated costs: 2.56 GtCO2 at 6.5 EUR/t in depleted gas fields, 12-28 GtCO2 at 8 EUR/t in saline aquifers, 3.7-16.7 GtCO2 at 13 EUR/t in deep coal seams.

Sovereign task of the government (German Atomic Energy Act of 1959 and revisions, Mining Law). Konrad site (operational by 2013) the only geological repository with a valid license. Estimated costs: €10,000 - €25,000 per m3 of radioactive waste (life-cycle basis, Konrad mine).

Institu-tional coherence

The Institutional scope is national (laws) and State-level (licenses), whereas the technical scope is global. Regional and global institutions are missing.

The institutional scope: national (laws) and State-level (licenses) whereas the technical scope is global. Regional and global institutions are missing.

Table 7. Comparison of geological disposal of CO2 and radioactive waste in Germany

4.1. Geological environment Disposal of CO2 and of radioactive waste is pursued in rather different geological environments. All promising CO2 disposal options are based on the permeability of high porosity geological target formations below low permeability caprock cover. Examples are deep saline aquifers, deep-lying depleted oil and gas fields, and deep coal seams. Exceptions are closed coal mines and salt caverns that had been investigated earlier, but are not no-longer considered suitable. In contrast, radioactive waste disposal is pursued in low permeability rocks with geological stability and low groundwater fluxes. These include rock salt formations in the form of salt domes and stratiform rock salt deposits (e.g., Gorleben, Morsleben and Asse repositories), argillaceous rock formations, and the unique case of the deep and very dry Konrad iron-ore mine. Crystalline rock formations have been considered unsuitable due to fractures. 4.2. Rock type and characteristics The most promising target rock types for storage differ greatly. It is interesting to note, however, that the preferred caprocks on top of potential CO2 storage reservoirs include Zechstein salt and Jurassic clay formations both of which are preferred rock types for the radioactive waste repositories. For example, CO2 disposal in the gas field at Altmark occurs in red sandstone and siltstone with shale layers, overlayed by several hundred metres of Zechstein salt bedrock. CO2 disposal in the sandstone aquifer at Ketzin occurs in a Stuttgart Formation of Triassic age with a Triassic Weser Formation as top seal, and in the saline aquifer at Schweinrich involves layers of sandstones (Lower Jurassic and Uppermost Triassic) overlayed with thick Jurassic clay formations. Radioactive waste disposal is preferred in rock salt formations, as they are almost impermeable to liquids and gas, show very high heat conductivity and heat resistance, visco–plastic deformation behaviour, and achieve design temperatures of 200°C with no drift reinforcement structures necessary. The preferred rock type is the Hauptsalz of the Staßfurt-Formation (e.g., Gorleben repository). Stratiform salt deposits at the Zechstein Basin are considered a back-up option. Disposal in argillaceous rocks is also explored due to their low permeability and low dissolution behaviour, despite the low heat conductivity and heat resistance with lower design temperatures of 100°C. In this context, investigation focuses on thick argillaceous rock formations in the Northern Cretaceous sequence and the North and South German Jurassic sequences. 4.3. Safety potential CO2 and radioactive waste disposal both have a high safety potential. However, whereas the technology for radioactive waste disposal is mature and safe, this is only the case for CO2 disposal in depleted oil/gas fields. General risks of CO2 disposal are considered manageable for depleted oil/gas fields, whereas important challenges and concerns (e.g., usage conflicts) remain in the case of saline aquifers and coal seams, even though long-term stability is considered good in these two cases. The technology for disposal in salt formations is well very developed for several decades and considered safe by experts. It also considers extreme risks such as earthquakes, tectonic movements, and the potential impact of a new ice age. Furthermore, safety regulations limit radioactive exposure close to the repository to levels within the natural range between different regions (less than 0.8 mSv/year at Konrad site).

4.4. Mode and purpose of disposal CO2 is injected whereas radioactive waste is emplaced. In contrast to radioactive waste disposal, some CO2 disposal options serve other purposes besides final disposal. More specifically, CO2 is injected as liquid supercritical CO2 through well and boreholes, or alternatively liquid CO2 at high pressures is heated in a controlled way. In the case of storage in an aquifer, the only purpose is final disposal, whereas CO2 injection can also be used for enhanced gas recovery (EGR), enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and enhanced coal bed methane recovery (ECBM). In contrast, the only purpose of radioactive waste emplacement in galleries (via shafts and boreholes) is the safe and secure, final disposal. At the same time, there is, of course, a good case for long-term storage of radioactive waste in geological formations with the option of later retrieval and transmutation or use in future power plants. However, this is not currently pursued in Germany. 4.5. Volume (disposal capacity) In absolute terms, the technical potential for CO2 disposal is large and about two orders or magnitude larger than the technical potential for geological disposal of radioactive waste in Germany. Yet, in relative to the sources, the potential for radioactive waste disposal is at least one order of magnitude larger than for CO2. In fact, the national technical disposal potential is estimated at 19 to 48 GtCO2 which is equivalent to 30 to 60 years of CO2 emissions from all large stationary CO2 sources in Germany.15 More specifically, it is 12-28 GtCO2 in saline aquifers, 2.56 Gt in depleted gas fields, 0.110 Gt in oil fields, and 3.7–16.7 Gt in coal seams. The total national technical geological storage capacity is more than 10 million m3 (about 200 million tonnes) which is large enough for hundreds of years of expanded nuclear power generation, not taking into account any waste minimization strategy. The technical storage potential of the Konrad site alone is about 650,000 m3 for the Konrad site and several million m3 for the Morsleben site. The Konrad site is licensed for only 303,000 m3 which is still more than the country’s cumulative expected radioactive waste from all sources from 1970 to 2040 in Germany. 4.6. Depth While CO2 disposal is explored mainly at depths of more than 1,000 metres, radioactive waste disposal is pursued primarily at depths of less than 1,000 metres. Examples of CO2 disposal include depths of 650 metres (Ketzin aquifer), 1,500 to 1,600 metres (Schweinrich aquifer), and 3.5 kilometres (Altmark gas field). Examples of radioactive waste disposal include depths of 800 to 1,300 metres (Konrad iron ore mine), 840 to 933 metres (Gorleben salt dome), and 320 to 630 metres (Morsleben salt mine). 4.7. Containment mode Whereas CO2 disposal is based on natural barriers with very low permeability, radioactive waste disposal includes both natural and man-made barriers. Examples of natural barriers with very low permeability include hundred metres thick Zechstein salt bedrock in the case of the Altmark gas field, and thick Jurassic clay formations in the case of the Schweinrich saline aquifer.

___________________________________________________________________________ 15 The BGR estimate is more conservative: 20 ± 8 GtCO2..

Examples of natural barriers in the case of radioactive disposal include several hundred meters of highly impermeable Cretaceous claystone and marlstone in the case of the Konrad site, and several hundred metres of unmined salt dome in the case of the Gorleben site. Man-made barriers include backfill and sealing for which crushed in the case of salt formations and betonite in the case of clay and crystalline formations. Human-made drift reinforcement structures are needed for potential repositories in clay and crystalline formations. 4.8. Site selection and public acceptance Whereas the site selection for CO2 disposal is carried out by researchers and the private sector with hardly any government involvement, site selection is a government-driven process in the case of radioactive waste disposal. The German public does not yet debate the pros and cons of CCS, due to limited knowledge. While experts and industry representatives are generally optimistic about CCS, environmental organizations have expressed their uneasiness or outright opposition. In the case of radioactive waste disposal, site selection criteria have been officially adopted and hardly changed for the past 40 years. Changes consist of the increasing prominence of socio-political aspects. Despite an exhaustive selection process among more than 200 salt formations organized by the government, a government task force in 2002 suggested to re-start the site selection process from scratch, apparently for political reasons. The licensing of the Konrad site took 25 years and included public consultations in which 289,387 persons formally raised issues on over 1,000 themes. The radioactive waste disposal issue has been highly politicised and polarized both in government and the public. The majority of Germans do not believe in the nuclear phase-out in the long-run, and the overwhelming majority of German businesses favour an extension of the operating life-times of Germany’s nuclear power plants. 4.9. Implementation issues The legal basis for radioactive waste disposal has been in place for 50 years, whereas it is about to emerge for CO2 disposal since this year. Estimated disposal costs are about two orders of magnitude larger per tonne of radioactive waste compared to CO2. The German CCS act that was passed by the government in April 2009, but it failed to be adopted by the German national parliament in June 2009. The draft act has been criticized by NGOs. In addition, the BGR is also developing sub-law standards and criteria for CO2 storage sites. For example, DIN standards exist, such as DIN EN 1918-1 on gas storage in aquifers and DIN EN 1918-2 on gas storage in oil/gas fields. Geological disposal of radioactive waste has been governed by the German Atomic Energy Act of 1959, its revisions, and the Mining Law. Radioactive waste disposal is a sovereign task of the government. However, to-date, only the Konrad site has a valid license that is no-longer subject to legal challenges. The site will be operational by 2013. While large uncertainties remain in terms of costs and capacities, an estimated 2.56 GtCO2 could be stored for about 6.5 EUR/t in depleted gas fields, 12-28 GtCO2 for 8 EUR/t in saline aquifers, and 3.7-16.7 GtCO2 for 13 EUR/t in deep coal seams. In contrast, the costs of storing the cumulative radioactive waste of Germany from 1970 to 2040 in the Konrad mine are about €10,000 to €25,000 per m3 on a life-cycle basis. 4.10. Institutional coherence According to Finger et al. (2005), techno-institutional coherence is an important factor for system performance of network industries. Institutions need to support critical technical functions (in terms of mechanisms and scope of control) that are inherent to the underlying technologies. In a more general sense, this can also be applied to the case of radioactive waste disposal and CCS. If institutions do not support critical technical, socio-economic and environmental functions of the technologies, system performance is expected to be low. In fact, in both cases, such incoherence is significant.

The institutional scope of control for geological disposal of both CO2 and radioactive waste disposal is national in terms of laws criteria and on the State-level in terms of licensing. Yet, they aim to support achievement of global targets to solve a global problem, man-made climate change. And interests of actors at local, national and global levels will differ dramatically. Also, geology is not constrained by national borders. Thus, national commitment will lead to suboptimal technical solutions. In particular smaller countries will have fewer choices of suitable geological formations. On the other hand, there is also the option of dumping CO2 and radioactive waste in the sea which will be governed in most cases by the international law of the sea, but which is obviously not desirable at all from an environmental and human health point of view. In short, needed global institutions are missing in both cases (with the exception of a few relevant provisions in UN-IAEA conventions and the international law of the sea). While global institutional solutions for CO2 and radioactive waste disposal and may not be politically feasible in the foreseeable future, regional solutions might emerge. The recent EU directive on CCS might be the first step towards such a regional solution in Europe. Finally, an important difference exists between the institution (“rules”) governing CO2 and radioactive waste disposal in Germany. Site selection for CO2 disposal is so far being carried out by private companies, whereas it is a government task in the case of radioactive waste disposal. In countries with democratic political systems including Germany, the government involvement in the case of radioactive waste disposal has meant delays of decades due to popular opposition. Similarly, as explained above, companies planning geological CO2 disposal have faced increasing opposition by the public that has not been involved in the site selection and not even in the definition of the overall objectives.

5. Policy conclusions In conclusion, while CO2 disposal differs greatly form radioactive waste disposal in Germany in technical terms, important lessons can be learnt from radioactive waste disposal for CO2 disposal. In particular, similar public acceptance issues are likely to surface in the future requiring a similarly large scale need for public consultation and very long time-frames. A big difference is the much larger amounts of CO2 compared to radioactive waste which has important implications for their management. It may very well be that experts greatly overestimate the socio-political potential for CO2 disposal especially in Germany and other relative densely populated countries. Regional and ultimately global institutional solutions could go a long way in making large-scale geological disposal of CO2 and radioactive waste a reality. It is unclear which level of public and private sector involvement would be optimal, however, it remains to note that a government role under a democratic system at the very least provides for legitimacy and participation. References AEB (2009). Auswertungstabellen, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen e.V., http://www.ag-

energiebilanzen.de/viewpage.php?idpage=139, accessed 21 April 2009. AkEnd (2002). Site Selection Procedure for Repository Sites, Recommendations of the AkEnd-Committee on a

Site Selection Procedure for Repository Sites, 260 pages, Köln, 2002. Alter, U.., Götz, C., Koch, W., Mester, W., Mohr, S., (2006). Management of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel,

Balance of Reprocessing, Second Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, 17 May 2006, http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/jc_waste_storage_reprocessing.pdf

AOSIS (2009). Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) Declaration on Climate Change 2009, Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), 21 September 2009, , www.sidsnet.org/aosis/documents/AOSIS%20Summit%20Declaration%20Sept%2021%20FINAL.pdf

Appel, D., (2008). Das Gorleben-Moratorium und Argumente fuer ein Standortauswahlverfahren, presented at Endlagersymposium 2008 – Anforderungen an eine sichere Ebnglagerung, Belrin 30 Oct. -1 Nov. 2008.

Behlau, J., Mingerzahn, G., (2001). Geological and tectonic investigations in the former Morsleben salt mine (Germany) as a basis for the safety assessment of a radioactive waste repository, Engineering Geology, Volume 61, Issues 2-3, August 2001, pages 83-97.

Bentham, M., Kirby, G., (2005). CO2 storage in saline aquifers, Oil& Gas Science and technology – Rev. IFP, Vol. 60 (2005), No. 3, p. 559-567, Institut francais du petrole, 2005.

BFS (2008). Abfallmengen/Prognosen, Status 18 Dec. 2008, Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz; Salzgitter. http://www.bfs.de/de/transport/endlager/abfall_prognosen.html, accessed: 6 May 2009.

Biurrun, E., Hartje, B., (2003). License for the Konrad deep geological repository. In: Proceedings of Waste Management '03, Tucson.

BMU (2009). Entwurf: Gesetz zur Regelung von Abscheidung, Transport und dauerhafter Speicherung von Kohlendioxid, Status: 1 April 2009, http://www.bmu.de/gesetze_verordnungen/bmu-downloads/doc/43640.php

BMWi (2009). Website of the Bundesminsiterium fuer Wirtschaft und Technologie, accessed 30 April 2009, http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Navigation/Energie/kernenergie.html

BGR (1995). See Kockel and Krull (1995). BGR (2007). Nuclear Waste Disposal in Germany: Investigation and evaluation of regions with potentially

suitable host rock formations for a geological nuclear repository, Bundesanstalt fuer Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR), Hannover/Berlin, April 2007.

BGR (2008). Reserves, Resources and Availability of Energy Resources 2007, Annual Report, Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, December 2008.

BGR (2009). BGR website on CO2 storage options, http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_101/nn_334990/EN/Themen/Geotechnik/CO2-Speicherung/Speichermoeglichkeiten/speichermoeglichkeiten__inhalt__en.html, accessed 22 April 2009.

Brasser, T., Droste, J., Müller-Lyda, I., Neles, J., Sailer, M., Schmidt, G., Steinhoff, M. (2008). Endlagerung wärmeentwickelnder radioaktiver Abfälle in Deutschland, Institut fuer angewandte Oekologie e.V. and Gesellschaft fuer Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit mbH, 30 Sept. 2008, ISBN 978-3-939355-22-9, http://endlagerung.oeko.info/

Bräuer, V., Reh, M., Schulz, P., Schuster, P. and Sprado, K.H. (1994): Endlagerung stark wärmeentwickelnder radioaktiver Abfälle in tiefen geologischen Formationen Deutschlands - Untersuchung und Bewertung von Regionen in nichtsalinaren Formationen, Report of the Bundesanstalt fuer Geowissenschaften and Rohstoffe, 147 pages, Hannover, 1994, http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_092/nn_329630/DE/Themen/Geotechnik/Downloads/BGR__kristallinstudie.html

Bräuer, V. (2008). Ergebnisse der BGR-Studien zur Endlagerung hochradioaktiver Abfälle in Tongesteinen, Steinsalz und kristallinen Gesteinen, BMU Endlagersymposium Berlin 2008..

Brennecke. P., (1995). Anforderungen an endzulagernde radioaktive Abfälle (Endlagerungsbedingungen, Status: Dec.1995) - Schachtanlage Konrad", Interner BfS-Bericht ET-IB-79, Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Salzgitter, 1995.

Bund (1989). Bekanntmachung der Richtlinie zur Kontrolle radioaktiver Abfälle mit vernachlässigbarer Wärmeentwicklung, die nicht an eine Landessammelstelle abgeliefert werden vom 16. Januar 1989, Bundesanzeiger 41 (1989) no. 63a, p. 1-12.

Christensen, N., Holloway, S., (2004). GESTCO – Geological Storage of CO2 from Combustion of Fossil Fuel, Summary Report of the GESTCO-Project to the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.

COORETEC (2004). Forschungs und Entwicklungskonzept fuer emissionsarme fossil befeuerte Kraftwerke, Bericht der COORETEC Arbeitsgruppen, Bundesministerium fuer Witrschaft und Arbeit, BMWA Dokumentation 527, Berlin, 2004.

CO2STORE (2009). CO2 STORE project website, www.co2store.org, accessed 23 April 2009. CO2SINK (2009). Website of the CO2SINK project, www.co2sink.de, accessed 24 April 2009.

DIW (2006). DIW Wochenbericht, Nr. 35/2006, Berlin. ECOFYS (2004): Hendriks, C., Graus, W., van Bergen, F.: Global carbon dioxide storage potential and costs.

Ecofys, by order of the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheit en Milieu, EEP-02001, Utrecht, 2004. http://www.ecofys.com/com/publications/documents/GlobalCarbonDioxideStorage.pdf, accessed 27 August 2004.

EEA (2008). Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2008, Tracking progress towards Kyoto targets, European Environment Agency (EEA), Report No 5/2008, ISBN 978-92-9167-981-2.

Finger, M., Groenewegen, J., Kunneke, R. (2005). The quest for coherence between institutions and technologies in infrastructures, Journal of Network Industries, Vol.6, No.4, pp.227-260.

Fischedick, M., Esken, A, (2007). RECCS - Bundesministerium für Umwelt , Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), drafted by staff of the Wuppertal Institute, DLR, ZSW and PIK, commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Environment and Reactor Safety of Germany (BMU), December 2007.

Förster, A., Giesea, R., Juhlin, C., Nordena, B., Springer, N., and CO2SINK Group (2008). The Geology of the CO2SINK Site: From Regional Scale to Laboratory Scale, Energy Procedia, xx.

Gerling, P., (2004). COORETEC – Optionen zur CO2-Speicherung in Deutschland. Presentation at the Conference „Innovative Technologien zur Stromerzeugung – auf dem Weg zu CO2-freien Kohle- und Gaskraftwerken“, Berlin, 10–12 May 2004.

Gerling and May (2001). Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover .2001. GESTCO (2004). See Christensen and Holloway (2004). Greenpeace (2009). Greenpeace Deutschland website, accessed 3 May 2009,

www.greenpeace.de/themen/klima/nachrichten/artikel/gesetz_zur_co2_speicherung_verzoegert_klimaschutz/

Hansson, A., Bryngelsson, M., (2009). Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and storage—A framing of uncertainties and possibilities, Energy Policy; June 2009, Vol. 37, Issue no. 6, p. 2273-2282.

Herzog, H.; Drake, E.; Adams, E., (1997). CO2 Capture, Reuse and Storage Technologies for Mitigating Global Climate Change, A White Paper, DOE Order No. DE AF22-96PC1257.

Hoth, P., Wirth, H., Krull, P., Olea, R., Feldrappe, H., Reinhold; K. (2005): Tonstein-Formationen - eine mögliche Alternative für die Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in Deutschland, Zeitschrift fuer geologische Wissenschaften, Vol. 33 (4/5), p. 209-241, Berlin.

Hoth, P., Wirth, H., Reinhold; K., Bräuer, V., Krull, P., Feldrappe, H., (2007). Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in tiefen geologischen Formationen Deutschlands - Untersuchung und Bewertung von Tongesteinsfomrationen, Bundesanstalt für Geowissenchaften und Rohstoffe, im Auftrage des Bundesministeriums für Wirschaft und technologie, 2007.

IAEA (2008). Climate change and nuclear power 2008, International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/08-33461-CCNP-Brochure.pdf

IAEA (2009). Country Waste Profile Report for Germany Reporting year: 2007, published on 20 March 2009, http://newmdb.iaea.org/reports.aspx.

IEA International Energy Agency (2008a), World Energy Outlook 2008, OECD, Paris (2008). IEA International Energy Agency (2008b) Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenarios & Strategies to

2050, OECD, Paris (2008). IPCC (2000). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special report on emissions scenarios, (lead authors:

Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., de Vries, B., Fenhann, J., Gaffin, S., Gregory, K., Grübler, A., Jung, T.-Y., Kram, T., Lebre La Rovere, E., Michaelis, L., Mori, S., Morita, T., Pepper, W., Pitcher, H., Price, L., Riahi, K., Roehrl, R.A., Rogner, H.-H., Sankovski, A., Schlesinger, M., Shukla, P., Smith, S., Swart, R., van Rooijen, S., Victor, N., Dadi, Z.), http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/emission/

IPCC (2005). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special report on carbon capture and storage, (editors: Metz, B., O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meye), Cambridge University Press, UK, www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports_carbon_dioxide.htm

IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A., Eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.

ITC (2008). ITC School of Underground Waste Storage and Disposal 2008, http://www.itc-school.org/ Kockel, F. and Krull, P. (1995): Endlagerung stark wärmeentwickelnder radioaktiver Abfälle in tiefen

geologischen Formationen Deutschlands - Untersuchung und Bewertung von Salzformationen. – Report of the Bundesanstalt fuer Geowissenschaften and Rohstoffe, 48 pages, Hannover/Berlin. 1995, http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_092/nn_329630/DE/Themen/Geotechnik/Downloads/BGR__salzstudie.html

Koecher, R., (2007). Keine Angst vor Klimawandel und Kernenergie, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 134, 5. [Data source: Institut fuer Demoskopie Allensbach]

Konrad (2009). Costs and the distribution of costs for the Konrad repository project, Konrad repository project, Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, http://www.endlager-konrad.de/EN/Subjects/Costs/__node.html?__nnn=true , accessed on 15 May 2009.

Krooss, B.M., and May, F. (2006). State of CO2 capture and subsurface storage activities in Germany, Advances in the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide, Springer Verlag, pp. 209-301.

Kreienmeyer, H., Schmidt, H., Gläß, F., Mauke, R., (2004). Central part of the Morsleben repository – geomechanical situation before stabilization, Paper presented on DisTec 2004 , International Conference on Radioactive Waste Disposal, 26-28 April 2004, Berlin, Germany, http://www.bfs.de/de/endlager/publika/distec2004lect_eram03.pdf

Kreft, E., Bersnstone, C., Meyer, R., May, F., Arts, R., Obdam, A., Svensson, R., Eriksson, S., Durst, P., Gaus, I., van der Meer, B., Geel, C., (2007). “The Schweinrich structure”, a potential site for industrial scale CO2 storage and a test case for safety assessment in Germany, International Jopurnal of Greenhouse Gas control I (2007), p. 69-74.

Kuckshinrichs et al. (2007). CO2 capture and sequestration in Germany: status and perspectives, xx, KFZ Juelich, Germany.

Leiss, W. (2009). Risk Management of Carbon Capture and Storage: Overview and Future Steps, A paper prepared for the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment, and Economy (ISEEE), University of Calgary, June 2009, http://iseee.ca/files/iseee/LeissCCS-RMfinal.pdf

Marland, G., Boden, T.A. Andres, R.J., (2007). Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

May, F., Müller, C., Bernstone, C., (2005). How much CO2 can be stored in Deep Saline Aquifers in Germany? In: VGB PowerTech 6/2005, S. 32–37.

Maul, P.R., Metcalfe, R., Pearce, J., Savage, D., West, J.M., (2007). Performance assessments for the geological storage of carbon dioxide: Learning from the radioactive waste disposal experience, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Volume 1, Issue 4, October 2007, Pages 444-455.

NEA (2006). Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Forming a New Approach in Germany, FSC Workshop Proceedings, Hitzacker and Hamburg, Germany, 5-8 October 2004, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, NEA No. 6117, ISBN 9264024395.

OECD-IEA (2008). World Energy Statistics and Balances: Energy Balances of Non-OECD Member Countries, OECD, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2008.

Pfeiffer, F., (2007). Neubewertung von wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen aus der Verfolgung und Realisierung des Ein-Endlagerkonzeptes, Abschlussbericht zum Vorhaben SR 2542, Auftrags-Nr.: 857774, Gesellschaft für Anlagen und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH GRS, January 2007.

Preuss, 2002 Rebscher, D., May, F., Oldenburg, C.M., (2006). Sequestration of CO2 in the Altmark natural gas field,

Germany: Mobility control to extend enhanced gas recovery, Paper LBNL 60157, 2006, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/LBNL-60157.

Rostock, S., (2008).Status of CCS in Germany, Presented at the conference “Carbon storage below the North Sea” E3G and ZERO, 1 September 2008, London, UK.

Rossati, D., (2009). The Future of CO2 Storage: A Comparative Analysis with the Regulatory Regime of Radioactive Waste Management (August 21, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1465326

Spiegel (2009). Popular Opposition - German Carbon Sequestration Plans Stall (by Michael Fröhlingsdorf, Sebastian Knauer and Christian Schwägerl), Spiegel online international, 25 June 2009, 06/25/2009.

Stroink, L., (2004). The R&D programme GOETECHNOLOGIEN – a national platform for Co2 storage initiatives in Germany, presentation in Washington, 2004.

Stroink, L., (2006). Underground Storage of CO2 in Germany: A new Research Programme as Part of the National R&D-Programme Geotechnologien, Greenhouse Issues, March 2006.

Stroink, L., (2007). GEOTECHNOLOGIEN Science Report No. 9; Abstracts of the First French-German-Symposium on Geological Storage of CO2, 21-22 June 2007, GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Germany.

Sailer, M., (2008). Nuclear waste repository case studies: Germany, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/node/4227, 29 August 2008

Toth, F.L. (Ed.) (2009, forthcoming) Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide and Radioactive Waste: A Comparative Assessment. Springer, Dordrecht.

UBA (2006). CO2 Capture and Storage – Only an Interim Solution, Possible Impacts, Potential and Requirements, Summary of the position paper, Federal Environment Agency of Germany, August 2006.

UBA (2009b). Germany reaches its Kyoto target, Joint press release by the Federal Environment Ministry and the Federal Environment Agency of Germany, 29 March 2009.

UBA (2009). National Inventory Report for the German Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 – 2007, Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), Dessau, 15 April 2009. Submission under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2009, http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/4771.php

UNDP United Nations Development Programme (2005). Energizing the Millennium Development Goals: A Guide to Energy’s Role in Reducing Poverty, UNDP, New York (2005).

UN DESA (2009) Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision, http://esa.un.org/unpp, Monday, August 10, 2009; 9:16:32 AM.

Vattenfall (2009). Vattenfall’s project on CCS, http://www.vattenfall.com/www/co2_en/co2_en/index.jsp, accessed 15 May 2009.

Vajjhala, S., Gode, J., and Torvanger, A., (2007). An International Regulatory Framework for Risk Governance of Carbon Capture and Storage, Resources for the Future (RFF), Discussion paper RFF DP 07-13-REV, July 2007.

WNA (2009). Nuclear Power in Germany, Country profile provided on the Website of the World Nuclear Association, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf43.html

WNN (2008). World Nuclear News, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ World Bank (2009a). Global Development Finance: Charting a Global Recovery. World Bank,

Washington, DC (2009) World Bank (2009b). Global Economic Prospects 2009: Commodities at the Crossroads, World Bank,

Washington, DC (2009). WRB (2006). Fourth Worldwide Review Book, 2006 WWF (2009). Stellungnahme zum Gesetz zur Regelung von Abscheidung, Transport und dauerhafter

Speicherung von Kohlendioxid (CCS), position paper, Berlin, 5 March 2009, http://www.wwf.de/downloads/publikationsdatenbank/ddd/30517/

a critical comparison of geological storage of carbon ... · abstract: nuclear power and carbon...

Documents