Search

In this paper an approach for analysing the potential for implementation of different technology pathways for the European pulp and paper industry (PPI) is presented. The approach is based on detailed technical research and aggregates the knowledge from previous studies to incorporate the whole European PPI. Thus, the potential for different technology pathways can be estimated on a European level whilst still considering important characteristics of individual mills. The usefulness of the approach was exemplified by applying it to a case study of the potential for introduction of carbon capture and storage (CCS) within the European PPI. The results from the case study show that for the European PPI, CCS has an up-hill road in order to be a viable, large scale alternative for reduction of CO2 emissions. If CCS is to be introduced in large scale within the European PPI, large biomass-based point sources of CO2 emissions need to be included when planning for CCS infrastructure and also the infrastructure needs to be built out for clusters emitting <20 MtCO2/yr. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In order to reduce carbon emissions, great efforts are required to optimise the processes and solve the main technical and economic problems which currently limit a large-scale diffusion of CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies. In this paper, the main results of a techno-economic comparison between USCPC or USC plants (ultra supercritical pulverised coal combustion) with and without CCS are presented. In this study, a few related questions about the development of CCS and power generation technologies in SEE (South East Europe) are answered. The main questions considered are: (1) what are the current cost estimates for building a new entrant power plant with an installed CCS system compared to a typical USC power plant (2) what is the breakeven carbon-dioxide price to justify CCS investment for USCPC power plants. To answer these questions, a LCOE (levelised cost of electricity) model is built for the power plants in study, with assumptions best representing the current costs and technologies in the EU (European Union). Then, a sensitivity analysis of some of the key parameters of the LCOE to reveal their impact on the financial viability of the project is done. The technical model of the plant is implemented in the database of the SEE REM (South East Europe Regional Electricity Market) in order to evaluate its performance on the electricity market and results gained are analysed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Biomass can help reaching climate goals in many sectors. In electricity generation it can complement variable renewables or, if coupled with carbon capture and storage (CCS), also provide negative emissions. This paper adds to the existing literature by focusing on the cost-efficiency of balancing variable renewables with biomass and by providing an indication on acceptance of these technologies. A dynamic optimization model is used to analyse the role of biomass in the European electricity system pending different emission targets for 2050. The results are compared with survey data on investment preferences for biomass technologies, and wind and solar power. The formulation of the emission target greatly influences the cost-efficient use of biomass, with more concentrated use observed, if bioenergy with CCS is allowed. This indicates that a Europe-wide emission target could be more cost-efficient than separate national targets. Both governmental and nongovernmental actors tend to be negative towards investing in biomass technologies, although with greater variation if combined with CCS, indicating possible challenges for implementation. Their attitudes towards wind and solar power are much more positive in all countries, supporting the continuation of the existing trend of an increasing share of variable renewables in the European electricity system. • Formulation of the emission target greatly influence biomass use and distribution. • Europe-wide emission targets may be preferred when negative emissions are required. • Negative emissions combined with natural gas are cost-efficient variation management. • Preferences to invest in bio-based technologies are low in all countries. • Non-governmental actors strongly oppose bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]