Search

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) plays an important role in promoting developing countries to reduce carbon emission and meet the requirement for carbon reduction under carbon neutral and carbon peak targets. To evaluate the incentive effect of subsidization mechanisms on CCS investment, the paper incorporates two incentives into the model, considers the effects of the carbon trading price, electricity price, and other uncertain factors on the investment behaviors for CCS projects under uncertainty and explores incentive intensity of two policies on investment based on the real option method. The results show that even in the case of full operating cost subsidies and double electricity price subsidies, the power plant still delays CCS investment due to the imperfection of carbon market. The most appropriate policies for supporting immediate investment in CCS project are identified in the paper by considering the critical carbon price and electricity price in different scenarios. Additionally, the findings show that it is more efficient for the electricity price subsidy than cost subsidy with same subsidy proportion under single policy condition, while the minimum subsidy amount required to invest immediately is 32.86 million CNY in the combination of the two policies. This provides environmental policymakers with valuable insights on promoting CCS deployment under the context of carbon reduction. © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the potential role of bioenergy coupled to carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (BECCS) in long-term global scenarios. We first validate past insights regarding the potential use of BECCS in achieving climate goals based on results from 11 integrated assessment models (IAMs) that participated in the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33). As found in previous studies, our results consistently project large-scale cost-effective BECCS deployment. However, we also find a strong synergistic nexus between CCS and biomass, with bioenergy the preferred fuel for CCS as the climate constraint increases. Specifically, the share of bioenergy that is coupled to CCS technologies increases since CCS effectively enhances the emissions mitigation capacity of bioenergy. For the models that include BECCS technologies across multiple sectors, there is significant deployment in conjunction with liquid fuel or hydrogen production to decarbonize the transportation sector. Using a wide set of scenarios, we find carbon removal to be crucial to achieving goals consistent with 1.5 °C warming. However, we find earlier BECCS deployment but not necessarily greater use in the long-term since ultimately deployment is limited by economic competition with other carbon-free technologies, especially in the electricity sector, by land-use competition (especially with food) affecting biomass feedstock availability and price, and by carbon storage limitations. The extent of BECCS deployment varies based on model assumptions, with BECCS deployment competitive in some models below carbon prices of 100 US$/tCO2. Without carbon removal, 2 °C is infeasible in some models, while those that solve find similar levels of bioenergy use but substantially greater mitigation costs. Overall, the paper provides needed transparency regarding BECCS' role, and results highlight a strong nexus between bioenergy and CCS, and a large reliance on not-yet-commercial BECCS technologies for achieving climate goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on a review of the current state of the Carbon Capture, Transport and Storage (CCTS) technology, this paper analyzes the layout and costs of a potential CO2 infrastructure in Europe at the horizon of 2050. We apply the mixedinteger model CCTS-Mod to compute a CCTS infrastructure network for Europe, examining the effects of different CO2 price paths with different regional foci. Scenarios assuming low CO2 certificate prices lead to hardly any CCTS development in Europe. The iron and steel sector starts deployment once the CO2 certificate prices exceed 50 €/tCO2. The cement sector starts investing at a threshold of 75 €/tCO2, followed by the electricity sector when prices exceed 100 €/tCO2. The degree of CCTS deployment is found to be more sensitive to variable costs of CO2 capture than to investment costs. Additional revenues generated from utilizing CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (CO2 -EOR) in the North Sea would lead to an earlier adoption of CCTS, independent of the CO2 certificate price; this case may become especially relevant for the UK, Norway and the Netherlands. However, scattered CCTS deployment increases unit cost of transport and storage infrastructure by 30% or more. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In this paper, the optimal investment timing decision in carbon capture and storage (CCS) is studied under different business modes. Two analytical models of the optimal CCS investment threshold are presented: one is the ‘single mode,’ meaning that CCS investment is performed only by the power producer; the other is the ‘cooperation mode,’ referring to CCS investment can be conducted by cooperation between the power producer and the CCS operator. In the single mode, this study pictures the investment decision for a CCS project based on real options theory considering uncertainties in carbon prices, government incentives, and CCS investment costs. On this basis, a model for the cooperation mode is proposed by integrating real options theory and game theory to analyze the CCS investment threshold. The results of a numerical example show that CCS investment in cooperation mode requires a much larger threshold than in single mode. Moreover, the CCS investment threshold is positively affected by carbon price volatility and the transfer payments coefficients, but negatively affected by government incentives and learning effects. These conclusions provide a theoretical foundation for decision making regarding CCS investment and related policy making. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Proposed BECCS deployment criteria are based on socio-enviro-economic objectives. • Life cycle emissions and carbon abatement costs are calculated. • Some of the BECCS pathways are less likely to achieve net negative emissions. • Balancing between socioeconomic aspects such as local job creation opportunities, cost, feedstock supply chain disruptions, and emission reduction targets is discussed. Countries are considering different options to achieve net zero emissions including Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which is the process of capturing and storing CO 2 from processes that use bioenergy to produce heat, electricity, or biofuels. However, this technology faces sustainability concerns and possesses complex value chains of its emissions. Adding further to this complexity, the literature indicates two opposing views with respect to the potential of BECCS in terms of being able (or unable) to achieve negative emissions. Hence, this paper analyzes in detail a wide range of BECCS pathways in terms of their ability to achieve negative emissions along with their associated costs. Out of seven assessed pathways, our analysis shows that corn to ethanol and biomethane production from maize BECCS pathway in the USA, biomethane production from wet manure in Europe, and baling of straw pellets with trans-Atlantic shipment can achieve negative emissions at a cost of 50, 108, 159, and 232 dollars per ton of CO 2 ($/tCO 2) respectively. Other technologies like poplar pellets, forest residue, and agricultural residue with trans-Atlantic shipment are not able to achieve negative emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper takes the 'policy failure' in establishing a global carbon price for efficient emissions reduction as a starting point and analyzes to what extent technology policies can be a reasonable second-best approach. From a supply-side perspective, carbon capture and storage (CCS) policies differ substantially from renewable energy policies: they increase fossil resource demand and simultaneously lower emissions. We analyze CCS and renewable energy policies in a numerical dynamic general equilibrium model for settings of imperfect or missing carbon prices. We find that in contrast to renewable energy policies, CCS policies are not always capable of reducing emissions in the long run. If feasible, CCS policies can carry lower social costs compared to renewable energy policies, in particular when second-best policies are only employed temporally. In case fossil resources are abundant and renewable energy costs low, renewable energy policies perform better. Our results indicate that a pure CCS policy or a pure renewable energy policy carry their own specific risks of missing the environmental target. A smart combination of both, however, can be a robust and low-cost temporary second-best policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several of the world's most carbon-intensive industries have no current alternatives to CCS for deep emissions reduction because much of the CO2 is unavoidably generated by their production processes, not only from fuel use. As a consequence, many models of global decarbonisation foresee a potentially critical role for CCS. The importance of CCS in industrial applications is not matched by existing policy attention and in some key sectors technological progress is slow. CCS suffers from several market failures that confront other low-carbon technologies. In contrast to the power sector, the trade-exposure of the manufacturing and hydrocarbon sectors that would need to deploy CCS exacerbates these market failures and poses significant challenges for policy that creates the foundations for long-term climate change mitigation. Smart policy design will be able to facilitate a transition to a situation in which CCS is actually used to decrease costs, specifically those associated with greenhouse gas abatement. In a world that seriously confronts the climate challenge the first firms that install CCS will reap the benefits of reducing their marginal production costs and in the long run consumers will benefit from lower prices. In addition, producers and users of fossil fuels in sectors where marginal abatement costs could be very high, such as transport, will benefit from some relief from emissions costs as CCS in industrial applications creates headroom within a declining carbon budget. This paper attempts to address two specific questions that policy makers will need to tackle in order to design such policies: how could technology development be accelerated to ensure its availability for deployment in the 2020s?; how might incentive policies be designed to support commercial CCS investments in trade-exposed sectors?. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]