Search

Highlights • Lacking a carbon market, potential cost reduction can reflect improved future profitability. • Extensive cost reductions are possible by implementing CCS technology innovations. • There is potential for cost reduction in all parts of the CCS chain. • Cost reductions in a few full-scale CCS implementations exceed research investments. • Value creation from large-scale CCS deployment by far exceeds research investments. Abstract Globally, large private and public funds are invested into CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) research to provide the knowledge and technology required to mitigate CO 2 emissions below a sustainable level. A pertinent question to ask is whether this is the best way of spending limited resources. This paper presents a study aiming to quantify the potential economic gains from selected CCS innovations created in the international research centre BIGCCS and its successor NCCS. Development of CCS technology is currently driven by technology push and the lack of a market makes it hard to predict future potentials for increased revenue. Consequently, the study investigates potential cost reductions from implementing the innovations in full-scale industry projects based on qualified assumptions. The results show that even with limited deployment of CCS the potential cost savings from implementation of the innovations by far exceed the research investment. Additional value not considered is in this work is expected from commercialisation of the technologies for the technology providers, improved competitive edge for providers of CO 2 free products and enhanced safety for people, equipment and environment. By developing illustrative examples from technology innovations, the study aims to contribute to a broader public CCS debate addressing also potential gains and commercial opportunities in addition to the current focus on costs and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper present the techno-economic assessment of an MEA-based CO 2 capture from a cement plant and the importance of the steam supply on the costs. The evaluations present the energy performances of the CO 2 capture process based on a cement plant with a clinker capacity of 3,000 t/d. The cost evaluation lead to a cost of cement of 45 €/t cement without capture, while the cost of cement with CO 2 capture is estimated to 81 €/t cement , resulting in a CO 2 avoided cost of 83 €/t CO2,avoided . As the steam consumption accounts for close to half of the CO 2 avoided cost, the impact of six alternative steam supply scenarios are considered. The evaluations show that the CO 2 avoided cost can decrease by up to 35% depending on the steam supply and electricity price. However the possibility of these steam supply alternatives are specific to the considered cement plant, emphasizing therefore that CO 2 avoided cost from cement shall rather be given as a range depending on the steam supply than as a unique value as often illustrated in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates various alternatives for the application of CCS at a cement plant which is one of the focus site for CCS deployment in Norway. A matrix consisting of nine CCS alternative chains is analysed in order to quantify cost reduction potentials across the CCS value chain based on an in-house techno-economic assessment methodology and tool called iCCS. In particular, the paper quantifies the strong cost reduction potential of second generation capture technologies and transport technology selection. CO 2 EOR is also identified to have a strong potential to reduce the overall CCS cost, however the cost benefits are strongly dependent on the oil value and the considered EOR injection period. The impact of the inclusion of CO 2 capture and conditioning in the cost of cement shows that public financial support will be required to ensure that the plant remain competitive under current cement market price. Finally, comparison of the full-scale capture versus part-scale capture shows, in this case, that the economies of scale are nearly compensated by the additional steam cost, therefore limiting the interest for full-scale implementation. However, joint deployment with the two other CCS potential sites in Norway (Yara and Klemenstrud) may bring more synergies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BIGCCS Centre is an international research center aiming at extending and releasing the potential for large scale deployment of CO 2 capture and storage. A consistent and transparent methodology and tool, called iCCS, was developed in BIGCCS SP4 as one of the measures aimed at bringing CCS closer to commercial realization. iCCS allows critical evaluation of CCS chains with respect to multiple techno-economic and environmental criteria. The tool has modular structure and enables the user to build different CCS chain configurations from capture, transport and storage modules available in the tool library. This makes it possible to simulate a large number of CCS chains and to compare them in a consistent manner. The philosophy of this methodology and the tool developed are presented in this work and is illustrated through case studies; for example to compare different capture, transport or storage cases, as well as for a full chain analysis. This paper presents a list of case studies performed under the BIGCCS framework and brings together the results of three latest studies. Two of these studies focus on comparison of technologies for CO 2 capture from a) an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, and b) a coal fired power plant and a cement plant. The third case study looks at valuation of CO 2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery. The presented case studies illustrate how the methodology and tool could be used to provide support for technology selection. Additionally, the tool allows smart design and operation of CCS chains and thereby enables selection of most suitable CCS chain configurations for specific cases with respect to techno-economic and environmental impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper evaluates three acid gas removal concepts studied in the project "A Green Sea". Two solvent concepts (aMDEA/MDEA and Selexol) and a low-temperature concept are modelled and assessed, taking different raw natural gases and natural gas product requirements into consideration. The analyses and comparisons of the concepts and cases consider nine criteria in order to include both energy efficiencies and compactness. The assessment shows that acid gas removal using aMDEA/MDEA technology seems to perform well in terms of energy efficiency, volume and weight for low CO2 removal. However, for high CO2 content or strong polishing requirements, the chemical solvent technology loses its efficiency in terms of weight and volume. The assessment shows that the Selexol concept is an inefficient option in terms of energy efficiency, volume and weight, especially when large quantities of CO2 have to be removed from the gas stream. The assessment also shows that the low-temperature technology can be a compact and energy-efficient option, both in the case of strong polishing requirements and high bulk removal of CO2. However, the higher the amount of CO2 to be removed, the less energy efficient is the low-temperature technology. The case evaluation underlines the fact that the aMDEA/MDEA solvent concept exhibits the best or close to the best key performance indicators (KPIs) for all parameters for the RNG1Pipe case (raw natural gas specification 1 to pipeline quality specification) and therefore appears to be the best technology option. For this case, the two other technologies are slightly less energy efficient than the aMDEA/MDEA, but both are significantly less compact. For the RNG1 LNG (raw natural gas specification 1 to LNG quality specification) case, the aMDEA/MDEA and low-temperature concepts have similar KPIs. The chemical solvent technology, however, is slightly more energy efficient and compact and would therefore be preferred for the RNG1 LNG case. Finally, the RNG2 Pipe (raw natural gas specification 2 to pipeline quality specification) case shows that the low-temperature technology can be a compact option for acid gas removal, which is a critical factor in the case of offshore applications for both the equipment costs and the weight constraints on the platform. Despite its lower energy efficiency, it is therefore likely that the low-temperature technology will be selected in the RNG2 Pipe case. This choice is strengthened by some regulations which recommend that solvents such as MDEA and aMDEA should be phased out for offshore applications, as is seen, e.g. in Norway. In addition, if stricter regulations are also enforced for onshore applications, this might also argue in favour of the low-temperature technology or other chemical solvents that are otherwise less efficient than aMDEA/MDEA.Finally, the potential of hybrid concepts is discussed and suggested for future works, in order to combine the advantages of the different technologies, such as the energy-efficient performances of the aMDEA/MDEA concept and the compactness of the low-temperature concept. Three acid gas removal concepts are studied and compared using multi-criteria analyses. Three cases taking different raw natural gases and natural gas product requirements are considered. The assessment illustrates each technology trends, as well as comparison over cases. The aMDEA/MDEA technology seems to perform well for low CO2 removal. The low-temperature technology can be an efficient option for high bulk removal and polishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: For a commercial Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) chain to be successful, it must satisfy a whole range of requirements: technical, economic, environmental, safety, and societal. A comprehensive, understandable and reproducible assessment of CCS projects is a complex task due to several reasons: wide range of actors and factors involved, substantial differences in the type and nature of both actors and factors, and numerous associated uncertainties. In this paper, a standardised methodology is described and illustrated on a few examples of relatively simple case studies. The proposed methodology provides means and tools for evaluation of several economic, environmental, and in the future also risk associated criteria and thereby enables selection of the most promising options for CCS. The methodology will also help to reduce the uncertainty by improving understanding of the most important dependencies and trends for the investigated key performance indicators as enlightened by the case studies examples. It could also help to design efficient incentives and measures to stimulate realization of CCS by identifying and evaluating the most important non-technical factors affecting the CCS chain viability. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper summarizes key results from the Collaborative COCATE Project for the European Commission (FP7). The costs of transporting a total of 13.1 MtCO2/y from small- to large-scale emitters around Le Havre (France), to Rotterdam (Netherlands) via onshore pipeline or shipping are evaluated. Sources send emissions to five CO2 capture centres, which are then linked via a 40km long collection network to deliver the treated CO2 to the point of export. This network was designed to accommodate peak flow rates and multiple network designs were considered for the various export scenarios evaluated in the study. The economic evaluation established that conditioning CO2 at the cluster level, rather than at the point of export, and transporting it in dense phase was the most cost-effective solution for both export systems. As for exporting the CO2 from Le Havre to Rotterdam, the evaluation highlighted three potential transport solutions: either onshore via one 24in. or one 28in. diameter pipeline or offshore using three ships with effective capacities of 30,000m3 each. The onshore pipeline options proved to be 10% cheaper than the shipping scenario. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the onshore options remained the best choice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Coupling flexible power generation with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology may be important for substantial reductions in CO2 emissions. In this paper we consider some of the implications of flexible power plant operation on the CCS process. Specifically, we consider the CCS chain capacity selection decision, by which we mean the choice of the optimal plant size, to understand what determines the amount of CO2 that is efficient to capture and how the decision to invest in CCS chain capacity is affected by price volatility of CO2 emissions quotas. We found that the plant''s emissions profile determined a range of CCS capacities that could be efficient with the tradeoff between the price of CO2 emissions quotas and the cost of CCS technology determining the specific optimal chain capacity. Secondly, investment into CCS technology for a flexible load power plant was more likely to be delayed in a multiple time point investment decision tree model as a result of price volatility, compared to investment in CCS technology on a base load power plant. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Uncertain weather conditions increase the need for flexibility and buffer capacity. • Deterministic planning will lead to under investments in buffer storage. • Increased fuel prices increase the value of buffer storage. This study investigates the impact of operational fluctuations and uncertainties on the design and expected cost of ship-based CO 2 transport. The model analysis is based on a two-stage stochastic investment model for a single-source single-sink CCS value chain with a ship-based transport system. The sailing time of the ship is uncertain due to changing weather conditions. The optimal investment decisions are driven by the expected cost of operating the value chain in the stochastic operational scenarios. This approach is demonstrated on a case study in which 0.4 MtCO 2 /y is transported over 715 km, from a cement plant located in Brevik to a harbor in Kollsnes in Norway. The results show that a transport rate of 99 % of the available CO 2 leads to the lowest average cost of transport at 33.8 €/ton. Once the delays caused by the weather are considered, the buffer storage capacity that is 18 % above the ships transport capacity, seems to be the most efficient solution for recovering normal operation after weather delays. The expected transport cost increases with 1.9 €/ton (i.e. 5%) when the uncertainty in weather conditions is neglected in the value chain design decisions. Furthermore, seasonal variations in emissions lead to the need of a larger ship rather than maintaining the same ship size and increasing the power when required. The seasonal storage of CO 2 never appears to be a cost-efficient strategy, compared to increasing ship capacity. Finally, the risks of higher future fuel prices and ship breakdowns will cause the value of buffer storage capacity to increase, and thus resulting to select a buffer capacity up to 73 % larger than the ship size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Sound uncertainty analysis is indispensable to CCS techno-economic analysis and its communication. • Many different uncertainty analysis methods exist, all with their merits and drawbacks. • Guidelines for method selection are presented based on analysis purpose and other criteria. • Emerging and advanced uses of uncertainty analysis are presented. • Available software is discussed, including current limitations. Uncertainty analysis is a key element of sound techno-economic analysis (TEA) of CO 2 Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies and systems, and in the communication of TEA results. Many CCS technologies are relatively novel, with only few large-scale projects constructed and in operation to date. Therefore, uncertainties in technology performance and costs are often substantial, making it imperative that they be characterized and reported. Although uncertainty analysis itself is not novel, with some methods already frequently used by the CCS TEA community, a document that provides a comprehensive overview of methods and approaches, as well as guidance on their selection and use, is still lacking. Given its importance, we seek to fill this gap by providing a critical review of uncertainty analysis methods along with guidance on the selection and use of these methods for CCS TEAs, highlighting good practice and examples from the CCS literature. The paper starts by identifying the different audiences for CCS TEAs, the different modelling approaches available for CCS technology performance and cost analysis, and the different roles that uncertainty analysis may play. It then continues to discuss established, as well as emerging, uncertainty analysis methods and addresses how and when each method is best used, as well as common pitfalls. We argue that the most commonly used method of one-parameter-at-a-time 'local' sensitivity analysis may often be a suboptimal choice, and that other approaches may be more suitable or lead to more insight, especially since uncertainty analysis software is becoming more widespread and easier to use. Finally, the paper discusses the benefits of advanced uses of uncertainty analysis in, for instance, the design of CCS experiments or in the design and planning of CCS infrastructure. Sound uncertainty analysis has an important role to play in TEAs of CCS technologies and systems, and there are many opportunities to bring the use of uncertainty analysis to a higher level than currently practiced. This review of and guidance on available methods is intended to help accelerate continued methods development and their application to more robust and meaningful CCS performance and costing studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transport is a key element of carbon dioxide (CO 2) capture, transport, and storage (CCTS) supply chains. Early movers, particularly inland emitters (e.g., in continental Europe), do not yet have access to a fully developed CO 2 network infrastructure connecting them with the offshore storage hubs (e.g., in the European northern seas, as these belong to the first wave of storage infrastructure that will be developed in Europe). Therefore, specific source-to-sink CCTS supply chains combining and integrating different transport options must be developed and deployed first. In this work we analyse such transport options, which include (i) tank containers that can be transported by trucks, trains, barges, or ships, (ii) dedicated tanks permanently integrated into trucks, trains, barges, or ships, and (iii) pipelines. We develop general and portable methods, criteria, and correlations to determine the cost of transport through any given connection between two nodes in a CO 2 network infrastructure, using any of the modes of transport above, as a function of distance and capacity. In particular, the correlations are based on real data collected through interviews with service providers and stakeholders. Based on the associated techno-economic assessment and the consideration of additional performance indicators of a more holistic nature, we carry out a multi-criteria assessment of the different transport options. Such multi-criteria approach allows for a holistic and transparent comparative assessment of the different alternatives for a whole CCTS supply chain, as illustrated with reference to a very specific connection. • Identification of CO 2 transport solutions at different technology readiness levels. • Solutions to transport CO 2 from inland emitters to storage sites already exist today. • Techno-economic analysis based on data from current industrial providers. • Multi-criteria comparative assessment of the CO 2 transport options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: A carbon chain analysis is applied to assess a complex energy conversion system with CO2 capture and storage (CCS). A coal integrated gasification combined cycle, with CCS, which co-produces electricity and liquid fuels (IGCC–LF–CCS) is taken as a case study. A process simulation method is used to estimate the technological data, and balance the heat and electricity for the whole system. Carbon and energy flows are calculated to evaluate the mass conversion efficiency and the energy efficiency. The results show that in the case in which one third of the coal is allotted to synthesize liquid fuels, globally 60% carbon is captured for storage, 19% transferred to liquid fuels, 19% emitted to the atmosphere, while the remaining carbon is discharged as waste. For the energy flow, 28.1% of total higher heating value of coal is converted into the liquid fuels. The net electricity efficiency is 20.7% accounting for the power demands by air separation, CO2 capture and compression. Three scenarios with different ratio of resource to produce electricity and liquid fuels with or without CCS have been studied. This work will provide useful information for the coal utilization with CCS in a carbon-constrained world. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]