Search

• The impact of delivery pressure on the design and cost of CO 2 liquefaction is investigated. • Different impurity and purity requirement scenarios are considered. • The CO 2 liquefaction cost decreases significantly with pressure for the range 7–40 bar. • Impurities have a strong impact on design, cost and comparison of the different pressures. • Purity requirements can have a strong impact on the pressure level comparison. As a first step towards identifying the optimal transport conditions for shipping CO 2 , this study investigates the impact of post-liquefaction delivery pressure on the design and cost of CO 2 liquefaction for (a) pure CO 2 (b) three impurity scenarios (c) two purity requirements. For pure CO 2 , the highest liquefaction cost is obtained at 7 bar amongst the range considered (7 to 70 bar), while a minimum lies around 40–50 bar. When different potential impurity scenarios are considered, impurities need to be purged for the low-pressure cases as these are not necessarily soluble in the liquefied CO 2 stream. As a consequence, the liquefaction cost increases significantly for low-pressure cases (up to 34% compared to the pure CO 2), and wider differences between the pressure levels are obtained. Purity requirements also have a significant impact on comparisons of delivery pressures, although this impact depends on both the impurities present and the purity requirement considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work discusses methods for calculating the CO2 avoidance cost for Carbon Capture and Storage from the non-power generation industry. Unlike the power generation sector, three calculation methods are often used to evaluate the CO2 avoidance cost in the case of CCS from industrial sources. However, each of these methods relies on different assumptions of which potential users are not always aware. The links between these three methods are here presented and verified over an illustrative case to highlight the conditions that are required to ensure their reliable use, as well as their associated shortcomings. Finally, the basis to ensure the selection of the CO2 avoidance cost calculation method that is both valid and most efficient for cases considered by potential users are presented. Abbreviations: CCS, carbon capture and storage; CAPEX, capital expenditure; FCC, fluid catalytic cracker; OPEX, operating costs; TCR, total capital requirement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the cost reduction opportunity of lower CO 2 capture ratios (CCR) on membrane-based CO 2 capture. A numerical model based on the attainable region approach is used to optimise and assess the cost of membrane-based processes for CO 2 capture from post-combustion flue gases containing 10–35% CO 2 , analysing five membranes and CO 2 capture ratios from 50 to 90%. Overall, these cost evaluations demonstrate that membrane-based post-combustion CO 2 capture can significantly benefit from lower CCRs (up to 55% reduction in CO 2 avoidance cost for a flue gas containing 35% CO 2 ). Considering lower CCRs could therefore enable early deployment of CCS despite low carbon emission cost, however the evaluations show that the optimal CCR and corresponding cost reduction potential shall be assessed considering the whole chain characteristics (CO 2 content in the flue gas, impurities, membrane module properties, CO 2 transport system, etc.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates different strategies for CO 2 conditioning and transport options for the CO 2 to be captured at a lignite-fired IGCC in the Czech Republic, including the impact of impurities present in the captured CO 2 streams. Four transport cases, combining two transport delivery location scenarios (Czech storage and European transport hub) and two transport technology options (pipeline-based and train-based transport), are designed and evaluated. For the Czech storage case, the cost evaluation of the CO 2 conditioning and transport results in costs of 10.5 and 18.3 €/t CO2 for the pipeline and train options respectively. In the European hub scenario, the CO 2 conditioning and transport costs are estimated at 15.4 and 24.9 €/t CO2 . These results clearly identify the pipeline transport options as the cost-optimal solutions for CO 2 transport in both delivery location scenarios, due to the longer transport distances and higher conditioning costs involved for train-based export. Moreover, the comparison of transport delivery location scenarios also shows that if CO 2 storage is not possible at the Czech storage location and the CO 2 has to pass through the European hub, this would result in an increase of at least 4.9 €/t CO2 , plus the additional transport and storage costs after the European hub stage. In addition, further assessments are performed to evaluate the impact of impurities in the CO 2 streams from the capture plant on the CO 2 conditioning and transport costs for the four combinations of transport scenarios and technology options. The results show that the impurities present in the CO 2 streams lead to increases in CO 2 conditioning and transport costs ranging from 1.6 to 11.4% (0.2–1.9 €/t CO2 ). However, the energy and cost impacts associated with the impurities are highly dependent on the transport technology and transport delivery location scenario considered. Furthermore, the process energy and cost performances of two alternative CO 2 liquefaction processes, designed to reduce CO 2 losses through the purged gas, are also evaluated. These two alternative processes result in higher CO 2 conditioning cost than the base case process, which suggests that reducing the CO 2 losses compared to the base case would not be a good strategy, unless high costs (70–110 €/t CO2 ) were spent to capture the CO 2 that is purged. Finally, the potential of train-based transport is evaluated beyond the four cases considered by comparing the CO 2 conditioning and transport costs of pipeline and train transports as a function of the distance for different train conditioning cost scenarios and different project economic valuation periods. The results show that train-based transport could potentially be a cost-optimal alternative to pipeline-based transport for medium to long distances especially in cases where the additional conditioning costs of train-based transport compared to pipeline are limited, or in cases of financial risk-averse decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While most works on CCS in connection with CO 2 EOR credit all the benefit of the additional oil production to the CCS entity, this work investigate the impact of alternative EOR methods on the valuation on CO 2 EOR storage. Based on a generic model suitable for CO 2 EOR in Norwegian oil fields, EOR production with CO 2 injection is compared to the EOR production with chemical EOR for different scenarios. The comparison shows that depending on the scenario combination considered the added value of using the CO 2 EOR method instead of the chemical EOR method varies from -4 to 33 €/bblproduced equivalent to -4 to 56 €/tCO 2 ,avoided. In most of the cases considered, the CO 2 EOR method would therefore be preferred with however more or less value creation depending on the case. The evaluation shows that for an oil price minus the normal production costs equal to 50 €/bbl, the oil value which shall be considered for CO 2 EOR application varies between 8 and 41 €/bbl, which can therefore be significantly lower than the 50 €/bbl which shall be considered if chemical EOR is not an alternative. The value one would be willing to pay to have CO 2 delivered at a field varies between -4 and 56 €/tCO 2 depending on the scenario combinations considered and can therefore also be significantly lower than in cases in which chemical EOR is not an alternative. For example, in the medium CO 2 EOR scenario, the CO 2 value is between 27 and 60% lower if chemical EOR is considered as an alternative option for EOR. As a consequence, a CCS chain including CO 2 EOR would overestimate its benefits if it does not considered chemical EOR as an alternative to CO 2 EOR for Oil & Gas companies. Finally, the sensitivity analyses identify the factors having the largest influence on the value one would be willing to pay to have CO 2 delivered at its field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] We illustrate the functionality of two transport assessment modules developed. [•] Onshore pipeline and shipping are compared for different distances and capacities. [•] The base case enables to draw conclusions on particular cases. [•] Sensitivity analyses highlight the most important factors involved in the technology selection. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper illustrates a methodology for multi-criteria analysis of CCS chains by comparing two transports technologies for a case study in which 10 Mt/y of CO2 from an industrial cluster are transported over 500km by onshore pipeline and CO2 shipping. This case study compares not only project costs but also other criteria such as the greenhouse gas emissions, the energies and cooling water consumptions etc. The multi-criteria analysis of the two cases shows that the pipeline technology exhibits the best key performance indicators except regarding the initial investment. Indeed the pipeline transport is less expensive, consumes much less utilities (fuel, water and electricity) and is less climate intensive than the shipping transport. The shipping transport required however lower upfront investments for similar overall project costs. A consequence of this might be that even if the pipeline transport has most of the best criteria, shipping might be used during the first CCS chains deployment in order to limit investment upfront, and therefore financial risk, while pipeline transport will be used in a well established CO2 market. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: A systematic methodology for integrated techno-economic and environmental assessment of CCS value chains is presented and applied to assess the impact of the CO2 concentration on an amine-based post-combustion CO2 capture process. In this methodology, the technical assessment, economic evaluation, and environmental assessment (focusing on the global warming effect) are integrated in order to avoid the unilateral understandings obtained when these assessments are performed separately. Seven cases with CO2 concentrations between 2.5 and 20.5% (mol) are investigated in terms of energy consumptions, the overall costs, as well as the climate impact of the capture process. The process simulation is performed with Aspen Plus ® , and the techno-economic evaluation using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer®. A hybrid life cycle assessment approach is used to estimate the climate impact of the capture based on the results of techno-economic assessment. The CO2 avoided capture cost, which reflects both the techno- economic and environmental performances, is used to assess the comprehensive impact of the CO2 concentration on the capture process. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The timing and selection of CO2 sources will affect the cost of achieving projected CCS based emission reductions. Performed process simulations and cost estimations clearly point out the impact of CO2 concentration and steam supply when capturing CO2 from an atmospheric gas stream with MEA-based chemical absorption. An incremental increase in CO2 concentration reduces both operating and investment costs, mainly due to lower energy consumption and reduced equipment capacity. Reduced investment costs dominate the sharp decline in net present value of costs when increasing CO2 concentration from 2.5% to 10%, while a more moderate cost decline is present when going from 10% to 20% CO2. The impact of steam cost is evident for all studied CO2 concentrations. The cost sensitivity illustrate how important it is to understand the dynamics of cost components when selecting sources appropriate for CCS or struggle to improve performance of capture processes. This work contribute to highlight the relative importance of CO2 concentration and steam supply, realizing that final selection of CO2 source for CCS will involve addition decision variables. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• We develop improved guidelines for cost evaluation of CCS from industry. • We recommend understanding the impact of possible energy supply strategies on cost. • We provide basis on how to better account for retrofitting costs. • We recommend including case representative transport and storage costs. • We discuss how to better reflect technological maturity for industrial applications. This paper contributes to the development of improved guidelines for cost evaluation of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from industrial applications building on previous work in the field. It discusses key challenges and factors that have a large impact on the results of cost evaluations, but are often overlooked or insufficiently addressed. These include cost metrics (especially in the context of industrial plants with multiple output products), energy supply aspects, retrofitting costs, CO 2 transport and storage, maturity of the capture technology. Where possible examples are given to demonstrate their quantitative impact and show how costs may vary widely on a case-by-case basis. Recommendations are given to consider different possible heat and power supply strategies, as well as future energy and carbon price scenarios, to better understand cost performances under various framework conditions. Since retrofitting CCS is very relevant for industrial facilities, further considerations are made on how to better account for the key elements that constitute retrofitting costs. Furthermore, instead of using a fixed unit cost for CO 2 transport and storage, cost estimates should at least consider the flowrate, transport mode, transport distance and type of storage, to make more realistic cost estimates. Recommendations are also given on factors to consider when assessing the technological maturity level of CCS in various industrial applications, which is important when assessing cost contingencies and cost uncertainties. Lastly, we urge techno-economic analysis practitioners to clearly report all major assumptions and methods, as well as ideally examine the impact of these on their estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plants, municipal solid waste (MSW) is combusted while power and/or heat are produced. This approach will largely remain as a promising option to handle the MSW capacities in the future. Due to the organic waste fractions present in MSW, net negative CO 2 emissions are feasible when integrating carbon capture and storage (CCS) processes into WtE plants. The calcium looping (CaL) process represents one option to capture CO 2 from WtE plant exhaust gases. Hereby, CO 2 is separated by a circulating limestone-based sorbent being exposed to cyclic carbonation-calcination reaction regimes. Within this study, a techno-economic analysis of a CaL retrofit on a generic 60 MW th WtE plant is conducted. The analysis considerers three different types of supplementary fuel for the CaL process, namely coal, natural gas (NG) and solid recovered fuel (SRF). Based on a detailed process model, economic key performance indicators were calculated by means of a bottom-up approach. Additionally, different heat integration concepts were proposed and assessed. The techno-economic results are discussed in comparison to a benchmark MEA scrubbing process. It was found that levelized cost of electricity increases quite significantly, which leads to cost of CO 2 avoidance in the range of 119 EUR/t CO2,av (CaL-SRF) up to 288 EUR/t CO2,av (MEA). It is important to note, that the supply of negative CO 2 emissions from a CCS equipped WtE plant enables a cost-efficient solution to at the same time treat MSW in a carbon neutral way while clean heat and/or power as well as negative CO 2 emissions are delivered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]