Abstract
Uncertainties are an inherent and important element of novel systems with limited large-scale industrial experience and must be taken into account in order to enable the design of cost-efficient energy systems. This paper investigates the optimal design of carbon capture and storage from a waste-to-energy plant under uncertainties. With the aim of providing a better understanding of the impact of uncertainties on the design and cost of CCS chains, as well as the capture technology selection, the case of a hypothetical 40 MW waste-to-energy plant located in Norway is considered. The impact of key technical and cost uncertainties on the cost of different CO2 capture and CCS chain options are investigated using an in-house techno-economic CCS assessment tool combined with an uncertainty quantification framework. When the different capture options are compared on a deterministic basis, the advanced amine yields the best performances (CO2 avoidance cost of 153 €/tCO2,avoided), followed by the membrane process based on partial capture (200 €/tCO2,avoided) and MEA-based capture (217 €/tCO2,avoided). However, in contrast with the advanced amine, the partial capture considered in the membrane process does not enable net negative CO2 emissions. Once technical and cost uncertainties are taken into account, the advanced amine-based capture remains the best option, however the MEA-based capture outperform the membrane process. Finally, the stochastic optimisation showed that the uncertainties considered do not impact the optimal capture capacity in this case. The full CCS chain perspective is then included through two chain options: a nearby offshore saline aquifer or an offshore CO2 EOR storage located further away. The EOR-based chain leads to the best performances (187 vs. 202 €/tCO2,avoided) both on a deterministic basis and when different uncertainty scenarios are considered. However, as a shared transport and storage infrastructure is considered, uncertainty regarding the amount of CO2 coming from nearby industries leads to a different optimal design of the chain (pipeline diameter and ship capacity). Finally, uncertainties on the EOR response to CO2 injection can significantly reduce the potential of the CO2 EOR-based chain and lead to cases in which the saline aquifer-based chain would be optimal.
Highlights
The International Energy Agency forecasts that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) will contribute to 14% of the reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the 2 Degree Scenario (2DS) (IEA, 2016)
While the CO2 avoidance cost (CAC) evaluated here are higher than those of typical power and industrial plants, they are on the low range of cost estimates for negative emission technologies such as bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) and direct air capture (DAC), which are in the range 50-250 e/tCO2, avoided and 100–2,000 e/tCO2,captured, respectively (Bui et al, 2018)
The objective of this study was to investigate the optimal design of carbon capture and storage from a waste-to-energy plant under uncertainties
Summary
The International Energy Agency forecasts that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) will contribute to 14% of the reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the 2 Degree Scenario (2DS) (IEA, 2016). (IEAGHG, 2017, 2018; Gardarsdottir et al, 2019) In several of these cases, CO2 is a byproduct of the production process, which makes it difficult to reach the required deep decarbonization of the industrial sector without CCS. The CO2 capture section is the largest contributor to the cost of CCS, compared to the cost of transport and storage. Solvents such as monoethanol amine (MEA), considered to be the most mature CO2 capture technology are still in the demonstration phase. Novel capture technologies (advanced solvent, membrane, low-temperature, absorption, calcium looping) that show potential for cost reduction are at a lower technology readiness level (TRL) (BootHandford et al, 2014). Choosing a particular capture technology for an application without considering the uncertainties related to their respective levels of development can lead to misleading conclusions and financial risks
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
