Carbon Capture And Storage Cost Research Articles

Socio-economic Aspects of CCS Technologies

Economic viability and public support are key factors of concern, along with technological advancement and ecological impact, for the implementation of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies, an increasingly urgent priority, to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions linked to global climate change, and building a low-carbon economy towards sustainable development. In the present study, recent socio-economic aspects of CCS technologies are discussed. Although real cost estimation for CCS is generally considered a difficult task, an estimated relatively high cost and energy requirements of these technologies, along with an uncertainty over public acceptance of CCS, appear major barriers to the deployment of a substantial commercial market, constraining the economic viability and policy making for the application of CCS. The full life-cycle cost of CCS must be considered in an overall social/environmental/economic/political context. Social research conducted using various tools can provide an insight into several factors influencing and shaping public awareness and perceptions of CCS, in order to promote communication of expert knowledge and participation, and to enhance the required social acceptance for the advancement of these technologies.

Evaluating Carbon Capture and Storage in a Climate Model with Directed Technical Change

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered a critical technology needed to curb CO2 emissions and is envisioned by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as an integral part of least-cost greenhouse gas mitigation policy. In this paper, we assess the extent to which CCS and R&D in CCS technology are indeed part of a socially efficient solution to the problem of climate change. For this purpose, we extend the intertemporal model of climate and directed technical change developed by Acemoglu et al. (2012, American Economic Review, 102(1): 131{66) to include a sector responsible for CCS. Surprisingly, even for an optimistic cost estimate available for CCS ($60/ton of CO2 avoided), we find that it is not optimal to deploy CCS or devote resources to R&D in CCS technology either in the near or distant future. Indeed, it is only when the marginal cost of CCS is less than $12/ton that a scenario with an active CCS sector (including R&D) becomes optimal, though not in the near future.

A proposed methodology for CO2 capture and storage cost estimates

There are significant differences in the methods employed by various organizations to estimate the cost of carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems for fossil fuel power plants. Such differences often are not apparent in publicly reported CCS cost estimates, and thus contribute to misunderstanding, confusion, and mis-representation of CCS cost information, especially among audiences not familiar with the details of CCS costing. Given the international importance of CCS as an option for climate change mitigation, efforts to harmonize methods of estimating CCS costs and improving the communication of cost assumptions and results are especially urgent and timely. Based on an analysis of current deficiencies, this paper recommends a common costing methodology plus guidelines for CCS cost reporting to improve the clarity and consistency of cost estimates for greenhouse gas mitigation measures.

Prospective scenarios for the adoption of CCS technologies in the Iberian Peninsula

Abstract Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been identified by several studies as a promising option in the greenhouse gas mitigation portfolio of different countries. Since the Iberian Peninsula is a region with a large availability of renewable energy sources (RES), the role of CCS deserves deeper analysis. Using the TIMES_IBERIA optimization model, this paper investigates the contribution of several factors (i.e. climate policy, RES and CCS cost curves, and gas prices) that might promote or constrain the adoption of CCS technologies as part of a portfolio for reducing CO 2 emissions from the power generation and industrial sector, in the medium–long term (2020–2050), within the Iberian Peninsula energy system. CCS becomes cost effective only after mature renewables, namely wind onshore and hydropower, are fully exploited up to their technical-economic potential. An ambitious long term climate target (−50% reduction in 2050 over 1990) contributes to an early penetration of CCS (in 2025). It penetrates more in the power sector (60% of captured emissions) than in industry (40%), and most of it is implemented in Spain (95%), not in Portugal. CCS penetration appears very sensitive to the costs of CCS technologies, while much less sensitive to the costs of renewable technologies.

Combustion vs. gasification for a demonstration CCS (carbon capture and storage) project in Italy: A techno-economic analysis

The need to reduce CO2 emissions requires a great economical effort to optimize the processes and solve the main technical and economic problems which still limit a large-scale diffusion of this kind of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies.In this paper, the main results of a techno-economic comparison between ultra supercritical pulverized coal combustion (USC) and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants are presented. The Sulcis coal basin, considered as a reference location for the plant configurations here analysed, could represent a very important site to test carbon capture and storage technologies, being representative of a lot of potential storage site in the world.For both USC and IGCC technologies, three different configurations have been compared: a configuration without CCS, a CO2-free configuration and an intermediate solution in which a demonstration CCS system is applied to only a portion of produced gas.The analysis here presented shows that USC technology is slightly more profitable than IGCC if a configuration without CCS is considered, whereas IGCC is more profitable than USC for a CO2-free configuration. Due to the high CCS costs and to the specificity of the site, the investment is not profitable if not supported by an adequate incentive.

The CLIMIT Program and its Strategy for Norwegian Research, Development and Demonstration of CCS Technology

The Norwegian CLIMIT program for research, development and demonstration (RD&D) of carbon capture and storage (CCS) was established in 2005 to provide financial support to RD&D of CCS technologies. Research institutions and companies in Norway together with international partners may apply to CLIMIT for funding of their projects. The program is funded by the Norwegian government with an annual budget of € 24 million. CLIMIT has so far provided € 120 million to about 200 projects covering basic research, technology development and pilot scale demonstration projects. This paper presents a new strategy for the CLIMIT program, provides some background on CCS in Norway and a brief overview of Norwegian activities within CCS. The new CLIMIT strategy is based on seven foundation reports; 1) Technology status, 2) Market analysis, 3) Cost of CCS, 4) Policies and regulations, 5) International energy and CCS roadmaps, 6) Current infrastructure and test sites and 7) Innovative processes. Major findings from these reports are presented together with the resulting CLIMIT program strategy for 2012 – 2020.

Selection of Optimal CO2 Capture Plant Capacity for Better Investment Decisions

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is an important part of a carbon-constrained energy scenario to reduce global emissions. Most of the present works in literature related to CO2 capture assumes exhaust stream from power plants, as they represent large CO2 volume sources, and consider steady flow of exhaust stream to the capture units. However, the feed stream to the CO2 capture unit from these sources will typically vary over time. As these fluctuations in the exhaust gas profile lead to lower utilization rate of the capture unit, building the CO2 capture plant for a full capture might not be optimal. Therefore this work evaluates the optimum CO2 capture unit capacity taking into consideration the trade-off between the cost of capturing CO2 and paying the emissions cost (q uota or tax) for given fluctuating exhaust gas profiles. Costs functions of an amine-based post combustion capture unit for a coal power plant exhaust gas are modelled to represent the cost of capturing CO2. A Mixed Integer Lin ear program is formulated and implemented in General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) to calculate the econ omic optimum CO2 capture plant capacity. The model when applied to a typical fluctuating exh ust gas profile show results indicating significant economic gains in optimizing the installed CO2 capture capacity. Therefore, in addition to significantly decreasing the cost of CCS on power plants, being able to forecast the fluctuating lo ad on the CO2 capture unit can also avoid investment delays compared to cases in which only full capacity capture is considered.

Carbon Capture Regulation for The Steel and Aluminum Industries in the UAE: An Empirical Analysis

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) has been identified as one of the most promising means to reduce carbon emissions. As the cost of CCS remains high and uncertainty prevails, government incentives are essential to mobilize CCS deployment. This paper presents an incentive compatible carbon price regulatory regime to align CCS with Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). We then perform a numerical analysis on the macroeconomic effect of CCS with EOR on the Abu Dhabi economy for CO2 capture from the steel and aluminum industries. Result shows that the current scale of CCS remains too small and can only increase the supply of gas by 0.1% for Abu Dhabi. CO2 captured from the steel industry tends to generate higher value added than aluminum industry due to difference in CO2 intensity and energy penalty.

Argument map for carbon capture and storage

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can contribute to the deep CO2 cuts which are necessary to achieve climate change targets. There is, however, a strong public debate whether CCS should be implemented. In this article we give an overview of the arguments for and against based on the opinion of Dutch stakeholders. CCS is an umbrella term for a wide range of different configurations of separate technologies. Some arguments are applicable in general for all CCS chains; some are only valid for a particular configuration. In this paper we will discuss these arguments in the context of the background of different CCS configurations. The argument that CCS costs a lot of extra energy, for instance, is valid for the power sector, not for gas treatment. A good understanding of the CCS debate and the arguments used may help with developing a better energy policy and may give direction to future research and technology development.

Characterising CCS learning: The role of quantitative methods and alternative approaches

A number of energy scenario studies have suggested that carbon capture and storage (CCS) could make a significant contribution to reducing global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This would require efforts to ensure rapid development and deployment. Since there is limited experience of CCS systems, it is hard to define ‘business as usual’ development. This leads to significant uncertainty for policy makers and other stakeholders with regard to characterising potential CCS pathways and assessing the scope for and risks of acceleration.Quantitative analytical approaches to projecting costs and other parameters typically depend on best current estimates of critical input data, as well as implicit or explicit assumptions about technology development pathways and contextual factors such as evolving regulatory requirements. There are significant limitations in current quantitative (and qualitative) data on CCS that lead to significant difficulties in identifying robust assumptions. One way to handle this is to develop multiple scenarios to illustrate the uncertainty. Another strategy is to make more use of qualitative methods for analysing CCS innovation processes. This latter approach could help to avoid some of the issues associated with CCS cost uncertainty and instead re-focus attention on understanding critical aspects of innovation processes.

Perspectives on CCS Cost and Economics

Summary Focus on carbon capture and storage (CCS) has grown over the past decade with recognition of CCS's potential to make deep CO2-emission reductions and that fossil fuels will continue to be needed to supply much of the world's energy demands for decades to come. How CCS will compare with other options in the future depends critically on the cost of CCS (the focus of this paper) and resolution of barriers to CCS deployment and costs and barriers for other emission-reduction options. This paper provides a comparison of the cost of electricity of five power-generation options—gas combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and supercritical coal with and without CCS and nuclear—and shows regions of carbon price and fuel prices where each can be economically viable. Current cost estimates for coal CCS for nth-of-a-kind power-generation plant are in the USD 60 to 100/t of CO2 avoided, which is higher than some of the earlier CCS estimates, and higher than the generally accepted range of expected carbon prices in the next 2 decades. The high cost of coal CCS suggests that Gas-based power generation is significantly more economical than coal CCS at carbon prices less than USD 60 to 100/t CO2.Even after carbon prices reach USD 60 to 100/t CO2, gas CCS produces lower-cost electricity than coal CCS, as long as natural-gas prices remain less than USD 9/MBtu.Nuclear has a lower cost of electricity than coal CCS. Although coal or gas CCS is unlikely to be economical in power generation over the next 2 decades, subsidized demonstrations of CCS are likely to occur. In addition, components of CCS technologies will continue to be economically practiced in early-use segments [e.g., natural-gas processing and enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) operations]. In the natural-gas-processing industry, CO2 separation cost is a fraction of the cost of CO2 capture in power generation because of its higher gas pressure, and the CO2 separation is typically necessary to monetize the natural-gas resource. In contrast, CCS for most refinery and industrial emissions is expected to be significantly more costly than in power generation because the CO2 streams are typically smaller scale and more distributed than those from large power plants. Realistic cost estimates for CCS and for other greenhouse-gas (GHG) mitigation options are an important input for focusing research, development, and demonstration addressing barriers to applications that show the greatest promise and for development of sound policy.

The Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Carbon Capture and Storage

For carbon capture and storage (CCS) to be a truly effective option in our efforts to mitigate climate change, it must be sustainable. That means that CCS must deliver consistent environmental and social benefits which exceed its costs of capital, energy and operation; it must be protective of the environment and human health over the long term; and it must be suitable for deployment on a significant scale. CCS is one of the more expensive and technically challenging carbon emissions abatement options available, and CCS must first and foremost be considered in the context of the other things that can be done to reduce emissions, as a part of an overall optimally efficient, sustainable and economic mitigation plan. This elevates the analysis beyond a simple comparison of the cost per tonne of CO2 abated—there are inherent tradeoffs with a range of other factors (such as water, NOx, SOx, biodiversity, energy, and human health and safety, among others) which must also be considered if we are to achieve truly sustainable mitigation. The full life-cycle cost of CCS must be considered in the context of the overall social, environmental and economic benefits which it creates, and the costs associated with environmental and social risks it presents. Such analysis reveals that all CCS is not created equal. There is a wide range of technological options available which can be used in a variety of industries and applications—indeed CCS is not applicable to every industry. Stationary fossil-fuel powered energy and large scale petroleum industry operations are two examples of industries which could benefit from CCS. Capturing and geo-sequestering CO2 entrained in natural gas can be economic and sustainable at relatively low carbon prices, and in many jurisdictions makes financial sense for operators to deploy now, if suitable secure disposal reservoirs are available close by. Retrofitting existing coal-fired power plants, however, is more expensive and technically challenging, and the economic sustainability of post-combustion capture retrofit needs to be compared on a portfolio basis to the relative overall net benefit of CCS on new-build plants, where energy efficiency can be optimised as a first step, and locations can be selected with sequestration sites in mind. Examples from the natural gas processing, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and coal-fired power generation sectors, illustrate that there is currently a wide range of financial costs for CCS, depending on how and where it is applied, but equally, environmental and social benefits of emissions reduction can be considerable. Some CCS applications are far more economic and sustainable than others. CCS must be considered in the context of the other things that a business can do to eliminate emissions, such as far-reaching efforts to improve energy efficiency.

Policy instruments for advancing CCS in Dutch power generation

Abstract The Netherlands is heavily dependent on the success of carbon capture and storage (CCS) for its decarbonisation policy. This paper discusses several ways how CCS in the Dutch power sector can be stimulated after the round of demonstration activities up to 2015. It describes recent policy developments in the UK, US and Germany, and concludes that a policy package could be the most useful way forward if it includes a financial incentive to cover additional costs of CCS. The costs of financial support could amount to 1–3% of the Dutch electricity bill, even with CO2 prices in the € 20–50 range until 2030. A policy package could also include a regulatory instrument like an emissions performance standard (EPS) or other regulation for new coal-fired power plants to provide additional certainty. The EU Treaty explicitly leaves room for more stringent regulation from Member States required to protect the environment.

Possibilities and potentials of geological co-storage CO2 and SO2 in China

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is widely accepted as one of main solutions to mitigate global warming in the world. However, the still-high cost of CCS is one of the major concerns, in particular in developing China. In the other hand, emission control of H2S and SO2 has already become the urgent need, and the reduction target has been set in the 11th Five-Year Plan of China. Therefore, co-storage of CO2+SO2 or CO2+H2S may be an effective way to reduce CCS cost, e.g. due to saving the de-sulphur device, and enable CCS to has an earlier deployment opportunity. In this paper, we try to, at first, reveal some key problems, i.e., trapping mechanism, injectivity and leakage risk, for co-injection and co-storage of CO2 and the strong acid SO2 into subsurface spaces in a certain gas field in China. The output of this gas field includes about 6.8% H2S and 4.6% CO2. Then, we want to insight into the possibilities and potentials of co-storage of CO2+SO2 by numerical studies. After widely referring all opened and published scientifical and technical literature, we develop a model to study a porous media system associated with the thermo-hydro-chemical coupling interactions. The hydrogeology and mineralogy of the injected formation are extracted from the historical materials of the gas field. We have performed several numerical simulations with consideration of a sandstone-clay sequence under acid-gas injection conditions. The clay formation is supposed as a sealed cap rock for the co-storage disposal system. The study examines the impact of SO2 co-injection on the pH of formation brine. Co-injection of CO2 with SO2 results in a larger and more strongly acidified zone, and alteration differs substantially from that caused by the injection of CO2 alone. The mineral alteration induced by injection of CO2 with SO2 leads to corresponding changes in porosity. Significant increases in porosity occur in the acidified zones where mineral dissolution dominates.

Cutting Costs of Catching Carbon - Intertemporal Effects Under Imperfect Climate Policy

We use a two-period model to investigate intertemporal effects of cost reductions in climate change mitigation technologies for the power sector. With imperfect climate policies, cost reductions related to carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be more desirable than com-parable cost reductions related to renewable energy. The finding rests on the incentives fossil resource owners face. With regulations of emissions only in the future, cheaper renewables speed up extraction (the ‘green paradox’), whereas CCS cost reductions make fossil resources more attractive for future use and lead to postponement of extraction.