by S Cranga · 2022 · Cited by 1 — To explore how the costs associated with CCS might be influenced, we will examine the cost of CCS implementation on the coal-firing power plants
Taken together, this literature suggests that CCS deployment requires more than technological readiness: it depends on robust policy frameworks,
Industry is responsible for 40% of global energy demands and is central to economic development around the world. According to the *IEA Report: Transforming Industry through CCUS*, demand for cement, steel and chemicals will remain strong to support a growing and increasingly urbanized global population. CCS is expected to play a critical role in decarbonizing industry as it has been proven to be one of the most cost-effective solutions available for large-scale emissions reduction. In the IEA Report, a pathway is set out that aligns with the ambitions of the Paris Agreement, drawing on CCS to reduce global industry emissions by one-fifth. Industry is the second-largest source of CO2 emissions from energy and industrial processes (equal with transport) after the power sector. If indirect emissions (i.e. emissions resulting from industrial power and heat demand) are also taken into account, the sector is responsible for nearly 40% of CO2 emissions. CCS technology is a concrete solution to reducing industrial emissions, allowing us to support industries while continuing to enable societies to evolve and prosper.
The present portfolio of CCS projects in the power sector focus on retrofits to operating electric generation facilities and for the most part the carbon capture plant will be constructed as a standalone facility with its own energy supply for both electric and process Development Challenges to Scaled CCS Deployment 2 steam. For example, a recent air permit application for a coal CCS project shows Development Challenges to Scaled CCS Deployment 3 that the retrofit will result in significant reductions in SO2 emissions in addition to decarbonizing the generating facility. As in the case of other industry segments, transaction execution through development, construction and operation will drive down perceived and actual technology and commercial risk, compress margins, develop political support for enabling legislation affecting CCS as well as carbon pricing and establish a firm foundation for scaled deployment. However, since the development and construction of new carbon capture projects requires four years or more, this process will take some time since there will not much in the way of large-scale CCS project operation on power generation much before the late 2020s.
For example, implementing CCS in a cement plant could avoid up to 90% of CO2 emissions but would increase the cost of cement production by 65 to
5.0 APPENDIX Table 15 - Simplified definitions of the Technology Readiness Levels for CCS technologies (IEAGHG, 2014) Table 16 - Design parameters for the CO2 capture plant Table 17 - Key utility operating cost parameters CATEGORY DEFINITION Demonstration 9 Normal commercial service 8 Commercial demonstration, full-scale deployment in final form 7 Sub-scale demonstration, fully functional prototype Development 6 Fully integrated pilot tested in a relevant environment 5 Sub-system validation in a relevant environment 4 System validation in a laboratory environment Commercial 3 Proof-of-concept tests, component level 2 Formulation of the application 1 Basic principles, observed, initial concept DESIGN PARAMETERS Cost Location Basis Gulf Coast, United States Present Value 2023 US$ costs Construction Years 3 Discount Rate 10% Operating Life 30 years Capacity Factor 90% CO2 Capture Rate (for standard models) 90% OPERATING PARAMETERS Cooling Water Cost $0.0317/m3 Electricity Cost $77/MWh Low-Pressure Steam Cost (6.9 bar) 19.4 US$/tonne Capital Recovery Factor Discount Rate × ( 1 + Discount Rate ) Plant Operating Life ( 1 + Discount Rate ) Plant Operating Life - 1 = ADVANCEMENTS IN CCS TECHNOLOGIES AND COSTS 58 TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS Bare Erected Cost (BEC) • Process Equipment • Installation • Supporting Facilities • Direct and Indirect Labour Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) 15% of BEC Process Contingency 15.9% of (BEC + EPC) Project Contingency 20.7% of (BEC + EPC + Process Contingency) Total Plant Cost (TPC) Sum of the Above Start-up costs • 6 months operating labour • 1 month maintenance materials • 1 month chemical and consumables • 1 month waste disposal • 25% of one-month fuel cost (not applicable for natural gas) • 2% TPC Inventory Capital • 2 months fuel (not applicable for natural gas) • 0.5% TPC Financing Cost 2.7% TPC Other Owners Costs 15% TPC Owner’s Costs Sum of the above Total Overnight Cost (TOC) TPC + Owner’s Costs Distribution of TOC over the Capital Expenditure • Year 1: 10% •
ANNUAL EMISSIONS STREAM PROCESSED (tCO2/y) CAPTURE METHOD CAPTURE RATE DISTANCE TO STORAGE, TRANSPORT MEANS INJECTION WELLS (#) POST-INJECTION MONITORING (YEARS) 1,000,000 Amines (post-combustion capture), compression 90% 60mi, pipline 3 100 Chapter 6 32 May 2023 FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKER (FCC) The table below shows the estimated costs for capture, transport, and storage: COSTS (LOW/HIGH) COST per ton ($/tCO2) (LOW/HIGH) Capture CapEx 158M 288M Capture OpEx 46 84 Transport CapEx 68M Transport OpEx 1.3 Storage CapEx 98M Storage OpEx 8 45Q ELIGIBLE LCFS ELIGIBLE Using these cost estimates and the finance assumptions below, we obtain the following results for the project surplus: Target Rate of Return 8% Years of operation 12 LCFS credit price $125/tCO2 Project Surplus/Deficit (Low Costs/High Costs) $87/tCO2 $33/tCO2 STEAM METHANE REFORMER (SMR) The table below shows the estimated costs for capture, transport, and storage: COSTS (LOW/HIGH) COST per ton ($/tCO2) (LOW/HIGH) Capture CapEx 171M 376M Capture OpEx 41 89 Transport CapEx 68M Transport OpEx 1.3 Storage CapEx 98M Storage OpEx 8 45Q ELIGIBLE LCFS ELIGIBLE Using these cost estimates and the finance assumptions below, we obtain the following results for the project surplus: Target Rate of Return 8% Years of operation 12 LCFS credit price $125/tCO2 Project Surplus/Deficit (Low Costs/High Costs) $90/tCO2 $17/tCO2 SMR Sensitivity #1 To showcase the favorable economics and importance of pipeline transport, even for relatively short distances, we also modeled transport using tanker trucks over the same distance from source to sink while using the high-end cost estimates for capture from the plant.
www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/library/publication/206-biomass-with-co2-capture-and-storage-bio-ccs-the-way-forward-for-europe.html 17 See Annex I for membership of the ZEP Working Group, “CCS in Other Industries” 11 2 CO2 Capture and Storage 2.1 CCS could provide almost 20% of global emission cuts required by 2050 CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) describes a technological process by which at least 90% of CO2 emissions are captured from large stationary sources (e.g. fossil fuel-fired power plants, certain heavy industrial processes), transported to a suitable storage site, then stored in geological formations – safely and permanently – deep underground (at least 700m and up 5,000m).