This paper provides a method to identify drivers, barriers and synergies (DBS) related to the deployment of a CO2 pipeline network. The method was demonstrated for the West Mediterranean region (WMR) (i.e. Spain, Portugal and Morocco). The method comprises a literature review, analysis of embedded pipeline trajectories, interviews with experts, and workshops with stakeholders. Subsequently, the collected information was used to identify route specific DBS in several CO2 pipeline network deployment scenarios that were modeled for the WMR. Most identified DBS apply to CO2 pipeline transport in general. The barriers (e.g. technical knowledge gaps, outstanding legislative issues, lack of financial incentive) can in principle be tackled to make the design, construction and operation of a CO2 pipeline network possible, but could sometimes lead to somewhat higher costs. Furthermore, there are also facilitating processes (e.g. experience with CO2 pipeline transport for EOR). Cost benefits due to pipeline oversizing were identified as a route specific driver, whereas crossings of mountains, water and nature areas are route specific barriers. Installing CO2 pipelines along natural gas pipelines could be either a route specific synergy or barrier, depending on site conditions. Finally, several key measures were proposed to enable CO2 pipeline networks in the future.@en

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a potential key-technology to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as its use can lead to lower mitigation cost. However, research on other economic impacts of using CCS is scarce. In this paper, we look into economic upstream impacts of CCS use in terms of employment, Gross Value Added (GVA) and import dependency on the macro- and sector-level in Western Europe. We determine these impacts by a static comparison of two scenarios of power production with and without CCS (differences in energy efficiency investments between these scenarios were not accounted for). The two scenarios, both representing a stringent climate policy regime, were produced with the energy-system-simulation-model (TIMER) following the same emission profile until 2050. Data from the two scenarios were respectively implemented into a projected version of a global-multiregional IO-Model (EXIOBASE). Macro-level results suggest slightly higher gross employment, but lower Gross Value Added (GVA) (by 25%), and higher import dependency in the CCS-including scenario compared to the CCS-excluding scenario, given that biomass with CCS (BECCS) is available. Sector-level results show disproportionally higher differences between the scenarios in GVA and employment for some sectors compared to other sectors. Particularly, sectors providing fuels (here mostly bio-energy) have significantly higher GVA and employment in the CCS scenario. This study thus reveals interesting upstream economic effects, which can be linked to the technology choice. However, the exact quantitative results depend strongly on model assumptions. Results therefore need to be further explored in other models.@en

This study developed a method to assess the techno-economic performance and spatial footprint of CO2 capture infrastructure configurations in industrial zones. The method has been successfully applied to a cluster of sixteen industrial plants in the Dutch industrial Botlek area (7.1MtCO2/y) for 2020-2030. The configurations differ inter alia regarding capture technology (post-, pre-, oxyfuel combustion) and location of capture components (centralized vs. plant site). Results indicate that oxyfuel combustion with centralized oxygen production and decentralized CO2 compression is the most cost effective and realistic configuration when applying CO2 capture to all industrial plants (61€/tCO2; 5.8MtCO2/y avoided), mainly due to relatively low energy costs compared to post- and pre-combustion. However, oxyfuel combustion at plant level is economically preferable when capturing CO2 from only the three largest industrial plants. For post-combustion, a separated absorber-stripper configuration (73€/tCO2; 7.1MtCO2/y avoided) is preferable from a cost perspective, due to economic scale effects of capture equipment. The optimal pre-combustion configuration shows a slightly less favorable performance (81€/tCO2; 4.4MtCO2/y avoided). Whereas many industrial plants have insufficient space available for capture equipment, centralized/hybrid configurations show no insurmountable space issues. The deployment of the most favorable configurations is addressed in Part B.@en

Future power systems will require large shares of low-carbon generators such as renewables and power plants with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to keep global warming below 2. °C. Intermittent renewables increase the system-wide demand for flexibility and affect the operation of thermal power plants. We investigate the operation of future power plants by first composing a comprehensive overview of the operational flexibility of current and future power plants. Next, a combined long-term optimization and hourly simulation is performed with the soft-linked MARKAL-NL-UU and REPOWERS models for The Netherlands in 2030 and 2050. We quantify and compare the technical and economic performance of power plants for four distinctly different future scenarios. We find that future low-carbon power systems will have large shares of intermittent renewable sources (19-42%) and also a 2-38% higher variability in residual load compared to the Baseline scenario. Hence, power plant operation will be more variable, which reduces their efficiency by 0.6-1.6% compared to the full-load efficiency. Enough flexibility is present in future power systems to accommodate renewables, due to advances in power plant flexibility and interconnectors. As a result, generators with CCS have a large market share (23-64% of power generated). Moreover, the current energy-based market model generates insufficient revenues: the price received per MWh covers only 84% (±30%) of the total generation costs per MWh of 77. €/MWh (±12€). This will discourage new investments in generation capacity and reduce power system adequacy. New or additional market designs may be required to ensure system adequacy in future power systems.@en