This paper presents a framework for estimating the future N^th-of-a-kind (NOAK) cost of advanced low-carbon technologies that are currently at early pre-commercial stages of development. It identifies two types of question that commonly motivate a cost analysis: “What If” questions about the hypothetical future cost of a technology that meets specified R&D goals or requirements; and “What Will” questions regarding the true expected cost of an advanced technology once it is mature and widely deployed. The latter type of question is the focus of this paper. It addresses shortcomings in the “bottom up” engineering-economic method current used to estimate NOAK costs. It describes a more rigorous hybrid costing method that combines a bottom-up analysis of the first-of-a-kind (FOAK) commercial cost of an advanced technology with an empirical model employing experience curves to project its future cost. Guidelines are presented for all phases of the analysis.

@en

This paper briefly summarises the development of improved guidelines for cost evaluation of carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage (CCS) from industrial applications [1] 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, CO2 transport and storage, and 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, in order to better understand CCS costs under various conditions. Since retrofitting CCS is especially relevant for industrial facilities, further recommendations are made on how to better account for the key elements that constitute retrofitting costs. Furthermore, instead of using a fixed unit cost for CO2 transport and storage, cost estimates should at least consider the CO₂ flowrate, transport mode, transport distance and type of storage, to obtain 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 uncertainties. Lastly, we urge techno-economic analysis practitioners to clearly report all major assumptions and methods, as well as comprehensively examine the impact of uncertainties on their cost estimates.

@en

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, CO₂ 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 CO₂ 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.

@en

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

As part of large scale application of CO2 capture and storage, million tons CO2 per year have to be transported by pipelines and/or vessels from capture to storage sites. In previous studies, costs of, pipeline systems and point-to-point vessel connections have been estimated. In this research, these cost analysis are supplemented by adding a transport system combining vessel and pipeline transport. The cost savings potential of this multimodal CO2 transport system has been analyzed for the West Mediterranean region (i.e. Spain, Portugal, and Morocco) - where vessel transport can play an important role. In detail: A multimodal extended adaption of a pipeline system optimization model has been defined and was then parameterized adapting a nonlinear vessel and pipeline transport cost model. Next, cost savings due to vessel transport were quantified for the West Mediterranean region. When CO2 emissions are stored in the region itself, cost could be lowered by up to 20% on routes with low transport volumes and in a complementary way by a redirection of flows at the expense of longer transport distances to prevent costly offshore storage. In case of a European CO2 transport infrastructure including North Sea storage, transport of CO2 by vessel could be profitable if CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). However, North Sea neighboring countries can be expected to crowd out Iberian CO2 of the market for EOR storage volumes.@en

The application of CO2 capture and storage at industrial scales requires the development of a transport infrastructure which is suitable to transport millions of tons of CO2 per year. Important offshore storage sites could be served by pipelines or vessels. The discrimination between these options is a crucial scientific task for the assessment of the potential of CCS and the design of a CO2 transport infrastructure. In this research the analysis of vessel transport cost is refined by the optimization of vessel size in a fleet scheduling context. A cost model for a point-to-point CO2 transport by vessel that includes liquefaction, intermediate storage, loading, vessel/fleet construction and storage has been derived from a comprehensive literature survey and has been optimized for vessel capacity. The cost savings potential of the optimization can reach up to 40%. A reliable cost estimation should therefore carefully account for the dimensioning of the vessels. The optimized vessel transport option was then compared to pipeline transport connections to offshore storage sites. In a compact graphical presentation it is shown that vessel transport can be advantageous compared to pipeline transport for long distances and small volumes. The breakeven distance of vessel transport becomes up to 40% greater due to optimized vessel size. The cost models were then applied to find the cost effective transport mode for a connection of the West Mediterranean region1 The term “West Mediterranean” is used for the description of the region including Spain, Portugal and Morocco. Even though Portugal does not border the Mediterranean Sea, it is usually included in Mediterranean organizations. (i.e. Spain, Portugal, and Morocco) to a European CO2 transport infrastructure including the North Sea. Transport of CO2 by vessel turns out to be cost-effective and could be profitable if CO2 is used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).@en

The costs of intermittent renewable energy systems (IRES) and power storage technologies are compared on a level playing field to those of natural gas combined cycle power plants with CO2 capture and storage (NGCC-CCS). To account for technological progress over time, an "experience curve" approach is used to project future levelised costs of electricity (LCOE) based on technology progress ratios and deployment rates in worldwide energy scenarios, together with European energy and technology cost estimates. Under base case assumptions, the LCOE in 2040 for baseload NGCC-CCS plants is estimated to be 71 €2012/MWh. In contrast, the LCOE for electricity generated intermittently from IRES is estimated at 68, 82, and 104 €2012/MWh for concentrated solar power, offshore wind, and photovoltaic systems, respectively. Considering uncertainties in costs, deployment rates and geographical conditions, LCOE ranges for IRES are wider than for NGCC-CCS. We also assess energy storage technologies versus NGCC-CCS as backup options for IRES. Here, for base case assumptions NGCC-CCS with an LCOE of 90 €2012/MWh in 2040 is more costly than pumped hydro storage (PHS) or compressed air and energy storage (CAES) with LCOEs of 57 and 88 €2012/MWh, respectively. Projected costs for battery backup are 78, 149, and 321 €2012/MWh for Zn-Br, ZEBRA, and Li-ion battery systems, respectively. Finally, we compare four stylised low-carbon systems on a common basis (including all ancillary costs for IRES). In the 2040 base case, the system employing only NGCC-CCS has the lowest LCOE and lowest cost of CO2 avoided with CO2 emissions of 45 kg/MWh. A zero CO2 emission system with IRES plus PHS as backup is 42% more expensive in terms of LCOE, and 13% more costly than a system with IRES plus NGCC-CCS backup with emissions of 23 kg CO2/MWh. Sensitivity results and study limitations are fully discussed within the paper.@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

This paper evaluated the techno economic performance of several CO ₂ capture-network configurations for a cluster of sixteen industrial plants in the Netherlands using bottom up analysis. Preliminary findings indicate that centralizing capture equipment instead of capture equipment at plant sites shows lower average CO₂ avoidance costs for both post-combustion (central: 70€ ; decentral: 86€ ) and oxyfuel combustion (central: 63€ ; decentral: 80€ ) technology, because of economic scale effects, use of large-scale CHP plants and revenues from electricity sale to the grid. Centralizing capture equipment is particularly interesting for small point sources, since these plants benefit most from economies of scale.

@en

This paper presents results of potential CCS infrastructures in the West Mediterranean region including trajectories for CO₂ pipelines. The preliminary results are generated with a combination of geographical (GIS) and partial equilibrium optimization modelling (MARKAL/TIMES-COMET). Furthermore, as a result of active stakeholder involvement in the research project, the CCS infrastructures were critically reviewed and obtained insights were used to improve the models and their input parameters. Stakeholderś feedback regarding difficulty in crossing hard rock terrains and the reasonability of trying to replicate the existing natural gas network, had a large impact on the resulting CCS infrastructure.

@en