Carbon capture and storage: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Oostenrijr (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Oostenrijr (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Carbon capture is assumed possible for power generation, half of the industrial sector and hydrogen production. In these sectors CCS technologies are defined that compete over market shares with conventional technologies (without CCS). The CCS technologies involve higher costs and a slightly lower conversion efficiency, and are therefore not chosen under default conditions. However, according to model calculations, the costs of these CCS technologies would increase far less compared to conventional technologies if a carbon price would be introduced. Carbon capture is assumed at a maximum of 95%, the remaining 5% is still influenced by the carbon price. The actual market shares of conventional and CCS-based technologies are determined for each market, using multinomial logit equations. The costs of carbon capture are based on Hendriks et al. ([[Hendriks et al., 2002]]; [[Hendriks et al., 2004a]]; [[Hendriks et al., 2004b]]). | Carbon capture is assumed possible for power generation, half of the industrial sector and hydrogen production. In these sectors CCS technologies are defined that compete over market shares with conventional technologies (without CCS). The CCS technologies involve higher costs and a slightly lower conversion efficiency, and are therefore not chosen under default conditions. However, according to model calculations, the costs of these CCS technologies would increase far less compared to conventional technologies if a carbon price would be introduced. Carbon capture is assumed at a maximum of 95%, the remaining 5% is still influenced by the carbon price. The actual market shares of conventional and CCS-based technologies are determined for each market, using multinomial logit equations. The costs of carbon capture are based on Hendriks et al. ([[Hendriks et al., 2002]]; [[Hendriks et al., 2004a]]; [[Hendriks et al., 2004b]]). | ||
The use of CCS increases power generation costs by about 40% to 50%, for natural-gas-fired and coal-fired power plants. Expressed in terms of costs per unit of CO<SUB>2</SUB>, this is roughly equivalent to between USD<SUB>2005</SUB> 35 and 45/t CO<SUB>2</SUB>. Similar cost levels are assumed for industrial sources. CO<SUB>2</SUB> transport costs were estimated for each region and storage category, based on the distance between the main CO<SUB>2</SUB> sources (industrial centres) and storage sites (Hendriks et al., 2002a). The estimated transport costs vary from USD<SUB>2005</SUB> 1 to 30/ | The use of CCS increases power generation costs by about 40% to 50%, for natural-gas-fired and coal-fired power plants. Expressed in terms of costs per unit of CO<SUB>2</SUB>, this is roughly equivalent to between USD<SUB>2005</SUB> 35 and 45/t CO<SUB>2</SUB>. Similar cost levels are assumed for industrial sources. CO<SUB>2</SUB> transport costs were estimated for each region and storage category, based on the distance between the main CO<SUB>2</SUB> sources (industrial centres) and storage sites (Hendriks et al., 2002a). The estimated transport costs vary from USD<SUB>2005</SUB> 1 to 30/t CO<SUB>2</SUB> – the majority being below USD<SUB>2005</SUB> 10/t CO<SUB>2</SUB>. | ||
Finally, for each region, the potential for storage categories has been estimated, including: | Finally, for each region, the potential for storage categories has been estimated, including: | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*enhanced coal-based methane recovery; | *enhanced coal-based methane recovery; | ||
*aquifers. | *aquifers. | ||
For each category, storage costs were determined, with values typically of USD<SUB>2005</SUB> 5 to 10/ | For each category, storage costs were determined, with values typically of USD<SUB>2005</SUB> 5 to 10/t CO<SUB>2</SUB> [[Hendriks et al., 2004b]]. | ||
|BelongsTo=Energy conversion/Description; | |BelongsTo=Energy conversion/Description; | ||
}} | }} | ||