The CO2 value chain and legal aspects (Task 1)

This Task seeks to demonstrate the importance of CCS for decarbonising the energyand industrial sector in order to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement. It will providerecommendations on the best measures to cut CCS costs, and assess shortcomings in thecurrent legal framework applicable to CCS operations at national and international levels.This will facilitate a faster and cheaper deployment of CCS technology.

Results 2021

Enabling cost-efficient implementation of CCS clusters

CCS from industrial clusters and multi-source industrial sites has been identified as a key opportunity to facilitate large-scale and cost-efficient CCS implementation. While these cases could present opportunities to reduce costs compared to stand-alone implementation, significant efforts are required to identify the best clustering strategies.

As multiple options for pooling, capturing and conditioning these CO₂ emissions can be considered, we have developed a model for planning and evaluating different strategies that could be implemented in an industrial cluster. The model allows us to assess the technical and cost characteristics of a clustering facility with an accuracy very close to that of a detailed evaluation. However, this model can perform such an evaluation in a matter of seconds or minutes, compared to the days or weeks that are needed for detailed evaluations. As a result, comparing multiple strategies (as for example illustrated in Figure 1) becomes a more manageable and accessible way of finding the most cost-efficient strategy for implementing CO₂ capture and conditioning in an industrial cluster. In 2021, this model was used to compare clustering strategies from a real industrial cluster, and in 2022, it will support the establishment of general guidelines for clustering CO₂ emissions.

Figure 1: Illustration of different layout alternatives that could be considered for industrial clusters.
Figure 1: Illustration of different layout alternatives that could be considered for industrial clusters.

How much can novel sorbents reduce the cost of post-combustion CO₂ capture?

The cost of CO₂ capture is a key driver of the cost of CCS, and, as a result, many emerging technologies are being developed to reduce this cost compared to absorption-based CO₂ capture.

One of these promising approaches is adsorption-based capture. One of the main drivers of energy and cost performances of adsorption processes is the choice of adsorbents. Recent developments in material science have enabled material chemists to discover several new classes of adsorbents, such as metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), covalent-organic frameworks (COFs), etc., which can be highly tuned for CO₂ capture applications. However, not all of these possible materials result in significant cost reduction. To better understand the potential of sorbent development for reducing costs, we worked with the University of Alberta (Canada) to evaluate the lowest cost that can be achieved by adsorption-based technology for different industrial applications, as well as how this cost compared to the cost of adsorption that is based on already commercial sorbents.

The results showed that pressure-swing adsorption could only be cost attractive compared to solvent-based capture for industrial applications with high CO₂ concentrations. The results also showed that sorbents with CO₂ affinities that are close to zero are ideal for significantly reducing costs compared to commercial ones. Finally, it is important to emphasise that the optimisation of both the particle morphology and the process conditions are required.

Comparison of the cost limits
Figure 2: Comparison of the cost limits (lowest cost achievable) of both four-step and six-step DR PVSA cycles, with CO₂ avoided costs obtained using MEA-based CO₂ capture with two steam supply scenarios (natural gas boiler and waste heat recovery). CO₂ avoided costs reported here exclude CO₂ conditioning, transport and storage.

Results 2020

Enabling cost-efficient implementation of CCS clusters 

CCS from industrial clusters and multi-source industrial sites have been identified as a key opportunity to facilitate large-scale implementation of CCS and improve cost efficiency. While such cases could present opportunities for cost reduction compared to stand-alone implementation, significant efforts are required to identify the best clustering strategies. Indeed, multiple options on how to pool, capture and conditions these CO2 emissions can be considered.

With this in mind, we developed a model for planning and evaluating strategies for pooling and capturing from an industrial cluster. The model allows us to assess the technical and cost characteristics of a clustering facility with an accuracy very close to the one of detailed evaluation. This model performs such an evaluation in a matter of seconds or minutes instead of days or weeks for detailed evaluations. As a result, comparison of multiple strategies (example: Figure 1) becomes a more manageable and accessible way to find the most cost-efficient strategy for implementation of CO2 capture and conditioning from an industrial cluster. This model will be used in 2021 to identify the best CCS clustering strategy for an industrial cluster case study.

Figure 1: Illustration of different layout alternatives that could be considered for industrial clusters.
Figure 1: Illustration of different layout alternatives that could be considered for industrial clusters.

Developing a transport infrastructure for the Norwegian industry

In 2020, we investigated how a shipping infrastructure could roll out to transport CO2 from Norwegian industry. CO2 transport of small volumes, such as from individual industrial sites in Norway, is typically expensive. As part of this work, we evaluated how to best transport CO2 from 22 industrial sources in central and southern Norway. Our results show the strong benefit of co-operation and coordination to reduce costs through shared infrastructure and ships. In addition, we also demonstrated that retrofitting a 15 bar shipping chain to 7 bar shipping, once the 7 bar shipping technology would become available, was not a cost attractive solution. This new knowledge will lead to journal publication in 2021.

Incentivising low-carbon product

Incentivising low-carbon product through public procurement is a new strategy put forward to support the development of low-carbon solution. For example, the Norwegian state and local authorities purchase goods, services and works to the sum of over NOK 550 billion every year, and the resulting carbon footprint corresponds to 14% of all Norwegian carbon emissions. As a result, public procurement can help the public sector reduce its carbon footprint, and also assist in the development of markets for low carbon products. In 2020, we investigated what legal constraints could arise from this strategy. We identified the two most important constraints that must be met. Firstly, the low-carbon product specification requirement cannot have the effect of disproportionately restricting competition. Secondly, these requirements must be formulated in a way that does not have the effect of further restricting the competition (for example, specific methods of emission reduction can't be set). The ability to set such requirements could be key to enable high enough demand to facilitate implementation of CCS from industry (cement, iron and steel, etc.).

Main results 2019

Understanding and planning for uncertainties

In 2019, we developed a new approach for design of the CCS chain under uncertainties. This was done to better understand the impact of uncertainties on CCS chain performance, and to enable better design than when uncertainties aren't planned for. This approach was demonstrated over the case of a waste- to-energy plant. It helped us better understand the range of capture costs that could be achieved, hence

enabling more informed decisions about financial risks. Furthermore it enhanced our understanding of how CCS infrastructure from a waste-to-energy plant could be designed more robustly to remain cost-efficient even in the case of less likely conditions.

Shipping CO2 at 7 bar could enable significant cost reduction

To reduce conditioning and transport costs of CO2, we identified cost-optimal transport conditions (temperature and pressure) for transport of CO2 via ship. There has been a lot of discussions on whether shipping at 7 bar is more cost-efficient than 15 bar, but no study has satisfactory concluded on this.

We studied if the 7 bar shipping option could be more cost-efficient than the current commercial 15 bar technology. Our work concluded that the 7 bar shipping option could enable significant cost reduction for a wide range of combinations of transport distances and capacities, both in the case of pure CO2 or CO2 with impurities after the capture process. The work showed that the 7 bar technology could indeed reduce costs with 15% and above in most cases. Furthermore, for longer distances cost reductions beyond 30% can be achieved. A paper focused on the liquefaction process aspects of this work was published in 2019 in the International Journal of Refrigeration and a manuscript summarizing the complete results and conclusion will submitted for publication in 2020.

Legal aspects to enable CCS chains based on ship transport.

Task 1 investigated the legal framework of CO2 shipping for CCS and identified one point needing urgent attention. According to the current frame of the European Emission Trading Scheme, CCS based on ship transport may not provide credit for the avoided CO2 emissions. This framework must thus be revised so CCS projects based on CO2 shipping are eligible for financial credit under the European Emission Trading Scheme and to expressly provide for the ship transport of CO2. The present legal solution is unsatisfactory. It creates a legal risk and potentially hinders investment.

Cost reduction in CO2 liquefaction and transport that could be achieved by considering the 7 bar shipping instead of 15 bar shipping: for pure CO2 and in the case in which ships larger than 10 000m3 can be built for the 15 bar technology.
Cost reduction in CO2 liquefaction and transport that could be achieved by considering the 7 bar shipping instead of 15 bar shipping: for pure CO2 and in the case in which ships larger than 10 000m3 can be built for the 15 bar technology.

Main results 2018

Main results

  • Improvement of the EMPIRE model for evaluation of the role of CCS in decarbonising the power and industrial sector
  • Evaluation of the impact of delivery pressure and impurities on the design and cost of CO2 liquefaction prior to ship transport
  • Development of a new model for evaluation of CCS chain design under uncertainties
  • Assessing the content and implementation of the current CCS Directive on liabilities for CO2 shipping and storage

Impact and innovations

  • The work on CO2 liquefaction is the first step toward the identification of optimal transport conditions for CO2 transport by ship
  • The new model for evaluation of CCS chain design under uncertainty is expected to lead to improved design strategies for CCS chains
Impact of the targeted delivery pressure after liquefaction on the cost of CO2 liquefaction for different CO2 impurity scenarios in the CO2 stream after CO2 capture. The results obtained will be used to identify the cost optimal conditions for transport of CO2 by ship 2019.

Main Results 2017

One of the critical activities in 2017 was to provide benchmarking reference points to evaluate the impact of
new knowledge resulting from other centre activities, as well as the potential of activities of interest.
Two reference CCS chains were selected and defined in discussions with partners, assessed and evaluated in
collaboration with Task 6:

  • CCS from a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant
  • CCS from a hydrogen production plant

The obtained results show that the CO2 capture and conditioning cost is the main contributor to the CCS cost
(57-70%), while the transport and storage costs account for 16-17% and 18-26% of the chain cost. Equally
important, the semi-detailed cost breakdown was presented to provide a deeper understanding of the key
contributors to the cost of the whole chain, and therefore to identify points, which if reduced, could have the
most impact.

The results of the assessment of these reference chains are expected to be used by task leaders, Centre
management, and industrial partners to:

  • Follow the impact of different performed activities throughout the Centre
  • Support the prioritization of existing and new activities in the Centre
  • Assess how the Centre has performed in terms of reaching its ambitions

Publications

See also other NCCS Publications registered in Cristin, the Norwegian Research Information system.

Journal Publications

2020:

2019: 

2018: 

Conference Publications

2019: 

  • Rør- og sjøtransport av CO2. Juridiske hindringer for å gjennomføre fullskala CO2 håndtering - C. Banet. TEKNA CO2 konferanse, Oslo, Norway
  • The harmonization or unification of interpretation - a case study of European carbon capture and storage - V. Weber. Harmonisation in Environmental and Energy Law, University of Hasselt, Belgium
  • Toward the identification of optimal conditions for transport of CO2 by ship - S. Roussanaly, H. Deng, G. Skaugen. TCCS-10 conference, Trondheim, Norway
  • Capacity Investments and Operational Uncertainty in a CCS value chain - V.S. Bjerketvedt, A. Tomasgard, S. Roussanaly. TCCS-10 conference, Trondheim, Norway
  • Design of post-combustion CCS from a waste-to-energy plant under uncertainties and fluctuations - S. Roussanaly, J.A. Ouassou, R. Anantharaman. PCCC-5 conference, Kyoto, Japan

2018: 

  • Identifying optimal conditions for transport of CO2 by ship - G. Skaugen, S. Roussanaly, H. Deng, J. Jakobsen. GHGT-14, Melbourne
  • Toward a new paradigm for development of CO2 capture materials: An illustration through the case of membrane-based post-combustion capture - S. Roussanaly, J.A. Steckel, R. Anantharaman, S. Budhathoki, K. Lindqvist, C.E. Wilmer. GHGT-14, Melbourne
  • Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (bio-CCS): regulating carbon negativity - C. Banet. GHGT-14, Melbourne
  • Bio-CCS: from carbon neutrality to carbon negativity as a legal requirement - C. Banet. Colloque INGILAW
  • Legal bottlenecks in Bio-CCS regulation - C. Banet. IEA Bioenergy Task 41 workshop on Bio-CCS

Task leader

Simon Roussanaly

Simon Roussanaly

Research Scientist
47 44 17 63
Name
Simon Roussanaly
Title
Research Scientist
Phone
47 44 17 63
Department
Gas Technology
Office
Trondheim
Company
SINTEF Energi AS