The costs of Carbon Capture

and Storage (CCS) for

UK industry
- A high level review
Revised Final Report V3

For BIS and DECC

26/03/13

Harsh Pershad
Eleanor Standen
Emrah Durusut
Shane Slater
Element Energy Limited
Executive Summary (1/4): CO2 capture in several UK industrial
sectors is feasible, but detailed technical analysis is required.

 Internationally Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is in a development and demonstration phase,
with examples of partial and full chain projects in both industry and power in design, construction or
operation. In December 2012, BIS commissioned Element Energy to prepare an updated 2030 CCS
marginal abatement cost curve for UK industry, following initial analysis for the Committee on
Climate Change in 2010. This was to be based on a short, high level analysis.
 CO2 capture concepts have been proposed for existing industrial sectors currently represented in the
UK, including hydrogen, ammonia, iron and steel, refineries, CHP, cement, and ethylene. The UK
does have experience in capture, although international competition is significant. CO2 capture could
also be relevant for future industrial point source emitters.
 Capture costs depend on diverse factors CO2 purity, scale, technology and site readiness. Even high
level capture cost estimation is challenging – there are several potential technical solutions (and
future technology development), diverse potential site restrictions/synergies, and uncertainties over
energy requirements/supply. Encouragingly several organisations (IEA-UNIDO, Imperial College,
Kuramochi, and technology suppliers etc. ) are looking into this.
 Also a paucity of high quality studies of capture for industrial sites and no straightforward basis for
projecting what sites will still exist and how retrofit costs will change by 2030 make it challenging to
provide defensible £/t supply abatement cost curves for 2030. There may also be hidden costs (e.g.
plant downtime) and benefits not explored in the present study.
 With the exception of (i) hydrogen and ammonia plants, for which capture costs are likely to be low
as they reflect only CO2 clean up and compression; and (ii) very small emitters, for which specific
costs will be high, the uncertainties in capture costs are greater than the differences between
sectors. Therefore it is premature to rank the majority of industrial sectors in terms of cost.

2
Executive Summary (2/4): CCS on existing industrial sources could
reduce up to ca. 5% of average current UK emissions but specific
abatement costs and uncertainties span nearly one order of magnitude.

3
Executive Summary (3/4): To deliver this, CO2 transport and
storage infrastructure, at the right capacity, specification, at the
right time, affordable and simple to access must be in place.

 CCS requires a full chain of CO2 capture, transport and storage, and therefore there is a requirement to
develop safe, affordable transport and storage capacity, of the right size, in the right location and at the
right time.
 This will be time consuming, with high up-front costs and diverse risks for potential infrastructure
developers. Small industrial sources will not be interested in long-term storage liabilities.
 Important cost drivers are source-sink distance and economies of scale, and any industrial CCS
projects will likely need to share transport and storage capacity with each other and power sources –
creating challenges and opportunities, particularly around the development of clusters or hubs.
 Costs of transport and storage depend on location and geology constraints - industrial emitters close to
the Humber and St. Fergus may find it straightforward to access storage. Emitters in South Wales, for
example, will find it much harder unless more storage sites are discovered or extensive CO2 transport
infrastructure is in place. Even in the most favourable locations, point-to-point capture-transport-storage
solutions for industrial emitters below 1 Mt/yr will likely be prohibitively expensive; indeed economies of
scale are significant even up to 10 Mt/yr, implying the use of shared networks.
 However, the over-arching challenge will be creating an appropriate policy and investment model for
long-term industrial CCS to drive adoption – otherwise transport and storage infrastructure runs
stranded asset risks (i.e. under-utilisation).
 Government choices on how to consider industrial CCS will clearly depend on political priorities (CCS
demonstration to a global audience, maximising UK CO2 reduction, industry protection/competitiveness,
cost efficiency, jobs, GVA, risk management, attracting new industry, enhanced oil recovery, managing
budget and trade deficits etc.).

4
Executive Summary (4/4) :
Overall marginal abatement cost curve for UK industry

5
Outline

 Background

 Data and Process

 Scenario Analysis

 Transport and Storage of CO2

 Overall CCS costs

 Bibliography

6
Background

 Recent analysis by BIS has quantified the challenges and

opportunities associated with rising carbon prices and
regulation on the UK industrial sector.
 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) has been recognised as
a technology that potentially allows energy intensive industry
to function in the context of constrained CO2 emissions to the
atmosphere.
 In December 2012, BIS, with support from DECC,
commissioned Element Energy Ltd to carry out a brief and
high level desk-based review of the costs of CCS for UK
industry in 2030.
 This slide-pack comprises the WP3 final deliverable from the
project.

7
Outline

 Background

 Data and Process

 Industrial sources
 Capture cost review

 Scenario Analysis

 Transport and Storage of CO2

 Overall CCS costs

 Bibliography

8
Techno-economic assessment process for capture from industrial
sources

Industry classification

Published emissions Master database of

data existing emitters

Size filter Shortlist of emitters Commodity price

model (energy,
CEPCI)

DECC Industry Estimate future

Capture technology
forecast industry CO2 emissions
and cost model for
representative class

Capture technology Estimate captureable

Capture costs
database emissions
Financing

Energy to run capture

plant CO2 avoided £/tCO2 avoided

9
 Industrial emissions are projected to reduce due to energy
efficiency and fuel switching….

• Emissions from industry make up

nearly one quarter of the UK’s total
emissions.
• The UK Carbon Plan states that by
2050, the Government expects
industry to achieve reductions of up
to 70% from 2009 levels.
• These reductions will be achieved
by a combination of energy
efficiency, fuel switching, and CCS.

Sectoral CO2 emissions projections from “Pathways to 2050: Key

Results”, AEA Technology, 2011.

The DECC Updated Emissions Projections (2012) project an 11% reduction in emissions for
industry overall from 2009 to 2030. This reduction is the result of competing trends of:
•industry output increasing over time in line with economic growth (which returns to c. 2.5% by
2014, according to OBR 2012 forecasts),
•reductions in emissions driven by policies (primarily the EU ETS), and met through a
combination of fuel switching and energy efficiency measures.
The reductions in emissions has a greater impact than increasing industry output, resulting in
the overall reduction in emissions from this sector.
Source: The Carbon Plan, DECC (2011). Pathways to 2050, Key Results, AEA Technology (2011).
10
The DECC Updated Emissions Projections (2012)
Installation data has been filtered and grouped into reference
plant sizes for each sector

 All installations in the EU ETS and DEFRA/SEPA Pollution Inventories with 2008-
2011 emissions greater than 50,000 tCO2/yr were included in the analysis.
 8 sectors were identified as are suitable for CCS:

 CHP, cement, and iron & steel plants show significant variability in size and were
further broken down by size so that representative project costs could be estimated.
 CHP – divided into large, medium and small
 Iron and Steel – divided into small and large
 Cement – divided into large and small

 In total 12 representative project types were identified.

 The next slides show the rationale for the cut-off of installations smaller than 50,000
tCO2/yr, and then the number of sites, total sector emissions based on the average
for 2008-11, and % emissions for each representative project type.

11
 The baseline dataset using emissions from current installations
was filtered by size and by eligible sectors…

UK industrial direct emissions1

107 MtCO2
Installations in the EU ETS and Defra/SEPA Pollution
Inventories
85 MtCO2
Eligible installation sizes ( < 50,000 tCO2
removed)
79 MtCO2
Eligible sectors (offshore and
waste management removed)
60 MtCO2
Capture potential
(scenario dependent)

1 Source: CCC progress report, 2012, emissions in 2011. Note: EU ETS data: average of emissions over 2008-
12
2011 Pollution Inventory data: average of emissions 2009-2010
Although there are numerous small emitters, a size filter of 50ktCO2/year
ensures that at least 90% of industrial emissions are examined in more
detail.

• A cut-off for size of emissions was established by Amec and Gastec in a report for
IEA GHG (2007) which examined the challenges for UK distribution networks for
CCS. Projects with emissions below 50,000t/yr were highlighted in the study as
having prohibitively high CO2 transport costs compared to the abatement potential.

Emitters below
50kt represent
less than 10% of
total industrial
emissions

13
 Distribution of CO2 emissions between representative industries
(emitters above 50 kt/yr)

Annual sector
emissions Emissions, %
No of sites MtCO2/year of total
Iron & Steel (large) 3 18.3 28.8%
Refineries 8 16.0 25.0%
CHP (small) 89 9.3 14.5%
Cement (large) 7 4.9 7.7%
CHP (medium) 15 4.4 7.0%
CHP (large) 5 3.5 5.6%
Ethylene 3 2.5 4.0%
Cement (small) 5 1.6 2.5%
Lime 6 1.4 2.2%
Iron & Steel (small) 5 0.8 1.2%
Ammonia 2 0.7 1.2%
Hydrogen 1 0.2 0.3%
149 63.7 100

Source: EE analysis of EU ETS and DEFRA/SEPA Pollution Inventories, filtered to exclude emitters below 50,000t/yr 14
 Outside of the major emitters, what are the other sectors?

• There are a range of sectors included. Most installations are CHP plants for various
industries.
• For the capture costs, we have assumed that these are all CHP.
Source: EE analysis 15
 Capital cost models have been reviewed and updated

We have revised previous estimates for the capital costs and capture potential for the relevant
industrial sectors.
This has involved:
1. Reviewing data sources identified in the CCC 2010 study.
2.Literature search to identify new material.
3.Verifying then adding new data sources (8) to the capital costs and capture data.
4. Identification and resolution of systematic issues in the capital cost and capture data,
based on index, currency, changes, and correcting for missing data.
5. QC included standardisation of some assumptions (operating and maintenance costs
for capture, the supply of heat and electricity to drive capture, and discount rate) to
facilitate analysis.
6. Considering wider scenarios and sensitivities

• Source: DoE/NETL, 2010, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants (revised)
• DoE/NETL, 2007, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants. Vol. 1 Rev. 1. 16
Standardised datasets were produced for each sector..

17
There are many limitations of publicly available cost data

• For any given sector, there are few independent data sources, i.e. even recent
compilations of industrial capture costs are based on a limited number of conceptual
studies developed in the mid-2000s.
• Over the last few years global understanding of technology and project requirements
has improved considerably, and the wider market for engineering costs have changed
dramatically.
• In our judgement the available UK data does not allow reliable comparison today of
the relative costs of CO2 capture from different industries (e.g. iron and steel vs.
cement vs. refineries). This stems from a number of reasons:
• The underlying datasets were prepared by different engineers with different
bases for engineering design and costing.
• The rate at which capture technologies become available for industry and their
associated footprint and energy requirements
• Site-by-site variability in captureable CO2 emissions and costs could be
substantial.
• “Known unknowns” are the actual technology choice and sizing of capture,
nature of heat and power provision for capture, the fate of any arising CO2
emissions, assumptions on contingencies and owner’s costs, which have
been dealt with through scenario approaches.
• Also substantial uncertainties over relevant CO2 volumes in 2030, including the
potential for new sources (e.g. biofuel processing)
18
 Plant cost standardisation

Capital costs were standardised to

Total Overnight Cost (as per NETL
2010).
Opex was standardised to 4% of
capex.
Capital costs were then annualised
using a discount rate and lifetime
assumption (15-25 yrs).

NETL 2010 Costs and Performance of Fossil Fuel Power Plants;

19
Kuramochi et al. Techno-economics of industrial CCS
 Systematically technology costs increase between concept phase
and first project, and subsequently decline.

Most
industrial
capture
At any given stage there are an
cost
Anticipated cost reductions due to inherent cost uncertainty and
papers are
at concept learning and volume roll-out variability
stage**
Probability
distribution
function of
cost

Cost (£/tCO2)

Published
capture cost
estimates for
power CCS are
now at detailed
design
** Capture from ammonia and hydrogen sources is considered mature

Source: NETL, Technology learning curve (FOAK to NOAK) Quality Guidelines for Energy Systems Studies, 2012
20
Treatment of additional CO2 emissions associated with capture
plant.

To capture CO2 emissions using today’s post-combustion technologies heat is required
to regenerate the solvent.
There may be opportunities for heat (and power provision) from existing equipment
onsite, use of a new gas CHP plant, waste heat, heat from gas boilers, or alternative
fuels may also be relevant.
Our previous (2010) study assumed that the additional emissions produced by the CHP
plant would also be captured. However, unless the original CO2 stream has a similar
composition (and ideally temperature and pressure), mixing CO2 streams adds
complexity, and may not always be technically or economically effective.
Except where stated, our scenarios assume that the emissions from additional CHP
sites are not captured if this would likely be of different CO2 composition.
In the case of CO2 capture from existing CHP systems, we have estimated a default
and upper bound cost scenario for the capture of CHP emissions. The default assumes
that the CHP plant has enough capacity to produce the heat required for capture over
and above heat demands from elsewhere, whereas the upper bound assumes additional
or replacement CHP capacity.

21
 Where necessary, costs were standardised to reflect a UK-location, by a
multiplication factor and currency adjustment.

 Location is an important driver of costs, with studies showing installed costs can be
between 10 and 60% more expensive in Europe than in the US (GCCSI (2011)).
Currency fluctuations can be very dramatic, e.g. ±30% over the course of twelve
months.

Regional indices to transfer projects

from US Gulf Coast
Region
Equipment Materials Labour

United States 1.00 1.00 1.00

Canada 1.08 1.01 2.16

Euro Region $:£

1.19 1.16 1.33 www.xe.com/currencycharts
(Germany)

 For this study, as the capture plant costs are dominated by equipment costs (e.g.
gasifiers, turbines), we have assumed a 20% uplift in costs to convert US cost
estimates to UK locations, i.e. UK £ cost per kWe = 1.20 x reported US $ cost per
kWe x £/$
 The default exchange rate is $1.62:£1

Source: Global CCS Institute (2011) Economic Assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies, with
22
input from Worley Parsons and Schlumberger
 There are no definitive values for most of the levers, and so it is
more useful to show a range of costs on the MACC graph

 DECC annually publishes estimates from different consultant engineers on the costs
of power generation. For CCS these show a very wide range of costs.
 Consistently, we shall provide a range for industrial capture costs, rather than
showing “single” values.
 We cannot be sure our reference sources correspond to “central” cost estimates…

Cost uncertainty also decreases

as the technology matures.
NOAK
Probability
distribution
function of FOAK
cost

Narrow range of Cost (£/tCO2)

uncertainty
for NOAK plant

Wider range of
uncertainty for
FOAK plant

Source: EE compilation and standardisation of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle CO2

capital costs from various sources. 23
 Costs are sensitive to how heat is provided

• Most studies assume that a new CHP plant will be built to provide the energy (mainly
heat) required for post-combustion capture.
• Some industrial sites may be able to access excess heat from other processes to
use.
• The assumption made can have a significant impact on the capture cost
• For example Johanssen et al. (2012) identify cost ranges from €40-450/tCO2 avoided in
a quantitative comparison of heat supply options for capture for process industries.

Source: Johanssen et al 2012. Heat supply alternatives for CO2 capture in the process industry 24
Heat and electricity demand of the CO2 capture plant could be met
with a variety of options

CO2 Additional CO2

emissions emissions

Heat source
CO2 capture
Industrial Plant
plant Electricity
source

CO2 capture (e.g. 90%)

Potential heat sources: Potential electricity sources:

•Excess heat from the industrial plant •Existing CHP plant (on-site)
•Existing CHP plant (on-site) •New CHP plant
•New CHP plant •Import the electricity from the grid
•Provide the heat using a boiler

25
Outline

 Background

 Data and Process

 Scenario Analysis
 Scenario Definition
 Annualised Costs
 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves
 Sector costs in different scenarios
 Summary tables

 Transport and Storage of CO2

 Overall CCS costs

 Bibliography

26
Cost and technology levers can be varied to produce the MACC

• The techno-economic model includes 8 key drivers for scenario and sensitivity
analysis.

Cost lever Technology lever

Capital cost of the capture % of on-site emissions capture-
plant (£m) able
Operating cost of the capture Capture efficiency, also known
plant (£m/yr) as capture rate (%)
Energy price (p/kWh) Heat demand for capture
(GJ/tCO2)
Discount rate (%)
Economic lifetime (years)

• In terms of deriving a capture cost, preliminary results show that the three most
important factors are uncertainty over capital costs, fuel costs (which depend on both
the fuel price and energy efficiency of capture), and the discount rate.

27
Scenarios have been developed to understand impacts of cost
and performance uncertainties on overall costs.

Scenario S0 S1 “FOAK” S2 “Technology S3 “CCS S4 “CCS

“NOAK” development” favourable” unfavourable”

Bare Base Base Base Reduce by 50% Increase by 50%

engineering (e.g. site specific, (e.g. site specific,
cost multiplier industry changes, industry
tech dev)
changes, tech
dev)
Annual opex as Base Base Base 3% of capex 5% of capex
a % of capex (4% of (4% of capex) (4% of capex)
capex)
External heat 3.5 4.4 2.6 1.5 4.4
supplied for (tech dev)
capture GJ/tCO2
Real discount 10% 15% 10% 5% 15%
rate & 20 yrs 20 yrs 20 yrs 25 yrs 15 yrs
Economic
lifetime
Capture 90% 85% 95% 95% 80%
efficiency

Contingencies Base Base + 33% Base -10% Base -15% Base + 33%
and owner’s
cost

28
Outline

 Background

 Data and Process

 Scenario Analysis

 Scenario Definition

 Annualised Costs

 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves

 Summary tables

 Transport and Storage of CO2

 Overall CCS costs

 Bibliography

29
Annualised reference plant costs for the “Nth of a kind” scenario

30
Annualised reference plant costs for the “First-of-a-kind”
scenario

31
Annualised reference plant costs for the “Capture technology
progress” scenario

32
Annualised reference plant costs for the “CCS favourable”
scenario

33
Annualised reference plant costs for the “CCS Unfavourable”
scenario

34
Outline

 Background

 Data and Process

 Scenario Analysis

 Scenario Definition

 Annualised Costs

 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves

 Summary tables

 Transport and Storage of CO2

 Bibliography

35
 The marginal capture cost curve for UK industry in 2030 indicates
30Mt+ potential with costs in the range ca. £20-300+/tCO2
(excluding transport and storage)

N.B. Sectoral ranking within the cost curve is not warranted – the current uncertainties in the capture cost and
capacity are greater than the differences between sectors.

Source: Element Energy analysis 36

Assumptions on the heat source have a significant impact on the
costs

Current post-combustion capture

technologies require steam (i.e.
100-150°C) i.e. higher
temperature than supplied from a
district hot water network.

37
Caveats on the draft MACC graph

 To illustrate the impact cost and performance uncertainties, the graphs show the
marginal abatement capture cost curves for five scenarios:
S0) “nth of a kind”, i.e. significant deployment of CCS before 2030.
S1) “First-of-a-kind”, i.e. little progress in CCS before 2030
S2) “Rapid technology progress”, where performance of CCS has improved by 2030
S3) “CCS favourable scenario”
S4) “CCS unfavourable scenario”

 The marginal abatement capture cost curve show capture only (see next chapter for
transport and storage costs). Typically capture costs represent 60-80% of total
system costs, but for small or inland sources could be much larger.

 This MACC assumes abatement potential is based on all relevant UK sites having
installed carbon capture technology by 2030. We note that it is more likely that some
of this abatement potential will be satisfied by other technologies.

 The potential and costs for transport or storage are excluded at this stage.
 The analysis excludes site feasibility assessment, new sources in the period to 2030,
capital cost reduction from new technologies, and hidden costs.

38
 Average CCS costs - assuming all sectors implement

• The costs of capture in industry appear competitive with the CCC’s estimates of the
costs of decarbonising the power sector.

39
Cumulative industrial CCS capture costs (assuming all sectors
implement) might be up to £6 billion.

 To put these costs into context, the CCC has estimated that achieving power sector
decarbonisation by 2030 will have net present costs of the order of £100 billion over the 2020s.

40
Outline

 Background

 Data and Process

 Scenario Analysis

 Scenario Definition

 Annualised Costs

 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves

 Summary tables

 Transport and Storage of CO2

 Overall CCS costs

 Bibliography

41
Summary table (1) Reference Plant Costs
(S0 – NOAK scenario)

Industry Refineries Iron & steel ‐ large (>3Mt/yr) Iron & steel ‐ small (<3Mt/yr) Cement ‐ large (>0.45 Mt/yr)

Number of sites in scope 8 3 6 7

Emissions from a reference plant

1.80 4.00 0.16 0.73
(MtCO2/yr)
50% of onsite emissions available 65% of onsite emissions available for capture (JM Birat, Steel and CO2 –
Sector specific factors for capture (van Straelen et al, the ULCOS Program, CCS and Mineral Carbonation using Steelmaking ‐
2010). Slag)

Retrofit large scale post‐combution

Retrofit post‐combution project
project using amine scrubbing Post‐combustion capture from Post‐combustion capture from
using chemical absorption applied
Reference project applied to the BP Grangemouth blast furnace emissions (IEA, blast furnace emissions (IEA,
to a cement modern plant (Mott
refinery complex (Simmonds et al, 2009) 2009)
McDonald (IEA R&D GHG, 2008))
2003)

Project contingencies Project contingencies

Process contingencies Derived from $/t costs Process contingencies
Derived from $/t costs
Costs are adjusted to the UK Project contingencies Costs are adjusted to the UK
Adjustments to cost Project contingencies
Inflated and converted to £(2012) Inflated and converted to £(2012) Inflated and converted to £(2012)
Inflated and converted to £(2012)
Scaling factor Scaling factor Scaling factor
CHP CAPEX is removed CHP CAPEX is removed

Total overnight cost (adjusted),

£220 £296 £35 £127
£m, 2012

Annualised CAPEX (£m/yr) £26 £35 £4 £15

O&M (£m/yr) £9 £12 £1 £5

Av. energy costs (heat and

£39 £112 £4 £31
electricity ‐ £m/yr)

CO2 captured (MtCO2/yr) 0.81 2.34 0.09 0.66

CO2 avoided (MtCO2/yr) 0.66 1.84 0.07 0.52

42
Summary table (2) Reference plant costs
(S0 – NOAK scenario)

Industry Cement ‐ small (<0.45 Mt/yr) Lime Ammonia Hydrogen

Number of sites in scope 5 6 2 1

Emissions from a reference plant

0.32 0.24 0.45 0.25
(MtCO2/yr)

No additional heat is required for No additional heat is required for

Sector specific factors ‐ ‐
CO2 capture CO2 capture

Retrofit of post‐combustion Retrofit of post‐combustion capture

Retrofit post‐combution project
capture to high‐CO2 (98‐99%) to high‐CO2 (98‐99%) process
using chemical absorption applied
Reference project Derived from cement plants ammonia process emissions emissions stream from modern SMR
to a cement modern plant (Mott
stream (IEA GHG R&D CCS in CDM hydrogen plant (IEA GHG R&D CCS in
McDonald (IEA R&D GHG, 2008))
study, 2008; McKinsey, 2009) CDM study, 2008; McKinsey, 2009)

Limited Project contingencies

Inflated and converted to £(2012) Inflated and converted to £(2012) Limited Process contingencies Limited Process contingencies
Adjustments to cost
Scaling factor Scaling factor Inflated and converted to £(2012) Limited Owner's costs
Inflated and converted to £(2012)

Total overnight cost (adjusted),

£115 £95 £36 £33
£m, 2012

Annualised CAPEX (£m/yr) £13 £11 £4 £4

O&M (£m/yr) £5 £4 £1 £1

Av. energy costs (heat and

£14 £10 £6 £3
electricity ‐ £m/yr)

CO2 captured (MtCO2/yr) 0.29 0.22 0.41 0.23

CO2 avoided (MtCO2/yr) 0.23 0.17 0.39 0.22

43
Summary table (3) Reference plant costs
(S0 – NOAK scenario)

Industry Ethylene CHP ‐ small (<0,2 Mt/yr) CHP ‐ medium (0.2 ‐ 0.5 Mt/yr) CHP ‐ large (>0.5 Mt/yr)

Number of sites in scope 3 89 17 5

Emissions from a reference plant

0.88 0.10 0.28 0.65
(MtCO2/yr)

Sector specific factors ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Existing CHP plant is sufficient to Existing CHP plant is sufficient to Existing CHP plant is sufficient to
Reference project Derived from large CHP CCS costs produce the heat and electricity produce the heat and electricity produce the heat and electricity
required for capture (NETL, 2007) required for capture (NETL, 2007) required for capture (NETL, 2007)

Costs are adjusted to the UK Costs are adjusted to the UK Costs are adjusted to the UK Costs are adjusted to the UK
Adjustments to cost Inflated and converted to £(2012) Inflated and converted to £(2012) Inflated and converted to £(2012) Inflated and converted to £(2012)
Scaling factor Scaling factor Scaling factor Scaling factor

Total overnight cost (adjusted),

£41 £31 £60 £110
£m, 2012

Annualised CAPEX (£m/yr) £5 £4 £7 £13

O&M (£m/yr) £2 £1 £2 £4

Av. energy costs (heat and

£38 £4 £12 £28
electricity ‐ £m/yr)

CO2 captured (MtCO2/yr) 0.79 0.09 0.25 0.59

CO2 avoided (MtCO2/yr) 0.62 0.07 0.20 0.46

44
Outline

 Background

 Data and Process

 Scenario Analysis

 Transport and Storage of CO2

 Overall CCS costs

 Bibliography

45
Issues around transport and storage of CO2

 CO2 storage is possible in deep (1-4 km) rocks that are porous (i.e. have spaces),
permeable (allow fluids to flow), and have a strong caprock that acts as a seal.
 The storage capacity of the store must be sufficient to hold several years of CO2
emissions, i.e. several millions of tonnes.
 Stores are accessed by wells – and the economics of storage will depend on the
supply chain for the oil and gas industry, which have high opportunity costs.
 Individual wells can cost tens of millions of pounds, but will ideally support throughput
in the region of one million of tonnes per year.
 CO2 has complex chemical, physical and flow properties that need to be managed
very carefully.
 Detailed analysis of transport and storage engineering and commercial options can
take several years and cost several millions of pounds.
 The resources available to assess transport and storage costs within this study can
only support very high level estimation of transport and storage options.
 Element Energy has relied on published papers and in-house cost modelling
experience to develop ranges of costs for transport and storage for industrial sources
for different scenarios.
 Developments and uncertainties in capture and those in transport and storage could
be largely independent. To simplify presentation, we have maintained the scenario
descriptions S0-S4.

46
 ETI’s UK Storage Appraisal Project identifies significant offshore
capacity, but the storage distribution is complex and heterogeneous

 Nearly 600 potential storage units identified with P50 capacity

over 70 Gt.
 Performance will be site specific but the types of storage are
diverse and little information is available for many of them to
predict performance reliably.
 Wide range of predicted well requirements and reservoir risks
identified - realistic chance that many units will not actually be
suitable on deep analysis.
 Storage is clustered. Most of the theoretical capacity in the
Southern North Sea, Central North Sea and Northern North Sea,
implying transport system will be an issue.
 Wide range of unit size and shape. Many aquifers are very much
larger than traditional oil and gas fields. Some units are expected
to be vertically stacked, although this has yet to be quantified and
the implications assessed in depth.
 CO2 storage costs can be estimated by understanding the
requirements for appraisal, platforms, wells, pipelines etc. for
which there are oil and gas analogues.
 Range of storage costs spans three orders of magnitude,
depending on reservoir conditions, how the reservoir is developed,
utilisation, financing, and prevailing market/regulatory conditions.
 Similar findings have been observed in other countries.
Source: UK Storage Appraisal Project (UKSAP), commissioned and funded by the Energy Technologies Institute.
47
Image courtesy of the Energy Technologies Institute
 Three main classes of storage sites – each has a mix of
opportunities and challenges

• Source: Element Energy 48

 The matched economically accessible storage capacity may be
significantly lower than the theoretical aggregate storage capacity
identified in UKSAP upon detailed examination.

New discoveries / technology improvements

Storage Capacity

P10 - 85 Gt
P50 - 78 Gt
“Theoretical P50 Capacity”
P90 - 71 Gt

“Effective Capacity”
(i.e. technically suitable)

“Practical Capacity”
(Meet public support and regulatory approval)
With large CO2 transport network “Matched
Without CO2 transport network economic
capacity”

N.B. Whilst at UK level there may be a portfolio effect, for individual

stores, the P10-P90 range could be very large. This issue has not
been assessed in detail, and as CO2 storage is relatively new, it is
difficult to predict reliably today.
Source: Element Energy – study on CCS readiness for the European Climate Foundation 49
 Offshore costs are driven primarily by site appraisal, well
requirements, injection facilities, pipelines and boosting.

Water level

Seabed

Source: ETI UK Storage Appraisal Project Final Report,

50
Element Energy’s offshore infrastructure cost model. Image courtesy of the Energy Technologies Institute
 For any individual site, there are usually economies of scale in
offshore CO2 transmission and storage.

Source: ETI UK Storage Appraisal Project Final Report, Image courtesy of the Energy Technologies Institute 51
 Transmission and storage per unit costs span two orders of
magnitude.

Source: ETI UK Storage Appraisal Project Final Report, Image courtesy of the Energy Technologies Institute 52
Transport cost drivers

For pipelines:
•CO2 pipelines have been in operation onshore since the 1970s and there is one offshore
CO2 pipeline in Norway.
•Overall pipeline costs are mainly determined by primarily by pipeline length, terrain,
diameter (i.e. capacity), cost of steel or engineering index, and the cost of financing.
•Annual fixed operating and maintenance costs for pipelines are expected to be about 1-
3% of capital cost, although there will be some fixed and variable costs for for
compression and pumping.
•Re-using pipelines offers dramatic cost reduction, but constrains locations of sources,
storage, capacity and future flexibility.
•Commercial success requires high utilisation in early years, which is sustained over
many decades.
•This implies a high level of certainty around technology, markets, policies/regulations
across the entire CCS chain is required to achieve lowest costs.

For shipping:
•CO2 shipping requires appropriate and compatible designs for liquefaction, loading,
unloading and further legal/regulatory clarity, particularly for cross-border shipping.
•Shipping costs are relatively insensitive to capacity and distance, making this option
relatively flexible.
53
Multiple transport options are relevant for connecting UK sources with UKCS
sinks, including new pipelines, re-used pipelines, shared pipelines and CO2
shipping and hub concepts.

Element Energy et al. (2010) One North Sea 54

 Assessment of transport options

Topology Advantages Disadvantages

 May be easier to finance under current climate  Average cost per tonne across all networks is higher than
 Does not require estimation of future demand. with shared infrastructure.
A1 – New point to point  Does not require co-ordination between multiple  Multiple pipelines across different routes means large
stakeholders planning hurdles and disruption to those affected.
 Reduces risk of low pipeline utilisation.  No flexibility to accommodate additional sources at low cost.
 Operating conditions (capacity, pressure, composition) highly
constrained, relative to new build.
 Infrastructure is old and performance may be reduced or risks
 Very low capex
of failure increased relative to new build. Performance
 Very low lead time
A2 – Re-use of existing guarantees for use with CO2 unlikely to be available for 30+
 Simpler consenting process
pipeline year old assets.
 Existing owners have a good understanding of
 Start and end locations fixed.
pipeline
 Transition from use for natural gas to CO2 needs to be
managed carefully – may be difficult to retrieve pipelines that
are not abandoned appropriately.
 Low transport cost when operating at full capacity.
 High initial cost. May require public sector funding initially.
 Enables connection of marginal sources. Could
 Risk of low utilisation if demand is lower than forecast.
B – Shared pipeline attract new sources e.g. industry to the region.
 Requires common entry specification for CO2.
 Lower planning hurdles and disruption since multiple
 Complex business models.
sources share one trunk pipeline.
 Transport costs are higher than for shared pipelines with
 Low risk of low utilisation due to insufficient demand. same throughput.
 Lower planning hurdles as new pipelines are built on  Does not significantly reduce costs for smaller, marginal
C – Shared rights of way
shared rights of way. sources.
 Capacity matched to demand.  New pipelines may still face planning hurdles despite
following existing pipeline routes (see Box).
 Low upfront costs
 Flexible in the event of sink failure CO2 can be routed  Very high transport costs compared to mature pipelines.
to other storage sites.  Large number of ships required to meet high demand.
D - Shipping
 Suitable for projects where multiple, small sinks may  Need to agree specifications across a wide geographical
be required, or where project lifetimes are small. range.
 Capacity matched to demand

Source: Element Energy 55

If industrial sources need stores to be operational by 2030, then site
appraisal and route planning will need to progressed by the early
2020s.
Obtain data and develop Each of these steps on the critical
options path shown could take between 0.5-3
years, depending on existing
Techno-economic and risk screening information and infrastructure,
development complexity, and the co-
Pre-FEED
operation between stakeholders. The
total time could range from 5-15 years
for each transport and/or storage
FEED solution.
Onshore transport is particularly
vulnerable to NIMBYism and
Detailed design permitting restrictions.

Negotiation, Consents, Due Diligence, Contracts, FID

Construction/modification work

Commissioning

Operational
Multiple opportunities to abort or restart development for technical, economic,
commercial, consenting/regulatory, legal or socio-political reasons

Source: Element Energy 56

Opportunities for networked CO2 transport infrastructure are
being developed at regional level

 The Regional Development Agencies One North East, East of England Development
Agency, Yorkshire Forward and Scottish Enterprise examined plans for networks for
CO2 transport infrastructure.
 Work from these has helped CCS demonstration/commercialisation candidates, and
plans by National Grid Carbon to develop a CO2 pipeline in the Humber are now well
advanced.
 Since the abolition of RDAs, some of the momentum has been maintained by
CO2Sense in Yorkshire, and the PICCSI cluster in Teesside. Scottish Enterprise
remains active, recently examining options for integrated infrastructure CCS and
CO2-enhanced oil recovery.
 Outside the UK, the Rotterdam Climate Initiative is a similar model of a public/private
partnership to develop a CCS network.

57
 Due to high risk and difficulties of obtaining permissions for new
onshore pipelines the most relevant sources are near the
shoreline.

Legend
Cement • Onshore “linear” infrastructure (e.g.
plant
Refinery pipelines, railways, transmission,
Chemical
production motorways) requires very long lead
CHP and
other
times to manage the concerns of diverse
Iron and
Steel
stakeholders.
Large power
station
• The most promising locations for
industrial capture in 2030 are therefore
those where significant co-operation is
already underway to establish a CCS
network, i.e. in Scotland, Tees Valley
and Yorkshire (circled).
• Industrial emitters in other regions may
need active co-ordinators to develop
their own CCS networks and address
stakeholder concerns.

Map illustrates locations of existing large UK CO2 emitters near

shorelines that may be relevant for CCS deployment in the
0 100 200 300 400 period up to 2030. Locations of selected fossil power stations
are also shown as these may provide opportunities for shared
Kilometres CO2 transport and storage infrastructure.

Source: Element Energy 58

What about other regions? Majority of industrial emitters,
including all large emitters are within 200 km of their nearest
shoreline terminal.

Source: Element Energy 59

 Each shoreline hub faces distinct spatial and scale challenges in
supporting CCS growth.

Parameter Bacton Barrow Easington Shore Forth Theddlethorpe Milford Haven St Fergus Teesside Thames Wirral

Stakeholder
Negligible Negligible High High High Negligible High High Negligible Negligible
Organisation

Number of potential
industrial capture 4 14 16 18 10 14 7 21 16 32
sources

Median distance of
industrial source to 65 76 67 39 115 139 1 7 56 61
shoreline hub/km

Median industrial
0.15 0.14 0.10 0.25 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.11
source MtCO2/yr

Mt/yr for largest

0.3 0.4 2.0 0.8 0.7 4.0 0.2 3.6 1.2 1.1
industrial source

Combined emissions
0.6 2.4 4.8 5.7 1.6 6.4 0.9 7.6 5.3 6.9
MtCO2/yr

Proximity of
200-300
shoreline hub to <100 km <100 km <100 km 200-300 km <100 km > 300 km <100 km 200-300 km <100 km
km
offshore storage
Proximity to potential
power CO2 capture Medium Medium High High High High High High High High
sources

Intermediate challenge for Very challenging for

Favourable for industrial
industrial CCS industrial CCS
CCS development
development development N.B. Theddlethorpe and Easington are in close proximity.

Source: Element Energy 60

Scenarios for CO2 transport and storage costs for industry

 Since the design, availability and business model for CO2 transport and storage for
UK industrial sources in the period to 2030 is very uncertain, and there is therefore a
very wide range of potential costs associated.
 At one extreme, there may be no available transport and storage capacity for
industrial emitters. (The effective cost of transport and storage is then the price of
building a dedicated source-sink connection).
 At the opposite extreme, industrial sources may be able to share transport and
storage infrastructure which has been fully paid for by others, and where the
industrial emitters needs only pay the marginal variable costs of access.
 In between these regimes, a more plausible 2030 scenario is where some capacity is
available for industrial emitters at “average” costs in shared CO2 transport and
storage infrastructure, but only at a limited number of hubs.

61
Shoreline Hub Case Study: The Tees Valley has the highest
concentration of industrial emissions.

Source: Element Energy (2010) The investment case for a CCS network in the Tees Valley 62
In the Tees Valley, sources are densely clustered onshore and an
integrated transport networks could be developed for a wide range of
CCS scenarios.

Above, illustration of onshore network topologies and utilisation.

Left, key performance indicators for the different networks,
showing how the challenge of investment increases with network
capacity.
Reproduced from Element Energy et al. (2010) The investment
case for a CCS network in the Tees Valley.

63
Many uncertainties could affect the costs of CO2 transport for the
emitters in the Tees Valley…

Average cost for medium network

• When all combinations of uncertainties are considered, the range of potential tariffs spans
£2-100+/tCO2!

Source: Element Energy (2010) The investment case for a CCS network in the Tees Valley 64
 European industry estimates of transport and storage costs

• The Zero Emissions Platform Task Force is an industry-driven coalition that advises
the European Commission on CCS. Its focus to date has been on the power sector,
although it is now beginning to consider CCS in industry.
• In 2011 ZEP published reports on average CO2 transport and storage costs in
Europe.
Large integrated networks
Method of CO2 2.5Mt/yr x 180 km (average cost, 20Mt/yr x 180
transport ±50% km)
±50%

Onshore pipeline £4.5/tCO2 £1.3/tCO2

Offshore pipeline £7.8/tCO2 £2.8/tCO2

Shipping incl. liquefaction £11/tCO2 £9.2/tCO2

• For storage, onshore storage is expected to be considerably cheaper than offshore,

but this has created political difficulties in Europe, and there has been no significant
potential for CO2 onshore storage identified onshore for the UK to date.
• Costs of offshore storage identified by ZEP span €2-20/t depending on site-specific
issues. Included are high pre-FID costs for detailed site assessment.

Source: Zero Emissions Platform (2011) Transport Report & Storage Report 65
http://www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/library/publication/168-zep-cost-report-storage.html
CO2 transport and storage scenario modelling

 The transport and storage costs are calculated by combining predicted onshore
transport cost, offshore transport cost and storage costs.
 The developments and uncertainties in capture and those in transport and storage
will be largely independent of each other. However, to simplify presentation by using
a limited number of scenarios, we have maintained the scenario descriptions S0-S4.
 We further simplify by assuming S0 (NOAK) = S2 (Technology Development)
 S0 (NOAK) and S2 (Technology Development) assume that there is significant
transport and storage infrastructure onshore and offshore, operating at high
utilisation, and costs are shared between industrial emitters and the power sector.
 S1 (FOAK) assumes that there is limited transport and storage infrastructure in place,
implying few economies of scale and opportunities to share costs, and higher tariffs
reflecting risks for infrastructure developers.
 S3 (low cost scenario) assumes that all stakeholders have co-operated strongly to
build efficient transport and storage infrastructure before 2030, and tariffs are low to
reflect the low risks for infrastructure developers. The scenario assumes extensive re-
use of infrastructure, adoption of CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery and that the majority of
infrastructure is paid for from the electricity market.
 S4 (high cost scenario) assumes there is limited co-operation between stakeholders
leading to inefficient transport and storage infrastructure onshore and offshore, and
correspondingly high system tariffs.

66
Onshore transport cost model identifies costs of transporting CO2
by pipeline to the nearest potential terminal.

Pipeline sizing
Source model
location Distance
calculation
Pipeline sizing Pipeline
Terminal costing
location
Routing
correction CO2 flow Onshore Pipeline cost
factor Transport fee model

Networking
Final transport
benefit
cost
economics

67
 Scenarios for average offshore CO2 transport and storage costs
from potential shoreline terminals were developed.
£/tCO2

Source: Element Energy analysis – assumes that industrial sources will share offshore networks with power 68
sources. Estimates are derived from team modelling of a wide range of offshore configurations.
 Estimated CO2 transport and storage costs for industrial sources

Data shows onshore and offshore

transport, but excludes initial
capture and compression, which is
assumed to be included within
capture cost .

Source: Element Energy analysis 69

 Diverse market failures are likely to restrict the development of
efficient transport and storage capacity for industrial sources.

 The capture analysis suggests that a wide range of CO2 transport and storage
capacities (0-30+MtCO2/yr) may be required in 2030.
 To our knowledge, no industrial source of CO2 has yet invested meaningfully in
transport and storage infrastructure.
 The existing framework for decision making around CCS is focussed on individual
power projects and is unlikely to deliver options for economically efficient levels of
transport and storage capacity to support up to 30 Mt/yr CCS in industry in 2030.
 However with appropriate policy interventions, and significant co-operation from
market actors, transport and storage costs could deliver a the “low cost scenario”.
Source: Element Energy analysis 70
Outline

 Background

 Data and Process

 Scenario Analysis

 Transport and Storage of CO2

 Overall CCS costs

 Bibliography

71
 The industry 2030 CCS chain costs span a wide range from £20/t-
£500+/tCO2 avoided.

Source: Element Energy analysis 72

Commentary on Industry CCS MACC curve

 A major uncertainty is over whether existing industrial fossil fuel-based CO2

emissions will still be at comparable volumes at the same locations in 2030 – sources
may close, relocate, change fuel type, improve efficiency, change output, and entirely
new emitters may emerge (e.g. biofuel refining).
 This is out of scope of the present study but CCS planning will be improved if 20yr+
forecasts for CO2 emissions are collected on a site-by-site basis.
 CO2 capture from industrial sources is not “new”; however capture feasibility, detailed
designs and costs for retrofitting existing UK industrial plants are much less well
understood than CO2 capture from new power stations (for which there are still large
cost uncertainties…)
 Location matters, largely because of the fixed location of storage sites (mostly under
the North Sea) and the large economies of scale that imply all but the largest
industrial sources will only be able to implement CCS if they can share transport and
storage costs with other CCS projects.
 Policymakers and other stakeholders have the opportunity to play a substantial role in
lowering the costs of CCS for some industrial sources, by ensuring public support for
CO2 reduction, promoting CCS readiness in UK industry, creating a stable economic
and co-operative framework to support reduce the costs of finance, promote
technology development, and optimising transport and storage infrastructure.

73
Outline

 Background

 Data and Process

 Scenario Analysis

 Transport and Storage of CO2

 Overall CCS costs

 Bibliography

74
Literature reviewed - 1

Year Name Comments

2009 IEA Energy technology Approximate annualised CCS costs per tonne for some of the major sectors.
Transitions for Industry, Iron & steel: 25 – 60$/tCO2
Strategies for the next Cement: only other papers are referenced, gives range of $38-170/tCO2
Industrial Revolution Ammonia: only other papers are referenced, <$50/tCO2
Ethylene: only other papers are referenced, >$50/tCO2
Pulp and Paper (Black lignite IGCC, type of CHP): capital costs increase by
$320/kW of electricity is CO2 capture was installed.

2008 IEA GHG CO2 capture in the Breakdown of capital costs for a cement plant with post-combustion CO2 capture.
Cement Industry. Mott Capital cost of additional post-combustion plant of €294million, for a 1Mt/year
McDonald cement plant, based on installation of a coal-fired CHP plant.

Estimated the increase in costs of cement manufacture with capture, based on a 25

year lifetime, 10% discount rate, and the assumption that any excess electricity
produced by the coal CHP plant can be sold to the grid. Cement with no CO2
capture, €66/t, cement with CO2 capture, €129/tonne
2008 IEA GHG Carbon dioxide Cost estimates for CCS in several sectors. The study draws heavily on capital cost
capture and storage in the estimates from McCollum and Ogden (2006). As part of the capital cost
clean development methodology a retrofit cost multiplier of 1.5 is assumed. The study assumes that
mechanism: assessing market on-going operation and maintenance costs are 4% of the capital cost, and that a
effects of inclusion. capture efficiency of 98% is possible throughout the chain.
Environmental Resource Ammonia production: $66million capital costs (does not include the capital cost of
Management heat and power production.)
Petroleum refinery: references Simmons et al, 2003
Hydrogen plant: $45 million capital cost (does not include the capital cost of heat
and power production).
Cement Plant: $320million capital costs for a 1MtCO2/yr plant

75
Literature reviewed - 2

Year Name Comments

2003 A study of a very large scale Scenario based on retrofitting a post combustion, amine based capture facility, to
post combustion CO2 capture the Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical complex (2Mt CO2/year). Study notes
at a refining and that a new utility complex is required to meet the high energy demands of the CO2
petrochemical complex. capture plant, as existing utility capacity is constrained. Study assumes that all
Simmonds et al complex CO2 sources can be captured, but does not include capture of emissions
from the CHP plant.
Total cost of the capture plant unit is $476 million, including $149 million for utility
and offsite systems.
2012 Electricity Generation Cost Costs of gas turbine CHP plant, £56.5 million, based on 46MW plant.
Model – 2012 update of non
renewable technologies
2009 Steel and CO2 – the ULCOS For an integrated steel mill, the major CO2 stream form the blast furnace accounts
Program, CCS and mineral for 69% of all steel mill emissions to the atmosphere.
carbonation using steelmaking
slag. Birat
2011 UNIDO/IEA Technology Capital costs are not quoted, instead costs of capture, transport and storage per
Roadmap, Carbon capture tonne of CO2 are given:
and storage in industrial Refineries: $45-125/tCO2
applications Iron & Steel $65-80/tCO2
Cement: $60-150/tCO2
High-purity sources: $35 - 75/tCO2
2009 Cement technology Roadmap Post-combustion technologies would not require any fundamental changes in the
cement process and therefore could be suitable for new kilns and for retrofitting.
Oxyfuel technology, using oxygen instead of air in cement kilns, would result in a
relatively pure CO2 stream, but extensive research is still required.
Energy requirements for cement production expected to increase by 20% to provide
the energy for capture.
Estimated capital cost of €100-300 million in 2030 for a 2MT/yr clinker plant.
76
Literature reviewed - 3

Year Name Comments

2009 European Cement Research Reports costs estimated from the IEA GHG (2008) study described earlier, which
Academy CCS project – along with other reported cost estimates results in a range of estimates between
Report about Phase II €100-300 million for the capital cost of a 2Mt/yr clinker plant.
Report mainly covers detailed study of flue gas characteristics, plant layouts,
developments in solvents, and research into oxyfuel capture.
2013 CO2 capture in oil refineries: The capture avoidance cost is highly sensitive to the assumption of the heat is
assessment of capture supplied and the heat demand. For an oil refinery, estimates range from €40-
avoidance costs associated 263/tCO2 avoided depending on whether the heat is supplied through one of four
with different heat supply options, NGCC, NG boiler, biomass boiler, or use of excess heat, combined with a
options in a future energy heat pump.
market. Johansson et al.
2012 Comparative assessment of A consistent techno-economic assessment of capture technologies in key industrial
CO2 capture technologies for sectors, based on extensive literature review and the standardisation of key
carbon intensive industrial parameters:
processes. Kuramochi et al. - capacity factor 91-97%
- interest rate 10%
- plant lifetime 20 years
- fuel prices, CO2 compression pressure, and grid electricity CO2 intensity all
standardised.
Estimates for capture costs in the short-medium term (2007 prices):
Iron & steel: 40-65€/tCO2
Cement: >65€/tCO2
Refining and petrochemical: 50-60€/tCO2 based on oxyfuel capture
Normalisation of plant scales by applying a generic scaling formula
2010 Prospects for cost-effective Costs of capture from industrial CHP assuming that the CHP is operating at partial
post-combustion CO2 capture load, and additional energy requirements can be met by increasing the load.
from industrial CHPs. Estimates that costs of capture from 200MWe CHP plants may be €33-36/tCO2
Kuramochi et al. avoided by 2020-2025 (2007 prices).

77
Literature reviewed - 4

Year Name Comments

2013 Techno-economic prospects Standardises costs of CCS across a range of distributed energy systems. Costs for
for CO2 capture from building a new NGCC CHP plant (5MWe) with post-combustion CCS integrated
distributed energy systems. are €3800/kW output. 2007 prices
Kuramochi et al.
2012 Technology learning curves Sets out a learning curve methodology which generates predictions of NOAK plant
(FOAK to NOAK), NETL costs from FOAK values.
2010 Carbon Capture and Storage Sets out relevant CCS technologies for key industrial sectors as well as
in Industrial Applications: summarising the range of costs reported in other papers, largely the IEA papers
Technology Synthesis Report summarized earlier.
2010 CO2 capture for refineries, a Considers post-combustion capture at refineries.
practical approach. van Estimates that only 40 - 50% of refinery emissions are suitable for capture at costs
Straelen et al. of €90-120/tCO2. These costs would increase significantly if more CO2 sources
were to be captured
2010 Costs and performance Establishes baseline performance and cost estimates for fossil energy plants,
baseline for fossil energy including detailed breakdown of cost categories e.g. owners costs, project and
plants, Vol. 1. NETL process contingencies, and considers IGCC and NGCC both with and without
carbon dioxide capture and sequestration.
2011 Cost estimation methodology Sets out cost categories for a range of capital cost levels, from bare erected costs
for NETL assessments of to total overnight cost.
power plant performance
2011 Economic Assessment of Costs of CCS on a levelised cost of production basis for power plants and a range
carbon capture and storage of industrial applications. Estimates annualised product costs of $88/tonne steel, or
technologies, 2011 update. $57/tonne CO2 for the Euro area (assume this includes the UK). This is in 2011
WorleyParsons Schlumberger prices, and includes the cost of the CHP plant.
for the Global CCS Institute
2012 ZEP Cost reports Reports available on capture, transport and storage costs

78
 Literature reviewed - 5

Year Name Comments

2012 Element Energy et al. for Scottish Enterprise: Illustrates scenarios for how CO2-EOR deployment in the North Sea
The impacts of CO2-EOR in Scotland could reduce costs.
2012 Element Energy for Green Alliance and the European Illustrates the needs and challenges for CCS readiness, and the
Climate Foundation potential sharing of industrial and power
2011 Energy Technologies Institute - UK Storage Appraisal Comprises detailed analysis of potential costs for offshore
Project transmission and storage of CO2 across a wide range of shoreline
terminals, storages and scenarios.
2011 Element Energy et al. for One North East – The Quantifies the economics of CCS networks in the Tees Valley.
Investment Case for a CCS network in the Tees
Valley
2011 AMEC for One North East – Engineering study for a Describes technical configurations and costs for capture and
CCS network in the Tees Valley transport
2010 Element Energy et al. for the Committee on Climate First high level estimate of the costs of capture for UK industry
Change – the costs of CCS in UK industry and gas
power sectors
2010 Element Energy et al. for the North Sea Basin Task Illustrates potential CCS and infrastructure deployment scenarios in
Force: One North Sea the North Sea region
2009 Element Energy et al. for IEA GHG : Global Describes drivers of pipeline economics and challenges to
opportunities and challenges for CO2 Pipeline deployment.
Infrastructure
2007 Element Energy et al. for DTI: CO2 pipeline Quantifies the importance of clusters for CCS in the UK
infrastructure for the UK and Norway
2007 AMEC for Yorkshire Forward: CO2 pipeline Technical analysis of a shared pipeline in Humber region
infrastructure for the Humber
2009 PB Power for DECC: CO2 pipeline study Detailed costs for CO2 pipelines
79