Marginal Abatement Cost Curve of Industrial CO2 Capture and Storage – A Swedish Case Study

Abstract

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is expected to play a key role to achieve deep emission cuts in the energy intensive industry sector. The implementation of carbon capture comes with a considerable investment cost and a significant effect on the plants operating cost, which both depend on site conditions, mainly due to differences in flue gas flow and composition and depending on the availability of excess heat that can be utilized to power the capture unit. In this study we map the costs required to install and operate amine-based post-combustion CO 2 capture at all manufacturing plants in Sweden with annual emissions of 500 kt CO 2 or more, of both fossil and of biogenic origin, of which there are 28 plants (including a petrochemical site, refineries, iron and steel plants, cement plants and pulp and paper mills). The work considers differences in the investment required as well as differences in potential for using excess heat to cover the steam demand of the capture process. We present the resulting total CO 2 capture costs in the form of a marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) for the emission sources investigated. Cost estimations for a transport and storage system are also indicated. The MACC shows that CO 2 capture applied to 28 industrial units capture CO 2 emissions corresponding to more than 50% of Swedish total CO 2 emissions (from all sectors) at a cost ranging from around 40 €/t CO 2 to 110 €/t CO 2 , depending on emission source. Partial capture from the most suited sites may reduce capture cost and, thus, may serve as a low-cost option for introducing CCS. The cost for transport and storage will add some 25 to 40 €/t CO 2 , depending on location and type of transportation infrastructure.

The BECCS Implementation Gap–A Swedish Case Study

“…Vaughan et al (2018), de Coninck et al (2018), Robledo-Abad et al (2017, and Butnar et al (2020) The potentials of countries with existing biogenic emission point sources and possibilities for access to storage and experience with CCS are often not captured in global pathways and ex post sustainability assessments, but there is growing evidence on their existence and significant extent. Johnsson et al (2020), , Klement et al (2021), and Garðarsdóttir et al (2018) Global pathways, mostly derived from IAMs, can provide guidance for national policymaking, although they need to be accompanied by higher-granularity analyses for a multitude of factors, ranging from societal preferences to models for innovation. Forster et al (2020), , Gough and Mander (2019), Laude (2020), Fuhrman et al (2019), and Bellamy and Geden (2019) paper (P&P), all of which emit substantial amounts of CO 2 .…”

“…The Economic Potential Johnsson et al (2020) have generated a marginal abatement cost curve for CCS (post-combustion using amine scrubbing) applied to the largest industrial emissions sources in Sweden (excluding CHP plants in the energy sector), with emissions exceeding 500 ktCO 2 per year (Figure 2B). These include 28 units, representing cement (1 plant), chemicals (1 plant), iron and steel (3 plants, including a CHP unit), refineries (3 plants), and P&P plants (20 plants).…”

“…The total emissions captured from the 28 industrial units amount to 23 MtCO 2 per year, which corresponds to more than half of Sweden's total (fossil fuel) CO 2 emissions from all sectors (around 43 MtCO 2 per year). 2 This level of capture is achieved at an average cost of 80-135 €/tCO 2 if one includes the costs for transport and storage (Johnsson et al, 2020). If the same level of emissions was to be captured solely from fossil fuel emissions, capture would have to be included also for smaller sources of emissions, thereby driving up the cost significantly.…”

“…From the work conducted by Johnsson et al (2020), the average cost for capture, transport and storage can, for the sake of simplicity, be averaged at 100 €/tCO 2 -a cost level that is almost identical to the Swedish CO 2 tax (somewhat exceeding 100 €/tCO 2 ). However, only selected parts of the economy, such as the transportation sector and the heating sector, are in reality exposed to this tax.…”

“…If capture was applied to all biogenic emissions from the above-mentioned industrial plants, around 10 Mt/year (cf. Johnsson et al, 2020), the associated governmental financing would amount to around 1 billion €/year. The latter seems unlikely, although it is a reasonable assumption that 10 Mt/year will only be reached in the longer term when other financing instruments have been found and costs have been decreased further.…”