5:15 PM - 6:45 PM
[HSC07-P15] Consideration of CCS cost reduction using cost estimation tool
Keywords:CO2 emission source, pipeline transportation, shipping transportation, jack-up rig, semi-sub rig, aggregation group
Background
The abnormal weather that has occurred in many parts of the world in recent years has made the negative effects of greenhouse gases widely known, causing countries to update their CO2 reduction targets to more challenging values. The IEA (2021) estimates that in order to get on track for carbon neutrality in 2050, it will be necessary to store 7.6 billion tons of CO2 annually worldwide by that point. If we convert that figure into a value equivalent to Japan's emissions, it will be 240 million tons per year.
On the other hand, the biggest concern for businesses when introducing CCS is its cost. It is believed that facility manufacturers and engineering companies are already working to reduce costs by making each facility more efficient, lowering prices, and reviewing process flows. In addition, since CCS has multiple steps, it is thought that cost reductions can also be achieved by optimizing the entire CCS.
From this perspective, Geological Carbon dioxide Storage Technology Research Association has developed tools to appropriately estimate costs based on each scenario for the various forms of CCS that are possible in Japan.
Expected CCS in Japan and trial calculations using this tool
Regarding emission sources, thermal power plants have the highest amount of CO2 emissions, followed by steel plants, cement factories, etc. Therefore, it is effective to first collect CO2 from these large-scale emission sources. Currently, this tool allows estimations for coal-fired power plants and LNG-fired power plants. Candidates for transportation include pipeline transportation (land, undersea) and ship transportation, both of which can transport large quantities. This tool is compatible with these transportation. In Japan, it is thought that the main storage sites are in the sub-seafloor, with a injection from land or offshore bases, and this tool was made to be compatible with each typical method.
Example of consideration for CCS cost reduction
1) Impact on costs due to differences in storage methods
When carrying out sub-seafloor storage,the cheapest method is to use inclined wells from land, whereas the most expensive method is to use semi-subrigs. So, locating a receiving base at a site where CO2 can be stored from land is considered an effective cost reduction. However, this is only possible if the distance from the shore to the storage site is within 3km. If the distance is over 3km, a jack-up rig or semi-sub rig will be used.
In addition, monitoring is also affected by water depth. If the water depth is shallow (less than 50m), the seismic exploration vessel will not be able to tow the streamer, so the OBC will be set on the seabed.
2) Support when configuring aggregation groups
In coastal industrial zones, the barriers to constructing pipelines are thought to be lower than in urban or inland areas, and it is therefore expected that it will be easier to centralize CO2 and realize cost reductions through economies of scale.
In doing so, it is important for those proposing aggregation to consider which emission sources are most effective to incorporate, and for the emission sources themselves to consider which group is best to participate in. In order to study these, it is necessary to make a trial calculation that takes into account the total amount of emissions expected for each group, the distance between the emission source and the hub, etc.
3) Comparison when increasing the collection amount after starting the business
When increasing CO2 emissions several years after the start of a project, the timing when it is advantageous to expand facility will change depending on the operator's business scenario.
In the poster session, we will report on the results of the above studies.
The abnormal weather that has occurred in many parts of the world in recent years has made the negative effects of greenhouse gases widely known, causing countries to update their CO2 reduction targets to more challenging values. The IEA (2021) estimates that in order to get on track for carbon neutrality in 2050, it will be necessary to store 7.6 billion tons of CO2 annually worldwide by that point. If we convert that figure into a value equivalent to Japan's emissions, it will be 240 million tons per year.
On the other hand, the biggest concern for businesses when introducing CCS is its cost. It is believed that facility manufacturers and engineering companies are already working to reduce costs by making each facility more efficient, lowering prices, and reviewing process flows. In addition, since CCS has multiple steps, it is thought that cost reductions can also be achieved by optimizing the entire CCS.
From this perspective, Geological Carbon dioxide Storage Technology Research Association has developed tools to appropriately estimate costs based on each scenario for the various forms of CCS that are possible in Japan.
Expected CCS in Japan and trial calculations using this tool
Regarding emission sources, thermal power plants have the highest amount of CO2 emissions, followed by steel plants, cement factories, etc. Therefore, it is effective to first collect CO2 from these large-scale emission sources. Currently, this tool allows estimations for coal-fired power plants and LNG-fired power plants. Candidates for transportation include pipeline transportation (land, undersea) and ship transportation, both of which can transport large quantities. This tool is compatible with these transportation. In Japan, it is thought that the main storage sites are in the sub-seafloor, with a injection from land or offshore bases, and this tool was made to be compatible with each typical method.
Example of consideration for CCS cost reduction
1) Impact on costs due to differences in storage methods
When carrying out sub-seafloor storage,the cheapest method is to use inclined wells from land, whereas the most expensive method is to use semi-subrigs. So, locating a receiving base at a site where CO2 can be stored from land is considered an effective cost reduction. However, this is only possible if the distance from the shore to the storage site is within 3km. If the distance is over 3km, a jack-up rig or semi-sub rig will be used.
In addition, monitoring is also affected by water depth. If the water depth is shallow (less than 50m), the seismic exploration vessel will not be able to tow the streamer, so the OBC will be set on the seabed.
2) Support when configuring aggregation groups
In coastal industrial zones, the barriers to constructing pipelines are thought to be lower than in urban or inland areas, and it is therefore expected that it will be easier to centralize CO2 and realize cost reductions through economies of scale.
In doing so, it is important for those proposing aggregation to consider which emission sources are most effective to incorporate, and for the emission sources themselves to consider which group is best to participate in. In order to study these, it is necessary to make a trial calculation that takes into account the total amount of emissions expected for each group, the distance between the emission source and the hub, etc.
3) Comparison when increasing the collection amount after starting the business
When increasing CO2 emissions several years after the start of a project, the timing when it is advantageous to expand facility will change depending on the operator's business scenario.
In the poster session, we will report on the results of the above studies.