5:15 PM - 7:15 PM
[HSC06-P10] Features of the WEB-based CCS cost estimation tool and an example of sensitivity analysis
Keywords:scenario, CO2 processing volume, project years, exchange rate
Background
In Japan, various measures are being considered and introduced to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Along with renewable energy and nuclear power generation, CCS is considered an important option for reducing CO2 emissions in Japan, and the government has indicated in its "GX Promotion Strategy" that it will support the development of a business environment for the start of CCS projects by 2030.
On the other hand, CCS requires cost measures in addition to consideration of environmental and technical aspects. This requires urgent development of government subsidies and CO2 trading systems, as well as reduction of each process and total cost of CCS. With regard to the latter in particular, it will be necessary to consider storage sites, transportation methods, aggregation, etc., and examine what configuration will optimize the CCS system as a whole.
Features of the tool
This tool aims to narrow down the CCS to the most advantageous configuration from a cost in the early stages of the project. It allows us to configure CCS based on various scenarios within the tool and instantly calculate and compare their estimated costs. The development policy of the tool focuses on 1) easy-to-use interface, 2) excellent data management function, and 3) good maintainability. In addition, the basis for the calculation was the method used in the Power Generation Cost Working (FY2021), which was based on the report of the feasibility study (FY2008-FY2012) of the total system from power generation to CO2 storage for the innovative zero-emission coal gasification power generation project.
Calculation possible scenarios
This tool is designed to be used not only for single CCS, but also for composite CCS such as hub and cluster. In the development process so far, we have conducted multiple case studies and collected knowledge on cost reduction measures. Some examples are given below..
1) Comparison of the impact of CO2 transport distance and transport volume on costs for pipelines and ships
2) Comparison of injection costs from land and offshore platforms (2 types)
3) Consideration of which group is more cost-effective for new emission sources to join if there are two planned aggregation groups (2 locations)
4) Consideration of the timing of facility expansion when increasing processing volume after operation starts
For reference, the above 1) and 2) can be examined using the output of the tool as is, but for 3) and 4), processing such as merging (integrating) the calculation results according to the scenario in Excel etc. will be required.
In addition to the above, this presentation will report the results of a sensitivity analysis of several parameters that have a large impact on costs. Specifically, CO2 captured at a coal-fired power plant is transported 1,000 km by ship and temporarily stored in a tank there. After that, it is transported 5 km by undersea pipeline and injected 2,000 m below the seabed from a jack-up platform. The calculations were performed assuming that the water depth of the sea area where the platform will be installed is 35m, and that OBC will be used for seismic exploration.
The parameters used in the sensitivity analysis were a. annual CO2 processing volume, b. project years, c. discount rate, and d. exchange rate. Although the exchange rate is thought to affect the ship's fuel and electricity costs, it was not considered in this study. As a result of the analysis, it was found that even if the parameters are the same, there are differences in how the impact appears depending on the process.
Future Plans
As CCS technology is expected to develop further in the future, the tool will also be continuously updated with new functions.
Acknowledgement: This presentation is based on results obtained from a project (JPNP18006) commissioned by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).
In Japan, various measures are being considered and introduced to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Along with renewable energy and nuclear power generation, CCS is considered an important option for reducing CO2 emissions in Japan, and the government has indicated in its "GX Promotion Strategy" that it will support the development of a business environment for the start of CCS projects by 2030.
On the other hand, CCS requires cost measures in addition to consideration of environmental and technical aspects. This requires urgent development of government subsidies and CO2 trading systems, as well as reduction of each process and total cost of CCS. With regard to the latter in particular, it will be necessary to consider storage sites, transportation methods, aggregation, etc., and examine what configuration will optimize the CCS system as a whole.
Features of the tool
This tool aims to narrow down the CCS to the most advantageous configuration from a cost in the early stages of the project. It allows us to configure CCS based on various scenarios within the tool and instantly calculate and compare their estimated costs. The development policy of the tool focuses on 1) easy-to-use interface, 2) excellent data management function, and 3) good maintainability. In addition, the basis for the calculation was the method used in the Power Generation Cost Working (FY2021), which was based on the report of the feasibility study (FY2008-FY2012) of the total system from power generation to CO2 storage for the innovative zero-emission coal gasification power generation project.
Calculation possible scenarios
This tool is designed to be used not only for single CCS, but also for composite CCS such as hub and cluster. In the development process so far, we have conducted multiple case studies and collected knowledge on cost reduction measures. Some examples are given below..
1) Comparison of the impact of CO2 transport distance and transport volume on costs for pipelines and ships
2) Comparison of injection costs from land and offshore platforms (2 types)
3) Consideration of which group is more cost-effective for new emission sources to join if there are two planned aggregation groups (2 locations)
4) Consideration of the timing of facility expansion when increasing processing volume after operation starts
For reference, the above 1) and 2) can be examined using the output of the tool as is, but for 3) and 4), processing such as merging (integrating) the calculation results according to the scenario in Excel etc. will be required.
In addition to the above, this presentation will report the results of a sensitivity analysis of several parameters that have a large impact on costs. Specifically, CO2 captured at a coal-fired power plant is transported 1,000 km by ship and temporarily stored in a tank there. After that, it is transported 5 km by undersea pipeline and injected 2,000 m below the seabed from a jack-up platform. The calculations were performed assuming that the water depth of the sea area where the platform will be installed is 35m, and that OBC will be used for seismic exploration.
The parameters used in the sensitivity analysis were a. annual CO2 processing volume, b. project years, c. discount rate, and d. exchange rate. Although the exchange rate is thought to affect the ship's fuel and electricity costs, it was not considered in this study. As a result of the analysis, it was found that even if the parameters are the same, there are differences in how the impact appears depending on the process.
Future Plans
As CCS technology is expected to develop further in the future, the tool will also be continuously updated with new functions.
Acknowledgement: This presentation is based on results obtained from a project (JPNP18006) commissioned by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).