Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an essential technology to mitigate global CO2 emissions from power and industry sectors. Despite the increasing recognition of its importance to achieve the net-zero target, current CCS deployment is far behind targeted ambitions. A key reason is that CCS is often perceived as too expensive. The costs of CCS have however traditionally been looked at from the industrial plant perspective, which does not necessarily reflect the end user’s one. This paper addresses the incomplete view by investigating the impact of implementing CCS in industrial facilities on the overall costs and CO2 emissions of end-user products and services. As an example, we examine the extent to which an increase in costs of raw materials (cement and steel) due to CCS impacts the costs of building a bridge. Results show that although CCS significantly increases cement and steel costs, the subsequent increment in the overall bridge construction cost remains marginal (∼1%). This 1% cost increase, however, enables a deep reduction in CO2 emissions (∼51%) associated with the bridge construction. Although more research is needed in this area, this work is the first step to a better understanding of the real cost and benefits of CCS.@en

This paper contributes to the development of improved guidelines for cost evaluation of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from industrial applications building on previous work in the field. It discusses key challenges and factors that have a large impact on the results of cost evaluations, but are often overlooked or insufficiently addressed. These include cost metrics (especially in the context of industrial plants with multiple output products), energy supply aspects, retrofitting costs, CO₂ transport and storage, maturity of the capture technology. Where possible examples are given to demonstrate their quantitative impact and show how costs may vary widely on a case-by-case basis. Recommendations are given to consider different possible heat and power supply strategies, as well as future energy and carbon price scenarios, to better understand cost performances under various framework conditions. Since retrofitting CCS is very relevant for industrial facilities, further considerations are made on how to better account for the key elements that constitute retrofitting costs. Furthermore, instead of using a fixed unit cost for CO₂ transport and storage, cost estimates should at least consider the flowrate, transport mode, transport distance and type of storage, to make more realistic cost estimates. Recommendations are also given on factors to consider when assessing the technological maturity level of CCS in various industrial applications, which is important when assessing cost contingencies and cost uncertainties. Lastly, we urge techno-economic analysis practitioners to clearly report all major assumptions and methods, as well as ideally examine the impact of these on their estimates.

@en

This paper presents a framework for estimating the future N^th-of-a-kind (NOAK) cost of advanced low-carbon technologies that are currently at early pre-commercial stages of development. It identifies two types of question that commonly motivate a cost analysis: “What If” questions about the hypothetical future cost of a technology that meets specified R&D goals or requirements; and “What Will” questions regarding the true expected cost of an advanced technology once it is mature and widely deployed. The latter type of question is the focus of this paper. It addresses shortcomings in the “bottom up” engineering-economic method current used to estimate NOAK costs. It describes a more rigorous hybrid costing method that combines a bottom-up analysis of the first-of-a-kind (FOAK) commercial cost of an advanced technology with an empirical model employing experience curves to project its future cost. Guidelines are presented for all phases of the analysis.

@en

This paper briefly summarises the development of improved guidelines for cost evaluation of carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage (CCS) from industrial applications [1] building on previous work in the field. It discusses key challenges and factors that have a large impact on the results of cost evaluations but are often overlooked or insufficiently addressed. These include cost metrics (especially in the context of industrial plants with multiple output products), energy supply aspects, retrofitting costs, CO2 transport and storage, and maturity of the capture technology. Where possible, examples are given to demonstrate their quantitative impact and show how costs may vary widely on a case-by-case basis. Recommendations are given to consider different possible heat and power supply strategies, as well as future energy and carbon price scenarios, in order to better understand CCS costs under various conditions. Since retrofitting CCS is especially relevant for industrial facilities, further recommendations are made on how to better account for the key elements that constitute retrofitting costs. Furthermore, instead of using a fixed unit cost for CO2 transport and storage, cost estimates should at least consider the CO₂ flowrate, transport mode, transport distance and type of storage, to obtain more realistic cost estimates. Recommendations are also given on factors to consider when assessing the technological maturity level of CCS in various industrial applications, which is important when assessing cost contingencies and uncertainties. Lastly, we urge techno-economic analysis practitioners to clearly report all major assumptions and methods, as well as comprehensively examine the impact of uncertainties on their cost estimates.

@en

Uncertainty analysis is a key element of sound techno-economic analysis (TEA) of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technologies and systems, and in the communication of TEA results. Many CCS technologies are novel concepts, that are still in the early (pre-commercial) stages of development. Therefore, uncertainties in their technology performance and cost are often substantial, making it imperative that they be characterized, and their impacts reported. Although uncertainty analysis itself is not novel, with some methods already frequently used by the CCS TEA community, a document that provides a comprehensive overview of methods and approaches, as well as guidance on their selection and use, is still lacking. Given its importance, we seek to fill this gap by providing a critical review of uncertainty analysis methods along with guidance on the selection and use of these methods for CCS TEAs, highlighting good practice and examples from the CCS literature. There are many opportunities to bring the use of uncertainty analysis to a higher level than currently practiced. This review of and guidance on available methods is intended to help accelerate continued methods development and their application to more robust and meaningful CCS performance and cost studies.@en

Uncertainty analysis is a key element of sound techno-economic analysis (TEA) of CO₂ Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies and systems, and in the communication of TEA results. Many CCS technologies are relatively novel, with only few large-scale projects constructed and in operation to date. Therefore, uncertainties in technology performance and costs are often substantial, making it imperative that they be characterized and reported. Although uncertainty analysis itself is not novel, with some methods already frequently used by the CCS TEA community, a document that provides a comprehensive overview of methods and approaches, as well as guidance on their selection and use, is still lacking. Given its importance, we seek to fill this gap by providing a critical review of uncertainty analysis methods along with guidance on the selection and use of these methods for CCS TEAs, highlighting good practice and examples from the CCS literature. The paper starts by identifying the different audiences for CCS TEAs, the different modelling approaches available for CCS technology performance and cost analysis, and the different roles that uncertainty analysis may play. It then continues to discuss established, as well as emerging, uncertainty analysis methods and addresses how and when each method is best used, as well as common pitfalls. We argue that the most commonly used method of one-parameter-at-a-time ‘local’ sensitivity analysis may often be a suboptimal choice, and that other approaches may be more suitable or lead to more insight, especially since uncertainty analysis software is becoming more widespread and easier to use. Finally, the paper discusses the benefits of advanced uses of uncertainty analysis in, for instance, the design of CCS experiments or in the design and planning of CCS infrastructure. Sound uncertainty analysis has an important role to play in TEAs of CCS technologies and systems, and there are many opportunities to bring the use of uncertainty analysis to a higher level than currently practiced. This review of and guidance on available methods is intended to help accelerate continued methods development and their application to more robust and meaningful CCS performance and costing studies.

@en