Search

The challenges of climate change involve totally rethinking the world’s energy system. In particular, CCS technologies are still presented as a solution to reach ambitious climate targets. However, avoiding the required Gt of CO 2 emissions by investing in CCS technologies supposes the development of carbon storage capacities. This analysis, conducted with TIAM-FR and based on a wide review of geological storage potential and various data, aims to discuss the impact of this potential on the development of the CCS option. We also specify a scenario allowing the exclusion of onshore storage due to a hypothetic policy considering public resistance to onshore storage, and carbon transport costs variation effects. The implementation of CCS is less impacted by the level of carbon storage potential - except in the lowest case of availability - than by the type of sequestration site. However, the development of CCS is lower at the end of the period in the case of a decrease in carbon storage potential. Indeed, the question of type of storage site appears to have a greater impact, with an arbitrage between deep saline aquifers and depleted basins and enhanced recovery. Doubling the cost of carbon transport does not limit the penetration of carbon capture technologies, but it does impact the choice of site. Finally, a limitation of onshore storage could have a significant impact on the penetration of the CCS option. The explanation for this limited deployment of CCS is thus the higher cost of offshore storage more than the level of storage potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) on small sources, especially on biomass sources, has gained little interest compared to larger fossil-fuel ones. However, the application of CCS to biomass facilities (BCCS) can lead to low or even negative emissions. In this paper, we study the option of adding CCS on a bioethanol plant in order to capture the CO2 released during the fermentation process. The objective is to study the influence of key factors that affect bioethanol-CCS profitability: Production volumes, storage site injectivity and climate policy stringency. The tools used here are: The mitigation cost and the discount cash flow method. We showed that capturing on the fermentation step of the biofuel process is a profitable option under a 450 ppm target and under a 550 ppm target if the injectivity is higher than 100 000 tCO2/yr. Moreover, the profitability doubles under the most stringent policy. The injectivity is an influent factor as it can allow economies of scale on the storage stage when larger volumes are treated. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]