Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Earth Science

ISSN 2095-0195

ISSN 2095-0209(Online)

CN 11-5982/P

Postal Subscription Code 80-963

2018 Impact Factor: 1.205

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Earth Sci.    2023, Vol. 17 Issue (3) : 844-855    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-022-1030-1
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Assessing the cost reduction potential of CCUS cluster projects of coal-fired plants in Guangdong Province in China
Muxin LIU1,2(), Yueze ZHANG3,4(), Hailin LAN1,2, Feifei HUANG3,5, Xi LIANG6,7, Changyou XIA6
1. School of Business Administration, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China
2. Research Center of Chinese Corporate Strategic Management, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China
3. Research Base of Carbon Neutral Finance for Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, Guangzhou 510800, China
4. Beijing Institute of Geological Survey, Beijing 100195, China
5. School of Economics, Guangzhou City University of Technology, Guangzhou 510800, China
6. UK-China (Guangdong) CCUS Centre, Guangzhou 510440, China
7. Bartlett School, University College London, London WC1E6BT, UK
 Download: PDF(2893 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) have garnered extensive attention as a target of carbon neutrality in China. The development trend of international CCUS projects indicates that the cluster construction of CCUS projects is the main direction of future development. The cost reduction potential of CCUS cluster projects has become a significant issue for CCUS stakeholders. To assess the cost reduction potential of CCUS cluster projects, we selected three coal-fired power plants in the coastal area of Guangdong as research targets. We initially assessed the costs of building individual CCUS projects for each plant and subsequently designed a CCUS cluster project for these plants. By comparing individual costs and CCUS cluster project costs, we assessed the cost reduction potential of CCUS cluster projects. The results show that the unit emission reduction cost for each plant with a capacity of 300 million tonnes per year is 392.34, 336.09, and 334.92 CNY/tCO2. By building CCUS cluster project, it could save 56.43 CNY/tCO2 over the average cost of individual projects (354.45 CNY/tCO2) when the total capture capacity is 9 million tonnes per year (by 15.92%). Furthermore, we conducted a simulation for the scenario of a smaller designed capture capacity for each plant. We found that as the capture scale increases, the cost reduction potential is higher in the future.
Keywords cost reduction potential      CCUS cluster projects      coal-fired plant      carbon neutrality     
Corresponding Author(s): Muxin LIU,Yueze ZHANG   
Online First Date: 03 August 2023    Issue Date: 12 December 2023
 Cite this article:   
Muxin LIU,Yueze ZHANG,Hailin LAN, et al. Assessing the cost reduction potential of CCUS cluster projects of coal-fired plants in Guangdong Province in China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2023, 17(3): 844-855.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-022-1030-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2023/V17/I3/844
No. Project Country Industry Capture capacity Mtpa CO2 Transportation type Storage code Operation year
1 Summit Carbon Solutions United States Bioethanol 7.9 Pipeline Deep SalineFormations 2024
2 Valero Blackrock United States Bioethanol 5.0 Pipeline To Be Determined 2024
3 Integrated Mid-Continent Stacked Carbon Storage Hub United States Coal Fired Power, Cement Production, Ethanol Production, Chemical Production 1.9−19.4 Pipeline Various options Considered 2025−2035
4 CarbonSafe Illinois Macon County United States Coal Fired Power, Ethanol Production 2.0−15.0 Pipeline Various options Considered 2025−2035
5 Illinois Storage Corridor United States Coal Power, Bioethanol 6.5 Pipeline Deep Saline Formations 2035
6 Houston Ship Channel CCS Innovation Zone United States Various 100.0 Pipeline To Be Determined 2040
7 Acorn UK Hydrogen Production, Natural Gas Power, Natural Gas Processing, DAC 5.0−10.0 Pipeline Deep Saline Formations By the mid of 2020s
8 Humber Zero UK Hydrogen Production, Natural Gas Power 8.0 Pipeline Deep Saline Formations 2030
9 Hynet North West UK Hydrogen Production 1.0 Pipeline Deep Saline Formations 2030
10 Net Zero Teesside UK Natural Gas Power, Iron and Steel Production, Chemical Production 1−6.0 Pipeline Deep SalineFormations 2030
11 Zero Carbon Humber UK Hydrogen Production, Iron and Steel Production, Chemical Production, Cement Production, Ethanol Production 10 Pipeline Deep SalineFormations 2030
12 South Wales Industrial Cluster UK Natural Gas Power, Hydrogen Production, Oil Refining, Chemical Production 9.0 Pipeline, Ship Deep SalineFormations 2040
13 Porthos Netherlands Hydrogen Production, Chemical Production 2.0−5.0 Pipeline Depleted Oil & Gas Reservoirs 2024
14 Athos Netherlands Hydrogen Production, Iron and Steel Production, Chemical Production, 1.0−6.0 Pipeline Various options Considered 2026
15 Aramis (tie up Athos Project and Porthos Project) Netherlands Oil refining, Hydrogen Production, Waste Incineration, Chemical Production, Steelmaking 20 Pipeline, Ship Deep Saline Formations 2030
16 Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL) Canada Fertiliser Production, Hydrogen Production, Chemical Production 1.7−14.6 Pipeline EOR 2020
17 Edmonton Hub Canada Natural Gas Power, Hydrogen Production, Oil Refining, Chemical Production, Cement Production 10.0 Pipeline Deep Saline Formations 2030
18 C4 Copenhagen Denmark Waste Incineration, Natural Gas Power 3.0 Pipeline Deep Saline Formations 2030
19 Greensand Denmark Waste Incineration, Cement Production 3.5 Pipeline, Ship Depleted Oil & Gas Reservoirs 2030
20 Carbon Connect Delta Belgium&Netherlands Steelmaking, Chemical Production 6.5 Pipeline, Ship Under Evaluation 2026−2030
21 Antwerp@C Belgium Hydrogen Production, Chemical Production, Oil Refining 9.0 Pipeline Deep Saline Formations 2030
22 Langskip Norway Waste Incineration, Cement Production 1.5−5.0 Pipeline, Ship Deep SalineFormations 2024−2030
23 Ravenna Hub Italy Hydrogen Production, Natural Gas Power 4.0 Pipeline Depleted Oil & Gas Reservoirs 2026
24 Abu Dhabi Cluster United Arab Emirates Natural Gas Processing, Hydrogen Production, Iron and Steel Production 2.7−5.0 Pipeline EOR 2030
25 CarbonNet Australia Natural Gas Processing, Hydrogen, Fertilizers, Waste to Energy, DAC 2.0−5.0 Pipeline Deep SalineFormations 2030
26 Xinjiang Junggar Basin CCUS Hub China Coal Fired Power, Hydrogen Production, Chemical Production 3.0 Pipeline, Tank Truck EOR 2030
Tab.1  Planned CCUS cluster projects up to 2021
Fig.1  Suggested CCUS cluster regions in China (this figure only displays the CO2 sources with annual emissions of more than 300000 tonnes per year. This figure was created by using ArcGIS 6.0 software).
No. Region CO2 sources Potential storage code
1 Xinjiang Junggar Basin Chemical production, cement production, power generation, iron and steel production Chemical utilization; EOR; in situ leaching of uranium; enhanced coal-bed methane recovery; enhanced deep salt water recovery; enhanced shale gas recovery; deep saline formations storage; depleted oil and gas reservoirs storage
2 Ordos Basin Chemical production, power generation Biological utilization; EOR; in situ leaching of uranium; enhanced coal-bed methane recovery; enhanced deep salt water recovery; enhanced shale gas recovery; deep saline formations storage; depleted oil and gas reservoirs storage
3 Songliao Basin Chemical production, cement production, power generation, iron and steel production, oil refining, biofuel Chemical utilization; EOR; in situ leaching of uranium; enhanced coal-bed methane recovery; enhanced deep salt water recovery; enhanced shale gas recovery; deep saline formations storage; depleted oil and gas reservoirs storage
4 Bohai Bay Basin Chemical production, cement production, power generation, iron and steel production, oil refining, biofuel EOR; in situ leaching of uranium; deep saline formations storage; depleted oil and gas reservoirs storage
5 Pearl River Mouth Basin Cement production, power generation, oil refining EOR (offshore); enhanced geothermal production; deep saline formations storage (offshore); depleted oil and gas reservoirs storage (offshore)
6 Sichuan Basin Chemical production, cement production, power generation, iron and steel production, oil refining, biofuel Enhanced natural gas recovery; enhanced shale gas recovery; deep saline formations storage; depleted oil and gas reservoirs storage
Tab.2  Overview of the suggested CCUS cluster regions in China
No. Plant Total investment/ (RMB, billion) Capacity/ MW Commissioning year Distance from coastline/km Distance from LF-2A/km Distance from CO2 treatment center/km
1 Haifeng Plant 8.50 2 × 1000 2015 < 1 164.96 62.67
2 Jiahuwan Plant 8.83 2 × 1000 2019 < 1 122.30 52.11
3 Honghaiwan Plant 11.00 4 × 600 2 units in 2008; 2 units in 2011 < 1 118.56 5.05
Tab.3  Basic information of the three coal-fired plants in Shanwei
Fig.2  Geographical location of the CCUS cluster projects (this figure was created by using ArcGIS 6.0 software).
No. Parameter Reference Value Source
1 L 20 years /
2 r 12% 8% for general commercial projects, considering the higher risk level of CCUS projects, 12% discount rate set for this case study
3 Ic 1290 million CNY for Scenario I2580 million CNY for Scenario II Reference to Zhu’s research on modeling the investment of coal-fired power plant retrofit with CCS (Zhu et al., 2015)
4 It < 50 km: 400 million, CNY Reference to Wei’s research on Cost analysis results of one million tonnes CCUS offshore transportation pipeline construction (Wei et al., 2015)
50−100 km: 700 million, CNY
100−200 km: 1 billion, CNY
5 Is 431 billion CNY for Scenario I862 billion CNY for Scenario II Reference to Liang’s research on the economic analysis of CCUS project (Liang et al., 2019)
6 On 51.60 CNY/t for Scenario I34.4 CNY/t for Scenario II Reference to Bong’s research, the fixed operation and maintenance cost of carbon capture projects is about 4% of the total investment (Bong et al., 2020)
7 Tn 0–100 km: 0.30, CNY/t/km Reference to Serpa’s research on the economic analysis for CO2 pipeline transportation operating cost (Serpa et al., 2011)
100–150 km: 0.25, CNY/t/km
8 Sn 60 CNY/t for Scenario I120 CNY/t for Scenario II Reference to Liang’s research (Liang et al., 2019)
9 Qn 1 million t for Scenario I /
3 million t for Scenario II
10 An 0.20 million t Reference to Liang’s research (Liang et al., 2019)
Tab.4  Parameter Assumptions
Item Capture capacity/million tonnes Pipeline length/km Capital cost/ (million CNY) Fixed operating and maintenance cost/(million CNY) NPV (Absolute Value)/CNY Cost of CO2 avoidance/(CNY·tCO2−1) Percentage of cost Reduction in the cost of CO2 avoidance
Capture facilities Transportation facilities Storage facilities Capture Transportation Storage
Haifeng Plant 1 164.96 1290 1000 431 51.6 41.24 60 3863 646.41 26.39%
Jiahuwan Plant 1 122.3 1290 1000 431 51.6 30.58 60 3400 568.82 16.35%
Honghaiwan Plant 1 118.56 1290 1000 431 51.6 29.64 60 3392 567.66 16.18%
CCUS Cluster Project: Scenario I 3 228.23 3870 1500 862 1548 171 120 9240 475.81 /
Tab.5  Cost comparative analysis of individual CCUS projects and CCUS cluster projects: Scenario I, wherein
Item Capture capacity/(million tonnes) Pipeline length/km Capital cost/million CNY Fixed operating and maintenance cost/million CNY NPV (absolute value)/(million CNY) Cost of CO2 avoidance/(CNY/tCO2−1) Percentage of cost reduction in the cost of CO2 avoidance
Capture facilities Transportation facilities Storage facilities Capture Transportation Storage
Haifeng 　Plant 3 164.96 2580 1000 862 103.2 123.72 120 7033.3 392.34 24.04%
Jiahuwan 　Plant 3 122.3 2580 1000 862 103.2 91.73 120 6024.96 336.09 11.33%
Honghaiwan 　Plant 3 118.56 2580 1000 862 103.2 88.92 120 6004.01 334.92 10.93%
CCUS 　Cluster 　Project: 　Scenario II 9 228.23 3870 1500 862 1548 171 240 173632.2 298.02 /
Tab.6  Cost comparative analysis of individual CCUS projects and CCUS cluster projects: Scenario II, wherein the total emission reduction is 9 million tonnes
Fig.3  Comparative analysis of Scenarios I and II.
1 J, Bong I, Jeong Y Soo (2020). Economic evaluation of carbon capture and utilization applying the technology of mineral carbonation at coal-fired power plant.Sustainability, 2020(12): 1–14
2 L, Cheng D, Li W, Wang J Liu (2021). Heterogeneous transport of free CH4 and free CO2 in dual-porosity media controlled by anisotropic in situ stress during shale gas production by CO2 flooding: implications for CO2 geological storage and utilization.ACS Omega, 6(40): 26756–26765
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c04220
3 China’s State Council (2021a). The 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Long-term Goal of 2035. Beijing: China State Council
4 State Council China’s (2021b). The Instructions on Fully, Accurately and Comprehensively Implementing the New Development Concept to Achieve Carbon Peak and Carbon Neutrality. Beijing: China State Council
5 COP26 (2021a). Glasgow Climate Pact. UK: Glasgow
6 COP26 (2021b). US-China Joint Glasgow Declaration On Enhancing Climate Action. UK: Glasgow
7 European Commission (2019). European Green Deal, London: UK GOV
8 J L, Fan Z Z, Li K, Li X Zhang (2022). Modelling plant-level abatement costs and effects of incentive policies for coal-fired power generation retrofitted with CCUS.Energy Policy, 165: 112959
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112959
9 J L, Fan M, Xu S J, Wei S, Shen Y J, Diao X Zhang (2021). Carbon reduction potential of China’s coal-fired power plants based on a CCUS source-sink matching model.Resour Conserv Recycling, 168: 105320
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105320
10 P, Faubert S, Bouchard Chassé R, Morin H, Côté P L, Dessureault C Villeneuve (2020). Achieving carbon neutrality for a future large greenhouse gas emitter in Quebec, Canada: a case study.Atmosphere (Basel), 11(8): 810
https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11080810
11 GCCSI (2021). Global CCS status report 2021. Australia, Melbourne
12 IEA (2020). Energy Technology Perspective 2020. Paris: IEA
13 N Judit, M Mohanmed, L Martti (2020). Techno-economic barriers of an industrial-scale methanol CCU-plant. J CO2 Util, 2020, 39: 1–13
14 D, Kourkoumpas E, Papadimou K, Atsonios S, Karellas P, Grammelis E Kakaras (2016). Implementation of the power to methanol concept by using CO2 from lignite power plants: techno-economic investigation.Int J Hydrogen Energy, 41(38): 16674–16687
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.100
15 X, Liang Q G, Lin H, Muslemani M, Lei Q, Liu A, Wu M X, Liu F Ascui (2019). Assessing the economics of CO2 capture in China’s iron/steel sector: a case study.Energy Procedia, 2019(158): 3715–3722
16 Y, Luo X, Li X, Qi D Zhao (2021). The impact of emission trading schemes on firm competitiveness: evidence of the mediating effects of firm behaviors from the Guangdong ETS.J Environ Manage, 290: 112633
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112633
17 OGCI (2019). CCUS Kickstarter Project. Longdon: OGCI
18 J Serpa, J Morbee, E Tzimas (2011). Technical and economic characteristics of a CO2 transmission pipeline infrastructure. Luxembourg: European Commission Joint Research Centre
19 S, Szabolcs C C Calin (2018). Improving methanol synthesis from carbon-free H2 and captured CO2: a techno-economic and environmental evaluation.J CO2 Util, 24: 555–563
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2018.02.007
20 US GOV (2018). 45Q tax credit. Washington, DC: US GOV
21 UK GOV (2020). Ten Point Plan For A Green Industrial
22 V, Vikram C, Debanjan S, Udayan V Yashvardhan (2021). Understanding initial opportunities and key challenges for CCUS deployment in India at scale.Resour Conserv Recycling, 2021(175): 1–19
23 N Wei, Q Wang, X C Li, S C Zhao (2015). Technical and economic assessments on CO2 transmission through subsea pipelines. Oil & Gas Stor Transport, 34(11): 1141–1146 (in Chinese)
24 Bank World (2020). State and trends of carbon pricing 2020. Washington, DC: World Bank
25 C F, Xian Y P, Fan J J, Zhang L Zhang (2022). Assessing sustainable water utilization from a holistic view: a case study of Guangdong, China.Sustain Cities Soc, 762: 103428
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103428
26 H J, Xiao Y, Zhou N, Zhang D P, Wang Y L, Shan J Z Ren (2021). CO2 emission reduction potential in China from combined effects of structural adjustment of economy and efficiency improvement.Resour Conv Recycling, 174: 105760
27 Y, Xu L, Zhu D, Chang M, Tsimplis C, Greig S Wright (2021). International chains of CO2 capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) in a carbon-neutral world.Resour Conserv Recycling, 167: 105433
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105433
28 P, Zhao B, He B, Zhang J Liu (2022). Porosity of gas shale: is the NMR-based measurement reliable?.Petrol Sci, 19(2): 509–517
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petsci.2021.12.013
29 X, Zhao X W, Ma B Y, Chen Y P, Shang M L Song (2021). Challenges toward carbon neutrality in China: strategies and countermeasures.Resour Conserv Recycling, 176: 1–9
30 S J, Zheng Y B, Yao D M, Liu Y D, Cai Y Liu (2018). Characterizations of full-scale pore size distribution, porosity and permeability of coals: a novel methodology by nuclear magnetic resonance and fractal analysis theory.Int J Coal Geol, 196: 148–158
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2018.07.008
31 S J, Zheng Y B, Yao D M, Liu Y D, Cai Y, Liu X W Li (2019). Nuclear magnetic resonance T2 cutoffs of coals: a novel method by multifractal analysis theory.Fuel, 241: 715–724
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.12.044
32 D, Zhou P C, Li X, Liang M X, Liu L Wang (2018). A long-term strategic plan of offshore CO2 transport and storage in northern South China Sea for a low-carbon development in Guangdong Province, China.Int J Greenh Gas Control, 70: 76–87
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.01.011
33 L, Zhu H B, Duan Y Fan (2015). CO2 mitigation potential of CCS in China – an evaluation based on an integrated assessment model.J Cleaner Produc, 103: 934–947
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed