CCS Workshop 2007
２００７．２．１５
Cost Evaluation of CCS
Technology and Deployment
Scenarios in Japan
Masato Takagi
RITE
1
Contents
Ｑ１．How much will we pay as an additional cost
for CO2 reduction?
Ｑ２．How important is CCS as a CO2 mitigation option?
Ｑ３．How much is the present cost of CCS in Japan?
Ｑ４．Is it high or low when comparing to costs in
overseas?
Ｑ５．How much can we reduce the CCS cost in future?
What should we do?
Ｑ６．Does CCS become an effective mitigation option
in Japan?
2
Ｑ１． How much will we pay as an
additional cost for CO2 reduction?
Ｑ２．How important is CCS as a CO2
mitigation option?
3
Additional Cost for CO2 Reduction
■IEA Energy Technology Perspective 2006
Incentive of CO2 reduction: 25 US$/t-CO2
¾The maximum additional cost that the market would be
willing to pay for low-carbon technologies.
¾Less than the average price for CO2 permits under the
European trading scheme over the first four months of
2006
¾A price of USD 25 per tonne of CO2 would add about
USD 0.02 per kWh to the cost of coal-fired electricity and
about USD 0.07/litre (USD 0.28/gallon) to the cost of
gasoline.
4
IEA Six Scenarios
IEA Energy Technology Perspective 2006
5
Position of CCS
¾In the Baseline Scenario, CO2 emissions will be
almost two and a half times current level by 2050.
¾CCS is the second effective option (next to
Energy Efficiency).
¾CCS can significantly reduce CO2 emissions from
power generation, industry and transport sectors. In
the ACT scenarios, CCT technologies contribute
between 20 and 28% of total CO2 emission
reductions below the Baseline Scenario by 2050.
¾The cost of CCS is high, but it could fall below 25
USD 25 per tonne of CO2 by 2030.
IEA Energy Technology Perspective 2006
6
Answers to Ｑ１，２
According to IEA,
• Marginal cost of CO2 reduction in
2050 is estimated to be 25US$/t-CO2
• CCS will play an important role to
reduce enough CO2 and decrease a
mitigation cost.
7
Ｑ３．How much is the present
cost of CCS in Japan?
Ｑ４．Is it high or low when
comparing to costs in
overseas?
8
System of CCS
Liquefaction Storage
Tank
液化
７MPa
貯槽
Tanker
Capture
・Capture cost
・Compression cost
気化
１５MPa
Pipeline
パイプライン
分離･回収
貯槽
Vaporization
Injection
圧入
輸 送
Transportation
・Transportation
cost
Injection
圧入
圧 入
Injection
・Injection & Storage
cost
Pre-exploration
Injection
Monitoring
9
Cost of CO2 Avoided
CO2 equivalent to an
additional energy
input for CO2 Capture
& Storage
Comparison of
emission rate
IPCC SRCCS
10
Cost of CO2 Avoided
（Power Plant）
IPCC SRCCS
Cost of CO2 Avoided
= [(COE)capture – (COE)ref] / [(CO2/kWh)ref –(CO2/kWh)capture]
COE (cost of electricity)= (Expense)/(Net Power)
11
Capture（Steam Power Plant）
Capture Plant （Chemical Absorption）
Absorber
CO2
Fuel
Boiler
Stripper
Compressor
Sorbent
CO2
with high purity
Heat
To Pipeline
Steam
Turbine
Electricity
Steam Power Plant
Electricity
■Additional Plant Investment
■Decrease of generating capacity
・Heat required in Capture process
・Electricity required in Capture
process
12
Capture（Steam Power Plant）
Capture Plant （Chemical Absorption）
1 million
t-CO2/year
Absorber
Sorbent
CO2
Fuel
Boiler
Stripper
Compressor
CO2
with high purity
0.052kWh/MJ
Steam
156 KWh/t-CO2
Turbine
Electricity
-298 kWh/t-CO2
Steam Power Plant
Heat
To Pipeline
3000 MJ/t-CO2
Electricity
27 kWh/t-CO2
115 kWh/t-CO2
■Additional Plant Investment 7,600 M yen
■Decrease of generating capacity
・Heat required in Capture process
・Electricity required in Capture
process
13
Capture Cost
-New Pulverized Coal Power Plant
Investment of capture plant, heat at stripper, and electricity
in compression are predominant.
新設石炭火力発電所
New
Pulverized Coal
（NET貯留量 千t-CO2/年）
(Net Reduction
CO2 X1000 t-CO2/year)
New
新設石火現状
Pulverized
Coal
電力：熱
Electricity: heat
Electricity: pump etc.
電力：動力
Absorbent
吸収液
Capture Plant Investment
分離回収設備
Electricity: Compression
電力：昇圧
Compressor Investment
昇圧設備
４，２５６ （７５４）
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
アボイディドコスト 円/t-CO2
Cost
avoided yen/t-CO2
・Capture: 1 million t-CO2/year
・Coal 7000 yen/ｔ, 0.09542kg-CO2/MJ-LHV
・Capture Plant：7,600 million yen, Compressor: 2,000 million yen
14
Transportation Cost
¾Tanker is effective for long distance transportation but rather
expensive.
¾Short distance transportation using pipeline is most effective
to low the transportation cost.
Transportation cost (JPY/tCO2)
10000
8000
Pipeline
Tanker
6000
4000
Land pipeline (1MtCO2/yr)
Land pipeline (0.2MtCO2/yr)
Offshore pipeline (1MtCO2/yr)
Offshore pipeline (0.2MtCO2/yr)
Liquid CO2 by tanker (1MtCO2/yr)
Liquid CO2 by tanker (0.2MtCO2/yr)
2000
0
0
200
ゆ
Distance of transportation (km)そ
400
600
800
1000
15
Transportation Cost
Long distance transportation is rather expensive and
unrealistic.
Transportation cost ( yen/t-CO2 )
4000
7MPa
11.5MPa Land Pipeline
1Mt-CO2 /yr
15MPa
In c r e ase o f pr e ssu r e
7 →1 1 . 5 →1 5 M Pa
3500
3000
2500
In c r e ase o f m ass flo w r at e
1 →3 M t - C O 2 / yr
2000
7MPa
Offshore Pipeline
1Mt-CO2/yr
15MPa
7MPa Land Pipeline
3Mt-CO2/yr
1500
15MPa
1000
Offshore Pipeline
3Mt-CO2/yr
15MPa
500
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Distance of transportation (km)
16
Injection and Storage
Large-scale emission sources
Land area
Reservoir
Offshore
・Well
・Platform
・Pipeline
・Compressor
・Pre-exploration
・Monitoring
Sea
(ERD (extended
reach drilling))
Offshore platform
Offshore
(Offshore platform )
Offshore
(Subsea wellhead)
Submarine pipeline
Subsea wellhead
17
Cost of CO2 Storage
Subsea
wellhead
海底抗口
70km離岸距離70km
far from shore
２，１４９
海上抗口
Offshore
platform
離岸距離20km
20km far from shore
Injection
rate
圧入量
0.5
Mt-CO2/well/year
50万t-CO2/年・井戸
１，２０３
ERD
坑井
Well
コンプレッサー
Compressor
６３７
On
shore
オンショア
パイプライン
Pipeline
５１７
プラットフォーム等
Platform etc.
海底抗口
Subsea
wellhead
離岸距離70km
70km far from shore
海上抗口
Offshore
platform
離岸距離20km
20km far from shore
３，７６９
２，２８３
ERD
１，７５９
オンショア
On shore
１，１８９
0
Pre-exploration
事前調査
Monitoring
モニタリング
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
コスト 円/t-CO2
Cost yen/t-CO2
圧入量
Injection
rate
10万t-CO2/年・井戸
0.5
Mt-CO2/well/year
3,000
3,500
4,000
¾Cost becomes high when reservoirs being far from shore.
¾Storage cost is heavily dependent on Injection rate per well.
18
Current Cost of Capture and Storage
in Japan
Current CCS cost was estimated to be 5,000 – 10,000
yen/t-CO2 avoided.
EOR（use of existing well）
Caputure from New PC plant
EOR(resuse of abandoned well）
gass source- aquifer
Capture
New PC- aquifer
Compression
PC retrofit（caseA）- aquifer
Transportation
Storage
PC retrofit（caseB）- aquifer
PC retrofit（caseC）- aquifer
PC retrofit（caseD）- aquifer
Iron & steel plant -aquifer
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Cost of CO2 avoided yen/t-CO2
14,000
16,000
18,000
* Baseline assumption： amount of CCS 1Mt-CO2/yr、Transportation distance 20 km、Injection pressure 10 MPa, ERD, Potential injection rate per
well ：0.1 Mt-CO2/yr
* New pulverized coal power plant ：cost of electricity 5 yen/kWh
* Pulverized coal power plant retrofit： （case A）auxiliary coal boiler、cost of electricity 5 yen/kWh
（case B-D） steam extract from steam cycle of power plant, cost of electricity Ｂ: 10 yen/kWh, C: 5 yen/kWh, D 2.6 yen/kWh
* Iron & steel Industry： steam 2,500 yen/t-steam, electricity 10 yen/kWh
* EOR：0.2 Mｔ-CO2/yr of CO2 is captured. Transportation distance 20km.
* Gas source： storage 0.1 Mｔ-CO2/yr, transportation distance 9ｋｍ
19
Comparison with Cost in IPCC SRCCS
Transportation and storage cost in Japan is higher than
that in IPCC SRCCS.
Japan
yen/t-CO2
IPCC SRCCS
US$/t-CO2
Case
New PC plant
-Aquifer storage
New PC plant
-Aquifer
storage
New NGCC
plant
-Aquifer
storage
New PC
plant
-EOR
Capture &
Compression
４，２００
２９−５１
３７−７４
２９−５１
Transportation
Storage
１−８
８００
1Mt-CO2/ｙ-20ｋｍ
20km
２，３００
0.1Mt/well/yr， ERD
5-40Mt-CO2t/y-250km
250km
０．５∼８
△１０∼１６
７，３００
Total
1Mt-CO2/ｙr20ｋｍ-ERD
３０ー７０
４０−９０
９−４４
20
Answer to Ｑ３，Ｑ４
CCS cost
¾ High Capture Cost：a common issue in the world
¾ High Transportation Cost Special issues
in Japan
¾ High Storage Cost
21
Pipeline
（Reasons for the high cost in Japan）
• In overseas construction of pipelines is done in
ROW (Right of Way: a way having possessory
right).
• In contrast, pipelines must run under public
roads in Japan. Therefore, big construction
limitations (a short working hour, a short
execution distance per day, and frequent test
digging and siphon culvert) and necessity of
restoration of paving occur. These make
construction period longer.
22
Storage
（Reasons for the high cost in Japan）
A cost when extrapolated to 1Mt-CO2/well/year is almost the same as
foreign studies. A low injection rate per well (because of a low penetrate
rate) is a reason for the high injection cost in Japan
Injection Cost yen/t-CO2
3000
Onshore
ERD
Offshore Platform
Subsea Wellhead
Hendriks: Onshore
Hendriks: Offshore
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Injection depth [m]
2500
Hendriks: IPCC SRCCS, 1US$=120JPY
3000
23
Ｑ５．How much can we reduce
the CCS cost in future?
What should we do?
24
Issues for Cost Reduction in
Capture process
¾ Reduction in calories required for CO2 stripping.
¾ Reduction in capture plant cost.
¾ Thermal integration of capture process with
power plant.
¾ Increase in effectiveness of compressor.
25
Capture Cost in future
●Variable Factors
Common
factors
New PC
Items
Capture: Heat
Capture: Electricity
Capture: Absorbent
Capture: Plant
Compression: Electricity
Compression: Compressor
Electricity loss factor
MJ/t-CO2
kWh/t-CO2
index
index
kWh/t-CO2
index
kWh/MJ
2005
3,000
26.8
1
1
115
1
0.052
2015
1,800
10
0.5
0.6
100
0.5
0.04
（ref）Feron
2,000
10
103
0.042
※Paul H. M. Feron (TNO, Netherlands) Reduction of emission and Geological storage of CO2, Paris (2005)
26
Capture Cost in future
新設石炭火力発電所
New
Pulverized Coal
(Net Reduction
CO2 X1000 t-CO2/year)
（NET貯留量 千t-CO2/年）
Future
新設石火将来
Electricity: Heat
電力：熱
Electricity: pump etc.
電力：動力
Absorbent
吸収液
Capture plant
分離回収設備
電力：昇圧
Electricity: Compression
Compressor
昇圧設備
２，２６２ （８４５）
４，２５６ （７５４）
Present
新設石火現状
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
アボイディドコスト 円/t-CO2
Cost avoided yen/t-CO2
6000
7000
¾Capture cost will be dramatically reduced
¾Compression cost won’t be reduced too much.
27
Scenario of CCS cost reduction to
3000 yen/t-CO2 ?
Transportation：15MPa-１M t-CO2/year, Injection：0.5 Mt-CO2/well/year
Depth:1000 m
Cost avoided yen/t-CO2
アボイディッドコスト 円/t-CO2
0
500
1,000
1,500
+ Onshore
+陸域
石炭火力
2,500
3,000
3,500
分離回収・昇圧
Capture
輸送
Transportation
圧入（オンショア）
Onshore
圧入（ERD）
ERD
新設石炭火力
Capture
新設
New
PC
2,000
+10km+輸送10km+オンショア
transport + Onshore
+20km+輸送20km+オンショア
transport + Onshore
＋ERD
+10km transport
+ ERD
+輸送10km+ERD
石炭火力
PC
既設改造
Retrofit
既設石炭火力
Capture
Capture
++オンショア
Onshore
Capture
製鉄所
Steel
製鉄所
production
Capture (electricity:
5yen/kwh)
製鉄所（電気５円）
(5 yen/kwh)+ Onshore
製鉄所（電気５円）+オンショア
(5 yen/kwh)+ ERD
製鉄所（電気５円）＋ERD
Transportation & Storage 28
Issues for Cost Reduction in
Transportation and Capture Processes
¾Because transportation is expensive, a long distance
transportation is unrealistic in Japan. Exploration
reservoirs at short distances from large CO2
emission sources is necessary.
¾We should also search reservoirs with a large
penetration rate to reduce a storage cost.
¾Development of the technology which increase
a injection rate per well, such as multi-lateral well, is
important.
29
Ｑ６．Does CCS become an effective
mitigation option in Japan?
30
Recent Estimates of Potentials
of CO2 Geological Storage in Japan
Category A
Category B
With anticline structure
Unknown anticline structure
Injection well
Injection well
Image of storage of CO2
Oil & gas field
A1
3.5 GtCO2
Boring data existing
A2
5.2 GtCO2
Geophysical exploration
data existing
A3
21.4 GtCO2
B2*
88.5 GtCO2
Sub-total
30.1 GtCO2
116.0 GtCO2
Total
B1*
27.5 GtCO2
146.1 GtCO2
* B1 and B2 do not cover throughout Japan, and exclude the reservoirs existing offshore where the sea is
deeper than 200 m.
Source: RITE/ENAA, ‘Report on Development of Carbon Dioxide Geological Storage’, 2006. (in Japanese)
31
CO2 Injection Costs and Potentials
注）コスト評価の対象とした水深500m以浅のみを評価
0.1Mt/yr/well
0.5Mt/yr/well
1.0Mt/yr/well
6000
Category Ａ２
By actual boring
5000
4000
0.1 Mt-CO2/year/well
3000
0.5 Mt-CO2/year/well
2000
1000
7000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0.1Mt/yr/well
6000
Cumulative CO2 storage [MtCO2]
Category Ａ３
By geophysical exploration
CO2 injection cost [JPY/tCO2]
CO2 injection cost [JPY/tCO2]
7000
6000
0.5Mt/yr/well
1.0Mt/yr/well
5000
0.1 Mt-CO2/year/well
4000
3000
2000
0.5 Mt-CO2/year/well
1000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000 12000 14000 16000
Cumulative CO2 storage [MtCO2]
32
Cost-effective Options for CO2 Emission
Reduction in Japan
500
CO2 emission & reduction (MtC/yr)
Emission in Reference Case (BaU)
Energy saving
400
Fuel switching among fossil fuels
Fuel switching to nuclear power
300
Fuel switching to renewables
200
CO2 geological storage
Net CO2 emission
CO2 ocean storage
100
CO2 emission
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Year
Approximately 14 MtC/yr (52 MtCO2/yr) in 2020
Approximately 47 MtC/yr (170 MtCO2/yr) in 2050
33
Marginal CO2 Reduction Cost
CCS will play an important role for reduction of
mitigation cost in Japan
1200
CO2 shadow price (US$/tC)
1000
Case 2-A
Per-GDP CO2 emission
in 2050: half of the
amount in 2000
Case 1 (No CCS)
800
600
Case 2 (No CCS)
250
200
Per-GDP CO2
emission in 2050:
one third of the
amount in 2000
150
400
100
200
0
2000
300
50
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
CO2 shadow price (US$/tCO2)
0.5 Mt-CO2/well/year
Case 1-A
0
2050
34
Answer to Ｑ6
• Although cost of CCS is estimated to be
relatively high compared to other countries,
CCS is still considered to be one of the
cost-effective options for CO2 emission
reduction in Japan.
• By implementation of CCS, mitigation cost
in Japan is expected to substantially
reduced.
35
END
36