Techno-economic modelling of the Baltic CCUS onshore scenario
Alla Shogenova1 , Kazbulat Shogenov2 , Mai Uibu3 , Rein Kuusik4 , Karl Simmer5
1, 2, 5Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Geology, Ehitajate tee 5, Tallinn, 19086, Estonia
3, 4Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Materials and Environmental Technology, Ehitajate tee 5 Tallinn, 19086, Estonia
Baltic Carbon Forum, Vol. 1, 2022, p. 4-4.
Accepted 9 August 2022; published 13 October 2022
Baltic Carbon Forum 2022 in Kaunas, Lithuania, October 13-14, 2022
Techno-economic modelling of the Baltic onshore CO2 transport, storage, and utilization scenario included HeidelberCement-owned Kunda Nordic Cement (KNC) plant, the main Estonian cement producer, four Estonian and one Latvian power plant and CO2 mineral carbonation of the oil shale ash, as possible CO2 use option.
In 2019 nearly 6.5 Mt of oil shale ash (OSA) was produced in Estonia from energy production. Estonian OSA could be used as an effective sorbent in the proposed CO2-mineralization process, using CO2 from flue gas and producing precipitated CaCO3 (PCC) of high quality.
Mineral carbonation of 0.42 Mt CO2 using 3.8 Mt of fresh OSA and about 6.33 Mt CO2 produced annually by five Estonian and one Latvian plant transported by pipeline for storage into the North-Blidene structure in western Latvia are combined in the CCUS scenario. Cambrian Deimena Formation reservoir sandstone is located at the depth of 1035-1150 m in the selected saline aquifer. The average optimistic storage capacity of about 270 Mt allows planning CCUS project for 30 years. The share of the Estonian emissions avoided and stored in Latvia is 86.5 %, including 8.2 % by KNC, while Latvian stored emissions will compose 13.5 %.
Annually 6.8 Mt CO2 could be captured, transported and injected, including 6 Mt CO2 avoided using transport and storage and 0.42 Mt CO2 avoided using MC of Estonian OSA. During 30 years nearly 204 Mt CO2 will be captured, used and stored, while 193 Mt CO2 could be avoided.
The total average transport and storage (T&S) cost of the scenario is 18.4 €/t CO2 injected. This cost depends on the transport distance, according to the applied methodology, and it is the most expensive for the Eesti Energia PPs. The lowest T&S cost of 5.54 €/t CO2 injected will have Latvenergo TEC-2 PP located at a smaller distance from the storage site. At the price of EEAP (CO2 Emission Allowance Price in EU ETS) of 40 €/t CO2 and 50 €/t PCC, the CCUS scenario could be beneficial for three Eesti Energia and Latvenergo TEC-2 power plants. For the KNC and VKG Energia plants without CO2 use options, the higher EEAP of about 48-50 €/t CO2 is needed to cover all CCUS costs including capture, compression, transport, storage and monitoring. The transport and storage costs are distance-dependent, as pipelines are the most expensive part of the transport, storage and monitoring costs.
At the present EEAP of about 90 €/t CO2, all the participating plants will get benefits from the proposed scenario.
This study is supported by CLEANKER project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement n. 764816.
Keywords: CCUS, economic modeling, CO2 emissions, storage, pipelines, mineral carbonation, carbon tax, oil shale ash, cement plant.