ETI report says carbon capture and storage can be deployed more cost effectively without need to develop new tecnology
Carbon capture and storage can be deployed much more cost effectively in the UK by using shared infrastructure and rolling out existing technology, according to the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI).
By co-locating deployment and making use of economies of scale, the high capital costs of CCS can be reduced by as much as 45 per cent - savings which are achievable without creating new capture technology platforms, ETI argues in a new report published today.
The UK's CCS sector suffered a blow in November with the shock cancellation of a £1bn competition aimed at commercialising the technology, which is seen by many as crucial for the government to meet its climate change targets.
Ministers said the funding was cancelled in response to mounting concerns about the relatively high cost of CCS projects.
However, the ETI report - entitled Reducing the costs of CCS: Developments in capture plant technology - argues successfully deploying CCS would save UK consumers and businesses tens of billions of pounds by providing low carbon electricity and fuels, capturing industrial emissions, and delivering negative emissions when used in combination with bioenergy.
The report follows Carbon Clean Solutions' recent announcement of a breakthrough in CCS technology that could cut the costs of its deployment.
ETI - a partnership between BP, Caterpillar, EDF, Rolls-Royce, Shell and the UK government - said it had attempted to boost understanding of the technology and the barriers to its deployment by carrying out modelling of CCS at process plant, financial, and energy system level.
The ETI conceded there were concerns about the upfront cost of the technology, but its report argues it is possible to reduce the costs of CCS by sequentially delivering a small number of plants using existing, proven technologies.
"The high capital cost of CCS means technology risks have to be carefully managed, but initial cost reduction can be achieved without creating new capture technology platforms by making use of economies of scale, sharing infrastructure and through physical demonstration," said Den Gammer, report author and CCS strategy manager at the ETI. "The cost of capture is the largest single cost element in CCS but capture technology is from a mature technology base and further improvements in cost and performance are expected."
He also called for a more support for the CCS sector to boost investment, arguing that "waiting for global technology advances to reduce costs and risks will not address UK specific costs and risks in transport and storage".
"Cost reduction can only be achieved through commercial scale deployment in the UK, investment in infrastructure including storage sites and by having a policy environment that is attractive for CCS investors," Gammer explained.
In addition, the report argues post combustion amines and pre-combustion gasification will continue to be the capture technologies of choice, but after 2030 innovation should play an increasing role in further reducing the costs of CCS.
To this end, ETI highlights the potential for hydrogen storage combined with CCS, which it states can "provide considerable flexibility and improve energy security".
"Investment in anchor projects provides a transport and storage infrastructure for subsequent projects to build on and paves the way for the introduction of higher risk emerging technologies once the overall CCS risk is reduced," said Gammer.
