商业落地路径：碳管理--美国能源部.pdf

April | 2023 Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Carbon Management This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Carbon Management Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Carbon Management Comments The Department of Energy welcomes input and feedback on the contents of this Pathway to Commercial Liftoff. Please direct all inquiries and input to liftoff@hq.doe.gov. Input and feedback should not include business sensitive information, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information. Please note that input and feedback provided is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Authors Authors of the Carbon Management Pathway to Commercial Liftoff: Loan Programs Office: Ramsey Fahs Fossil Energy and Carbon Management: Rory Jacobson Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations: Andrew Gilbert, Dan Yawitz, Catherine Clark, Jill Capotosto, Office of Policy: Colin Cunliff, Brandon McMurtry Argonne National Labs: Uisung Lee Cross-cutting Department of Energy leadership for the Pathways to Commercial Liftoff effort: Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations: David Crane, Kelly Cummins, Melissa Klembara Office of Technology Transitions: Vanessa Chan, Lucia Tian Loan Programs Office: Jigar Shah, Jonah Wagner Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge analytical support from Argonne National Laboratory and McKinsey as well as valuable guidance and input provided during the preparation of this Pathway to Commercial Liftoff from: Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations: Andrew Dawson, Katrina Pielli, Allison Finder, Liz Moore Office of Technology Transitions: Erik Hadland, Stephen Hendrickson, Hannah Murdoch, Katheryn (Kate) Scott Loan Programs Office: Chris Creed, Carolyn Davidson, Matt Kittell, Julie Kozeracki, Leslie Rich, Harry Warren Office of Policy: Carla Frisch, Steve Capanna, Neelesh Nerurkar, Elke Hodson, Paul Donohoo-Vallett, Marie Fiori Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management: Brad Crabtree, Jennifer Wilcox, Noah Deich, Emily Grubert, Lynn Brickett, Anhar Karimjee, John Litynski, Sarah Leung, Amishi Claros, Traci Rodosta, Jeffrey Hoffmann, Jose Benitez, Tony Feric, Lisa Grogan-McCulloch, Vanessa Núñez-López, Devinn Lambert, Caleb Woodall Office of the Secretary: Kate Gordon Director of the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity: Shalanda Baker Office of Energy Jobs: Betony Jones Office of the General Counsel: Alexandra Klass, Avi Zevin, Ajoke Agboola Argonne National Laboratory: Aymeric Rousseau Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Carbon Management Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Chapter 1: Introduction and Objectives 5 Chapter 2: Current State – Carbon Management Technologies and Markets 7 Section 2.a: Technology landscape 7 Section 2.a.i Point-source capture 8 Section 2.a.ii Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) 12 Section 2.a.iii Transport 14 Section 2.a.iv Storage 16 Section 2.a.v Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) storage 18 Section 2.a.vi Utilization 18 Section 2.b Current regulation and policies supporting CCUS and CDR development 19 Chapter 3: Pathways to Widespread Deployment 22 Section 3.a The pathway to widespread deployment 22 Section 3.b Implied capital formation 29 Section 3.c Broader implications 30 Section 3.c.i Supply chain 31 Section 3.c.ii Energy and environmental justice 32 Chapter 4: Challenges to Commercialization and Potential Solutions 36 Section 4.a Overview of challenges and considerations along the value chain 36 Section 4.b Priority solutions 40 Chapter 5: Metrics and Milestones 42 Chapter 6: References 43 Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Carbon Management Purpose of this Report These Commercial Liftoff reports aim to establish a common fact base and ongoing dialogue with the private sector around the path to commercial lift-off for critical clean energy technologies. Their goal is to catalyze more rapid and coordinated action across the full technology value chain. Executive Summary Modeling studies suggest reaching U.S. energy transition goals will require capturing and storing 400 to 1,800 million tonnes (MT) of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually by 2050, through both point-source carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR).i Today, the U.S. has over 20 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of carbon capture capacity, 1–5% of what could be needed by 2050.1,ii, iii This scale-up represents a massive investment opportunity of up to ~$100 billion by 2030 and $600 billion by 2050. America’s 20 MTPA of capture capacity already leads the world in carbon management, and the U.S. is an attractive policy and resource environment for further deployment. An increase in the value of the 45Q tax credit—a federal tax credit provided for stored or utilized CO2—has provided a greater incentive and more certainty to developers and investors and is likely to yield attractive returns for several types of projects.iv In addition, recent climate and infrastructure legislation has provided ~$12 billion in funding to support U.S. carbon management projects. The U.S. has excellent geology for storing CO2, world-class engineering and professional talent, and relatively abundant low-cost zero-carbon energy resources that can power carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects to maximize net carbon removed. Many large-scale carbon management projects are already proving financially attractive today with enhancements to the federal 45Q tax credit, and investors have raised billions to take advantage of these opportunities.v,vi These investments range from early-stage equity investments in carbon capture technology providers to large-scale private equity- backed investments in CO2 transport infrastructure. This report outlines the path to meaningful scale in carbon management, which we expect to develop between near-term and longer-term opportunities through 2030 (Figure 1.).2,3,4 1. For near-term (through 2030) opportunities, projects in industries with high-purity CO2 streams (e.g., ethanol, natural gas processing, hydrogen) have the best project economics. Many of these types of projects are in active development or are already in operation. Large-scale transportation and storage infrastructure is likely to emerge to serve these projects. These developments—along with some promising demonstration projects in higher-cost carbon management applications (e.g., steel, cement)—will lay the foundation for more widespread deployment by establishing best-practices in contracting, financing, permitting, community engagement, labor agreements, workforce development, and, in some cases, through building out common carrier transport and storage infrastructure that future projects can use. 2. For longer-term (post-2030) opportunities—industries with lower-purity CO2 streams and distributed process emissions — project economics must improve to make widescale deployment likely in the absence of other drivers (e.g., regulation). Demonstration projects from now through 2030 can support cost declines—both through learning-by-doing and standardizing project development structures. And increased policy support (either via regulation or incentives) or technology premiums for low-carbon products (e.g., low embodied carbon steel and concrete) would lead to more CCUS and CDR projects.5 These end-user-backed technology premiums combined with sustained and predictable government support can provide consistent revenue streams as deployment experience reduces costs. 1 Note: Any use of “tonnes” in this report refers to metric tonnes; references to MTPA refer to million tonnes per annum 2 Data in this report for CCUS applications focus only on incremental costs and revenues associated with retrofitting an existing facility with installing and operating carbon capture. They do not reflect the overall economics of a given facility. 3 Near-term and longer-term opportunities refer to an economic analysis of carbon management projects under the current policy and regulatory environment and is not meant as a comment on the technical feasibility of these projects. A wide portfolio of carbon management technologies for a suite of applications are commercially mature and ready to deploy today. 4 We note that the discussion in this paper examines economic break-even points for carbon capture in the absence of regulatory drivers. Any state or federal regulatory actions could dramatically accelerate the business case for profitable investments in carbon management. 5 The Federal Buy Clean Task Force and the First Mover’s Coalition are both seeking to provide a clear demand signal for low embodied emissions products 1 Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Carbon Management Currently profitable Near-term opportunities Longer-term opportunities Nascent technology Project specific economics dependent on CO2 capture capacity, utilization, distance to storage and existing equipment Developing economics Figure 1: Concentrated sources of CO2 (e.g., in ethanol or hydrogen Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) capture facilities) are currently profitable but do not include sufficient emissions reductions alone to achieve net zero goals Cost1 and revenue2 per industry or technology today, $/tonne 1 Displayed cost estimates based on EFI Foundation capture costs with transport (GCCSI, 2019) and storage (BNEF, 2022) costs of ~$10-40/tonne, except where noted. All in 2022 dollars. All CCUS figures represent retrofits, not new-build facilities. The lower bound costs represents a NOAK plant in a low cost retrofit scenario with low inflation. The higher bound costs represents a FOAK plant in a high cost retrofit scenario with high inflation. The inflation variance on each cost estimate represents the range of cost increases on a generic chemical processing facility due to inflation from 2018 using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). 2 Revenues based on applicable mix of 45Q tax credit, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Voluntary Carbon Markets and the 45V tax credit (which cannot be stacked with 45Q). Other sources of revenue (e.g., premium PPAs, EOR) are discussed in more detail in the appendix. Tax credit values do not reflect expected discounts to the face value of the credit associated with tax equity financing or transferability. For retrofits, revenue does not reflect the value of products already sold by the facility (e.g., electricity from an existing power plant) 3 Current hydrogen capacity is likely to grow with the growth of reformation-based capacity and future demand likely 4 Includes BECCS to power, biochar, and bio-oil; Biochar and bio-oil may not be eligible for 45Q Source: EFI Foundation, “Turning CCS Projects in Heavy Industry Coal and CCGT power plant retrofit cost of capture figures derived from NETL Revision 4a Fossil Baseline study retrofit cases adjusted to 2022 dollars and with 12-year amortization—range represents FOAK with high retrofit factor (high figure) to NOAK with low retrofit factor (low figure). DAC costs from NETL: Direct air capture solvent and sorbent studies; Upper bound of solid sorbent from Climeworks 2018, also cited in “A review of direct air capture (DAC): scaling up commercial technologies and innovating for the future“ (McQueen 2021); BiCRS cost estimates from Coalition for Negative Emissions for first-of-a-kind BECCS for power with modified financing costs same as above. Low ranges of purchase of biomass processed feedstock and biomass transport taken from FAO U.S. biomass cost estimates rather than Coalition for Negative Emissions, which has higher estimates applicable to a UK-based plant (“Economic analysis of woody biomass supply chain in Maine (Whalley 2017)) and ICEF “Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) Roadmap” (2021), Charm Industrial “Carbon Removal: Putting Oil Back Underground” (2021); Mineralization costs from author benchmark cost used in IPCC. Costs for ex situ mineralization with wollastonite, olivine-rich, and serpentine-rich tailings using heat and concentrated CO2 from Kelemen P, Benson SM, Pilorgé H, Psarras P and Wilcox J (2019) An Overview of the Status and Challenges of CO2 Storage in Minerals and Geological Formations. Front. Clim. 1:9. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2019.00009; Current emissions from EPA GHGRP FLIGHT database 2019 and includes biogenic CO2 emissions for pulp and paper (~110 MTPA) Note: CCUS figures represent incremental costs and revenues associated only with the installation and operation of carbon capture retrofits, not the overall facility economics of the facility in question. Note: Applications are arranged left-to-right by industry, power, and CDR reflecting the rough CO2 concentration of the CO2 sources associated with these applications 85 85 85 85 Refineries (Fluidized Catalytic Cracker) Ammonia (flue gas) Steel (Blast Furnace – BOF) 90 Hydrogen (SMR and steam production, 90% capture) 66 Cement production BiCRS4Power plants - CCGT 1,180 Pulp diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; environmental justice; and quality jobs plans into their applications and project plans. 6 CCUS and certain CDR technologies have significant OpEx expenses (roughly 50% of levelized costs) in the form of energy and material inputs. These persistent OpEx costs make the dramatic total cost declines observed in fuel-free energy technologies like wind and solar unlikely. 7 DAC is one of several CDR pathways discussed further in Chapter 2. 3 Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Carbon Management DOE, in partnership with other federal agencies and state and local governments, has tools to address many of these issues and is committed to working with communities and the private sector to build out the nation’s carbon management infrastructure and meet the country’s climate, economic, and environmental justice goals. Carbon management is experiencing a once-in-a-generation opportunity given the current policy and market environment. The 45Q tax credit provides certainty and attractive project economics for several project types. Funding for commercial demonstration and deployment projects in BIL and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) can spur carbon management projects in industries in which project economics would otherwise still be challenging, providing i