Techno-economic Modelling of the Baltic CCUS Onshore Scenario for the Cement Industry Supported by CLEANKER Project

Abstract

Baltic transboundary CCUS scenario includes CO2 emissions from six largest CO2 producers from Estonia and Latvia, CO2 mineral carbonation of Estonian oil shale ash, pipeline transport of captured CO2 and its storage in the North-Blidene structure in the western Latvia. HeidelbergCement owned Kunda Nordic Cement plant, three Eesti Energia power plants (Eesti, Balti and Auvere PP), VKG Energia North Thermal PP and Latvenergo TEC-2 PP compose cluster of CO2 emitters.

Estonian OSA could be used as an effective sorbent in the CO2-mineralization process, using CO2 from flue gas and producing precipitated CaCO3 (PCC). Techno-economic modelling of scenario includes mineral carbonation of 0.42 Mt CO2 using 3.8 Mt of fresh OSA and pipeline transport of about 6.33 Mt CO2 captured annually by five Estonian and one Latvian plant for storage in Cambrian Deimena Formation reservoir sandstones at the depth of 1035-1150 m in the North-Blidene structure. Average optimistic storage capacity of about 270 Mt allows to plan CCUS project for 30 years.

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. At the price of EEAP 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-dependant, as pipelines are the most expensive part of the transport, storage and monitoring costs.

Keywords: CCUS, economic modeling, storage, pipelines, mineral carbonation, cement plant