Подходы к проведению технико-экономической оценки технологий улавливания, хранения и утилизации СО2

Проведен сравнительный анализ исследований, посвященных разработке подходов к определению ключевых критериев для проведения технико-экономической оценки перспективности инновационных технологий улавливания, хранения и утилизации углекислого газа, в основном, выполненных за последние 10 лет. Установлено, что главными составляющими такой оценки являются: уровень готовности технологии, продолжительность ее жизненного цикла и так называемый углеродный след, который, в свою очередь, соотносится с величиной потенциала глобального потепления. Показано, что для моделей СО2-производств ключевыми индикаторами являются:

а) технические (уровень готовности технологии, рабочие температуры, рабочие давления, общая конверсия СО2, оценка жизненного цикла);

б) экономические (капитальные затраты CAPEX, операционные затраты OPEX, общая стоимость производства, цена продукта и др.);

в) экологические (потребление электроэнергии, чистая утилизация СО2, величина углеродного следа, потребление воды и т.д.). Лидирующими странами в области разработки указанных технологий являются США, Великобритания и Канада.

1. Pearson P.N., Martin R. Palmer M.R. // Nature. 2000. V. 406. P. 695 – 699. https://doi.org/10.1038/35021000

2. Arrhenius S. // Phil. Mag. 1896. V. 41. P. 237–279.

3. Chamberlin T.C. // J. Geol. 1898. V. 7. P. 545–584 (1898).

4. LI Xiao-yun, LI Qi-feng, ZHAO Yu-hua, KANG Mao-ging, WANG Yun-wei. // Journal of Fuel Chemistry and Technology. 2022. V. 50(2). P. 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1872-5813(21)60145-7.

5. Betts R.A., Jones C.D., Knight J.R., Keeling R.F., Kennedy J.J. // Nat Clim Change. 2016. V. 6(9). P. 806–810. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3063

6. Artz J., Muller T.E., Thenert K., Kleinekorte J., Meys R., Sternberg A., Bardow A., Leitner W. // Chem. Rev. 2018. V. 118. P. 434–504. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00435.

7. Editorial From Paris to Glasgow. // Nat. Catal. 2021. V. 4. P. 913– 914. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41929-021-00716-9

8. International Energy Agency. Global Energy & CO2 Status Report. Paris, 2019. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-co2-status-report-2019

9. Friedlingstein P.O., Sullivan M., Jones M.W., Andrew R.M., Zaehle S. // Earth Syst Sci Data. 2020. V. 12(4). P. 3269–3340. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020

10. Ramirez A., Gevers L., Chowdhury A.D., Abou-Hamad E., Aguilar-Tapia A., Hazemann J-L., Wehbe N., Al Abdulghani A.J., Kozlov S.M., Luigi Cavallo L., Gascon J. // ChemCatChem. 2019. V. 11(12). P. 2879–2886. https://doi.org/10.1002/cctc.201900762

11. Crippa M., Guizzardi D., Muntean M., Schaaf E., Solazzo E., Monforti-Ferrario F., Olivier J.G.J., Vignati E. // EUR 30358 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-21515-8. https://doi.org/10.2760/143674.

12. Ramirez-Corredores M.M. // npj Mater. Sustain. 2024. V. 2. Article35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44296-024-00041-9

13. Sutter J.D., Berlinger J. // Final draft of climate deal formally accepted in Paris. CNN. Cable News Network, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. https://www.academia.edu/36485719/Main_assignment_tunvir_sir_Cop21.

14. https://www.unep.org/

15. Emissions Gap Report 2024. UN Environment Programe. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024

16. IEA Energy and Carbon Tracker 2024. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/iea-energy-and-carbon-tracker-2024

17. Apanasovich N., Apanasovich T. // The Impact of Technological Innovations and Economic Growth on Carbon Dioxide Emissions. FREE POLICY NETWORK BRIEF SERIES. The George Washington University, April 2024. Р. 1-7. pdf: 20240408

18. Avenyo E.K., Tregenna F. // Applied Energy. 2022. V. 324. 119726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119726

19. Chen Y., Lee C.C. // Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020. V. 263. 121550.

20. Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021, in IEA (International Energy Agency): Paris, 2022. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-CO2-emissions-in-2021-2.

21. Leung D.Y.C., Caramanna G., Maroto-Valer M.M. // Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014. V. 39. P. 426–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.093

22. Ballamine A., Kotni A., Llored J.-P., Caillol S. // Sci. Tech. Energ. Transition. 2022. V. 77. 1. https://doi.org/10.2516/stet/2021001.

23. Cuéllar-Franca R.M., Azapagic A. // J. CO2 Util. 2015. V. 9. P. 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2014.12.001

24. Bui M., Adjiman C.S., Bardow A., Anthony E.J., Boston A., Brown S., Fennell P.S., Fuss S., Galindo A., Hackett L.A., Hallett J.P., Herzog H.J., Jackson G., Kemper J., Krevor S., Maitland G.C., Matuszewski M., Metcalfe I.S., Petit C., Puxty G., Reimer J., Reiner D.M., Rubin E.S., Scott S.A., Shah N., Smit B., Trusler J.P.M., Webley P., Wilcox J., Mac Dowell N. // Energy Environ. Sci. 2018. V. 11(5). P. 1062–1176. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ee02342a

25. UK cancels pioneering £1bn carbon capture and storage competition. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/25/uk-cancels-pioneering-1bn-carbon-capture-and-storage-competition

26. Carbon Dioxide Utilization Technology Area. 2023 Project peer review. https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/carbon-dioxide-utilization

27. Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) Market. https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/report/carbon-capture-and-utilization-ccu-market

28. Global Status of CCS 2024. Collaborating for net-zero future. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-of-ccs-2024/

29. Улавливание, хранение и использование углерода: перспективы и возможности проектов в России. 2022. https://journal.ecostandard.ru/esg/keysy/ulavlivanie-khranenie-i-ispolzovanie-ugleroda-perspektivy-i-vozmozhnosti-proektov-v-rossii/?lang=ru

30. Naims H. // Environ Sci Pollut Res/ 2016. V. 23. P. 22226–22241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6810-2

31. Fu H.C., You F., Li H.R., He L.N. // Front. Chem. 2019. V. 7. Article 525. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2019.00525

32. Hepburn C., Adlen E, Beddington J., Carter E.A., Fuss S., Mac Dowell N., Minx J.C., Smith P., Williams C.K. // Nature. 2019. V. 575. P. 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1681-6

33. Zimmermann A.W., Wunderlich J., Müller L., Buchner G.A., Marxen A., Michailos S., Armstrong K., Naims H., McCord S., Styring P., Sick V., Schomäcker R. // Front. Energy Res. 2020. V. 8. Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00005

34. Koytsoumpa E.I., Bergins C., Kakaras E. // The Journal of Supercritical Fluids. 2018. V. 132. P. 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.supflu.2017.07.029

35. Ahn Y., Bae S.J., Kim M., Cho S.K., Baik S., Lee J.I., J.E. Cha J.E. // Nuclear Engineering and Technology. 2015. V. 47(6). P. 647–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009

36. Pérez Fortes M., Bocin D.A., Tzimas E. // Energy Procedia. 2014. V. 63. P. 7968–7975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.834

37. Mankins J.C. Technology Readiness Levels. A White Paper (1995, Edt. 2004). Advanced Concepts Office. Office of Space Access and Technology. NASA, 2004.

38. US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA’s Technology Readiness Levels https://esto.nasa.gov/files/trl_definitions.

39. Buchner G.A., Zimmermann A.W., Hohgräve A.E., Schomäcker R. // Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. 2018. V. 57(25). P. 8502–8517. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b01248.

40. Zimmermann A.W., Wunderlich J., Buchner G.A., Müller L., Armstrong K., Michailos S., Marxen A., Naims H., Styring P., Schomäcker R., Bardow A. Techno-Economic Assessment & Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO2 Utilization. Sheffield: CO2Chem Media and Publishing Ltd, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3998/2027.42/145436.

41. Buchner G.A. Techno-Economic Assessment – Methodology Development and the Case of CO2-containing Polyurethane Rubbers. Dissertation. Berlin, 2020.

42. Buchner G.A., Wulfes N., Schomäcker R. // Journal of CO2 Utilization. 2020. V. 36. P. 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2019.11.010

43. Langhorst T., McCord S., Zimmermann A., Müller L., Cremonese L., Strunge T., Wang Y., Zaragoza A.V., Wunderlich J., Marxen A., Armstrong K., Buchner G., Kätelhön A., Bachmann M., Sternberg A., Michailos S., Naims H., Winter B., Roskosch D., Faber G., Mangin C., Olfe-Kräutlein B., Styring P., Schomäcker R., Bardow A., Sick V. Techno-Economic Assessment & Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO2 Utilization (Version 2.0) // ETH Zürich. ETN Library. Co-funded by the EU. Report. March 2022, 355 p. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000608859

44. Buchner G.A., Stepputat K.J., Zimmermann A.W., Schomäcker R. // Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. 2019. V. 58(17). P. 6957–6969. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b05693

45. Sinnott R., Towler G. In book Chemical Engineering Design (2009), 2014 Repri. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.

46. ISO (2016a). ISO/TR 27912:2016 - Carbon Dioxide Capture — Carbon Dioxide Capture Systems, Technologies and Processes. International Organization. Available online at: https://www.iso.org/standard/64233.html

47. ISO (2018). ISO 27919-1:2018 - Carbon Dioxide Capture — Part 1: Performance Evaluation Methods for Post-combustion CO2 Capture Integrated With a Power Plant. International Organization for Standardization. Available online at: https://www.iso.org/standard/67271.html

48. The Economics of Carbon Capture: Costs and Benefits. Carbon Capture Technologies. August 3, 2023. Available online at: https://blog.verde.ag/en/economics-carbon-capture/

49. Majumdar A., Deutch J. // Joule. 2018. V. 2(5). P. 805–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.04.018.

50. Yun S., Oh S.-Y., J.-K. Kim J.-K. // Applied Energy. 2020. V. 268. Article 114933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114933.

51. Gong W., Remiezowics E., Fosbøl P.L., von Solmsa N., Dlamini G.M. Techno-economic analysis of novel CO2 liquefaction processes.16th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies GHGT-16. 23rd-27th October 2022, Lyon, France.

52. Andrew R.M. // Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 2017. V. 10. P. 195–217. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-195-2018.

53. IEAGHG. Deployment of CCS in the Cement Industry. 19 December 2013. Available on line at: http://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/2013-19.pdf.

54. Parra S.Q., De Lena E., Conversano A., Bonalumi D., Spinelli M., Gatti M., Romano M.C. Techno-economic assessment of hybrid CO2 capture processes in cement manufacturing based on partial oxyfuel & post-combustion technologies. 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-16 23rd -27th October 2022, Lyon, France.

55. Anantharaman R., Berstad D., Cinti G., De Lena E., Gatti M., Hoppe H., Martinez I., Monterio J. G. M.-S., Romano M., Roussanaly S., Schols E., Spinelli M., Størset S., van Os P., Voldsund M. CEMCAP framework for comparative techno-economic analysis of CO2 capture from cement plants (2018). D3.2 (Revision 2). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1257112

56. Daniel T., Masini A., Milne C., Nourshagh N., Iranpour C., Xuan J. // Carbon Capture Science & Technology. 2022. V. 2. Article 100025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2021.100025.

57. THE ECONOMICS OF DIRECT AIR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE. ERIC WILLIAMS. Global CCS Institute. 20 September 2022. Available online at: https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications-reports-research/commentary-economics-of-direct-air-carbon-capture-and-storage/

58. Commentary: Economics of Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage. Global CCS Institute. 20 September 2022. Available online at: https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications-reports-research/commentary-economics-of-direct-air-carbon-capture-and-storage/

59. Fasihi M., Efimova O., Breyer C. // Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019. V. 224. P. 957– 980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.086.

60. Kuramochi T., Ramírez A., Turkenburg W., Faaij A. // Energy Procedia. 2011. V. 4. P. 1981–1988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.079.

61. Zhaia H., Mantripragada H.C., Rubin E.S. A Technical and Economic Assessment of Advanced Carbon Capture Technologies. 14th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-14 21st -25th October 2018, Melbourne, Australia.

62. Ferrari N., Mancuso L., Burnard K., Consonni F. // International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 2019. V. 90. Article 102783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102783.

63. Tang Y., Li S., Liu C., Qi Y., Yu Y., Zhang K., Su B., Yu J., Zhang L., Dai B. // Fuel Processing Technology 2023. V. 249. Article 107855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2023.107855.

64. García-Mariaca A., Llera-Sastresa E. // Applied Energy. 2024. V. 376. Article 124167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124167

65. Poretti F., Stengler E. The Climate Roadmap of the European Waste-to-Energy Sector. The path to Carbon Negative (November 23, 2022). Proceedings of the 16th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference (GHGT-16) 23-24 Oct 2022, Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4284664

66. Pour N., Webley P.A., Cook P.J. // Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Control. 2018. V. 68. P. 1–15. DOI:10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.11.007

67. Materazzi M., Chari S., Sebastian A., Lettieri P., Paulillo A. // Waste Managment. 2024. V. 173. P. 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108170

68. Bisinella V., Hulgaard T., Riber C., Damgaard A., Christensen T.H. // Waste Management. 2021. V. 128. P. 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.046

69. Bertone M., Stabile L., Cortellessa G., Buonanno G. // Sustainability. 2024. V. 16(19). Article 8468. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198468

70. Burger J., Nöhl J., Seiler J., Gabrielli P., Oeuvray P., Becattini V., Reyes-Lúa A., Riboldi L., Sansavini G., Bardow A. // International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2024. V. 132. Article 104039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2023.104039

71. Ahmed M. Techno-economic and environmental assessment of CO2 utilisation processes for the production of dimethyl ether and olefins. PhD thesis, 2023, University of Nottingham. Available online at: https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/71550/

72. Shokrollahi M., Teymouri N., Navarri P. // Journal of Cleaner Production. 2024. V. 434. Article 139620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139620.

73. Bushuyev O.S., De Luna P., Dinh C.T., Tao L., Saur G., van de Lagemaat J., Kelley S.O., Edward H. Sargent E.H. // Joule. 2018. V. 2(5). P. 825–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.09.003

74. Jarvis S.M., Samsatli S. // Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018. V. 85. P. 4–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.01.007

75. Samsatli S., Samsatli N.J., Shah N. // Applied Energy. 2015. V. 147. P. 131–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.078

76. Samsatli S., Staffell I., Samsatli N.J. // Int. J. Hydrog. Energy. 2016. V. 41. P. 447–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.10.032

77. Sternberg A., Jens C.M., Bardow A. // Green Chem. 2017. V. 19. P. 2244–2259. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6GC02852G

78. Poto S., Vink T., Oliver P., Fausto Gallucci F., M. D′Angelo M.F.N. // Journal of CO2 Utilization. 2023. V, 69. Article102419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2023.102419.

79. Lin Q., Zhang X,, Wang T., Zheng C., Gao X. // Engineering. 2022. V. 14. P. 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2021.12.013.

80. Pérez-Fortes M., Tzimas E. Techno-economic and environmental evaluation of carbon dioxide utilisation for fuel production. Synthesis of methanol and formic acid. EUR 27629 EN. European Union 2016. https://doi.org/10.2790/981669.

81. Nitopi S., Bertheussen E, Scott SB, Liu X, Engstfeld AK, Horch S, Seger B., Stephens I.E.L., Chan K., Hahn C., Nørskov J.K., Jaramillo T.F., Chorkendorff I. // Chem. Rev. 2019. V. 119(12). P. 7610–7672. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00705

82. Chen C., Xiaorong Zhu X., Wen X. , Zhou Y., Zhou L., Li H., Tao L., Li Q., Du S., Liu T., Yan D., Xie C., Zou Y., Wang Y., Chen R., Huo J., Li Y., Cheng J., Su H. Zhao X., Cheng W., Liu Q., Lin H., Luo J., Chen J., Dong M., Cheng K., Li C., Wang S. // Nat. Chem. 2020. V.12(8). P. 717–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-020-0481-9.

83. Sadeghi K., Jeon Y., Seo J. // Progress in Materials Science. 2023. V. 135. Article 101103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2023.101103.

84. Keiner D., Mühlbauer A., Lopez G., Koiranen T., Breyer C. // Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change. 2023. V. 28. Article 52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-023-10090-5

85. Langanke J., Wolf A., Hofmann J., Böhm K., Subhani M.A., Müller T.E., Leitner W., Gürtler C. // Green. Chem. 2014. V. 16. P. 1865–1870, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C3GC41788C.

86. Von der Assen N., Bardow A. // Green. Chem. 2014. V. 16. P. 3272–3280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c4gc00513a.

87. Alagi P., Ghorpade R., Cho Y.J., Patil U., Kim I., Baik J.H., Hong S.C. // ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 2017. V. 5(5). P. 3871–3881. https://goi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b03046.

88. Karen Laird. Covestro opens industrial scale CO2-based polyol plant. June 18, 2016. Available online at: https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/covestro-opens-industrial-scale-co2-based-polyol-plant.

89. Covestro Inaugurates CO2-to-Polyols Plant. 22.06.2016. Available online at: https://www.chemanager-online.com/en/news/covestro-inaugurates-co2-polyols-plant.

90. CO₂ as a new raw material – becoming a jack of all trades. https://www.covestro.com/en/sustainability/what-drives-us/circular-economy/alternative-resources/co2-as-a-raw-material

91. Fernández-Dacosta C., Van der Spek M., Hung C.R., Oregionni G.D., Skagestad R., Parihar P., Gokak D.T., Strømman A.H., Ramire A. // Journal of CO2 Utilization. 2017. V. 21. P. 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2017.08.005.

92. Nevander M. Process modelling and techno-economic evaluation of production of CO2-based polycarbonate polyols. Master's Thesis, 2021. Aalto University, School of Engineering]. Aalto University. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:aalto-202103212397; https://cris.vtt.fi/en/publications/process-modelling-and-techno-economic-evaluation-of-production-of