KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Klima-, Energi- og Forsyningsudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
KEF Alm.del Bilag 130
Offentligt

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET

�½CCCCC FOR CO2

POTENTIAL CCCCC

STORAGE IN DENMARK

ENERGISTYRELSEN

MAY 2021

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

CONTENTS

4.1

4.2

4.3

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

DANISH ABSTRACT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CCS MARKET POTENTIAL

KEY CONCLUSIONS ON THE CCS POTENTIAL IN NORTHERN

EUROPE

COUNTRY DEEP-DIVES

ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING ESTIMATION OF CAPTURABLE CO2

OVERVIEW AND EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SET-UPS FOR

TRANSPORT AND STORAGE OF CO2 IN DENMARK

KEY CONCLUSIONS ON THE POTENTIAL SET-UPS FOR TRANSPORT

AND STORAGE OF CO2 IN DENMARK

MAPPING OF NORTH EUROPEAN CO2 STREAMS RELEVANT FOR

DANISH STORAGE

POSSIBLE SET-UPS FOR TRANSPORT AND STORAGE OF CO2 IN

DENMARK

ASSESSMENT OF DANISH COMPETITIVENESS FOR CO2 STORAGE

INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

PROFITABILITY ASSESSMENT OF CO2 STORAGE IN

DENMARK

INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS CASES

OVERVIEW OF ANALYSED BUSINESS MODELS

BUSINESS CASE ASSUMPTIONS

KEY CONCLUSIONS ON THE PROFITABILITY OF THE CO2 STORAGE

IN DENMARK

BUSINESS CASE DEEP-DIVES

BUSINESS CASE PREREQUISITES

PRO’S AND CON’S FOR THE

ASSESSED BUSINESS CASES

APPENDIX

GRAPHICAL OVERVIEW OF BUSINESS MODEL SET-UPS

GRAPHICAL OVERVIEW OF BUSINESS CASES

OVERVIEW OF COSTS AND ASSUMPTIONS PER BUSINESS MODEL

SET-UP

OVERVIEW OF ESTIMATED CCS SHARE BY COUNTRY

102

106

108

109

113

116

147

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

ABBREVIATONS

Abbreviation

BECCS

CAPEX

CCC

CCS

CCU

CCUS

CfD

CO2

CPH

FSU

GHG

HFO

IPCC

IRR

LNG

LULUCF

MSW

MtCO2/y

MtCO2e

NPV

OPEX

Pre-FID

SDE++

T&S

Explanation

Active current

Bio-energy carbon capture

Captial expenditures

Climate change committee (UK)

Carbon capture and storage

Carbon capture and utilisation

Carbon capture utilisation and storage

Contract for difference

Carbon dioxide

Co-generator of power and heat

Denmark

Estonia

Floating storage unit

Greenhouse gas

Heavy fuel oil

International panel of climate change

Internal rate of return

kilometre

Liquid natural gas

Lithuania

Land-use, land-use change and forestry

Latvia

Municipal solid waste

Megaton (1,000 ton)

Megaton carbon dioxide per year

Megaton carbon dioxide equivalent

The Netherlands

Norway

Net present value

Operational expenditures

Poland

Pre-finale investment decision

Stimulation of sustainable energy production

Transport and storage

United Kingdom

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Ramboll has been commissioned by The Danish Energy Agency to conduct market study of

transport and storage of CO2 in Northern Europe, which will impact the extent to which CCS-

capacity will be planned and developed in Denmark. The report assesses whether and to what

extent there is market potential for storing CO2 exports from Northern European countries in

Denmark as well as Denmark's competitiveness in being a potential European CO2 storage

provider. Possible set-ups for transporting and storing CO2 in Denmark from countries deemed to

have highest potential to export CO2 to Denmark are mapped to identify a selection of market-

based (i.e. relevant and competitive; hereunder, cost-effective and convenient transport and

storage solution for emitters) business case set-ups. An important distinction is made between

business case set-ups and business models. Business case set-ups bring forth the most relevant

market-based cases for which the profitability and break-even is calculated, whereas business

models incorporate the organisational aspects; In this case, pivotal institutional considerations

necessary to develop transport and storage infrastructure and operate it. Institutional

considerations are discussed to highlight the need for state- and Government's involvement, as

without it, the development of CCS solutions will not be likely since private players are not

incentivised at present to establish CCS themselves. The report culminates in the presentation of

selected competitive business case set-ups, including their expected profitability and a discussion

of their underlying prerequisites, e.g., the necessary institutional prerequisites to achieve the

estimated business case results and the advantages and disadvantages of each case.

Background

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that carbon removal

technologies will be needed to reach the climate goals set in the Paris agreement, limiting global

warming to 1.5C by 2100. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been highlighted as an essential

means to remove CO2

Although there is a significant potential for CCS technologies, a well-established market does not

yet exist in Northern Europe. The most advanced CO2 storage developments are not expected

until the end of 2024.

In Denmark, both GEUS and The Danish Energy Agency have amongst others been proponents of

CCS technology, but it was not until 2020 that CCS was discussed at the political level.

Additionally, the Danish Waste Association published a memorandum in 2019, in which CCS was a

pivotal part of the vision for a CO2-neutral waste sector. In 2020, the climate agreement for

industry and energy ("Klimaaftalen for Industri og Energi m.v. af 22. juni 2020") was signed,

stating that funding will be allocated and increased towards 2029 for market-based CCS or similar

technologies, which have the aim to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere

Denmark possesses many suitable reservoirs in the subsoil for storing CO2, and the Danish

Energy Agency wants to be well-equipped to prepare a CCS strategy to position themselves in this

emerging market. To do this, they need to understand the market for CCS, the potentials and

particularly Denmark's competitiveness in the market.

As such, Ramboll has been requested to investigate the market potential for CO2 storage from

Northern Europe in Denmark, an assessment of Denmark's competitiveness in this market and

associated market-based business case set-ups, including the necessary prerequisites. The results

of the investigating will indicate and have an impact on the extent to which CCS capacity will be

planned in Denmark.

Introduction

The report is structured into three main chapters ("CCS potential",

“Overview and evaluation of

possible set-ups

for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark” and “Profitability assessment of

CO2 storage in Denmark”), that

investigates the following topics:

Potential for CCS and exports to Denmark from ten selected Northern European countries

(UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia Lithuania, The Netherlands and

Germany);

Mapping of possible set-ups for transport and storage of CO2 and their associated costs;

Institutional considerations for a CCS business model in Denmark;

BBC

–

The device that reverses CO2 emissions

Regeringen - Klimaaftale for energi og industri mv. 2020

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Assessment of Denmark’s competitiveness as a CO2 storage provider; and

A business case evaluation of business case set-ups where Denmark is deemed to have a

competitive advantage

CCS market potential

The aim of this assessment is to provide a thorough understanding of the market potential for

CCS in the Northern European countries covered in this analysis, with a particular emphasis on

identifying import opportunities, specified as the share of capturable CO2 intended for storage,

that cannot be stored within the country’s own CO2 storage capacity. Thus,

the assessment

covers estimated CCS potential within each of the ten analysed counties, the CO2 storage

capacity, and, on this basis, a potential

gap for the country’s need to export CO2

to be stored

abroad is found. The assessment will, in this sense, provide input to the volumes used in the

business cases.

Overview and evaluation of possible set-ups for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark

Potential set-ups for storage and transport are assessed to outline various options that are

possible for transport and storage of CO2, as well as to calculate the costs and compare them

between the options. This to identify relevant market-based business case set-ups, which are

cost-efficient and where Denmark can be competitive. The input from this assessment is applied

when constructing the business cases and the associated cost inputs.

This part of the analysis also discusses institutional considerations, which are important to

consider in a CCS business model since there is a need for state and Government involvement as

well as a mix of various bodies to establish the CCS infrastructure and operate the business. The

input from this assessment will serve as some of the prerequisites for the business case set-ups in

the following chapter.

Profitability assessment of CO2 storage in Denmark

This part of the analysis provides a view on whether and when selected business case set-ups will

be profitable and under which pre-requisites. The business cases are chosen based on the

previous analyses, which indicate potential set-ups where Denmark is competitive. These business

cases will provide decision-making material for the Danish Energy Agency who will compare the

different business cases.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

DANISH ABSTRACT

CCS markedspotentiale

Den politiske opbakning til CCS varierer meget imellem de ti lande, denne analyse omfatter

(Finland, Sverige, Norge, Tyskland, Storbritannien, Holland, Polen, Estland, Letland og Litauen).

De lande, hvis

nationalpolitik er mest imødekommende over for CCS, er Norge og

Storbritannien.

Begge har stærke støtteordninger for CCS, der målrettet udvikler teknologien og

understøtter projekter, som sænker omkostningerne for CCS. Desuden har landene udviklet

fordelagtige lovgivningsmæssige rammer og konkrete CCS-mål eller forpligtelser, der er fremsat

med henblik på at implementere CCS på nationalt plan. De lande, hvis

nationalpolitik er mindst

imødekommende over for CCS, er Polen og de baltiske lande

(Litauen, Letland og Estland).

Ingen af disse har inkluderet CCS som en del af deres nuværende klimastrategi eller foreslået

støtteordninger, lovgivning eller konkrete mål med henblik på at udvikle eller implementere CCS

teknologi på nationalt plan. Imidlertid har disse lande anerkendt, at CCS teknologien potentielt

kan blive relevant i fremtiden, hvilket indikerer en voksende politisk interesse for emnet.

De lande (som analysen behandler) med

den største CO2 udledning fra store kilder

Tyskland, Polen, Storbritannien og Holland. I 2017 havde de en udledning på hhv. MTCO2 ~406,

~166. ~146, and ~95. Af disse lande anses

Storbritannien, Tyskland og Polen for at have de

største totale CCS-potentialer.

I Tyskland og Polen kan den største del af CCS-potentialet

tilskrives fossile kraftværker, hvor det i Storbritannien kan tilskrives både kraft- og

varmesektoren samt de CO2-tunge industrier (olie og gas raffinaderier, mineral-, jern og stål-,

kemikalie- og madvareproducenter).

Det totale CCS-potentiale i Sverige, Finland

(i begge

tilfælde tilskrives det hovedsageligt papirmasse- og papirindustrien)

og Holland

(tilskrives det en

kombination af både naturgasværker og de CO2-tunge industreri)

er vurderet til at være

forholdsvis mindre relevant.

Derudover er CCS-potentialet i de baltiske lande vurderet til at

være ubetydeligt. I denne sammenhæng grundet deres relativt lave CCS volumener.

Både

Storbritannien og Norge har høje ambitioner for national CO2 lagring

(og endda for

import af CO2 fra udlandet), hvor Tyskland, Polen og Sverige er mere tilbageholdende overfor

national lagring af CO2. Lagringskapaciteten i de baltiske lande anses desuden for at være uegnet

til CO2 lagring.

Tyskland, Sverige og Finland anses for at have det største potentiale for at eksportere

CO2 (med henblik på lagring) til Danmark,

hvor

Holland og Polens anses for at være af

sekundær karakter.

Storbritannien og Norge er de vigtigste konkurrenter for Danmark ift. disse

Nordeuropæiske CO2- strømme. CCS-potentialet i Baltikum (Estland, Litauen og Letland) er så

lavt, at det anses som værende ubetydeligt.

Overblik og evaluering af mulige set-ups for transport og lagring af CO2 i Danmark

De vejledende

CO2-volumener, som er relevante for danske CO2-lagre (inklusiv de

nationale CO2 volumener), er vurderet til at være op imod ~45 MtCO2/år.

For de danske

lagre anses import af CO2 fra Tyskland, Sverige og Finland som værende mest relevant. Import af

CO2 fra Holland og Polen har også betydning for dem, men er vurderet til at være i relativt

mindre volumener og tilskrives større usikkerhed. CO2-import fra Baltikum, Norge og

Storbritannien forventes desuden at være af ubetydelig størrelse (de to sidstnævnte lande har

veludviklede nationale lagringsprojekter).

Danmarks potentielt bedste lagringsmuligheder ligger i Havnsø (onshore), Gassum (onshore),

Hanstholm (nearshore) og i den nordlige del af de danske olie- og gasfelter i Nordsøen.

Transportmuligheder inkluderer tankskibe, fartøjer og rørledninger. Udenlandske lagre, der

potentielt kan konkurrere med danske lagre, er fortrinsvist placeret i Norge eller Storbritannien.

For at sammenligne omkostningerne for forskellige sammensætninger af CO2

transport- og lagringsmuligheder er ni mulige set-ups opstillet.

Dette er blevet gjort med

henblik på at vurdere deres konkurrencedygtighed individuelt såvel som i kombination. De ni

opsætninger inkluderer en række kombinationer af transport og lagringsmuligheder, hvilket

betyder, at nogle opsætninger har behov for havne med mellem-lagringsmuligheder, mens andre

ikke har. Rambøll har desuden vurderet, at det ikke er muligt at håndtere 45 MtCO2/år ved

anvendelse af ét enkelt danske lager, hvilket betyder, at hvis en lagringskapacitet på 45 MtCO2/y

er ønsket, er en kombination af de opstillede set-ups nødvendigt.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 1: Enhedsomkostninger (DKK/t) for hvert set-up ved 5 MtCO2/år (bestående af

transport og lager; CAPEX, akkumuleret OPEX og nedluknings omkostninger)

Set-up

Nearshore;

Tankskib &

rørledning (fra KBH) ->

havn -> lager via

pipeline

Onshore;

Tankskib &

rørledning (fra KBH) ->

havn -> lager via

rørledning

DKK/t

106

136

133

175

207

185

166

Bemærk: Enhedsomkostninger præsenteret ovenfor er vist som dagens priser og ekskl. forrentning (ikke levelised)

Generelt viser omkostningssammenligningerne, at

onshore lagre generelt er de mest

omkostningseffektive

(uafhængigt af transportløsningen),

efterfulgt af nearshore lagre,

med offshore lagre som den dyreste løsning. Desuden,

giver rørledninger skaleringsfordele,

hvilket betyder, at det er den mest omkostningseffektive transportløsning ved stor

skala.

Alle lagertyper og transportløsninger har fordele og ulemper udover deres respektive

omkostningseffektivitet. Udover at være den billigste løsning,

har onshore lagret i Havnsø

også den fordel at være placeret tæt ved store nationale CO2 kilder

(fra

Københavnsområdet). Det er desuden usikkert, om lageret overhovedet kan anvendes (hvilket

understreger vigtigheden af at udføre forundersøgelser i form af seismiske test og boringer), og

den generelle

risiko for modstand fra offentligheden,

som kan lede til en forlænget

godkendelsesproces sammenlignet med offshore lagre.

Selvom offshore lagerløsningen er den dyreste løsning, har den en række fordele,

især i

form af at

man ved at det praktisk muligt at etablere lageret.

Desuden er tæthedsgraden for

de geologiske strukturer veldokumenteret, hvilket betyder, at det muligvis er

nemmere at få de

nødvendige tilladelser

til at etablere lageret (især sammenlignet med onshore løsningen).

Desuden kan noget af det

eksisterende udstyr

(i form af platforme og hjælpesystemer)

potentielt genanvendes

eller eftermonteres. Dermed har offshore lagret

potentiale for at

være tidligere klar,

end onshore og nearshore løsninger.

Set-ups, der inkluderer rørledninger fra Tyskland, vil formentligt resultere i mere stabile og

pålidelige CO2-volumener fra udlandet, hvilket muligvis vil gøre det nemmere (og billigere) at

finde investorer. Denne type transportløsning giver kun mening når et set-up på stor skala

planlægges fra starten. Set-ups baseret på skibstransport muliggør derimod en start ved mindre

skala og muliggør derefter en gradvis udbygning efter behov. Bemærk, at gradvis udbygning også

er muligt for onshore lageret, hvor efterfølgende etablering af rørledninger fra udledningskilder

eller anden tilhørende infrastruktur også er muligt.

Dansk konkurrenceevne for CO2-lagring vurderes på baggrund af følgende kriterier for

konkurrencedygtighed: løsningen er omkostningseffektivt, har lave marginalomkostninger og

inkluderer muligheden for at indbygge fleksibilitet for kunden. Ud fra dette har Rambøll vurderet,

Danmark kan tilbyde en konkurrencedygtig løsning, som er både

omkostningseffektiv, fleksibelt og praktisk for de mest relevante lande (især Tyskland,

Sverige, Finland og potentielt Polen).

De mest omkostningseffektive løsninger er baseret på

set-ups, hvor store mængder CO2 transporteres gennem rørledninger og efterfølgende lagres i

onshore eller nearshore lagre.

Institutionelle overvejelser

har ledt til disse tre key take-aways:

Det er nødvendigt med

statslig indblanding

ift. finansiering (af forudbetalte

kapitalomkostninger), risikostyring og støtte af CCS initiativer/projekter, da

markedsspillere på nuværende tidspunkt hverken har kapaciteten eller økonomisk

incitament til at udvikle CCS teknologi. Dermed er der stor sandsynlighed for at støtte og

aktiv involvering fra den danske stat og regering vil blive nødvendigt

Offshore,

Tankskib

(SE, FI, PL & DK) ->

havn -> lager via

rørledning + rørledning

(fra NL & DE) -> lager

221

Offshore,

Tankskib ->

havn -> lager via

rørledning

Offshore,

Tankskib ->

permanent tøjret FSU

-> CO2 lager

Onshore;

Tankskib ->

havn -> lager via

rørledning

Offshore,

Fartøjer ->

CO2 lager

Offshore,

Tankskib &

rørledning (fra DE) ->

havn -> lager via

rørledning

Nearshore;

Tankskib

-> havn -> lager via

rørledning

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Der er et behov for, at der

involveres en organisation, der på vegne af staten

administrerer og bevarer et strategisk overblik

over projektet, og som sikrer at

projektet forløber i overensstemmelse med planen, samt at incitamentsstrukturen

effektivt demonstrerer markedsbaseret succes

Det er nødvendigt, at en eller flere af de deltagerende parter har

operationel og teknisk

ekspertise

til at drive forretningen

Rentabilitetsvurdering af CO2-lagring i Danmark

Baseret på Rambølls vurdering af Danmarks strategiske konkurrencefordele fremgår tre typer

forretningsmodeller som værende de mest konkurrencedygtige.

Table 2: Overblik over forretningsmodeller

Case 1 & 2:

Danmark kommer primært til at være

en national CO2-lagringsudbyder på lille-til-

mellemstor skala og bliver en mindre spiller på det

internationale marked

I dette tilfælde lagrer Danmark hhv. 5 MtCO2/y

(case 1) eller 10 MtCO2/år (case 2) og fokuserer

primært på de nationale CO2 volumener;

Der er tre

forskellige lagertyper, som kan anvendes i

disse tilfælde:

•

1) Offshore lagring på lille skala med

skibstransport til Nordsø-felterne,

hvor

fartøjer transporterer CO2 primært fra kilder i

Danmark direkte til Nordsø-felterne, hvor det

bliver lagret

•

2a): Onshore lagring på mellemstor skala i

Havnsø,

rørledningstransport fra København, og

skibstransport fra andre kilder

•

2B): Nearshore lagring på mellemstor skala

i Hanstholm,

rørledningstransport fra

København og skibstransport fra andre kilder

•

2C): Offshore lagring på mellemstor skala i

Nordsø-felterne,

rørledningstransport fra

København til Esbjerg og skibstransport fra

forskellige CO2-kilder til Esbjerg (som er

forbundet til offshore lageret via en rørledning)

*Bemærk, at løsninger på lille skala også kan udvikles for

hhv. onshore og nearshore lagre, hvor begge disse

lagertyper muligvis kan være mere fordelagtige hvis

sammenlignet med offshore løsningen i case 1. imidlertid

omfatter denne rapport kun beregninger af

omkostningerne for offshore lagre ved lille skala.

Case 3:

Danmark etablerer sig selv som en stor

international CO2-lagringsudbyder samtidig med, at

det nationale markedsbehov også imødekommes

I dette tilfælde udbyder Danmark lagring af CO2 på

en stor-skala for det internationale marked.

Danmark har en geografisk konkurrencefordel i form

af at være strategisk tæt placeret på Tyskland

–

Europas størst CO2 udleder

–

Sverige, Finland,

Polen og Holland. Danmark har desuden mulighed

for at tilbyde attraktive og omkostningseffektive

rørledningsløsninger til tyske CO2-volumener;

rørledningen ville gå fra Nordtyskland til Esbjerg og

have en kapacitet på 20 MtCO2/år.

I alt vil Danmark lagre 40 MtCO2/år; 20 MtCO2/år

fra Tyskland, 15 MtCO2/år fra Sverige, Finland og

Polen samt 5 MtCO2/år fra nationale kilder.

Denne case forudsætter involvering i det

internationale CO2-lagringsmarked og anses som

værende i stor skala, hvilket betyder, at denne case

har en mere

udbredt CO2 transport- og

lagringsinfrastruktur ift. case 1 & 2, fordi

flere

lagrings- og transportløsninger kombineres med

henblik på at opnå den ønskede skala og dermed

mere effektiv udnyttelse af driftsaktiver.

Table 3: Enhedsomkostninger (DKK/tCO2) for hver underliggende forretningsmodel

(bestående af transport og lager; CAPEX, akkumuleret OPEX og nedluknings

omkostninger)

Case 1

(5 MtCO2/y)

DKK/t

NPV

IRR

172

-2.0 BDKK

0.2%

Case 2A

(10 MtCO2/y)

11.5 BDKK

12%

Case 2B

(10 MtCO2/y)

109

5.5 BDKK

Case 2C

(10 MtCO2/y)

132

2.1 BDKK

Case 3

(10 MtCO2/y)

101

26.6 BDKK

Bemærk: Enhedsomkostninger præsenteret ovenfor er vist som dagens priser og ekskl. forrentning (ikke levelised)

Fire ud af fem cases har en positiv NPV (nettonutidsværdi) inden for deres 30-årige livstid og har

en tilbagebetalingsperiode på 8-25 år.

Det er vigtigt at bemærke, at de ovennævnte

forretningsmodeller tager udgangspunkt i en antagelse om, at der vil være forretning i

at udbyde CO2 lagerplads, og at prisen vil være en kombination af f.eks. CO2 priser,

CO2 skatter, bevillinger, etc.

Imidlertid anses det ikke for at være nødvendigt at kende den

præcise sammensætning af CO2 lagringssubsidierne for at kunne vurdere rentabiliteten og break-

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

even for de ovennævnte cases. Tværtimod er det vigtigere at kunne estimere en repræsentativ

pris for CO2 transport- og lagring baseret på et plausibelt markedsbaseret (og dermed

konkurrencedygtigt) scenarie. Derfor har Rambøll udviklet en referencepris, der er baseret på de

omkostninger et Nordeuropæisk land ville have i forbindelse med eksport af CO2 til et offshore

lager i Storbritannien. Dette anses som værende repræsentativt for et muligt alternativ til de

danske CO2-lagringsløsninger. Referenceprisen er baseret på et gennemsnit af omkostninger for

en række af danske offshore lagerløsninger, som fremgår i set-ups (kapitel 5.3). Desuden er

anvendelsen af en referencepris anset som værende den mest repræsentative

forudsigelsesmetode, eftersom forudsiger af CO2-priser og støttemekanismer indebærer høj

usikkerhed og en række uforudsigelige sammensætningsmuligheder (f.eks. usikkerhed omkring

indkomst fra CO2-priser, skatter og bevillinger, allokeres eftersom den indkomst ikke

udelukkende går til transport- og lagringsudbyderne i CCS værdikæden).

Forretningsmodellen med den højeste

NPV; DKK ~26.6 milliarder, er case 3

(stor-skala

international CO2 lagringsløsning), primært baseret på høje årlige omsætningsvolumener (40

MtCO2/år) og stordriftsfordele, der kommer til udtryk via effektiv udnyttelse af driftsaktiver samt

integration af transport- og lagerløsninger med synergi, f.eks. rørledninger, der bliver anvendt

som transport til flere lagre. Desuden anvendes alle lagertyper i denne case, hvilket betyder

CAPEX er lavere sammenlignet med udelukkende at anvende offshore lagre. Selvom case 3 har

væsentligt højere totale omkostninger, end de nationalt fokuserede cases, forventes

tilbagebetalingsperioden (på

11 år)

at være kortere end case 1, 2B og 2C. Dette skyldes som

førnævnt de høje omsætningsvolumener kombineret med stordriftsfordele/ udnyttelse af

omkostningseffektive lager- og transportløsningerne.

Selvom case 1

(offshore CO2 lagring udelukkende med direkte skibstransport)

har tydelige

fordele i form af fleksibilitet, giver case 1 en negativ NPV på DKK ~(2.0) milliarder

den længste tilbagebetalingsperiode (25 år).

Dette skyldes primært OPEX omkostningerne

for denne case, som er betydeligt højere, end de andre nationaltfokuserede cases. Bemærk, at

denne case forudsætter, at CO2 udelukkende transporteres med fartøjer (den dyreste

transportløsning) igennem hele projektets 30-årige livstid. Hvis transportløsningen blev optimeret

i løbet af projektets levetid, ved f.eks. at udbygge med en rørledning eller en permanent FSU,

kunne forretningsmodellen i denne case potentielt forbedres. Desuden medfører den generelle

usikkerhed omkring omsætning en del usikkerhed i case beregninger. Rentabiliteten for denne

case ville forbedres, hvis omsætningen er højre end antaget for business cases i denne rapport.

Case 2C

(mellemstor skala, nationalt fokuseret case med offshore lager), giver en

NPV på DKK

~2.1 milliarder

og en

tilbagebetalingstid på 15 år.

Selvom NPV er positiv for denne case, er

den dyrere end 2A og 2B, eftersom offshore lagerløsninger har højere omkostninger, end onshore

og nearshore løsninger.

Case 2A

(mellemstor skala, national fokuseret case med onshore lager),

har den anden

højeste NPV på DKK ~11.5 milliarder

og den

korteste tilbagebetalingstid (8 år). Case 2B

(mellemstor skala, nationalt fokuseret case med nearshore lager) har en

NPV på DKK ~5.5

milliarder og en tilbagebetalingstid på 13 år.

Den case har den højeste CAPEX og den anden

højeste OPEX af all mellemstore cases (2A, 2B og 2C).

De ovenstående resultater er baseret på en række forudsætninger,

som bl.a. inkluderer

størrelsen af de forventede CO2-volumener, effektiv projektledelse, identificering af kvalificerede

parter med henblik på at give ansvar for projektets implementering, finansiel støtte (både

national og for case 3 også international), at de nødvendige tilladelser tildeles uden store

forsinkelser, at teknologien fortsat forbedres, og at det er muligt at begynde drift senest i 2030 (i

det mindste på linje med den forventede hastighed på udbygningen af den årlig

lagringskapacitet). Desuden har nogle cases specifikke forudsætninger, f.eks. at de udvalgte lagre

(især de mindre kendte onshore og nearshore lagre) kan anvendes til lagring af CO2, og at

adgang til den pågældende offshore rørledningsinfrastruktur er godkendt før anlægsarbejdets

begyndelse (og at det er muligt at eftermontere rørledningen til at håndtere store CO2-

volumener), samt at de nødvendige internationale aftaler er indgået på forhånd, f.eks. en aftale

med tyske firmaer og stat om eksport af CO2-volumener.

Desuden er

fordelene og ulemperne

for både case 1 & 2 (national løsning) og case 3

(international løsning) blevet

opstillet og sammenlignet

nedenfor.

Her er det vigtigt at bemærke, at nationalt orienterede løsninger er mindre komplekse og billigere

(især case 2A har en konkurrencedygtig pris, den højeste IRR og den korteste

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

tilbagebetalingsperiode). Imidlertid kan det være svært, når man starter på mindre skala,

efterfølgende at udvide til større skala med fokus på internationale markedsløsninger

sammenlignet med at planlægge efter stor skala fra begyndelsen. Bemærk, at for den nationalt

fokuserede case i lille skala med fartøj transport (case 1), har den største grad af fleksibilitet. Det

betyder, at der er mulighed for efterfølgende at udbygge til mellemstor skala (og endda stor

skala, selvom denne form for udbygning til stor skala kan betyde tabt omsætning og spildte

muligheder) og modificere til trinvis udvidelse. Dermed giver denne case mulighed for at udforske

markedet og udskyde den endelige beslutning for den strategiske retning for projektet. Case 1

har dog de højeste enhedsomkostninger (DKK/tCO2).

Den internationalt orienterede løsning (case 3) muliggør fuld udnyttelse af markedspotentialet (og

Danmarks strategiske placering tæt ved Tyskland, Sverige, Finland og Polen), ved at tilbyde en

konkurrencedygtig, praktisk og potentielt bindende løsning. Denne løsning har også potentiale til

at blive

en del af EU’s ambitiøse plan for

CO2 reduktionsmål, og dermed sikrer international

finansiering og risiko-/omkostningsdeling. Denne løsning er kompleks (dog ikke urealistisk, som

senest vist ved etableringen af Baltic Pipe), hvor det blev demonstreret, at det er nødvendigt med

meget statslig indblanding og investering. Det samme gælder, hvis en udbredt CCS-infrastruktur

skal etableres. Dette ville

også kræve EU’s samarbejde ift. at få finansiel støtte samt hjælp til

implementering af politik, der kan bidrage til at etablere et internationalt CO2 lagringsmarked.

Desuden har denne løsning mere gennemslagskraft ved en eventuel forhandling, hvis den er

planlagt til at være i stor skala fra begyndelsen

–

efterfølgende tilføjelse af ekstra lagre og

infrastruktur kan have en negativ effekt på konkurrencedygtigheden af dette system samt

størrelsen af de forventede CO2-volumener.

Refleksioner og anbefalinger til fremadrettet arbejde

Ud fra de vurderinger der er blevet præsenteret i rapporten og anbefalingerne til det

fremadrettede planlægningsarbejde af CO2 lageringsløsninger i Danmark, er det nødvendigt at:

Beslutte om import af udenlandsk CO2 er ønsket

Kortlægge realistiske lagerløsninger

baseret på interne præferencer og ambitioner.

Dette skal opfølges med en vurdering af, om der er et økonomisk optimeringspotentiale

udover de præsenterede løsninger i denne rapport (f.eks. ved store-til-middelstore

løsninger)

Igangsætte forundersøgelser

af de potentielle lagre, med henblik på at få en fuld

forståelse for deres potentiale og begrænsninger. Dette vil gavne og potentielt

fremskynde godkendelsesprocessen, eftersom mere anerkendt data kan undersøges og

dermed begrænse usikkerheder og risici

Hvis ambitionen er, at Danmark etableres som en international CO2-lagringsudbyder, er

det nødvendigt at

påbegynde strategiske partnerskaber og samarbejder (især med

tyske stakeholders) snarest muligt.

Lignende partnerskaber findes inden for

vindenergisektoren

–

f.eks. North Sea Wind Power Hub, som er et konsortium mellem

Energinet, Gasunie og TenneT, som sammen faciliterer en accelereret implementering af

offshore vindenergi i Nordsøen. Dette partnerskab kan anvedes som inspiration.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CCS market potential

The political support for CCS varies considerably among the ten analysed countries (Finland,

Sweden, Norway, Germany, UK, the Netherlands, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). The

countries with the most favourable national policies are Norway and UK,

both of which

have strong policies aimed at CCS, support schemes aimed at advancing the technology and

projects to drive down costs, favourable regulatory CCS frameworks as well as targets or

commitments towards its deployment. The

countries with the least national focus on CCS

include Poland and the Baltic countries

(i.e., Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) since none of the

countries currently pursue CCS as a strategy to reach climate targets, i.e. there no supporting

policies, funding schemes, regulation or targets in place to enhance CCS deployment. However,

even these lowest ranking countries have acknowledged that CCS might potentially be relevant in

the future, which may indicate growing political interest in the topic.

Among the analysed countries, the

highest emissions levels

from large sources are found in

Germany, Poland, UK, and the Netherlands, with MtCO2 emissions in 2017 at ~406, ~166, ~146,

and ~95, respectively. Concerning CCS potential, the report assesses that

UK, Germany, and

Poland demonstrate the highest total capturable volumes intended for CCS

among the

analysed countries. In Germany and Poland, a large share of CCS potential is linked to fossil

power plants. In contrast, in UK the CCS potential is linked to both the power & heat sector and

hard-to-abate industries (mineral oil & gas refineries, minerals, iron and steel, chemicals and

food).

CCS potential is also assessed in Sweden, Finland

(in both cases mainly related to the

pulp & paper industry),

and the Netherlands

(a combination of natural gas plants and industry).

The CCS potential in the Baltic countries is assessed to be insignificant due to low volumes.

Both

UK and Norway have high ambitions for domestic storage

(and even import of CO2

from abroad), while Germany, Poland and Sweden are more reluctant to domestic store CO2. No

suitable storage capacity is assessed in the Baltic region.

Germany, Sweden and Finland are deemed to have the most potential to export CO2 to

Denmark with the intention of carbon storage.

In contrast, the

Netherlands and Poland

have secondary potential.

UK and Norway are the major competing countries for CO2 streams

in Northern Europe. The potential in the Baltics (Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia) have such small

amounts of CCS volumes, and thus, the potential is almost insignificant.

Overview and evaluation of possible set-ups for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark

The indicative CO2

volumes relevant for storage in Denmark (including domestic CO2

volumes) are estimated at up to ~45 MtCO2/y.

Import of CO2 for storage in Denmark is

mainly relevant from DE, SE and FI. However, lower and more uncertain potential for CO2 import

is also assessed from PL and NL, while no or insignificant import is expected from the Baltics, NO

or UK (the latter two have well-developed domestic storage projects).

Available options for storage are Havnsø (onshore), Gassum (onshore), Hanstholm (nearshore)

and the Northern oil and gas fields in the North Sea (offshore). Available options for transport are

shuttle tankers, vessels, and pipelines. The foreign storages that could potentially compete with

the Danish CO2 storages are mainly UK and Norway.

Nine different set-ups for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark have been outlined

to compare their costs

and to assess which set-ups or combinations of set-ups in Denmark is

the most competitive. They include different transport and storage possibilities, meaning some

set-ups will require ports

and intermediate storage. It is Ramboll’s assessment

that no single

storage site in Denmark is capable of handling 45 MtCO2/y alone. Meaning, that if a capacity of

up to 45 MtCO2/y is desired, a combination of different set-ups must be used.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 4: Cost per ton for each set-up at 5 MtCO2/y (comprise transport and storage;

CAPEX, accumulated OPEX and abandonment costs)

Set-up

Onshore;

shuttle

tankers & pipeline (from

CPH) -> port -> storage

site via pipeline

Offshore,

Shuttle

tankers & pipeline (from

DE) -> port -> storage

site via pipeline

166

Offshore,

Shuttle

tankers -> permanently

moored FSU ->

injection site

Onshore;

Shuttle

tankers -> port ->

storage site via pipeline

Offshore,

Shuttle

tankers -> port ->

storage site via pipeline

Nearshore;

Shuttle

tankers -> port ->

storage site via pipeline

Nearshore;

Shuttle

tankers & pipeline

(CPH) -> port ->

storage site via pipeline

DKK/t

106

136

133

175

207

185

Note: Costs presented above are not levelised

In general, cost comparisons show that

onshore storage is the most cost-effective solution

(both when pipeline and sea transport is applied),

followed by nearshore storage

and with

offshore storage as the most expensive solution. On the other hand,

pipelines provide scale

advantage and is thus the most effective transport solution at large-scale.

When other aspects than costs are considered, both onshore and offshore solutions and

transportation options (pipeline and sea transportation) have advantages and disadvantages. In

addition to being the least expensive option,

the onshore storage has the advantage of being

located close to the large domestic CO2 emission sources

(Copenhagen area). However,

uncertainty whether the site can be used

(and thus need for seismic tests and drilling) and

the general

risk of public opposition

can lead to a longer permitting process than in case of the

offshore site.

Although the most expensive option, offshore storage offers several advantages,

especially in the form of

general feasibility

and demonstrated tightness, and that it can be

potentially

easier to obtain necessary permits

(especially for the onshore site). Furthermore,

some of the

existing equipment

(platforms and support systems)

can be potentially reused,

meaning that the offshore solution can be

potentially even quicker implemented

than the

onshore or nearshore solution.

Solutions with a pipeline from Germany would provide a more certain CO2 stream from abroad,

making it potentially easier (and cheaper) to find investors. On the other hand, this type of

solution is only meaningful when the full-scale operations are planned for construction from the

beginning, while sea transportation enables small-scale start with gradual build-up. Note that a

more gradual start is also possible in case of the onshore storage, where pipelines from sources

and other connecting infrastructure can be added afterwards.

When assessing the competitiveness of Danish CO2 storage,

the general criteria for

competitiveness have been defined: a low-cost solution with low marginal cost and the ability to

create a solution

that allows flexibility. Based on that, it is Ramboll’s assessment that

Denmark

can offer a competitive solution highly that is both cost-effective, flexible and a

convenient option for the target countries (especially Germany, Sweden, Finland and

potentially Poland).

The most cost-competitive solutions include set-ups where large CO2

amounts are contracted via pipeline and those that comprise or combine onshore and nearshore

storage sites.

Institutional considerations

suggest three main key take-aways:

The necessity of

state involvement

in terms of funding (upfront capital expenditure),

risk management and supporting the initiatives, since other actors do not have the

capacity or economic incentive at present to drive the development for CCS on their own.

Thus, there is most likely a need for state-aid and state involvement in Denmark as well,

and the Danish Government will probably need to take a supportive role in the CCS

initiative

The need for a

body which acts on behalf of the state and administers and

maintains the strategic overview

of the project progress and follow-up to ensure the

project is progressing accordingly and the incentive structures are in place working

efficiently to demonstrate market-based success

Offshore,

Shuttle

tankers (SE, FI, PL &

DK) -> port -> storage

via pipeline; Pipeline

from DE & NL ->

storage

221

Offshore,

Vessels ->

injection site

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

The need for parties who possess

operational and technical experts

who can execute

the business

The institutional considerations are one of the key prerequisites for the results of the business

case set-ups. Mainly, it is important to note that the reference price presented in the profitability

assessment entails state-aid. Thus, without state-aid, the revenue price and the business case

results would not be feasible.

Profitability assessment of CO2 storage in Denmark

Based on the assessment of Denmark’s competitive traits,

three overarching business cases are

considered to be the most competitive:

Table 5: Overview of the business cases

Case 1 & 2:

Denmark to become primarily a small-

to-medium sized domestic CO2 storage provider,

while serving the international market in small-scale

In this case, Denmark is storing CO2 for 5 MtCO2/y

(case 1) or 10 MtCO2/y (case 2) and will focus

primarily on domestic CO2 volumes; There are

three different storage placement options for

these cases:

•

1): Offshore small-scale storage with sea

transportation only (no pipelines or ports)

in the North Sea fields,

with vessels

transporting CO2 directly from source points in

Denmark to the offshore North Sea fields where

it is injected

•

2A): Onshore medium-scale storage in

Havnsø,

with a pipeline from Copenhagen, and

sea transport from other sources

•

2B): Nearshore medium-scale storage in

Hanstholm,

with a pipeline from Copenhagen

and sea transport from other sources

•

2C): Offshore medium-scale storage in the

North Sea fields,

with a pipeline from

Copenhagen to Esbjerg and shuttle tankers from

various CO2 sources to Esbjerg (which is

connected with the offshore site via a pipeline)

*Note that small-scale cases could also be developed for

onshore and nearshore storage, and these solutions could

potentially have similar advantages and lower costs than

the offshore solution in case 1. However, the scope of this

report only comprises the offshore storage for the small-

scale solution.

Case 3:

Denmark to become an established large-

scale international CO2 storage provider while

serving the domestic market simultaneously

In this case, Denmark is a large-scale CO2 storage

provider for international markets. Denmark has a

competitive advantage in terms of its location, as

Denmark is strategically located in close proximity

to Germany

–

the largest CO2 emitter in Europe

–

as well as Sweden, Finland, Poland and The

Netherlands. Denmark can provide an attractive and

cost-effective pipeline solution for German CO2

volumes, a pipeline spanning from Northern

Germany to Esbjerg serving 20 MtCO2/y. In total,

Denmark will store 40 MtCO2/y; 20 MtCO2/y from

Germany; 15 MtCO2/y in total from Sweden,

Finland and Poland, as well as 5 MtCO2/y

domestically from Denmark.

The large-scale international case is much more

widespread in terms of the required CCS

infrastructure than compared to case 1 & 2 and

combines various storage and transport solutions to

achieve desired scale and economies of scale.

Table 6: Cost per ton underlying each business case (comprise transport and storage;

CAPEX, accumulated OPEX and abandonment costs)

Case 1

(5 MtCO2/y)

DKK/t

NPV

IRR

172

-2.0 BDKK

0.2%

Case 2A

(10 MtCO2/y)

11.5 BDKK

12%

Case 2B

(10 MtCO2/y)

109

5.5 BDKK

Case 2C

(10 MtCO2/y)

132

2.1 BDKK

Case 3

(10 MtCO2/y)

101

26.6 BDKK

Note: Costs per ton presented above are not levelised

Four out of five cases result in positive NPV values within a 30-year lifetime and range from a

payback period between 8-25 years. However, it is

pivotal to note that the assessed business

cases take a point of departure in the assumption that there will be a business case for

CO2 storage providers, and the price will be a combination of, e.g., CO2 prices, CO2

taxes, grants etc.

However, the way in which the price is subsidised is not deemed necessary to

assess the profitability and break-even of the business cases. Rather, it is important to forecast a

price that is representative of a feasible market-based (i.e. competitive) scenario, and thus, we

have developed a reference price for transport and storage, which is based on what it would cost

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

for the export countries to export their CO2 to an offshore UK storage, which is deemed a

representative, competitive and feasible alternative to Danish CO2 storage solutions. The

reference price is based on an average of the various Danish offshore storage alternatives

presented in the set-ups (Chapter 5.3). Further, utilising a reference price is seen as the most

representative methodology, since forecasting the CO2 price and subsidy mechanisms includes

high uncertainty and an array of the possible pathway (e.g., uncertainty around how income from

CO2 costs, taxes and grants are allocated, since they are not solely allocated to CCS).

The business case scenario showing the highest positive

NPV; DKK ~26.6 billion, is case 3

(large-scale international CCS solution), which is mainly due to the high revenue volumes per

year (40 MtCO2/y) and economies of scale from large-scale operations and from combining

solutions e.g., pipelines utilised for different types of storages. Furthermore, this case includes all

types of storages, meaning that CAPEX is lower than if only offshore storage was applied.

Although case 3 has a significantly higher total cost than the domestic cases, the investment

payback (payback

period is 11 years)

is expected sooner than for 1, 2B and 2C, again due to

expected large CO2 volumes combined with economies of scale/ use of price-effective storage and

transport solutions.

Although providing a clear advantage in form of flexibility, Case 1

(small-scale,

domestically focused case with sea transportation only)

results in a negative NPV (DKK ~

(2.0) billion)

and the

longest payback period (25 years).

The main reason is that this case

has a considerably higher OPEX than the rest of the domestically focused cases and the highest

cost per ton CO2 among all cases. However, it is important to note that the case is built on the

assumption that only vessels will be used for the transportation of CO2 (which is the most

expensive transportation solution) during the 30-year business case period. If the transportation

is optimised during the ramp-up, by, e.g. adding a pipeline or permanently moored FSU, the

business case could improve. At the same time, the revenue applied in the model is difficult to

determine, and there is therefore associated uncertainty with regards to the business case results

–

i.e. business case would improve with higher revenue.

Case 2C

(medium-scale, domestically focused case, with offshore storage)

posts an NPV of

DKK ~2.1 billion

and a

payback period of 15 years.

While this is a positive NPV it is more

expensive than 2A and 2C since offshore storage sites are more expensive than onshore and

nearshore solutions.

Case 2A

(medium-scale, domestically focused case, with onshore storage)

results in the

second-highest NPV of DKK ~11.5 billion

and has the

shortest payback period (8 years).

Case 2B

(medium-scale, domestically focused case, with nearshore storage) has a

NPV of DKK

~5.5 billion and a payback period of 13 years.

This case has the highest CAPEX of all

medium-size cases (i.e. 2A, 2B, 2C). However, OPEX is the second-lowest.

The results above are based on several prerequisites,

including expected CO2 volumes,

strong project management and identification of qualified, responsible parties, financial support

(both nationally and in case 3 also internationally), that necessary permits are obtained without

major delays, technological enhancement and ability to start the operations no later than 2030 (or

at least in line with the volume uptake). Furthermore, some case-specific prerequisites apply, e.g.

that the reservoirs (especially the less known onshore and nearshore storages) can be used for

storage of CO2 and availability of the existing offshore pipeline infrastructure in time for the start

of constructions works (and that it is possible to fully retrofit it to handle the large CO2 volumes)

and that necessary international agreement, e.g., with German companies and state are secured

upfront before the pipeline is constructed. For case 1 (small-scale and domestically focused case),

one important prerequisite is that oil and gas companies possessing the concession rights are

willing to switch from oil & gas activities to CO2 storage.

Furthermore,

pro’s and con’s have

been compiled

for both case 1 & 2 (domestic solution) and

case 3 (international solution).

It is essential to highlight that the domestic-oriented solutions are less complex and more

affordable options (especially case 2A, which offers a highly price competitive option with the

highest IRR and with the shortest payback period). However, when starting at a smaller scale, it

can be in many cases more difficult to move towards large-scale and international market

solutions than starting at large-scale from the beginning. On the other hand, the small-scale

domestic case with vessel transportation (case 1) is the one providing the highest degree of

flexibility, as it can be ramped up to the medium-scaled solution (or even large-scale, although

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

choosing this way around can lead to lost opportunities), and modified into other solutions

stepwise. Consequently, this case gives the possibility to explore the market before making the

final decision on the strategic direction. However, this case has also the highest total cost per ton

of CO2.

The internationally oriented solution (case 3) enables full utilisation of the market potential (and

Denmark’s

strategic location, with close proximity to DE, SE, FI and PL)

by offering a price

competitive, convenient, and potentially binding

solution. This solution can also play into the EU’s

plan to reach ambitious CO2 reduction targets and thus secure international financing and

cost/risk-sharing. On the other hand, this solution is significantly more complex (although not

unrealistic, as proven by the recent Baltic Pipe project), it would imply need for extensive state

involvement and investments in widespread CCS infrastructure and also require EU to cooperate

in continuing to support and pass policies that will aid the CCS market. Furthermore, this solution

is the most meaningful if planned at large scale from the beginning - adding storages or

infrastructure at a later time can impair the competitiveness of this system and also expected

CO2 volumes.

Reflections on recommended next steps

Based on the assessment presented in this report, following next steps are recommended to move

forward with planning of the CCS solution in Denmark:

A decision needs to be made with regards to whether import of foreign CO2

desired

Realistic storage options should be mapped

based on internal preferences and

ambitions. This should be followed by an assessment of whether there is economic

optimisation potential in other combinations than presented in this report (e.g. large-to-

medium-sized solutions)

Feasibility studies should be carried out

to gain a complete understanding of the

potential and limitations of the considered solutions. This will also benefit and potentially

speed up the process, as more detailed and reliable data can be presented and thus limit

uncertainties and risks

If the ambition is to become an established large-scale international CO2 storage

provider,

initiation of strategic partnerships and collaborations (especially with

German stakeholders) should be launched as soon as possible.

Similar alliances

are currently existing within renewable energy

–

e.g. the North Sea Wind Power Hub,

which is a consortium between Energinet, Gasunie and TenneT, jointly facilitating an

accelerated deployment of large-scale offshore wind in the North Sea, and can be used for

inspiration

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

CCS MARKET POTENTIAL

This chapter aims to provide a thorough understanding of the market potential for CCS in the

Northern European countries covered in this analysis, with a particular emphasis on import

opportunities, specified as the share of capturable CO2 intended for storage, that cannot be

stored within the country’s

CO2 storage capacity.

The chapter, therefore, provides an overview of the link between CCS needs and the CO2 storage

capacity within each of the Northern European countries and, based on this potential deficit, an

assessment of the potential volumes that need to be exported to other countries.

4.1

KEY CONCLUSIONS ON THE CCS POTENTIAL IN NORTHERN EUROPE

This section provides

a general overview of this chapter’s key conclusions. For detailed

elaborations, the report refers to the following sections covering each country concerning

assessments of CCS potential in the country based on reviews of CO2 national targets and

policies, estimations of volumes relevant for CCS, and estimations of CO2 storage potential.

Among the analysed countries, the highest emissions levels from large sources are found in

Germany, Poland, UK, and the Netherlands, with MtCO2 emissions in 2017 at ~406, ~167, ~146,

and ~95, respectively. However,

among the analysed countries, the report finds that the

political support for CCS varies considerably.

The

countries with the most favourable

national policies are Norway and the UK,

both of which have strong policies aimed at CCS,

support schemes aimed at advancing the technology and projects to drive down costs, favourable

regulatory CCS frameworks as well as targets or commitments towards its deployment, yet both

countries highlight that deployment of CCS at scale is subject to costs coming down sufficiently.

The Netherlands is ranked as the third-most CCS favourable country with respect to policy

support, having strong policies aimed at CCS in place and targets for its deployment, yet

considering CCS to be a transition solution. Countries ranked medium include Sweden, Germany,

and Finland, which acknowledge CCS as necessary for reaching climate neutrality and have some

supporting policies in place yet assessed not to be sufficient for large-scale CCS deployment. The

countries with least national focus on CCS include Poland and the Baltic countries

(i.e.,

Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) since none of the countries currently pursue CCS as a strategy to

reach climate targets, indicated by the lack of supporting policies, funding schemes and regulation

as well as lack of targets for its deployment. However, even these lowest ranking countries have

acknowledged that CCS might potentially be relevant in the future, which may indicate growing

political interest in the topic.

With respect to CCS potential, the report assesses that

UK, Germany, and Poland

demonstrate the highest total volumes of capturable CO2 intended for storage (“CC

potential”)

among the analysed countries, with total estimated Mt CCS potential between 2022-

2050 at 1,986, 871, and 591, respectively. In Germany, a large share of CCS potential is linked to

fossil power plants (natural gas and biomass-fire plants), which is similar to Poland (coal and

biomass CHP and natural gas), while in the UK the CCS potential is linked to both the power &

heat sector (hydrogen) and hard-to-abate industries (mineral oil & gas refineries, minerals, iron

and steel, chemicals and food). Although somewhat lower,

CCS potential is also assessed in

Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands

–

in Sweden and Finland, the potential is mainly

related to the pulp & paper industry, while in the Netherlands, the potential is a combination of

both power plants (natural gas) and industry. The capturable potential in the Baltic countries is

assessed to be insignificant due to low volumes.

The countries with their own CO2 storage capacity include the most significant emitters

(Germany, Poland, UK, and the Netherlands) and Norway and Sweden, with estimated MtCO2

storage potential at 95,000, 78,000, 78,000, 4,000, 103,000 and 6,000, respectively. However,

the

attitude towards domestic storage varies among the countries with storage

potential

- while

UK and Norway have high ambitions for domestic storage (and even

import of CO2 from abroad), Germany, Poland and Sweden are more reluctant towards

domestic storage of CO2.

Low storage potential is estimated in Latvia and Lithuania, and for

this reason, political attention to domestic storage is low, while unsuitable geological conditions in

Finland and Estonia make domestic storage impossible.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

The assessment of each country’s

possible needs to export CO2 for storage abroad, in order to reduce the deficit between CCS potential and

domestic storage capacity finds that

the highest potential in relation to CO2 storage in Denmark is assessed with regards to Germany,

Sweden and Finland,

as these countries have significant CCS potential and limited, or no storage capacity (or no intentions to use own storage).

Some potential, although more uncertain, could also be from the Netherlands,

since industry cluster projects, such as the CO2TransPorts,

identify the risk that CO2 transport demand might exceed the storage capacity

and the Dutch Government acknowledges that it will be challenging

for The Netherlands to achieve emissions reduction by scaling up renewables and thus, CCS could be a potential source to make up for this

potential gap

Similarly, CO2 imported from Poland may also become relevant for storage in Denmark,

as it is highly uncertain whether

(and when) Poland will utilise its own storage. The potential for Denmark is assessed below with regards to Norway and UK due to the high

possibility that the countries will capture and store the CO2 domestically. In addition, no potential for Denmark is assessed in the Baltic countries,

as emissions are insignificant and CCS potential is uncertain. The table

below provides a quick overview of each individual country’s CCS potential.

Table 7: Summary of CCS potential in selected countries

Country

CO2 emissions 2017 (MtCO2)

National CCS focus/support

CCS targets set

Total CCS potential (MtCO2) 2022-2050

Ave

age quantity of capturable CO2 intended for

storage (MtCO2):

2022-2040

2041-2050

N/R

HIGH

LOW

HIGH

LOW

MEDIUM

6,000

103,000

95,000

119

78,000

4,000

78,000

TBD

MEDIUM

0.2

0.4

N/R

LOW

0.4

0.3

2,286

0.1

3,400

279

349

111

871

1,986

274

591

46.8

51.3

25.4

406.2

146.3

95.0

166.7

24.7

5.2

1.0

Own storage capacity (Mt)

Own storage potential/support

Potential for DK storage

The green tick mark indicates that the conditions for CCS are assessed to be favourable;

The red cross indicates that the conditions for CCS are assessed to be unfavourable.

Low value

High Value

The yellow bar indicates that it is uncertain whether the conditions for CCS are favourable or unfavourable.

European Commission, “Candidate PCI projects in cross-border carbon dioxide transport networks”

IEA

–

The Netherlands 2020 Energy Policy Review

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2

4.2.1

COUNTRY DEEP-DIVES

Finland

4.2.1.1 Summary of CCS potential in Finland

Finland’s CO2 emissions from

large sources in 2017 were ~47 MtCO2

. The largest emissions

sources are pulp and paper (43%) and thermal power and heat (36%).

Finland aims to become carbon neutral in 2035, which is the most ambitious target of all

countries. However, the country does not have any CCS specified targets and is relying heavily on

natural carbon sinks from forests and soils to balance its emissions in 2035.

No national support systems for CCS development and deployment are in place in Finland.

CCS potential in Finland is estimated at 279 MtCO2 between 2022 and 2050 and on average 7

MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 16 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050 for both the power &

heat sector and the industry sector. The potential has been assessed primarily with respect to

BECCS, as Finland has the largest pulp and paper industry in Europe.

CO2 storage is not possible in Finland since the country does not have suitable geological

formations.

The relevance for storage in Denmark is potentially high since potential bio-CCS is high, and

Finland will not develop national storage sites.

Below is an overview of the CCS potential in Finland.

Table 8: Summary of CCS potential in Finland

SUMMARY OF CCS POTENTIAL

Category

CO2 emissions 2017 (MtCO2)

Plants >100 ktCO2

Co2 reduction targets

Indicator

46.8

Comments

CO2 emissions from the largest point sources, mainly

generated by the pulp and paper industry using biomass,

followed by the power and heat industry.

•

2030: -39% from 2005 levels (non-EU ETS)

•

2035: Carbon neutral (all sectors)

•

2050: -80-95% emissions mitigation from 1990 levels

CCS has not been in the spotlight in Finnish policies and

targets. However, in Finland’s long-term

GHG development

strategy, CCS is presented in one of two potential pathways

where Finland can achieve its long-term CO2e 2050 reduction

goals

Finland has no CCS targets and has not mentioned CCS in its

national energy and climate plan. Finland plans to phase out

fossil fuels and rely on natural carbon sinks to achieve net-zero

emissions.

279

Finland’s CCS potential is mostly comprised of potential from

bio-CCS derived from the pulp and paper industry as well as

power plants utilising biomass as fuel.

No suitable geological formations for CO2 storage are present in

Finland

Not relevant

National CCS focus/Support

CCS targets

Total CCS potential (MtCO2) 2022-2050

Own storage capacity (Mt)

Own storage potential/support

Potential for DK storage

High

Potentially high significance to DK due to high CCS

potential, and the fact that Finland will not develop

national storage sites.

EEA and E-PRTR

Finland’s

Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

–

CO2 reduction target for EU ETS sectors not available

Finland will publish an updated Climate Act soon, which will enter into force in the spring of 2021, in which the target for 2050 (-80% emissions

reduction) will be updated along with 2030 and 2040 targets that are in line with the path towards carbon neutrality in 2035

Technical Research Centre of Finland “CO2 Capture, Storage and Reuse Potential in Finland”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.1.2 CCS national targets and policies Finland

Finland is aiming to become carbon neutral in 2035. In the context of the Finnish Government

Programme,

“carbon neutrality” refers to a balance between Finland’s regional GHG emissions and

removals by sinks. Finland prioritises emissions reduction (mitigation) but notes in its government

programme that it will heavily rely on natural carbon sinks (from forest and soil) as a

supplemental measure. Current actions are not aligned with the target as these actions account

for only 16 Mt of emissions reductions of the 35 Mt that will be necessary. To meet the gap (19

Mt), The Finnish Climate Change Panel estimates that carbon sinks will need to be at least 21.4

Mt.

The emissions reductions measure are carried out in a way that is fair from a social and

regional perspective which involves all industries and sectors of society.

Finland does not have any CCS targets. However, in

Finland’s long-term

greenhouse gas emission

strategy, two pathways are described to reach carbon neutrality in 2035, one of which includes

the usage of CCS (mainly from bio-CCS), where the total emissions reduction is estimated at 14

MtCO2e in 2050. The other pathway outlines extremely stringent emission reduction across all

sectors (-87.5% reduction vs. -82% in the scenario with CCS in 2050), including industrial

processes where it is deemed most difficult to achieve substantial reductions.

Finland has no national support system for CCS in place at the time. However, in 2011-2015 they

ran a Carbon Capture and Storage research program allocating EUR 15 m for the CCS research.

Finland has implemented The Act on CCS, providing a general framework for CCS, with activities

subject to the general environmental licensing system under the Environmental Protection Act. In

addition, Finland has ratified the London Protocol that allows CO2 export to other states for

storage purposes. Additionally, Finland prohibits CO2 storage due to the lack of suitable geological

formations.

Table 9: CCS national targets and policies in Finland

CCS NATIONAL TARGETS AND POLICIES

Category

Country CCS policy

maturity/potential

National CO2 reduction targets

Indicator

Comments

The policy maturity considered low/medium since Finland follows

the EU directive and has also implemented specific CCS

legislation.

•

2030: -39% from 2005 levels (non-EU ETS)

•

2035: Carbon neutral (all sectors)

•

2050: -80-95% emissions mitigation from 1990 levels

CCS targets have not been set.

Finland's CCS legal and regulatory framework is based upon

the EU storage Directive and regulates activities through CCS-

specific legislation, most notably The Act on CCS

No national support systems in place.

Finland has legislative limitations on geological storage in the

Finnish territory because of the lack of suitable geological

formations. However, storing volumes up to 100,000 tonnes for

the purposes of research and development of technology may

be permitted.

National CCS targets

CCS policies and legislations

CCS funding

CCS storage-related policies

Finnish Government, “A fair transition

towards a carbon

neutral Finland”

Finland’s Integrated National

Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

–

CO2 reduction target for EU ETS sectors not available

Finland will publish an updated Climate Act soon, which will enter into force in the spring of 2021, in which the target for 2050 (-80% emissions

The Act on CCS provides the general framework for CCS, with activities subject to the general environmental licensing system under the

reduction) will be updated along with 2030 and 2040 targets that are in line with the path towards carbon neutrality in 2035.

Environmental Protection Act. CCS projects will also be subject to a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment under national EIA legislation,

whenever they are executed in facilities for which an EIA is mandatory, as well as whenever the overall amount of captured CO2 under the

project is 1.5 megatonnes or more.

Legislation on carbon capture and storage

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.1.3 CCS potential (capturable CO2 intended for storage) in Finland

In 2017,

Finland’s large stationary sources emitted in round numbers

~47 MtCO2 in 2017, of

which the power sector comprises ~17 MtCO2 and the industry ~29 MtCO2.

Finland is one of the leading pulp and paper producers in Europe and thus, has significant biogenic

emissions from the pulp and paper industry - estimated at ~20 MtCO2 in 2017.

Additionally, the other industry sectors comprise mineral oil & gas refineries, cement production,

iron and steel production as well as chemicals production, where some CCS potential is identified.

CCS could pose a medium-term solution to remove fossil fuel CO2, according to the Ministry of

Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland; especially if Finland is to achieve their ambitious

carbon neutrality target in 2035, they will need to look into all mechanisms

. In the long-term,

however, the goal is to remove all usage of fossil fuels in Finland, and this reduces the potential

for CCS with regards to CO2 from fossil fuels.

Thermal power and heat generation (16.9 MtCO2 in 2017) sources are considered to have low to

moderate potential since Finland is using and will use large shares of biomass at their CHP and

district heating plants where bio-CCS could otherwise have potential.

The calculated capturable quantity of CO2 intended for storage (CCS potential) is estimated at an

average 7 MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 16 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050 for both

the power & heat sector and the industry sector.

Figure 1:

Finland’s potential energy mix towards 2050

Source: Ramboll Analysis; Ministry

of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland, “Finland’s long-term

low greenhouse gas

emissions development strategy”

Interview with Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 10: CCS potential in Finland

Sector

CO2

emissions

2017,

MtCO2

Capturable quantity of

CO2, MtCO2

(avg. MtCO2/y

)

2022-2040

Power & Heat

17.1

(2)

2041-2050

(6)

•

The overall significance of CCS within the Finnish power & heat sector is considered low to moderate

due to Finland’s large usage of

biomass within this sector, which could be relevant for BECCS. Finland is to date one of the leading countries in forest-based

biomass to energy, and this is expected to remain at stable levels, while other forms of energy such as renewable and nuclear are

making up for the power and heat growth going forward

. Finland has some of the largest power plants situated by the shore in

Helsinki, which incentivises the usage of BECCS since the country does not have to transport these amounts by land

•

The potential for BECCS is estimated to begin from 2025 as Finland is assumed to deploy carbon reduction measures sooner due to

its carbon neutrality target already in 2035. The capture share for BECCS is assumed to increase from 5% in 2025 and increases to

80% in 2050

•

The capturable volume of CO2 intended for storage within the segment is estimated at ~5.7 MtCO2/y in 2050

•

Finland has quite small amounts of emissions coming from the fossil fuel-driven industry, which is relevant for CCS, including

mineral oil & gas refineries (3.1 MtCO2/y), cement production (1.3 MtCO2/y), iron and steel production (1.5 MtCO2/y) as well as

chemicals production (0.7 MtCO2/y)

•

The significance of CCS for the fossil driven industrial sector is low since Finland is prioritising natural carbon sinks as opposed to

carbon removal technologies. However, if Finland is to reach their ambitious carbon neutrality target in 2035, it will need to

consider all options to reduce its emissions

•

Ramboll has assumed that CCS could be used in the industry already starting from 2025 to achieve the climate goals and continue

from a 5% capture share up to 30% towards 2050. However, according to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, CCS

for fossil fuels will be a medium-term solution since coal, and natural gas will be phased out in the long term, and according to

scenario studies, 82-87.5% (compared to 1990 levels) of emissions are mitigated by 2050

Error! Bookmark not defined.

Thus,

Ramboll has estimated a decrease of CO2 within the industry to follow this trajectory

The total capturable volume intended for storage is estimated at up to ~1 MtCO2/y in the early 2030s and decreases to 0.5

MtCO2/y in 2050, as fossil fuels are phased out

In addition to the industries above, Finland has a significant pulp and paper industry, and thus, bio-CCS could be relevant. Pulp &

paper plants are often located close to coastlines and rivers (as their processes require significant amounts of water), making it

potentially easily accessible to collect emissions.

Additionally, bio-CCS is not part of Finland's current climate strategy, but they might deploy it to meet their climate goals. As with

the other industries above, the deployment is assumed from 2025 with a 5% capture rate until however in contrast to the above,

the rate increases to 60% in 2050

The total capturable volumes intended for bio-CCS (pulp and paper industry) is estimated at up to 9.7 Mt/y (from ~2035)

Comment

Industry

29.4

(5)

103

(10)

•

Other

2.9

•

No other significant potential areas have been assessed

Average CO2 capturable amount is calculated for the time period 2025-2040 as well as 2041-2050

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland, “Finland’s long-term

low greenhouse gas emission development

strategy”, 2020

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment

of Finland, “Finland’s long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategy”, 2020

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.1.4 CO2 storage potential in Finland

Finland does not have any geological structures suitable for carbon storage

Moreover, the country does not currently have any carbon capture projects

but has allowed

carbon export, as described in section 4.2.1.2. The Finnish attitude to CCS technology is

favourable, but legislative barriers are currently preventing implementation

Finland will not be able to domestically store captured carbon from any upcoming CCS activity and

will have to utilise CO2 storage capacity in other countries.

4.2.2

Sweden

4.2.2.1 Summary of CCS potential in Sweden

Sweden’s

CO2 emissions from

large sources in 2017 were ~51 MtCO2. Most emissions relate to

the pulp and paper industry using biomass (22.8 MtCO2).

Sweden is committed to achieving climate neutrality by 2045, and CCS is acknowledged as a

means of achieving negative emissions, mainly through the deployment of BECCS. CCS policy

measures such as investment support are in place, though currently not identified to be sufficient

for the realisation of full-scale projects. CCS targets have been set for 2030 (3.7 MtCO2e total, of

which 1.8 MtCO2 from BECCS) and 2045 (10.7 MtCO2e total, of which 3-10 MtCO2 from bio-

CCS). To

achieve Sweden’s climate targets, ~9% of required emissions reductions by 2030 and

15% by 2045 can be achieved through other complementary means such as CCS.

Support systems for CCS are in place through, e.g., the Swedish Energy Agency, allocation of SEK

100 million to CCS and BECCS pilot projects, and initiatives to support R&D projects within bio-

CCS with SEK 50 million annually from 2020-2027.

CCS potential in Sweden is estimated at 349 MtCO2 between 2022 and 2050 and 14 MtCO2/y

between 2022 and 2040, and 19 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050. The majority of these

emissions relate to the pulp and paper industry.

Storage potential in Sweden is estimated at 6,000 Mt in aquifers. Although offshore CO2 storage

is permitted, Sweden is expected to rely on the transport of CO2 as the Swedish official report on

a strategy for negative greenhouse gas emissions concluded that rather than prioritising

establishing a storage site, Sweden should depend on sea transport to storage outside Sweden.

The relevance for storage in Denmark is deemed high, as Sweden has national plans to develop

CCS technology but not for the development of national storage sites.

Below is an overview of the CCS potential in Sweden.

Table 11: Summary of CCS potential in Sweden

SUMMARY OF CCS POTENTIAL

Category

CO2 emissions 2017 (MtCO2)

Plants >100 ktCO2

CO2 reduction targets

Indicator

51.3

Comments

CO2 emissions from largest point sources; mainly by the pulp

and paper industry using biomass, followed by the heat and

power generation, and iron and steel industry

•

2030: -20% from 2005 levels (EU ETS) and -63%

from 1990

levels (non-EU ETS)

•

2040: -75% from 1990 levels (national target)

•

2045: Net zero emissions

Technical Research Centre of Finland, “CO2 capture, storage and reuse potential in Finland”

The Global CCS Institute,

“Global Status of CCS 2020”

Interview with Ministry of Economic Affair and Employment of Finland

Equivalent to -59% reduction from 2005 levels

Sweden’s Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

Regeringens Proposition 2019/20:65:

“En samlad politik för klimatet –

klimatpolitisk

handlingsplan”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

National CCS focus/Support

Sweden recognises the important role that CCS will have in

reaching CO2 reduction targets, yet current policy measures

may not be sufficient for realisation of full-scale CCS projects.

Sweden has set CCS targets for 2030 (3.7 MtCO2e total,

whereof 1.8 MtCO2 from bio-CCS) and 2045 (10.7 MtCO2e

total, whereof 3-10 MtCO2 from bio-CCS). ~9% of the required

reductions in CO2 emissions by 2030 and 15% by 2045

can

be achieved through other complementary means such as CCS.

349

6,000

The majority of these emissions is related to the pulp and paper

industry.

6,000 Mt of storage in aquifers

Offshore CO2 storage is permitted. However, Sweden is

expected to rely on the export of CO2 as uncertainty regarding

national storage capacity was deemed too high while reliable

storage sites in the North Sea were available

High

High significance to DK as Sweden has national plans to

develop CCS technology but not to develop storage sites.

CCS targets

Total CCS Potential (MtCO2) 2022-2050

Own storage capacity (Mt)

Own storage potential/support

Potential for DK storage

4.2.2.2 CCS national targets and policies Sweden

Sweden is aiming to become carbon neutral in 2045, expecting 85% of reductions to be delivered

through emissions reduction activities while the remaining 15 percentage points may be covered

by supplementary measures such as CCS (incl. BECCS)

. Sweden has set CCS targets for 2030

(3.7 MtCO2e total, whereof 1.8 MtCO2 from bio-CCS) and 2045 (10.7 MtCO2e total, whereof 3-10

MtCO2 from bio-CCS).

To reach Sweden’s

-63% CO2 reduction target by 2030, ~9% of the

required reductions in CO2 emissions may be achieved through other means such as CCS

Policy measures such as investment support are in place, though currently not identified to be

sufficient for the realisation of full-scale CCS projects. The Swedish government has recently

decided to ratify the amendment to the London protocol. This was mentioned as a necessary

action in the national energy and climate plan to allow for the development of CCS in the

country

The Swedish state has in place some financing mechanisms for CCS-related projects through the

Swedish Energy Agency. In 2019, the Swedish government allocated SEK 100 million to pilot

projects aimed at accelerating the deployment of CCS and BECCS. Through the Industriklivet

initiative, support is given to R&D projects which contribute to negative emissions, for example,

bio-CCS. The support is planned to be at SEK 100 million annually until 2020, thereafter SEK 50

million annually until 2027.

Sweden regulatory framework for CCS is primarily stand-alone and based upon the regulatory

permissions model found in the Swedish Environmental Code. In addition, further permissions are

required under the Continental Shelf Act and the Certain Pipelines Act. While the Swedish

regulatory framework addresses many key issues, some critical elements have not been fully

addressed, including the explicit definition of CO2 and CO2-specific transportation provisions.

Sweden has placed restrictions on where CO2 may be stored and the activities that may take

place within the Swedish Economic Zone and offshore sites

Sweden’s official report on a strategy for negative

GHG emissions considered storage from

Swedish CCS. While the report specified that it is likely that there is domestic storage in Sweden,

knowledge about their capacities was deemed to be poor. The strategy concluded that Sweden

should not prioritise establishing a storage site but rather depend on sea transport to storage

outside Sweden, for example, Norway or another North Sea country.

Klimat politiska rådet ”2020: Report of the Swedish Climate Policy Council”

Uppsala University ”A Probabilistic Assessment of the Effective CO2 Storage Capacity within

the Swedish sector of the Baltic Basin

2020 Report of the Swedish Climate Policy Council

Klimat politiska rådet ”2020: Report of the Swedish Climate Policy Council”

Regeringens Proposition 2019/20:65: “En samlad politik för klimatet –

klimatpolitisk

handlingsplan”

THEMA

Consulting Group “The role of Carbon Capture and Storage in a Carbon Neutral Europe”

Global CCS Institute CO2RE database

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 12: CCS national targets and policies in Sweden

CCS NATIONAL TARGETS AND POLICIES

Category

Country CCS policy

maturity/potential

Indicator

Comments

CCS recognised as a potentially important means of reaching

climate targets, and CCS target has been specified, yet lack of

sufficient policy measures and restrictions in the legal

framework creates a medium maturity level.

•

2030: -20% from 2005 levels (EU ETS) and -63%

from 1990

levels (non-EU ETS)

•

2040: -75% from 1990 levels (national target)

•

2045: Net zero emissions

Sweden has set CCS targets for 2030 (3.7 MtCO2e total,

whereof 1.8 MtCO2 from bio-CCS) and 2045 (10.7 MtCO2e

total, whereof 3-10 MtCO2 from bio-CCS). ~9% of the required

reductions in CO2 emissions by 2030 and 15% by 2045

can

be achieved through other complementary means such as CCS.

Policy measures such as investment support are in place,

though currently not identified to be sufficient for the

realisation of full-scale projects.

Sweden’s regulatory framework for CCS is primarily stand-

alone and based upon the regulatory permissions model found

in the Swedish Environmental Code.

CCS funding

CCS storage-related policies

The Swedish state has in place some financing mechanisms for

CCS-related projects through the Swedish Energy Agency.

Offshore CO2 storage is permitted. The Swedish official report

on a strategy for negative greenhouse gas emissions specified

that there is likely domestic storage in Sweden. Yet, knowledge

about their capacities was deemed to be poor. The strategy

concluded that Sweden should not prioritize establishing a

storage site but rather depend on sea transport to storage

outside Sweden, for example, Norway or another North Sea

country.

National CO2 reduction targets

National CCS targets

CCS policies and legislations

4.2.2.3 CCS potential (capturable CO2 intended for storage) in Sweden

Sweden’s emissions from large sources were 51 MtCO2 in 2017, of which 16.5 MtCO2

were from

the power & heat industry, 11.8 MtCO2 from the energy-intensive industries and 22.8 MtCO2

from pulp and paper production.

The calculated capturable quantity of CO2 from large sources is estimated at on average 14

MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 19 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050. The majority of these

emissions is related to the pulp and paper industry.

Equivalent to -59% reduction from 2005 levels

Sweden’s Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP

2030)

Regeringens

Proposition 2019/20:65: “En samlad politik för

klimatet

– klimatpolitisk handlingsplan”

Klimat politiska rådet ”2020: Report of the Swedish Climate Policy Council”

THEMA Consulting Group “The role of Carbon Capture and Storage in

a Carbon Neutral Europe”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 13: CCS potential (intended for storage) in Sweden

Sector

CO2

emissions

2017,

MtCO2

Capturable quantity of

CO2, MtCO2

(avg. MtCO2/y

)

2022-2040

Power & Heat

16.5

(4)

2041-2050

(5)

•

The overall significance of CCS within the Swedish power & heat sector is low due to renewable power generation. However, BECCS

has been emphasised as an important additional measure to achieve negative emissions in 2045 (although no specific CCS targets

have been made for CCS)

•

Forest is the largest source of bioenergy in Sweden (63% of land cover). Bioenergy is primarily used for heating

–

both in private

homes and in district heating

–

as well as for electricity production and for industrial processes

•

In order to meet the ambitious carbon neutrality targets towards 2045, the first projects are expected to be introduced before

2030

•

The capturable volume of CO2 intended for storage within the segment is estimated at up to ~5 MtCO2/y, and is executively

related to emissions from biomass-fired energy and heat plants (incl. waste-to-energy plants)

•

Process emission within the energy-intensive industry were 11.8 MtCO2 in 2017, mainly related to the production of iron and steel

(4.1 MtCO2), cement (2.8 MtCO2) and refining (2.7 MtCO2)

•

For the remaining industries, green hydrogen and electricity are expected to be preferred

•

The total capturable volume intended for storage is estimated at up to ~3 MtCO2/y

•

In addition to the industries above, Sweden is one of the major pulp and paper producers in Europe. Associated emissions were

estimated at ~22.8 MtCO2 in 2017. Pulp & paper plants are often located close to coastlines and rivers (as their processes require

significant amounts of water), making it potentially easily accessible to collect emissions.

•

The total capturable volumes intended for CCS are estimated at up to 11 MtCO2/y (in 2014; ramping gradually up from 2028

where the technology is assumed to be introduced)

Comment

Industry

11.8

116

(11)

143

(14)

4.2.2.4 CO2 storage potential in Sweden

Sweden has 6,000 Mt of total carbon storage situated in aquifers

. While the storage capacity is adequate to cover all upcoming CCS activity, no

investments in developing the storage sites have been made, as described in section 4.2.2.2.

The Swedish attitude towards CCS is generally positive

, as incentive schemes are in place to develop CCS technology. Moreover, several studies

are currently underway to hook up local fossil fuel power generation and industry in the Gothenburg area to CO2 export infrastructure, enabling

storage of Swedish carbon in the North Sea area

As a result, Sweden seemingly has no intention of developing domestic carbon storage sites and prioritises developing carbon export infrastructure

while looking for international opportunities to store the captured carbon.

Average CO2 capturable amount is calculated for the time period 2030-2040

Sweden.se/ Swedish Institute

Uppsala University, “A Probabilistic assessment of the effective CO2 storage capacity within the Swedish Sector of the Baltic Basin”

IOGP, “The potential for CCS and CCU in Europe”

DEA/Ramboll,

“Catalogue of Geological Storage of CO2 in Denmark”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.3

Norway

4.2.3.1 Summary of CCS potential in Norway

Norway’s CO2 emissions from large sources in 2017

were ~25 MtCO2. Most emissions relate to

the energy-intensive energy sector (11.2 MtCO2) since power generation is mainly from

hydroelectric plants.

Norway has created favourable conditions for the development and use of CCS through solid

policy and regulatory support and dedicated action plans for CCS. Yet, no specific targets for CCS

deployment have been set. However, the processing industry has created a roadmap for achieving

climate targets towards 2050, including 33% from CCS and 20% from BECCS.

Extensive support systems for CCS are in place through various organisations and research

centres, among others the Norwegian CCS Research Centre (NCCS) in 2016, with 30 research and

industry partners and a budget of NOK 570 million over eight years. Key drivers for

Norway’s

successful CCS development projects have been the supporting policy framework and high CO2

prices.

Norway’s

CCS potential within the processing industry is high; 111 MtCO2 in total between 2022

and 2050, and on average 4 MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 6 MtCO2/y between 2041 and

2050. Energy majors are expected to see CCS as a way of protecting their existing extraction and

refining business. At the same time, fossil-reliant industries such as steel could choose to use CCS

rather than invest in options like hydrogen.

Storage potential in Norway is estimated at 103,000 Mt, of which 76,000 Mt of storage in aquifers

and 27,000 Mt of storage in depleted oil & gas fields.

The relevance for storage in Denmark is deemed low, as Norway has national plans to develop

CCS technology and develop storage sites.

Below is an overview of the CCS potential in Norway.

Table 14: Summary of CCS potential in Norway

SUMMARY OF CCS POTENTIAL

Category

CO2 emissions 2017 (MtCO2)

Plants >100 ktCO2

CO2 reduction targets

Indicator

25.4

Comments

CO2 emissions from the largest point sources; mainly from the

power and heat generation industry, followed by the iron and

steel, non-ferrous metals and mineral oil and gas industry

•

2030: -50% from 1990 levels

(economy wide) and -30%

from 2005 levels (non-EU ETS)

•

2050: -90-95% from 1990 levels (economy wide)

Strong policy and regulatory support, as well as dedicated

actions plans for CCS, create favourable conditions for the

development and use of CCS in Norway.

Norway has not set specific targets for CCS deployment, with

the justification by the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and

Environment that it is not possible to quantify the emission

reductions that might be realized through Norway’s CCS

policies as it will, for most parts, take place in the industry

covered by the EU

ETS

However, the Norwegian processing industry has created a

roadmap for 2050 for achieving its long-term national climate

targets: deploy CCS to reduce as much as 33% of planned

emission reductions and ~20% from CCS combined with

combustion of biogenic matter. Further, long-standing policy

and research commitments suggest that CCS will become an

important means to achieving Norway’s long-term

target of

National CCS focus/Support

CCS targets

EU Emissions Trading Scheme data

–

Does not include biogenic emissions

Norway’s Fourth Biennial Report. In its National Determined

Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement and committed to reduce emissions

Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy “Longship – Carbon Capture and Storage”

Norwegian Ministry of Climate

and Environment “Norway’s Fourth Biennial Report”

by at least 50 per cent and towards 55 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

reducing CO2 emissions by 90-95% by 2050, despite the

current lack of specified targets for CCS.

Total CCS Potential (MtCO2) 2022-2050

Own storage capacity (Mt)

Own storage potential/support

Potential for DK storage

Low

111

103,000

Primarily related to refining and other fossil-reliant industries

(e.g. iron & stell)

76,000 Mt of storage in aquifers; 27,000 Mt of storage in

depleted oil & gas fields;

Large offshore storage sites are being developed with large

investments from the government

Low significance to DK as NO has national plans to

develop CCS technology but also to develop storage sites

(and has sufficient storage capacity)

4.2.3.2 CCS national targets and policies in Norway

Norway aims to become a low-emission society by 2050, targeting reducing greenhouse gas

emissions between 90-95%

. Norway has identified CCS as important for achieving these

targets. Overall, the policy maturity is considered high as CCS strategies, policies, supportive

legislative frameworks, and support systems have created favourable conditions for CCS in

Norway.

The Norwegian Government has developed a CCS strategy, which includes research, development

and demonstration, an ambition to realize a full-chain demonstration facility, transportation,

storage and alternative use of CO2 and international work for the implementation of CCS as a

mitigation measure

. Important parts and tasks are given to the Research Council of Norway and

Gassnova (a state-backed body whose mission is to realise CCS solutions)

. In 2020, the

Norwegian government proposed to launch a

CCS project called “Longship”, which will

demonstrate a full, but flexible value chain with carbon capture from cement production and

potentially from waste management and shipping, and CO2 storage beneath the seabed.

Norway has not set specific targets for CCS deployment, with the justification by the Norwegian

Ministry of Climate and Environment that it is not possible to quantify the emission reductions

that might be realized through Norway’s CCS policies as it will,

for most parts, take place in the

industry covered by the EU ETS

. However, the Norwegian processing industry has created a

roadmap for 2050 for achieving its long-term national climate targets, according to which it needs

to deploy CCS to reduce as much as 33% of planned emission reductions and ~20% from CCS

combined with the combustion of biogenic matter

. Further, long-standing policy and research

commitments suggest that CCS will become an important means to achieving Norway’s long-term

target of reducing CO2 emissions by 90-95% by 2050, despite the current lack of specified

targets for CCS.

Norway has demonstrated a commitment to the deployment of CCS and to drive down technology

costs through extensive support systems targeted at CCS research and projects. Norway

established the Norwegian CCS Research Centre (NCCS) in 2016, with 30 research and industry

partners and a budget of NOK 570 million over eight years

. Further, Norway’s Technology

Centre Mongstad (TCM) has established itself as a leading international competence centre for the

demonstration of capture technology

. The Norwegian Government and the current industry

owners of TCM have entered into a new operating agreement from the end of August 2020 until

the end of 2023

. In addition, the national research programme CLIMIT is an essential source of

funding for research and demonstration of IS technology. In addition, the government has

established a strategic committee for clean energy research called ENERGI21, under which CCS is

one of six priority focus areas. Other key funding programmes include SkatteFUNN, which

Nordic CCS Competence Centre “CO2 Storage Potential in the Nordic Region”

Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment “Norway’s National Plan”

Norwegian Ministry of Climate and

Environment “Norway’s Fourth Biennial Report”

Norwegian Ministry

of Petroleum and Energy “Longship –

Carbon Capture

and Storage”

Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment “Norway’s Fourth Biennial Report”

Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy

“Longship –

Carbon

Capture and Storage”

Norwegian Ministry of

Petroleum and Energy “Longship –

Carbon Capture

and Storage”

Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy “Longship – Carbon Capture and Storage”

Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy

“Longship –

Carbon

Capture and Storage”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

provides tax incentives for CCS related research, as well as Accelerating CCS Technology (ACT),

which is a European initiative managed by Norway to establish CCS.

The supporting policy framework and high CO2 prices have been crucial drivers for the

development of Norway’s successful CCS projects.

The Longship project proposed by the

Norwegian government requires funding of USD 2.7 billion, and will also comprise funding for the

transport and storage project Northern Lights, a joint project between Equinor, Shell and Total

The CCS projects from natural gas on the Sleipner, Gudrun and Snøhvit petroleum fields are the

only CCS projects currently in operation in Europe and the only projects in the offshore industry.

Norway does not have CCS-specific legislation; however, amendments to existing regulation have

created a comprehensive regulatory framework for the transport and storage of CO2 in Norway.

National pollution, environmental and petroleum legislation is sufficient to cover CCS, and

amendments have been made to regulations concerning the storage of CO2 in offshore sub-sea

reservoirs on the Norwegian continental shelf. Norway has implemented the EU CCS Directive,

which has provided a basis for amendments to existing legislation. In addition, Norway has

ratified the London Protocol that allows CO2 export to other states for storage purposes. Yet, the

Protocol has not entered into force as too few countries have ratified it.

Table 15: CCS national targets and policies in Norway

CCS NATIONAL TARGETS AND POLICIES IN NORWAY

Category

Country CCS policy

maturity/potential

National CO2 reduction targets

Indicator

Comments

The policy maturity is considered high due to CCS strategies,

policy, legislative frameworks and support systems, creating

favourable conditions for CCS.

•

2030: -50% from 1990 levels

(economy wide) and -30% from

2005 levels (non-EU ETS)

•

2050: -90-95% from 1990 levels (economy wide)

CCS targets have not been set.

The Norwegian government has developed a national CCS

strategy, created state-sponsored CCS authorities and recently

proposed a project to demonstrate a full but flexible value chain

with carbon capture from cement production and potentially from

waste management and shipping, and CO2 storage beneath the

seabed.

Norway does not have CCS-specific legislation; however,

amendments to existing regulation have created a

comprehensive regulatory framework for the transport and

storage of CO2 in Norway.

CCS funding

The government supports CCS through various supporting

schemes and R&D funding. National CCS centres, CCS funding

programmes have been influential in the development of

Norway’s successful CCS projects.

Offshore storage is permitted.

National CCS targets

CCS policies and legislations

CCS storage-related policies

Norwegian Ministry of

Petroleum and Energy “Longship –

Carbon Capture

and Storage”

Norway’s Fourth Biennial Report. In its National Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement and committed to reduce

emissions

Norwegian

Ministry of Petroleum and Energy “Longship – Carbon Capture and Storage”

by at least 50 per cent and towards 55 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.3.3 CCS potential (capturable CO2 intended for storage) in Norway

Norway’s emissions

from large sources were 25 MtCO2 in 2017. The majority of emissions is related to energy-intensive sectors since power

generation in Norway is almost entirely from hydroelectric power plants.

Norwegian government accords great importance to CCS. Energy majors are therefore expected to see CCS as a way of protecting their existing

extraction and refining business. Furthermore, fossil-reliant industries such as steel could use CCS rather than invest in options like hydrogen. CCS

will also be needed to deploy blue hydrogen.

The calculated capturable quantity of CO2 is estimated at an average of 4 MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 6 MtCO2/y between 2041 and

2050.

Table 16: CCS potential (intended for storage) in Norway

Sector

CO2

emissions

2017,

MtCO2

Capturable quantity of

CO2, MtCO2

(avg. MtCO2/y

)

2022-2040

Industry

11.2

(3)

2041-2050

(5)

•

Process emission within energy-intensive industry were 11.2 MtCO2 in 2017, mainly related to refining (2.6 MtCO2), iron and steel

production (2.5 MtCO2) and non- ferrous metals (2.7 MtCO2)

•

The significance of CCS within the industrial sector is assessed to be relatively low and is mainly relevant for cement and refining

(where there are currently no other ways to reduce the process emissions significantly). It is often only one of the available options

(and less preferred) within other industrial subsectors, including iron and steel and chemicals. Moreover, in many countries, the

industrial sector prefers CCU instead of CCS. However, in Norway, the government accords great importance to CCS. Energy

majors are therefore expected to see CCS as a way of protecting their existing extraction and refining business. Furthermore,

fossil-reliant industries such as steel could use CCS rather than invest in options like hydrogen. CCS will also be needed to deploy

blue hydrogen.

•

The total capturable volume intended for storage is estimated at up to ~5 MtCO2/y

•

Fuel combustion is presumably related to oil & gas activities

•

The significance of CCS is assessed to be high in this context, as energy majors are expected to prioritise CCS, due to

governmental focus on this decarbonisation measure. The total capturable volume intended for storage is estimated at up to ~2

MtCO2/y (peak between 2033 and 2040)

Comment

Fuel

combustion

14.2

(1)

Average CO2 capturable amount is calculated for the time period 2030-2040

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.3.4 CO2 storage potential in Norway

Norway has 103,000 Mt of carbon storage in suitable geological structures, of which the majority

(76,000 Mt) is situated in aquifers and 27,000 Mt in located in oil and gas field units

. All known

storage units are located offshore in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea on the Norwegian

Continental Shelf near current oil and gas fields

Carbon storage in oil and gas fields can be cheaper to develop than aquifer storage units as some

of the offshore infrastructure is already in place

Norwegian attitude and legislation are favourable towards CCS technology and offshore carbon

storage, as described in section 4.2.3.2.

As a result, the carbon storage capacity of Norway is considered sufficient to cover all upcoming

CSS activity and will be sufficient to store CO2 imports from other countries

The figure below provides an overview of the CCS projects in Norway.

Figure 2: Overview of CCS facilities in Norway

Source: Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and

Energy, “Longship – Carbon capture and storage”, Ramboll analysis

Nordic CCS Competence Centre,

“CO2 Storage potential in the Nordic region”

EU GeoCapacity, “Assessing European capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide”

IOGP, “The potential for CCS and CCU in Europe”

Ramboll Expert

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.4

Germany

4.2.4.1 Summary of CCS potential in Germany

Germany’s emissions

from large sources in 2017 were ~406 MtCO2. The energy sector is one of

the largest single sources of CO2 emissions in Europe.

Germany aims to become climate neutral in 2050, and as Europe’s largest emitter, CCS will most

likely become a significant means of reaching this climate target. The role of CCS for reaching

carbon neutrality has been noted in Germany’s Climate Action programme

as unavoidable and by

former Chancellor Angela Merkel at the Petersburger Klimadialog to be necessary. However,

currently, Germany has not set any CCS targets.

To support the deployment of CCS, Germany is preparing a subsidy programme aimed at the

country’s raw material industry for developing CCU and CCS technologies, with a budget at EUR

105 million for 2021 and, after that, an additional EUR 120 million per year until 2025.

CCS potential in Germany is estimated at 871 MtCO2 between 2022 and 2050 and on average 35

MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 49 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050, from close to 200

different large power and industrial processing facilities. The largest share of capturable CO2 is

expected to be derived from the power & heat sector (natural gas-fired power plants and

biomass-fired plants). Despite transforming to renewable energy sources within power supply,

natural gas is expected to remain an important energy source by

2050. Germany’s industrial

sector plays a substantial role in Germany with high emission levels that are hard to abate (iron

and steel, refining, chemicals/petrochemicals, cement).

Storage potential in Germany is estimated at 95,000 Mt, with 75,000 Mt of storage in depleted oil

& gas fields and 20,000 Mt of storage in aquifers. 80% of aquifers are situated in states that have

banned carbon storage. Germany is not actively pursuing CCS, and no facilities are currently

planned or under construction. National storage is expected to be limited going forward, partly

indicated due to public scrutiny of onshore storage.

The relevance for storage in Denmark is deemed potentially high. Given public opposition to

onshore storage and the limitation of CO2 storage on national territory, the export of German

CO2 for storage is considered likely.

Below is an overview of the CCS potential in Germany.

Table 17: Summary of CCS potential in Germany

SUMMARY OF CCS POTENTIAL

Category

CO2 emissions 2017 (MtCO2)

Plants >100 ktCO2

Co2 reduction targets

Indicator

406.2

Comments

CO2 emissions from largest point sources; mainly from power

and heat generation industry, followed by iron and steel,

cement, chemical and mineral oil and gas refinery industries

•

2030: -55% from 1990 levels (national target) and -38%

from 2005 levels (non-EU ETS)

•

2050: Climate neutral

As Germany is Europe's highest emitter, CCS will probably

need to play a significant role in Germany. Given the public

opposition and the limitation of CO2 storage on national

territory, the export of German CO2 for storage is deemed

likely.

No specific targets have been set for the deployment of CCS in

Germany.

871

The largest share of capturable CO2 is expected to be derived

from the power & heat sector (natural gas-fired power plants

and biomass-fired plants). Significant potential also assessed

within the industry (mainly iron and steel, refining,

chemicals/petrochemicals, and cement).

National CCS focus/Support

CCS targets

Total CCS Potential (MtCO2) 2022-2050

Global CCS Institute, ”Global Status of CCS 2020”

Germany’s Integrated National Energy and Climate

Plan (NECP 2030)

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Own storage capacity (Mt)

95,000

75,000 Mt of storage in depleted oil & gas fields; 20,000 Mt

of storage in aquifers. 80% of aquifers are situated in states

that have banned carbon storage

Germany is not actively pursuing CCS, and there are no CCS

facilities in planning/construction. Additionally, public scrutiny

of onshore storage indicates that national storage will be

limited going forward.

Own storage potential/support

Potential for DK storage

High

Carbon storage outside of the country seems to likely,

as the national storage of carbon is still controversial in

Germany.

4.2.4.2 CCS national targets and policies Germany

Germany is aiming to become climate neutral in 2050. As Germany is Europe's highest emitter,

CCS will most likely need to play a significant role in Germany. While the German climate action

programme highlights German initiatives that support CCS and CCU, it fails to substantiate a

national commitment to technology uptake. Thus, the degree to which CCS will support the

decarbonisation of industries has not been specified through CCS targets. However, the German

integrated national energy and climate action plan explicitly gives room to the option of using

carbon capture technology and notes that the majority of climate studies and scenarios confirm

that CCS is indispensable for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050

Until recently, Germany’s

had limited funding and support systems in place for the further

development of CCS research and development projects. A CCS subsidy programme is currently

being prepared, setting aside EUR 105 million for 2021 and, after that, EUR 120 million per year

until 2025

. Aside from the programme under development, non-exclusive CCS programs have

been in place, e.g., COORETEC focusing on coal-fired power with CCS, and Geotechnologien,

which was a German R&D programme researching CO2 storage, which has now ended. The

German NECP mentions the national “CO2-Win” and “CO2-Plus” programs as well as Germany’s

participation in the ERA-net EU Cofund ACT (Accelerating CCS Technologies) project as initiatives

that will support research and the future application of CCU and CCS technologies, i.e. carbon

separation, transport, storage and use

. In addition, Germany is currently preparing a subsidy

programme aimed at supporting the country's raw material industry in developing technologies

for CCU and CCS. The budget has been set at EUR 105 million for 2021 and, after that, an

additional EUR 120 million per year until 2025

Germany’s

regulatory framework related to CCS concerns the German CCS Act and the CO2

storage Act, both of which are integrated are based on the EU CCS directive in 2009. In 2012 the

German CCS Act made onshore storage of CCS forbidden. The CCS Act halted all CCS projects

except testing and demonstration pilots; no submissions were made. The storage Act restricts

CO2 storage to only some parts of Germany, and the Federal States determine whether CO2

storage may take place based on several criteria. Additionally, storage activities are limited to

those for which an application has been filed by December 2016 and to a maximum annual

capacity of 1.3 MtCO2 per storage site. The total combined annual storage capacity for Germany

is also limited to 4 MtCO2. However, the role of CCS in the future decarbonisation of the German

economy became a point of discussion again after Chancellor Merkel stated in 2019 that CCS was

necessary to achieve the ambitious climate targets.

Due to public acceptance issues and regulatory limits to onshore storage, tapping into the German

onshore CO2 storage potential is most likely not politically feasible.

European Commission, “On Implementation of Directive 2009/31/EX on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide”

Bundesministerium für Wirtshaft und Energie ”Integrierter

Nationaler Energie-

und Klimaplan”

Media Group: Germany Launches CCUS Support

Bundesministerium für Wirtshaft und Energie ”Integrierter Nationaler

Energie- und Klimaplan”

Media Group: Germany Launches CCUS Support

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 18: CCS national targets and policies in Germany

CCS NATIONAL TARGETS AND POLICIES

Category

Country CCS policy

maturity/potential

Indicator

Comments

CCS recognised as a potentially important means of reaching

climate targets. Yet, the lack of specific targets for CCS

deployment and CCS restrictions in the legal framework creates

a medium maturity level.

•

2030: -55% from 1990 levels (national target) and -38%

from 2005 levels (non-EU ETS)

•

2050: Climate neutral

The Climate action programme names German initiatives

supporting CCS and CCU but fails to substantiate a German

commitment to the technology uptake.

The German CCS Act and the CO2 Storage Act are integrated

and are based on the EU CCS directive in 2009. The Storage

Act restricts CO2 storage to only some parts of Germany and

sets limits to storage capacity.

However, the role of CCS in the future decarbonisation of the

German economy became a point of discussion again after

former Chancellor Merkel stated in 2019 that CCS was

necessary to achieve the ambitious climate targets.

CCS funding

A CCS subsidy programme is currently being prepared, setting

aside EUR 105 million for 2021 and, after that, EUR 120 million

per year until 2025

. However, until recently, support has

been minimal, with a low level of R&D funding through non-

exclusive CCS programs, e.g., COORETEC focusing on coal-fired

power with CCS and Geotechnologien. The German NECP

mentions the national “CO2-Win” and “CO2-Plus” programs as

well as Germany’s participation

in the ERA-net EU project as

initiatives that will support research and the future application

of CCU technologies.

German CCS Act prohibits onshore storage of CCS. Due to

public acceptance issues and regulatory limits to onshore

storage, tapping into the German onshore CO2 storage

potential is most likely not politically feasible.

National CO2 reduction targets

National CCS targets

CCS policies and legislations

CCS storage-related policies

4.2.4.3 CCS potential (capturable CO2 intended for storage) in Germany

Germany's energy sector remains one of the largest single sources of CO2 emissions in Europe.

Emissions from large sources

are assessed at ~280 MtCO2 in 2017.

Today, energy in Germany is sourced predominantly by fossil fuels, followed by wind, nuclear

power, solar, biomass (wood and biofuels) and hydro. As illustrated in Figure 3, supply is

transforming towards heavier use of renewable energy sources in 2050; natural gas will remain

an important energy source towards 2050.

Germany also has a substantial industrial sector with a high level of emissions (108.0 MtCO2 in

2017), including production and processing of iron and steel, refining, chemicals/petrochemicals,

and cement.

The calculated capturable quantity of CO2 is estimated at on average 35 MtCO2/y between 2022

and 2040 and 49 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050, from close to 200 different large power and

industrial processing facilities. The largest share of capturable CO2 is expected to be derived from

the power & heat sector (natural gas-fired power plants and biomass-fired plants).

Within the industrial sector largest potential is assessed within the cement industry and refineries

due to lacking alternatives to abate emissions, followed by other industries where CCS is relevant

but only one option, i.e., chemical industry and iron & steel).

Thema Consulting Group, “The role of carbon capture and storage in a carbon neutral Europe”; “Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan” of

Germany’s Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

Media Group: Germany Launches CCUS Support

Plants with emissions exceeding 100,000 MtCO2/y

Germany; The European Commission, “Assessment

of final national

energy and climate plan of Germany”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Figure 3:

Germany’s potential

energy mix towards 2050

Source: Ramboll Analysis;

EWI Research, “The energy market in 2030 and 2050 –

The contribution of gas and heat

infrastructure to efficient carbon emission reductions.”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 19: CCS potential (intended for storage) in Germany

Sector

CO2

emissions

2017,

MtCO2

Capturable quantity of

CO2, MtCO2

(avg. MtCO2/y

)

2022-2040

Power & Heat

280.2

229

(21)

2041-2050

339

(34)

•

The overall significance of CCS within the German power & heat sector is low due to the focus on renewable power generation.

However, the German government has expressed an interest in BECCS due to negative emissions compensating some industry and

agricultural emissions hard to abate. Significance of CCS is also assessed to be high in case of non-recyclable and biogenic share of

waste-to-energy and for emissions from natural gas-fired power plants

•

The capturable volume of CO2 intended for storage within the segment is estimated at up to ~36 MtCO2/y

•

The capturable quantities are evenly split between power plants fired on natural gas and those fired on biomass. However, the

dynamics within these two segments are quite different. After an introduction around 2030, a capturable amount of CO2 from gas

plants would quickly ramp up to comprise more than 50% of this industry by 2040. A further increase is expected towards 2050, as

it is likely that only CCS-retrofitted plants will be allowed to operate. The overall share of capturable CO2 emissions from biomass-

fired plants is expected to be much lower (~20%) but constant through the entire period (2030-2050)

•

CCS is not considered relevant for coal-driven plants since they will be phased out shortly after the CCS introduction

•

Germany has a substantial industrial sector with a high level of emissions (108.0 MtCO2 in 2017), including production and

processing of ferrous metals (28.6 Mt in 2017, mainly related to iron and steel), refining (21.1 MtCO2 in 2017), chemicals/

petrochemicals (24.6 Mt in 2017) and cement (25.0 MtCO2 in 2017)

•

The significance of CCS within the industrial sector varies across disciplines. It is assessed highest for cement processing and

refining, where there are currently no other ways to reduce the process emissions significantly. Although switch of fossil fuels to

biomass can reduce some emissions from cement processing, BECCS could still be an option to create negative emissions. Potential

is also assessed within iron and steel, and chemicals. However, CCS is only one of several options on how to abate emissions

(alternatives include electricity, green hydrogen and recycling). In general, the chemical industry is prioritizing CCU over CCS

•

According to Germany’s Economy and Energy Ministry, around 30-40%

of industrial emissions are process-linked and cannot be

avoided using today's state of the art technology

•

The total capturable volume intended for storage is estimated at up to ~18 MtCO2/y (peak between 2030 and 2040), and the

highest potential is assessed within the mineral processing/cement industry. Ramp-up of the CCS within the industrial sector is

expected to be relatively quick and reach the full potential already in 2035

•

CCS is also considered highly relevant for reducing CO2 emissions within:

Chemical industry; Although the chemical industry is large in Germany, CCS is expected to be less prioritised than the

alternative measures to abate emissions

Iron and steel industry; Using hydrogen is an alternative (and high priority for the German government). Although the clear

focus of the recently published Hydrogen Strategy is on green hydrogen production in- and outside of Germany (due to

limited capacity/ability to produce enough green hydrogen, Germany is looking into collaborations with other countries),

there are no provisions against the import and use of blue hydrogen

. Blue hydrogen is therefore expected to be a

transitional solution, creating a need for CCS

The gas refining industry; Given the long-term commitment to natural gas via the Nord Stream pipeline

•

No other significant potential areas have been assessed

Comment

Industry

108.0

154

(14)

150

(15)

Other

18.8

Average CO2 capturable amount is calculated for the time period 2030-2040

The role of Carbon Capture and Storage in a Carbon Neutral Europe, Carbon Limits, 2020

Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy

– “Die Nationale Wasserstoffstrategie”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.4.4 CO2 storage potential in Germany

Germany’s total CO2 storage capacity is 95,000 Mt,

of which the majority

–

75,000 Mt

–

situated in oil and gas fields, and 20,000 Mt is situated in storage aquifers. Most of the German

domestic carbon storage capacity is located onshore. The storage potential in the Baltic Sea is

limited and virtually non-existent in the North Sea

The German public has opposed onshore carbon storage, and as a result, only offshore carbon

storage is currently legal, as described in section 4.2.4.2. No current or planned development

projects of domestic carbon storage sites have been identified

This means Germany does not have nor plan on developing domestic carbon storage capacity to

cover upcoming CCS activity. However, due to the large amounts of captured carbon necessary to

reach emissions reduction targets and the lack of plans for developing national storage, carbon

export from Germany is deemed likely

The picture below provides an overview of German storage site locations.

Figure 4: Overview of German carbon storage site locations

Source:

Ramboll analysis, EU GeoCapacity, “Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide”

DEA/Ramboll, “Catalouge of Geological Storage of CO2 in Denmark”

The Global CCS Institute, “Global status of CCS 2020”

Ramboll Expert

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.5

United Kingdom

4.2.5.1 Summary of CCS potential in the United Kingdom

The UK’s emission is among the largest emitters of the analysed countries, with emissions

from

large stationary plants in 2017 at ~146 MtCO2.

The UK has created favourable conditions for the development and use of CCS through strong

policy and regulatory support and dedicated action plants for CCS. Targets and commitments to

CCS deployment at scale starting from the 2030s have been made, estimating >10 MtCO2 to be

captured per year by 2030. CCS is a key part of the decarbonisation strategy to achieve carbon

neutrality in 2050 in the UK, subject to costs coming down sufficiently. CCS will be of particular

need in hard-to-abate industry sectors and decarbonisation of home-heating (hydrogen with

CCS).

To support CCS research and projects extensive funding has been granted in the UK, e.g., 100

million GBP via Clean Growth Strategy funding to CCUS, BECCS and transport and storage of CO2,

an additional 123 million GBP to R&D/innovation via UK CCS Research Centre), and with plans for

further 1 billion GBP funding and revenue mechanisms.

CCS potential in the UK is high in both power & heat and industry; 1,986 MtCO2 in total between

2022 and 2050, and on average 50 MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 119 MtCO2/y between

2041 and 2050 for both the power & heat sector and the industry sector. CCS potential in the

power & heat sector will primarily be in connection with hydrogen, in which CCS will be central to

support this. Within the industry, potential is in hard-to-abate industries, i.e., mineral oil & gas

refineries, mineral production (cement, lime and plaster), iron and steel production, chemicals

production, as well as food production.

The UK has significant storage capacity, estimated at 69,000 Mt of storage in aquifers and 9,000

Mt of storage in depleted oil & gas fields. Storage is permitted in the offshore area.

The relevance for storage in Denmark is deemed low, as the UK has already invested in CCS

technology, initiated storage projects, developed CCS deployment timelines and expect CCS to be

key to reaching net zero emissions.

Below is an overview of the CCS potential in the UK.

Table 20: Summary of CCS potential in United Kingdom

SUMMARY OF CCS POTENTIAL

Category

CO2 emissions 2017 (MtCO2)

Plants >100 ktCO2

CO2 reduction targets

National CCS focus/Support

Indicator

146.3

Comments

CO2 emissions from large point sources; primarily from the

power and heat generation industry followed by refineries and

chemical production facilities.

•

2030: -68% from 1990 levels

(economy wide emissions)

•

2050: Net zero emissions

Strong policy and regulatory support, as well as dedicated

actions plans for CCS, create favourable conditions for the

development and use of CCS in the UK.

An extensive national support system is in place, granting 100

million GBP via Clean Growth Strategy to CCUS, BECCS and

transport and storage of CO2. Additional GBP 123 million to

R&D via UK CCS Research Centre and plans for further GBP 1

billion funding and revenue mechanisms have been announced.

CCS targets

The UK is committed to deploying CCS at scale during the

2030s, subject to costs coming

down sufficiently. The UK’s

target is to capture >10 MtCO2/y by 2030, and capture and

store ~0.32 tCO2 per capita. Between 2023-2032, the

government estimates that driving the growth of low hydrogen

could deliver savings of ~40 MtCO2e, equivalent to 9% of 2018

UK emissions.

By 2050, ~60% of the carbon captured in the

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-sets-ambitious-new-climate-target-ahead-of-un-summit

HM Government “The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

UK has been estimated to be in the greenhouse gas removals

sector

Total CCS Potential (MtCO2) 2022-2050

1,986

Both within power & heat sector (in connection with hydrogen)

and industry (mineral oil & gas refineries, mineral production,

iron and steel production, chemicals production, as well as food

production)

69,000 Mt of storage in aquifers; 9,000 Mt of storage in depleted

oil & gas fields

The UK is actively developing and investing in offshore storage

sites as a part of the climate strategy which has the support of

the public

Low

Low significance for DK; UK has significant storage

capacity and already developed invested in CCS

technology, initiated offshore storage projects,

implemented CCS deployment timelines and believe CCS

to be key for reaching net-zero.

Own storage capacity (Mt)

Own storage potential/support

78,000

Potential for DK storage

4.2.5.2 CCS national targets and policies in the United Kingdom

The UK aims to become carbon neutral in 2050 and emphasises CCS as a key decarbonisation

strategy to achieve carbon neutrality. The UK’s ‘Clean Growth Strategy’ of 2017 includes CCS as a

specific approach to decarbonisation, setting forth an approach to enable the UK to become a

global technology leader for CCUS and ensure that government has the option of deploying CCUS

at scale during the 2030s

. CCS is recognised as an essential technology to reduce emissions

from especially industry sectors and to decarbonise home-heating (hydrogen with CCS). However,

the strategy notes that the cost of CCS will have to come down for it to be deployed at scale in

the

UK. In 2018, the UK Government’s ‘Carbon Capture Usage and Storage Deployment Pathway’

set out further details on the steps it plans to take to deploy CCUS at scale during the 2030s,

subject to the costs coming down sufficiently

. The Government’s

“10 Point Action Plan for a

Green Industrial Revolution”, announced in November 2020, also includes CCUS as a necessary

point to decarbonise hard to abate sectors and reach negative emissions

. In December 2020,

the UK’s Climate Change Committee, acting as the government’s climate advisers, have proposed

a legally binding “carbon budget” that is in line with the national

target

of “net-zero” emissions by

2050, in which all pathways explored see the use of CCS as a critical and cost-effective means of

meeting

the UK’s 2050 Net Zero target

The UK has set a

specific target for CCS deployment in 2030. The UK’s CCS target is

to capture

>10 MtCO2/y by 2030

. The Climate Change Committee estimates that by 2030, CCS per capita

will reduce UK emissions by 0.32 tCO2/person/year

. Further, the estimated savings between

2023-2032 from the deployment of low-carbon hydrogen are ~40 MtCO2e. By 2050, ~60% of the

carbon captured in the UK has been estimated to be in the greenhouse gas removals sector,

primarily through the combustion of biomass for electricity generation, with a further 20% used

for the production of hydrogen and 10% used with gas in the power sector. Bioenergy with carbon

capture and storage (BECCS) facilities have been estimated by the UK’s Climate

Change

Committee to remove 22 MtCO2/y from the atmosphere by 2035 and 53 MtCO2/y by 2050

. The

Committee estimates that Direct Air Capture of CO2 with storage (DACCS) starts to scale up from

2040 to reach 5 MtCO2/y by 2050.

The UK has an extensive national support system for CCS in place. CCS funding has been granted

through the Clean Growth Strategy, allocating GBP 100m for CCUS applications in low-carbon

hydrogen production, BECCS, as well as transport and storage of CO2. In addition, GBP 125m was

allocated to an R&D and innovation program, which established UK CCS Research Centre. In

Climate Change Committee “The

Sixth Carbon Budget -

The UK's plan to net zero”

Department of Energy

& Climate Change “CCS Roadmap Supporting deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage in the UK”

Edie “Survey: Two-thirds of Brits support UK’s green industrial revolution plans”

Government “Clean Growth:

The UK Carbon Capture Usage and Storage deployment

pathway: An Action Plan”

HM Government “The Clean Growth Strategy Leading the way to a low carbon future”

HM Government “The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”

Climate Change Committee

“The Sixth Carbon Budget

- The UK's plan

to net zero”

HM Government “The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”

Climate Change Committee “The Sixth Carbon Budget

The UK's plan to net zero”

Climate Change Committee

“The Sixth Carbon Budget

The UK's plan to net zero”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

2017, the Centre was awarded an additional GBP 6.1m to fund research work on CCS through

2022. In 2020, the government further committed to establishing a GBP 1 billion CCUS

Infrastructure Fund, and in 2021, aims to introduce a revenue mechanism to bring through

private sector investment in industrial carbon capture and hydrogen projects to provide the

certainty investors require

. Further, the Scottish Government’s strategy allocates

GBP 60m to

the Low Carbon Innovation Fund, as well as GBP 20m to the Energy Investment Fund.

Additionally, the UK government has supported several frontend engineering, and design (FEED)

studies for CCS in the UK (e.g., Peterhead and Longannet).

The UK is one of the leading nations in terms of policy support for CCS with a strong institutional

framework and a range of climate change mitigation policies such as emission performance

standards and a carbon price floor. The UK’s comprehensive legal

and regulatory CCS framework

addresses the full chain of the CCS project life cycle. The Energy Act 2008 and its accompanying

Carbon Dioxide Licensing Regulations 2010 transpose the requirements of the EU Storage

Directive and establish the UK's framework for offshore CO2 storage activities. The regime applies

to storage in the offshore area comprising both UK territorial sea and beyond designated as a gas

importation and storage zone (GISZ) under section 1(5) of the Act. In addition, the UK has

ratified the London Protocol that allows CO2 export to other states for storage purposes.

Table 21: CCS national targets and policies in the United Kingdom

CCS NATIONAL TARGETS AND POLICIES IN UNITED KINGDOM

Category

Country CCS policy

maturity/potential

National CO2 reduction targets

National CCS targets

Indicator

Comments

The policy maturity is considered high due to CCS strategies and

targets, strong policy and legislative frameworks and financial

support, creating favourable conditions for CCS.

•

2030: -68% from 1990 levels

(economy wide emissions)

•

2050: Net zero emissions

The UK is committed to deploying CCS at scale during the 2030s,

subject to costs coming down sufficiently. The UK’s target is to

capture >10 MtCO2/y by 2030 and capture and store ~0.32

tCO2 per capita.

The UK is one of the leading nations in terms of policy support

for CCS with a strong institutional framework in place and a

range of climate change mitigation policies such as emission

performance standards and a carbon price floor. CCS legislation

comprises The Energy Act 2008 and its accompanying

regulations which transpose the requirements of the EU Storage

Directive and establish the UK's framework for offshore CO2

storage activities.

Extensive funding dedicated to CCS research and projects has

been granted in the UK.

Storage permitted in the offshore area comprising both UK

territorial sea and beyond designated as a gas importation and

storage zone (GISZ) under section 1(5) of the Act.

CCS policies and legislations

CCS funding

CCS storage-related policies

4.2.5.3 CCS potential (capturable CO2 intended for storage) in the United Kingdom

The UK is one of the largest emitters of the countries, with emissions from large stationary plants

estimated at ~146 MtCO2 in 2017, of which the power sector comprises 109.6 MtCO2 and the

industry 33.2 MtCO2.

At present, energy is sourced from primary oil (crude oil and natural gas liquids), natural gas,

primary electricity (consisting of nuclear, wind, solar and natural flow hydro), bioenergy and

waste, and a very small amount of coal (1%)

. The UK power and heat sector have been

transforming already from the 2020s towards increased supplies of low-carbon electricity

HM Government

“The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-sets-ambitious-new-climate-target-ahead-of-un-summit

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

(renewables and nuclear) and hydrogen, where CCS will be a central support vehicle to those

supplies

The industry comprises mineral oil & gas refineries, mineral production (cement, lime and

plaster), iron and steel production, chemicals production, as well as food production, where high

CCS potential is deemed due to CCS regarded as a key solution to decarbonise these hard to

abate emissions.

All of the scenarios outlined by the CCC critically incorporate CCS since it is considered a cost-

efficient means of meeting the UK’s 2050

Net-zero target,

and the deployment of CCS is already

beginning from 2025

The calculated capturable quantity of CO2 is estimated at on average 50

MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 119 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050 for both the power &

heat sector and the industry sector.

Committee on Climate Change (CCC), “Net Zero. The UK's contribution to stopping global warming”

Gov.uk, “UK ENERGY IN BRIEF 2020”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 22: CCS potential (intended for storage) in the United Kingdom

Sector

CO2

emissions

2017,

MtCO2

Capturable quantity of

CO2, MtCO2

(avg. MtCO2/y

)

2022-2040

Power & Heat

109.6

518.4

(32.4)

2041-2050

798.8

(79.9)

•

The overall significance of CCS within the UK power sector is considered to be widespread due to the

UK’s

energy sector

transformation towards increased supplies of low-carbon electricity (renewables and nuclear) and hydrogen, where CCS will be a

central support vehicle to those supplies

•

Power and heat CO2 in the United Kingdom splits into thermal power and heat generation (99.7 MtCO2) and waste-to-energy

plants (9.9 MtCO2)

•

The capturable volume of CO2 intended for storage within the segment is estimated at up to 90 MtCO2/y, including BECCS:

- Based on scenario studies CCS from fossil power generation can range between 22-51 MtCO2 in 2050, and Ramboll estimates

the median of the two in 2050, i.e. 36 MtCO2

- BECCS will play a significant role for new WtE plants and extensions where CCS should be built, and all energy-from-waste

plants should fit CCS by 2050, starting from 2040. BECCS from the power industry as a whole is expected to range between

11-25 MtCO2/y in 2050, for which Ramboll also assumes the median; 18 MtCO2/y

- Further, there is an important role for hydrogen produced from fossil gas with CCS in the medium term to enable hydrogen

growth. Thus CCS from the production of hydrogen has potential and is estimated to range between 22-50 MtCO2/y in 2050,

where Ramboll applies the median (36 MtCO2/y)

•

The introduction of CCS is expected from 2025, and the most rapid emissions reduction increases are estimated from 2025-2035,

therefore the increase of CCS potential is the steepest between this period

. From 2035-2050 the CCS potential continues to rise

but at a slower pace: Following the 2024 coal phase-out, gas-fired power without CCS should be phased out by 2035 and any gas

plant built before 2030 should be made ready for a switch to CCS or hydrogen, which is why the deployment of CCS keeps

increasing towards 2050

•

The UK produces notable levels of emissions in the industry sector, including mineral oil & gas refineries, mineral production

(cement, lime and plaster), iron and steel production, chemicals production, as well as food production

•

In the industry sector, CCS faces competition from hydrogen, electrification and CCU. However, CCS is considered to comprise the

majority of engineered greenhouse gas removals in 2050. The significance of CCS is high within the industry sector since CCS is

considered the key deep decarbonisation option for manufacturing, oil refineries, cement and steel production.

•

Total capturable volumes intended for CCS excluding BECCS are aligned with the CCC high case of about 24 MtCO2/y in 2050:

- CCS is applied to the manufacturing sector at scale in the 2030s and continues to remove CO2 at similar levels out to 2050

CCS is also applied to half of the UK’s integrated steelwork capacity in the early

2030s

- CCS will play a significant role in binging emissions down for cement, lime and other mineral sites

- Oil refineries emissions are also abated through CCS, along with reduced oil demand and energy efficiency improvements. CCS

is the main emissions reduction measure for the remaining emissions from oil refineries

•

BECCS from the industry sector is expected to range between 11-25 MtCO2/y in 2050, of which Ramboll estimates the median in

2050, i.e. 18 MtCO2/y

Comment

Industry

33.2

278.8

(17.4)

390.3

(39.0)

Average CO2 capturable amount is calculated for the time period 2030-2040

Committee on Climate Change (CCC), “Net Zero. The UK's contribution to stopping global warming”

Climate change committee,

“The Sixth Carbon Budget. The UK’s path to Net Zero”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.5.4 CO2 storage potential in the United Kingdom

The UK’s

total CO2 storage capacity is assessed

at 78,000 Mt. The majority, 69,000 Mt, is

situated in storage aquifers, and 9,000 Mt is situated in oil and gas fields units. Most of the

aquifer storage capacity is located on the United Kingdom continental shelf relatively far offshore

in the North Sea near the oil and gas fields. Oil and gas fields can be cheaper to develop than

aquifer storage units as some of the offshore infrastructures is already in place

The UK public has a positive attitude towards utilising domestic offshore carbon storage

capacity

100

. UK's storage capacity is considered to be sufficient to cover all upcoming CCS activity.

The picture below provides an overview of UK storage site locations and their relative sizes.

Figure 5: Overview of UK CO2 storage capacity

Source: Ramboll analysis, EU Geocapacity, “Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide”; Costain,

Energy Technologies Institute,

Pale Blue Dot, Axis Well Technology, “Progressing Development of the UK’s Strategic Carbon

Dioxide Storage Resource: A summary of result from the strategic UK CO2 storage appraisal project

IOGP, “The potential for CCS and CCU in Europe”

Edie, “Two thirds of Brits support UK’s green industrial revolution plans”

100

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.6

The Netherlands

4.2.6.1 Summary of CCS potential in the Netherlands

The Netherlands’ CO2 emissions from large sources in

2017 were ~95 MtCO2. Most emissions

relate to the power and heat sector (~65 MtCO2) and industrial production and processing (~30

MtCO2).

The Netherlands is aiming to reduce CO2 emissions by 95% from 1990 levels by 2050. CCS is

acknowledged in the Netherlands for its important role in reaching the climate target, yet mostly

as a

transition

solution until CCU and CCS linked with bioenergy can replace current CCS solutions

for fossil fuel industries. A CCS target has been set to 7.2 MtCO2/y by 2030, which is about half of

the country’s industry CO2

emissions reduction target of 14.3 MtCO2/y. Thus, CCS plays a

considerable role in the reduction of CO2 emissions from industry, yet it is controlled since

subsidies for CCS is capped at 7.2 MtCO2/y and subsidised are made available only if no other

cost-effective CO2-reduction alternatives are available, and finally, after 2035, no new subsidies

are granted to fossil CCS projects. The latter limitation is to ensure that the fossil fuel industry

does not continue in the future. According to national policies, CCS is initially limited to industry

sectors (steel, refinery, hydrogen, fertilizer, waste incineration)

101

. Despite ambitious climate

targets, the Netherlands is currently behind most other EU countries with respect to their

renewable energy targets,

i.e., the country’s share of energy coming from renewable sources is

the lowest in the EU.

National support for CCS has been granted through various R&D-related funding and going

forward; subsidies will be granted to a broader set of technologies to avoid CO2 emissions,

including CCS through The Sustainable Energy Transition Incentive Scheme (SDE++).

CCS potential in the Netherlands is estimated at 274 MtCO2 between 2022 and 2050 and on

average 12 MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 15 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050, with the

largest share from the power & heat sector. Gas is still expected to be part of the Dutch energy

mix towards 2050, and CCS will play an important role to abate CO2 emissions from this source.

Industrial sector emissions mainly relate to chemicals and refineries and will be highest in the

short-medium run, as in the long run, the government is expected to prioritize CCU and CCS

linked with bioenergy.

Storage potential in the Netherlands is estimated at 4,000 Mt, with 3,000 Mt of storage in

depleted oil & gas fields and 1,000 Mt of storage in aquifers. Storage is only allowed offshore or in

other countries.

The relevance for storage in Denmark is deemed medium. It is uncertain how much the

Netherlands expects to store nationally. The Netherlands has identified the risk that CO2 transport

demand might exceed the storage capacity in their CO2TransPorts industry cluster project

102

Additionally, there could be opportunities for export of Dutch CO2 if their national CCS projects

delay (the country has a history of delay with previous renewable energy projects), and finally,

The Dutch government has acknowledged that it will be challenging for The Netherlands to

achieve emissions reduction by scaling up renewables and thus, CCS could be a potential source

to make up for this potential gap

103

. Therefore, it is possible that Netherlands will not be able to

meet the CO2 demand with national storage capacity in time and will need to export CO2, at least

in the short-medium term.

Below is an overview of the CCS potential in the Netherlands.

101

The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs & Climate Policy: Clean Energy Solutions Center

– “Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage in The

European Commission,

“Candidate PCI

projects in cross-border carbon dioxide transport

networks”

IEA

–

The Netherlands 2020 Energy Policy Review

Netherlands (Webinar)”

102

103

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 23: Summary of CCS potential in the Netherlands

SUMMARY OF CCS POTENTIAL

Category

CO2 emissions 2017 (MtCO2)

Plants >100 ktCO2

CO2 reduction targets

Indicator

95.0

Comments

CO2 emissions from largest point sources; mainly by from the

power and heat generation industry, followed by the chemical

production and mineral oil and gas refinery industries

•

2030: -49% from 1990 levels (national target) and -36% from

2005 levels (non-EU ETS)

104

•

2050: -95% from 1990 levels (national target)

The Netherlands recognizes the important role CCS will have in

reaching CO2 reduction targets, yet mostly as a short-term

solution until CCU and CCS linked with bioenergy can replace

current CCS solutions.

The Netherlands initially planned to capture and store 18

MtCO2/y by 2030, but the target has been adjusted to 7.2

MtCO2/y, as few believed the initial goal to be realistically

achievable.

105

CCS is estimated to account for 20 mtCO2

reductions by 2030 from industrial sectors.

106

274

4,000

107

Evenly split between power & heat (natural gas emissions) and

industry (emissions from chemicals processing and refineries).

3,000 Mt of storage in depleted oil & gas fields; 1,000 Mt of

storage in aquifers

Storage of CO2 is only allowed offshore or in other countries but

supported by the government through several projects.

108

Medium

Medium significance for DK storage due to ongoing

national carbon storage site development. However,

uncertainty remains regarding project delays and

storage capacity, preventing NL from reaching GHG

targets in the next 10-20 years, making carbon export a

possibility in the future.

National CCS focus/Support

CCS targets

Total CCS Potential (MtCO2) 2022-2050

Own storage capacity (Mt)

Own storage potential/support

Potential for DK storage

4.2.6.2 CCS national targets and policies the Netherlands

The Netherlands is aiming to reduce CO2 emissions by 95% from 1990 levels by 2050. The

Netherlands has a favourable policy- and regulatory environment for the uptake of CCS, as is

seen by the government indicating CCS as a necessary instrument to reduce CO2 emissions in the

short term.

109

However, in the long term, the government wants to move away from CCS of fossil

fuel emissions towards CCU and CCS linked with bioenergy.

110

The Netherlands has set CCS targets limited to the industry sector, initially planning to capture

and store 18 MtCO2/y by 2030, but the target has been adjusted to 7.2 MtCO2/y, as few believed

the initial target to be realistically achievable

111

. By 2030, CCS has been estimated to account for

20 mtCO2 reductions from industrial sectors

112

Policy measures are in place to support the deployment of CCS in the Netherlands. The

government is preparing to release a new Dutch CCS Roadmap that is expected to accelerate the

deployment of CCS.

113

In 2019, the Dutch government decided, on top of the ETS system, to

implement a carbon tax, which could provide additional incentive for large emitters to implement

CCS.

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

The Netherland’s Integrated

National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

CE Delft “Feasibility study into blue hydrogen –

technical, economic

and sustainability analysis”, July 2018

Global CCS Institute CO2RE database

GEUS “Assessment of CO2 Storage Potential in Europe”

International Energy Agency “The Netherlands 2020: Energy Policy Review”

Klimaat-akkoord

“Voorstel

voor hoofdlijnen van

het Klimaatakkoord”

International Energy Agency

“The Netherlands 2020: Energy Policy Review”

CE Delft “Feasibility study into blue hydrogen –

technical, economic and sustainability

analysis”, July 2018

Global CCS Institute CO2RE database

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

In recent years, the Dutch Government has supported CCS R&D initiatives through CATO, which is

a national CCS R&D program that involves collaboration and funding from both the government

and industry.

114

The Sustainable Energy Transition Incentive Scheme (SDE++) of 2020 is a key

funding source as it awards subsidies to a broader set of technologies to avoid CO2 emissions,

including CCS. The government is expecting that a significant share of industrial emissions

reductions will be realised through SDE++ support for CCS and low-carbon hydrogen.

115

The

scheme sets a limit of 7.2 MtCO2/y for subsidising industrial CCS. A carbon storage project called

Porthos is expected to be granted funding from the SDE++ scheme in 2022.

The Netherlands has developed an integrated and comprehensive legal framework for CCS

activities, which draws upon wider national environmental and mining laws. The Dutch

government has mainly implemented the requirements of the EU storage Directive through

amendments to the national mining legislation, notably the Mining Decree and Mining Regulation.

In addition, the Netherlands has ratified the London Protocol that allows CO2 export to other

states for storage purposes.

Under the Dutch Mining Act, underground storage of CO2 is only allowed offshore or in other

countries.

116

To unlock storage potential, regulatory changes on the transfer of ownership and

decommissioning of the gas field after they have been depleted are necessary. These regulatory

aspects have been identified as potential barriers to the development of CCS projects in the

Netherlands.

Table 24: CCS national targets and policies in the Netherlands

CCS NATIONAL TARGETS AND POLICIES

Category

Country CCS policy

maturity/potential

Indicator

Comments

Strong policy and regulatory framework to support CCS and

specific targets for CCS deployment create favourable policy

conditions for CCS in the Netherlands, yet mostly in the short-

term.

•

2030: -49% from 1990 levels (national target) and -36% from

2005 levels (non-EU ETS)

117

•

2050: -95% from 1990 levels (national target)

The Netherlands initially targeted to capture and store 18

MtCO2/y by 2030, but the target has been adjusted to 7.2

MtCO2/y from the industrial sector.

118

By 2030, CCS is estimated to account for 20 MtCO2 reductions

from industrial sectors.

119

CCS policies and legislations

CCS is regarded as a necessary instrument to reduce CO2

emissions in the short term

120

, but in the long term, the

government wants to move away from CCS of fossil fuel

emissions towards CCU and BECCS.

121

The Netherlands has developed an integrated and

comprehensive legal framework for CCS activities, which draws

upon wider national environmental and mining laws.

CCS funding

Support systems and funding for CCS research and projects are

in place in the Netherlands, most notably through the national

CCS R&D programme CATO. The more recent funding source

available for CCS is the SDE++, which is a pivotal funding

source for CCS in the Netherlands. A carbon storage project

called Porthos is expected to be granted funding for the SDE++

scheme in 2022.

Underground storage of CO2 is only allowed offshore or in

other countries.

122

To unlock storage potential and prevent the

development of CCS projects in the Netherlands, regulatory

National CO2 reduction targets

National CCS targets

CCS storage-related policies

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

Global CCS Institute CO2RE database

International Energy Agency “The Netherlands 2020: Energy Policy Review”

The Netherland’s

Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

CE Delft

“Feasibility study into blue hydrogen – technical, economic and sustainability analysis”, July 2018

Global CCS Institute CO2RE database

Klimaat-akkoord

“Voorstel voor hoofdlijnen van het Klimaatakkoord”

International

Energy Agency “The Netherlands 2020: Energy Policy Review”

International Energy Agency “The Netherlands 2020: Energy Policy Review”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

changes on the transfer of ownership and decommissioning of

the gas field after they have been depleted are necessary.

4.2.6.3 CCS potential (capturable CO2 intended for storage) in the Netherlands

Total CO2 emissions from large sources

123

in the Netherlands were ~95 MtCO2 in 2017, of which

~65 MtCO2 were related to the power & heat sector and ~30 MtCO2 to the industrial production

and processing.

The overall significance of CCS within the Dutch power & heat sector is considered medium.

Despite the very ambitious targets for climate-change mitigation, the Netherlands today is

currently furthest behind other EU countries in the production of energy from renewable sources,

e.g., they fell short of their onshore wind target of 6 GW in 2020 due to public acceptance, grid

constraints (require a confirmation from relevant network operators) and land fees, whereas

large-scale PV projects were delayed since the supporting grid infrastructure was not delivered in

time for when the PV construct was finished. Renewable energy in the Netherlands comes mainly

from biofuels, waste, and wind, while geothermal, solar and hydro energy play only a minor role

in the country.

Despite plants phasing out production at Groningen, Europe's largest onshore natural gas field, by

2022, it is expected that the gas will still be part of the Dutch energy mix towards 2050.

Emissions for the industrial sectors have mainly concentrated around chemicals and refineries.

While significant potential is assessed with regards to refineries, the chemicals sector is expected

to prioritise other alternatives, including CCU, in the long run.

The calculated capturable quantity of CO2 is estimated at on average 12 MtCO2/y between 2022

and 2040 and 15 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050.

Figure 6:

The Netherland’s potential energy mix towards 2050

Source: Ramboll Analysis; Alliander,

ECN, “The supply of flexibility for the power system in the Netherlands, 2015-2050”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 25: CCS potential (intended for storage) in the Netherlands

Sector

CO2

emissions

2017,

MtCO2

Capturable quantity of

CO2, MtCO2

(avg. MtCO2/y

124

)

2022-2040

Power & Heat

64.6

(5)

2041-2050

(9)

•

The overall significance of CCS within the Dutch power & heat sector is considered medium, as the Netherlands is challenged to

convert all its energy production to renewable sources

•

The capturable volume of CO2 intended for storage within the segment is estimated at up to ~9 MtCO2/y, and mainly related to

the gas-fired plants

•

CCS is not considered relevant for coal-driven plants since they will be phased out shortly after the CCS introduction

•

Emission from the industrial sector was 29.9 MtCO2 in 2017, including production and processing of chemicals/ petrochemicals

(16.9 Mt in 2017) and refineries (10.6 MtCO2 in 2017)

•

The significance of CCS within the industrial sector varies across disciplines. It is high for refineries but much lower for the

chemicals industry, where there are several options to abate emissions. In general, the chemical industry is prioritizing CCU over

CCS

•

The total capturable volume intended for storage is estimated at up to ~5 MtCO2/y; The Netherlands has indicated CCS as a

necessary instrument to reduce CO2 emissions in the short term. In the long term, the government wants to move away from CCS

of fossil fuel emissions towards CCU and CCS linked with bioenergy. Consequently, CCS within the industrial sector is expected to

peak between 2030 and 2045 and slightly decrease thereafter.

•

No other significant potential areas have been assessed

Comment

Industry

29.9

(5)

Other

0.5

124

Average CO2 capturable amount is calculated for the time period 2030-2040

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.6.4 CO2 storage potential in the Netherlands

The Netherlands has a total of 4,000 Mt of storage capacity

–

3,000 Mt

–

in oil and gas fields and

1,000 Mt in aquifers

125

. As described in section 4.2.6.2, carbon storage is only allowed offshore,

which corresponds to 1,000 Mt of storage capacity in oil and gas fields and 700 Mt in offshore

aquifer storage capacity

126

While the Netherlands is developing projects to store carbon domestically, industry cluster

projects acknowledge that the demand for storing CO2 might exceed the storage capacity and

especially if the CCS project deliveries are faced with delays

127

. This means that the export of

captured carbon to international carbon storage sites could be necessary for the short-to-medium

term.

Despite Government support for CCS and their continued efforts to support CCS and set targets,

CCS was a controversial topic during the 2019 climate agreement negotiations; It was opposed by

several NGOs and some political parties

128

. Nevertheless, a study of public opination towards CCS

showed the Dutch public a neutral attitude towards offshore CCS

129

The picture below provides an overview of possible carbon storage sites in the Netherlands.

Figure 7: Overview of CCS facilities in Netherlands

Source:

Ramboll analysis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Jan de Jager, ”Petroleum Geology of the Netherlands”

125

126

127

128

GEUS, “Assessment

of CO2 Storage

Potential in Europe”

Noordzeeloket, ”CO2-storage”

European Commission, “Candidate PCI projects in cross-border carbon dioxide transport networks”

The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs & Climate Policy: Clean Energy Solutions Center

– “Carbon Capture,

Utilization and Storage in The

Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies, Dept. of Psychology, Leiden University, “Informed public opinion in

the Netherlands: Evaluation of

Netherlands

(Webinar)”

129

CO2 capture and storage technologies in comparison

with other CO2 mitigation options”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.7

Poland

4.2.7.1 Summary of CCS potential in Poland

Poland’s emissions from large sources in

2017 were ~167 MtCO2. Most emissions relate to the

power & heat sector (121 MtCO2), and the remaining to industrial production and processing (22

MtCO2) and other activities (23 MtCO2), including coal mining, landfill etc.

Poland is the only country where the Government has not yet committed to becoming carbon

neutral of all the ten countries and the EU countries. However, the climate ministry presented an

update of the country’s 2040 energy roadmap

at the end of 2020, where the country formally

endorses the EU 2050 climate neutrality goal. Poland does not actively pursue CCS at present.

However, the outlook for its coal expansion plans provide opportunities for carbon removal for

Poland to reach the EU commitments.

CCS potential in Poland is estimated at 591 MtCO2 between 2022 and 2050 and on average 19

MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 34 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050, with the largest

share coming from the power & heat sector. To decarbonise the Polish power & heat sector, CCS

and BECCS are expected to be necessary. Although most of the existing plants are old, CCS will

be relevant for some of the newer current power & heat plants (coal and biomass CHP) and

upcoming natural gas (to be built by 2035). Further, CCS is expected to play a role in the

decarbonising industrial sector, specifically, iron and steel (in connection with the use of blue

hydrogen) and mineral/cement industry, where CCS is currently the only relevant option for

emissions abatement.

Storage potential in Poland is estimated to be 78,000 Mt, mainly in aquifers. Only offshore storage

can currently be developed (CO2 storage is banned until 2024 except for offshore demonstration

projects). However, no development projects have been registered, and Poland has shown limited

interest in national

storage. While Poland’s domestic

storage capacity can cover all upcoming CCS

activity needs until 2050, it is expected that only some of the upcoming CCS activity will be

covered by domestic storage capacity. Nonetheless, with potential EU funding Poland may become

interested in national storage, especially since the high cost of exporting CO2 might be high.

The relevance for storage in Denmark is deemed medium, as limited interest in national storage

and large CCS potential could make CO2 export relevant.

Below is a summary table of the CCS potential in Poland.

Table 26: Summary of CCS potential in Poland

SUMMARY OF CCS POTENTIAL

Category

CO2 emissions 2017 (MtCO2)

Plants >100 ktCO2

Co2 reduction targets

Indicator

166.7

Comments

CO2 emissions from the largest point sources; mainly from the

power and heat generation industry powered by old coal

plants, followed by the cement, iron and steel industries

•

2030: -21% in EU ETS sectors and -7% from 2005 levels

(non-EU ETS) (-30% from 1990 levels)

130

2050: -85-90% from 1990 levels

Poland does not actively pursue CCS at present. However, the

outlook for its coal expansion plans provide opportunities for

carbon removal for Poland to reach the EU commitments.

No specific targets have been set for the deployment of CCS in

Poland.

591

The largest share of capturable CO2 is expected to be derived

from the power & heat sector (natural gas-fired power plants

and biomass-fired plants). Significant potential also assessed

within the industry (mainly iron and steel, and cement).

77,000 Mt of storage in aquifers

–

however, estimates are

debatable and vary widely; 1,000 Mt of storage in depleted oil

& gas fields

National CCS focus/Support

CCS targets

Total CCS Potential (MtCO2) 2022-

2050

Own storage capacity (Mt)

78,000

131

130

131

PEP2040

– Poland’s energy policy until 2040

Mineral and Energy, Economy Research Institute of Polish Academy Sciences, “CO2 storage capacity of deep aquifers and hydrocarbon

fields in

Poland

–

EU GeoCapacity project

results”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Own storage potential/support

TBD

CO2 storage is banned in Poland until 2024 (except for offshore

demonstration projects). This could indicate that the country

has no particular interest in storage at present. However, CCS

is expected to become a highly relevant measure to offset

emissions from the continued use of natural gas. Given that CO2

export can be more expensive than domestic storage, Poland is

therefore expected to explore its own storage options (especially

if the EU funding will be available)

Poland’s domestic storage capacity can cover all upcoming CCS

activity needs until 2050. However, only some of the upcoming

CCS activity is expected to be covered by domestic storage

capacity.

Potential for DK storage

MEDIUM

4.2.7.2 CCS national targets and policies Poland

Poland is aiming to reduce CO2 emissions by 85-90% from 1990 levels by 2050. However, the

climate ministry presented an update of the country’s 2040 energy roadmap at the end of 2020,

where the country formally endorses the EU 2050 climate neutrality goal. Poland does not actively

pursue CCS at present as a means of decarbonisation and has not set targets for CCS

deployment. However, the Polish energy policy notes that there is institutional interest in CO2

capture projects, and the possibility of implementing them with the option to transport it outside

Poland is not ruled out (e.g., in the North Sea region). Furthermore, in light of the planned

expansion of Poland’s coal industry, CCS can be expected to be

necessary for Poland to reach its

climate targets and EU commitments.

Currently, no national support system for CCS deployment is in place in Poland. Previously,

through its R&D program “New Technologies for Energy Generation”, Poland supported two CCS

pilot facilities that tested varying capture approaches in Lagisza and Jaworno power plants from

2010-2015. Both projects were cancelled due to the high cost of the CCS technology as well as

the influence of the social resistance coming from the rest of the EU of storing CO2 on geological

formations. Further, a demo CO2 post-capture project was performed at Belchatow (on the new

858 MW lignite-fired unit), which was also abandoned at the stage of a CCS ready investment due

to high cost and lack of sufficient (national) financial support

132

. However, the institutional

interest in CCS remains, and the option of capturing CO2 and transporting it outside Poland is

specifically noted in Poland’s energy policy as a consideration.

Poland has basic legal and regulatory frameworks in place related to CCS. Poland has

implemented the EU’s CCS Directive by amending the Polish Geological and Mining

Law. However,

CO2 storage is banned in Poland until 2024, except for offshore demonstration projects. Under

the amendments, Poland thus prohibits onshore storage and identifies only one storage site for

commercial CO2 storage

–

in the Baltic Sea, which is located far from the biggest sources of CO2

emissions.

133

Table 27: CCS national targets and policies in Poland

CCS NATIONAL TARGETS AND POLICIES

Category

Country CCS policy

maturity/potential

National CO2 reduction targets

Indicator

Comments

Poland does not actively pursue CCS at present.

•

2030: -21% in EU ETS sectors and -7% from 2005 levels

(non-EU ETS) (-30% from 1990 levels)

134

•

2050: -85-90% from 1990 levels

Poland has no CCS targets.

Poland has basic regulatory and policy frameworks to enable

CCS deployment in the country due to its EU membership. The

energy policy of Poland mentions the so-called

“CCS ready”

requirements, and the decision to employ CCS will need to fulfil

these requirements and be economically efficient.

National CCS targets

CCS policies and legislations

132

133

134

CCS

–

Polish Point of View, Basrec conference Warsawa

Carbon neutral Baltic

states: “Do we have CCUS among accepted options”

PEP2040

– Poland’s energy policy until 2040

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

CCS funding

CCS storage-related policies

No national support systems in place.

CO2 storage is banned in Poland until 2024, except for offshore

demonstration projects. CO2 use for EOR and EGR and

associated CO2 storage onshore and offshore are allowed.

4.2.7.3 CCS potential (capturable CO2 intended for storage) in Poland

Total CO2 emissions from large sources

135

in Poland were ~167 MtCO2 in 2017, of which 121

MtCO2 were related to the power & heat sector, 22 MtCO2 to the industrial production and

processing and the remaining 23 MtCO2 to other activities, including coal mining, landfill etc.

The overall significance of CCS within the power & heat sector in Poland is considered low, as

renewables and nuclear energy are expected to lead the decarbonisation of the power sector.

However, Poland’s reliance on natural gas is expected to increase

and be high at least until 2040.

Furthermore, there are up to date no announced plans to completely discontinue the four newly

build coal-driven power plants. Consequently, CCS is seen as necessary in order to abate the

remaining CO2 emissions within the sector. Poland also has carbon sink potential due to large

surface areas and large forest areas. However, forests are becoming mature, resulting in the

decrease of the carbon sink potential. Other options in terms of agricultural fields/soil and

wetlands are possible but would require significant investments. The total carbon sink is expected

to be approximately 10 MtCO2e/y in 2050

136

Poland's industry’s decarbonization pathway

will likely require the development of alternative fuels

(hydrogen, biomass, and electricity), and CSS is seen as a last-resort option at scale.

Decarbonisation of

Poland’s industry sector is also expected later on compared to the power &

heat sector.

The calculated capturable quantity of CO2 is estimated at on average 19 MtCO2/y between 2022

and 2040 and 34 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050, with the largest share coming from the power

& heat sector.

Figure 8:

Poland’s potential

energy mix towards 2050

Source: Ramboll Analysis; Forum Energii, “Polish

energy sector

2050”

135

136

Plants with emissions exceeding 100,000 MtCO2/y

Carbon-neutral Poland 2050: Turning a challenge into an opportunity, McKinsey & Company 2020

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 28: CCS potential (intended for storage) in Poland

Sector

CO2

emissions

2017,

MtCO2

Capturable quantity of

CO2, MtCO2

(avg. MtCO2/y

137

)

2022-2040

Power & Heat

121.2

217

(17)

2041-2050

310

(31)

•

The overall significance of CCS within the power & heat sector in Poland is considered low, as renewables and nuclear energy are

preferred options for decarbonisation of the power sector

•

However, switching power-generation technology from fossil fuels to renewable energy is expected to be a major challenge for

Poland, and not all fossil sources will be decommissioned by 2050. Consequently, CCS is seen as a necessary measure in order to

abate the remaining CO2 emissions within the sector

•

Although the overall

decarbonisation of Poland’s power & heat

sector will be to a large degree driven by electrification, Poland has

recently invested in a number of large power plants relevant for CCS (4 newer coal-fired plants and seven biomass-fired CHP

plants) and five natural gas plants are planned to be delivered the mid-2020s. All of these plants are expected to operate towards

2050. The majority of the remaining installed coal capacity is older than 30 years and will most probably need to be

decommissioned before 2050

•

Total capturable CO2 volume from these plants is estimated at up to ~33 MtCO2/y

•

CO2 emissions from the industrial sector were at 22 MtCO2 in 2017, primarily concentrated in iron and steel (7.1 MtCO2 in 2017)

and cement (6.8 MtCO2 in 2017). Additional smaller amounts are assessed within refineries, non-ferrous metals and chemicals.

•

CCS would be an important measure to reduce emission within this sector, along with the development of alternative fuels

(hydrogen, biomass, and electricity). However, CCS is still considered a last-resort option at scale in Poland.

•

Total capturable volume intended for storage is estimated at up to ~3 MtCO2/y, and the highest potential is assessed within the

mineral processing/cement industry, where CCS is assessed to be the most effective way to significantly reduce emissions. Ramp-

up of the CCS within the industrial sector is expected to be moderate, starting from 2030 and reach the full potential around 2040

•

CCS is also considered highly relevant for reducing CO2 emissions within the iron and steel industry. Hydrogen is currently

considered to be a preferred option to abate CO2 emissions within this industry. However, there are no provisions against the

import and use of blue hydrogen. Blue hydrogen is therefore expected to be the transitional solution, creating the need for CCS

•

Some minor potentials are also assessed within the refining industry and chemical industry. However, in general, the chemical

industry is prioritizing CCU over CCS

•

Other comprises coal mining, landfill and waste management. None of these are considered relevant for CCS in Poland

Comment

Industry

22.4

(3)

Other

23.1

137

Average CO2 capturable amount is calculated for the time period 2028-2040

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.7.4 CO2 storage potential in Poland

Poland has an estimated 78,000 Mt of storage capacity, of which the majority

–

77,000 Mt

–

situated in storage aquifers, and 1,000 Mt is situated in oil and gas fields

138

. Aquifer units are

mostly located onshore, while oil and gas fields are located offshore and onshore. Only offshore

storage can currently be developed; however, no development projects have been registered

139

The storage capacity of oil and gas fields are mapped more accurately

140

and can theoretically

cover Poland’s CCS activity needs. The storage capacity

could be too expensive to develop and

operate due to the relatively small scale of the storage units and a lack of government will and

incentives. The current situation suggests that Poland is not currently interested in developing

storage. However, CCS is expected to become highly relevant as an emission offset measure for

the continued use of natural gas. Given CO2 export can be more expensive than storage, Poland

is expected to explore domestic storage opportunities, especially if EU finance is available

141

The Polish public recognizes CCUS as an effective climate change technology

142

. However,

currently little governmental support for the development of storage sites is provided, as

described in section 4.2.7.2. This means

that, while Poland’s domestic storage capacity can cover

all upcoming CCS activity needs until 2050, it is expected that only some of the upcoming CCS

activity will be covered by domestic storage capacity.

The picture below details the location and relative size of the storage locations in Poland.

Figure 9: Overview of Carbon Storage in Poland

Source:

McKinsey & Co., “Carbon-neutral

Poland 2050: Turning a challenge into an

opportunity”

4.2.8

Estonia

4.2.8.1 Summary of CCS potential in Estonia

Estonia’s emissions

from large stationary plants in 2017 were ~25 MtCO2, yet due to the closure

of five oil shale plants from 2017-2020, emissions have been adjusted to ~12 MtCO2. Of the

updated emissions, power and heat comprise 8.5 MtCO2, the industry comprises 2.6 MtCO2,

whereas waste management comprises the remaining 1.4 MtCO2.

138

Mineal and Energy, Economy Research Institute of Polish Academy of Sciences, “CO2 storage

capacity of deep aquifers and hydrocarbon field in

The Global CCS

Institute, “Global Status of CCS 2020”

Mineral and Energy, Economy Research Institute of Polish Academy of Sciences, “CO2 storage capacity of deep aquifers

and hydrocarbon fields

Ramboll Expert

Eurobarometer,

“Public Awareness and Acceptance of CO2 capture and storage”

Poland- EU Geocapacity Results

139

140

in Poland

–

EU GeoCapacity Project Results”

141

142

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Estonia aims to become carbon neutral in 2050, but the country does not have any CCS specified

targets. Nevertheless, the

country’s oil shale industry could suggest

the potential for the

implementation of CCS.

CCS potential in Estonia is estimated at 9.0 MtCO2 between 2022 and 2050, and on average 0.4

MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 0.5 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050, split fairly evenly

between power & heat and industry. CCS potential is mainly related to power & heat (due to

planned blue hydrogen production) and cement production (where CCS is the only option

currently relevant for CO2 abatement). Within the industry sector, decarbonisation, cement is

identified as a hard to abate emissions source. Thus CCS will likely play a role.

Storage potential in Estonia is low, as geological conditions are unfavourable for CO2 storage.

National storage is therefore not viable, and CO2 would need to be exported to other countries.

Additionally, CO2 utilisation is also currently very limited and require high-quality CO2. A study

from the University of Tallinn explored the options for using CCUS in Estonian oil shale-based

energetics. Preliminary results showed that it is technologically possible but very costly

143

; thus,

this strengthens further the case for CO2 export.

The relevance for storage in Denmark is deemed low, as the estimated volumes are too

insignificant.

Below is an overview of the CCS potential in Estonia.

Table 29: Summary of CCS potential in Estonia

SUMMARY OF CCS POTENTIAL

Category

CO2 emissions 2017 (MtCO2)

Plants >100 ktCO2

Co2 reduction targets

Indicator

24.7

Comments

CO2 emissions from the largest point sources; mainly from

heat and power industry powered oil shale, followed by the

waste management and cement industry

•

2030: -70% compared to 1990 (national target), and -13%

compared to 2005 (non-EU ETS)

144

•

2050: climate neutral

145

Estonia’s

policies, regulations and climate plans do not actively

pursue CCS development in the country today. However, as the

country has recently committed to carbon neutrality and in an

analysis which the Government commissioned, CCS/CCSU is

mentioned as a prerequisite to reduce emissions to zero.

No specific targets have been set for the deployment of CCS in

Estonia.

146

Primary CCS potential comes from its oil shale production as

well as the cement industry.

CO2 storage is not possible on Estonian territory as there are

no suitable geological formations.

Due to shallow setting, geological conditions in Estonia are

unfavourable for CO2 storage. Therefore, Estonia would need

to turn to the option of exporting CO2.

Low

Carbon storage outside the country seems likely,

however, the estimated CCS volumes are deemed

insignificant

National CCS focus/Support

CCS targets

Total CCS Potential (MtCO2) 2022-2050

Own storage capacity (Mt)

Own storage potential/support

Potential for DK storage

4.2.8.2 CCS national targets and policies Estonia

Estonia has committed to carbon neutrality by 2050. The country has no stated CCS targets.

However, it would need to turn to CCS to reach climate targets if oil shale (local fossil fuel) based

143

144

145

146

Interview with Tallinn University of Technology

Estonia’s 2030 National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP

2030)

Stockholm Environment institute

– “Reaching climate neutrality in Estonia”

GEUS “EU GeoCapacity Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

electricity and oil production continues. Government has a plan to stop producing oil shale

147

power by 2035

148

. To address this, Estonia, together with Latvia and Lithuania, will synchronise

through Poland with a reliable and unified power system of continental Europe by 2025 to be able

to increase the amount of renewable energy sources employed. However, the Estonian

environment minister stated that the country could not drop oil shale until the power supply has

been secured. Therefore, within the next decade, Estonia will need to decrease its dependency on

oil shale, but the acceleration of this is uncertain, and thus, CO2 storage could be an additional

mechanism for renewables to achieve its climate targets. Further, Estonia plans to produce blue

hydrogen in the future. Producing Hydrogen with CCS could be one of the future options, and Bio-

CCS may also help to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.

National financial support for research is targeted now for CO2 capture and use

149

. Based on the

Estonian Government-commissioned study on a climate-neutrality scenario in 2050, total hard-to-

abate emissions are estimated to be 2.1 MtCO2e (excluding Transport), with the energy sector

contributing to close to zero emissions.

In 2019-2021, Tallinn University of Technology will carry out the project

“Climate change

mitigation through CCS and CCU technologies” to assess the suitability and work of different

carbon capture technologies developed scenarios for the application of these technologies in the

Estonian oil shale industry

150

The absence of storage capacity in Estonia has meant that permanent storage of CO2 has been

prohibited.

Estonia has ratified the London Protocol that allows CO2 export to other states for storage

purposes.

Table 30: CCS national targets and policies in Estonia

CCS NATIONAL TARGETS AND POLICIES

Category

Country CCS policy

maturity/potential

National CO2 reduction targets

Indicator

Comments

CCS identified in the national climate strategy as potentially

relevant, yet lack of supportive policy measures and regulatory

restrictions create less favourable conditions for CCS.

•

2030: -70% compared to 1990 (national target), and -13%

compared to 2005 (non-EU ETS)

151

•

2050: climate neutral

152

Estonia does not actively pursue CCS and has no CCS facilities

in operation/construction.

The NECP does not mention the strategic energy technology

(SET) plan, even though Estonia is actively participating in

three implementation working groups on photovoltaics,

offshore wind and carbon capture utilisation and storage.

153

The applicable legislation mainly deals with the transportation

and capture of CO2 rather than key aspects of CCS, such as

monitoring and verification requirements, surface access and

reclamation activities or closure regimes.

154

CCS funding

At the end of 2018, at the initiative of Norway, the Nordic

Cooperation Group on Carbon Capture, Use and Storage

(CCUS) and GHG Reduction (NGCCUS) were established, which

could be a source of CCS funding. However, the Estonian

development plan for research, development, innovation and

entrepreneurship 2021-2035 is currently being developed, and

thus more detailed funding and timeframes remain unclear.

National CCS targets

CCS policies and legislations

147

CO2 emission from oil shale combustion is significantly higher in comparison with other fossil fuels as energy sources. This is why CO2 emission

EER News, “Environment minister: Estonia

cannot drop

oil shale until supply is secured”

Tallinn University of Technology

– “Carbon neutral Baltic States: Do we have CCUS among accepted options?”

Stockholm Environment Institute

–

“Raising Estonia's climate

ambition

analysis of possibilities”

Estonia’s 2030 National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

Stockholm Environment institute

– “Reaching climate neutrality in Estonia”

European

Commission “Assessment of the final national energy and climate plan

Estonia”

Global CCS Institute CO2RE database

per capita in Estonia is about two times higher than the average value in Europe.

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

CCS storage related policies

The absence of storage capacity in Estonia has meant that the

permanent storage of CO2 has been prohibited (with a limited

exception for research purposes). Specifically, geological

storage of carbon dioxide is prohibited in Estonia and under the

continental shelf in accordance with the Earth's Crust Act, as

well as within Estonia's maritime boundaries in accordance with

the Water Act.

155

4.2.8.3 CCS potential (capturable CO2 intended for storage) in Estonia

Total CO2 emissions from large stationary plants in Estonia were at ~25 MtCO2 in 2017.

However, from 2017-2020, five oil shale plants have closed, and therefore the emissions have

been adjusted to about ~12 MtCO2

156

. Of the updated amounts, power and heat comprise 8.5

MtCO2, the industry comprises 2.6 MtCO2, whereas waste management comprises the remaining

1.4 MtCO2.

The overall significance of CCS within the power & heat sector in Estonia is considered low, as

renewables and nuclear energy are expected to lead the decarbonisation of the power sector.

However, Estonia's reliance on oil shale mixed with biomass (maximum 20% of the mix) is

expected to remain, although Estonia has introduced a target to phase out oil shale plants by

2035 due to the country's worry of energy supply security.

With regards to the industry, cement has been identified in Estonia's decarbonization pathway as

a hard to abate emissions source, where CCS will likely play a role.

157

The calculated capturable quantity of CO2 is estimated at on average 0.4 MtCO2/y between 2030

and 2040 and 0.5 MtCO2/y between 2041 and 2050, split fairly evenly between power & heat and

industry.

155

156

157

Global CCS Institute CO2RE database

Tallinn University of Technology, “Carbon

neutral Baltic states: do we have CCUS among accepted

options?”

Stockholm Environment Institute

–

“Raising Estonia's climate ambition analysis of possibilities”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 31: CCS potential (intended for storage) in Estonia

Sector

CO2

emissions

2017,

MtCO2

Capturable quantity of

CO2, MtCO2

(avg. MtCO2/y

158

)

2022-2040

Power & Heat

8.5

1.2

(0.1)

2041-2050

0.5

(0.05)

•

The overall significance of CCS within the Estonia power & heat sector is low

due to the Government’s focus on renewable power

generation and nuclear. However, Estonia has expressed the need for energy supply security through domestic measures after

having rapidly closed five oil shale production plants in recent years; thus, this might pose a deployment of CCS at the currently

existing fossil fuel-driven power plants starting from 2030. Nevertheless, the Government has announced a target of phasing out

all oil shale plants by 2035. Therefore it is expected that 50% of currently operating plants will be closed by 2035. From 2035-2050

it is estimated that 50% of energy will be produced by renewable energy and nuclear, whereas the other 50% will be produced

from other fuels mixed with biomass (the maximum share of biomass mix is 20%). Based on these trends and assumptions, CCS is

assumed to be utilised for 20% of the emissions from the early 2030s

•

The capturable volume of CO2 intended for storage within the segment is estimated at up to 0.2 MtCO2/y (peak between 2030 and

2040)

•

Estonia has a small industrial sector with an emission of 2.6 MtCO2 in 2017, including cement production and other wood

processing. The emissions relevant for CCS come solely from cement (0.6 MtCO2), which are hard to abate emissions in 2050

•

CCU is a competitor to CCS and is preferred compared to CCS. Therefore CCS of the cement emissions are estimated from 30-40%

between early 2030 to 2050

•

The capturable volume of CO2 intended for storage within the segment is estimated at up to 0.5 MtCO2/y in 2050

•

No other significant potential areas have been assessed

Comment

Industry

2.6

1.4

(0.1)

3.3

(0.2)

Other

1.4

4.2.8.4 CO2 storage potential in Estonia

Carbon storage in Estonia is unfavourable due to unsuitable geological conditions

159

. Any domestic storage of Carbon is prohibited by law, as

described in section 4.2.8.2.

Estonian attitude towards CCS technology is favourable in the shape of national financial support for research projects while also allowing the

export of carbon for storage

160

. However, Estonia does not currently have CCS facilities in operation or construction

161

As a result, Estonia does not have the storage capacity to cover upcoming CCS activity and will be looking to export captured carbon.

158

159

160

161

Average CO2 capturable amount is calculated for the time period 2030-2040

Institute of Geology, Tallinn University

of Technology, “Possibilities for geological storage and mineral trapping of industrial CO2 emissions in the Baltic Sea”

Tallinn University of Technology, “Carbon Neutral Baltic States: Do we have CCUS among accepted options”

The Global CCS Institute,

“Global Status of CCS 2020”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.9

Lithuania

4.2.9.1 Summary of CCS potential in Lithuania

Lithuania’s emissions from large stationary

plants in 2017 were ~5 MtCO2, of which only 0.1

MtCO2 were related to the power & heat sector. Most emissions relate to waste-to-energy plants

and the remaining industry, including oil & gas refineries, chemical production and cement

production.

Lithuania is aiming to become carbon neutral

by 2050. Lithuania’s strong focus on renewable

energy is reflected in the 45% renewable energy share in final energy consumption in 2030. While

the Lithuanian government states that CCSU technologies are required to reduce the cost of

renewable energy, no specified CCS targets are mentioned in

the Government’s National energy

and climate strategies.

CCS potential in Lithuania is estimated at 7.4 MtCO2 between 2022 and 2050 and on average 0.4

MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 0.3 MtCO2/y between 2040 and 2050. In general, very

small potential is assessed for CCS by 2050, as oil and gas have been phased out, and other

alternatives such as CCU are prioritized in the rest of the industry.

Storage potential in Lithuania is estimated to be 2.2 Mt. However, both onshore and offshore CO2

storage was recently banned in Lithuania (July 2020).

The relevance for storage in Denmark is deemed low, as the estimated volumes are too

insignificant.

Below is an overview of the CCS potential in Lithuania.

Table 32: Summary of CCS potential in Lithuania

SUMMARY OF CCS POTENTIAL

Category

CO2 emissions 2017 (MtCO2)

Plants >100 ktCO2

Co2 reduction targets

Indicator

5.19

Comments

CO2 emissions from largest point sources; mainly chemicals

production industry focusing on the production of fertiliser and

ammonia, followed by the mineral oil and gas industries

•

2030: -43% from 2005 levels (EU ETS) and -9% from 2005

levels (non-EU ETS)

162

•

2040: -70% from 1990 levels (all sectors)

2050: Carbon neutral: -80% from 1990 levels (all sectors)

and -20% absorbed by LULUCF carbon sink

Lithuania’s policies, regulations and climate

plans do not

actively pursue CCS development in the country today.

However, the country has recently committed to carbon

neutrality, and CCS is mentioned as potentially relevant to

achieve climate neutrality.

No specific targets have been set for the deployment of CCS in

Lithuania.

The potential is deemed from oil and gas refineries primarily,

who are the main advocates for CCS, however, will be phased

out by 2045.

2,280 Mt of storage in aquifers and 6 Mt of storage in oil and

gas fields

Lithuania recently banned CO2 injection, and thus, CO2 storage

is not permitted onshore or offshore

164

National CCS focus/Support

CCS targets

Total CCS Potential (MtCO2) 2030-

2050

Own storage capacity (Mt)

2,286

163

Own storage potential/support

Potential for DK storage

Low

Carbon storage outside the country seems likely,

however, the estimated CCS volumes are deemed

insignificant

162

163

164

Lithuania’s Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

GEUS “Assessment of CO2 Storage Potential in Europe”

Lithuanian Parliament,

LRT news

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.9.2 CCS national targets and policies Lithuania

Lithuania aims to become carbon neutral by 2050, allowing 20% of CO2 reductions to be

absorbed by the LULUCF carbon sink. While the Lithuanian government states that CCSU

technologies are required to reduce the cost of renewable energy and that further developing

CCUS technologies and analysing their applications in Lithuania is necessary,

no specified CCS

targets

have

been set in Lithuania. Lithuania’s strong focus on renewable energy is reflected in

the 45% renewable energy share in final energy consumption in 2030.

Latvia does not have national support systems in place for CCS funding. According to the

country’s NECP,

2% in its SET-plan will be allocated to CCS of the share of total R&I investments

from 2021-2027 in the field of energy

165

. However, despite these developments, CCS is not

considered a priority in Latvia today.

Lithuania’s legal and

regulatory framework related to CCS activities has been developed to

address multiple elements of the project lifecycle. The framework transposes the requirements of

the EU storage Directive into national law. The licensing regime adopted is similar to other models

governing the country's oil, gas, and mining operations. While several elements of the resulting

framework are well characterised, some aspects of the CCS project lifecycle have yet to be fully

addressed. In addition, Lithuania has recently banned CO2 injections, thereby permitting neither

onshore nor offshore storage

166

Table 33: CCS national targets and policies in Lithuania

CCS NATIONAL TARGETS AND POLICIES

Category

Country CCS policy

maturity/potential

National CO2 reduction targets

Indicator

Comments

CCS identified in the national climate strategy as potentially

relevant, yet lack of supportive policy measures and regulatory

restrictions create less favourable conditions for CCS.

•

2030: -43% from 2005 levels (EU ETS) and -9% from 2005

levels (non-EU ETS)

167

•

2040: -70% from 1990 levels (all sectors)

•

2050: Carbon neutral: -80% from 1990 levels (all sectors) and

-20% absorbed by LULUCF carbon sink

The country has no CCS targets. However, the National energy

and climate action plan from 2021-2030 outlines that

technology will play a central role in achieving its energy policy

goals, one such technology mentioned is CCS.

168

The country has developed a legal and regulatory model for CCS

activities, which addresses multiple elements of the project

lifecycle and transposes the requirements of the EU storage

Directive into national law.

Latvia will allocate 2% in its SET-plan priorities to CCS of the

share of total R&I investments from 2021-2027 in the field of

energy

169

. However, CCS is not considered a priority.

Lithuania recently banned CO2 injection, and thus, CO2 storage

is not permitted onshore or offshore

170

National CCS targets

CCS policies and legislations

CCS funding

CCS storage-related policies

165

166

167

168

169

170

Latvia’s national energy and climate plan, 2021-2030

Lithuanian Parliament,

LRT news

Lithuania’s Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

National energy and climate action plan of the republic of Lithuania for 2021-2030

Latvia’s national

energy and climate plan, 2021-2030

Lithuanian Parliament,

LRT news

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.9.3 CCS potential (capturable CO2 intended for storage) in Lithuania

Total CO2 emissions from large stationary plants in Lithuania were at ~5 MtCO2 in 2017. Only 0.1 MtCO2 were related to the power & heat sector;

From waste-to-energy plants, and the rest from industry, including oil & gas refineries, chemical production and cement production.

Lithuania is mainly focused on renewable energy, so the emissions are already to date minimal in the power and heat sector.

Lithuania’s climate plan notes that the country will make maximum use of natural carbon sinks and prefers

CCU above CCS; only environmentally

safe CCS technologies will be used to ensure a 100% reduction in the industry segment

171

. There is reportedly one oil company that is advocating

the use of CCS

172

. Further, the fossil fuel industry will be fully abandoned by 2045 and will be replaced by green hydrogen.

The calculated capturable quantity of CO2 is estimated at on average 0.4 MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 0.3 MtCO2/y between 2041 and

2050.

Table 34: CCS potential (intended for storage) in Lithuania

Sector

CO2

emissions

2017,

MtCO2

Capturable quantity of

CO2, MtCO2

(avg. MtCO2/y

173

)

2022-2040

Power & Heat

0.1

0.2

(0.02)

Industry

5.1

4.4

(0.4)

2041-2050

0.2

(0.02)

2.6

(0.3)

•

The overall significance of CCS within the Lithuanian power & heat sector is insignificant due to the lack of emissions in this sector

as renewables have been employed at large-scale already

•

The capturable volume of CO2 within the segment is estimated below ~0.1 MtCO2/y in 2050

•

The significance of CCS in the industry is low since other carbon removal means are prioritised, such as CCU

•

CCS will be mainly relevant for the oil & gas industry, which only comprise 1.7 MtCO2 in 2017 since CCU is preferred for the other

industry sectors (cement and chemical production)

•

CCS is estimated to rise up to comprise about 20% of emissions reduction for industry from 2035 to 2045

•

Since the fossil fuel industry will be phased out by 2045, the CCS potential from the oil & gas sector is removed, and Ramboll

estimates the capture potential to be only 10% of emissions

•

The capturable volume of CO2 intended for storage within the segment is estimated to peak from 2035-2045 at 0.6 MtCO2/y and

will decrease with the closure of oil & gas refineries (largest advocate of CCS) by 2045 to below 0.1 MtCO2/y towards 2050

•

No other significant potential areas have been assessed

Comment

Other

171

172

173

Latvia’s national energy and climate plan, 2021-2030

Expert interview with Baltics representative from Tallinn University of Technology

Average CO2 capturable amount is calculated for the time period 2030-2040

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.9.4 CO2 storage potential in Lithuania

Lithuania’s total carbon storage capacity is 2,280 Mt,

situated almost exclusively in aquifer

storage units with 5.8 Mt of storage capacity located in oil and gas fields

174

. However, the aquifer

storage units are located close to the surface and have not been tested for any leakages, which is

a long and expensive process.

As described in section 4.2.9.2, any carbon storage is prohibited in Lithuania, but that could

change in the short term as new politicians are elected. The attitude towards CCS technologies in

Lithuania is considered favourable

175

as several carbon capture facilities have been planned with

the intention of exporting the captured carbon

176

As a result, Lithuania has adequate domestic storage to cover upcoming CCS activities but does

not plan to develop the storage sites. This means that any carbon captured from upcoming CCS

activities will have to be exported for storage.

4.2.10 Latvia

4.2.10.1 Summary of CCS potential in Latvia

Latvia’s emissions from large stationary plants in 2017 were

~1 MtCO2. Thermal power and heat

comprise the total amount of these emissions. Latvia (and Lithuania) has significantly lower

emissions than Estonia due to the utilisation of other main energy sources (nuclear and hydro-

energy) than oil shale.

Latvia is aiming to become carbon neutral in 2050. As energy and transport sectors comprise

~64% of total GHG emissions in 2017, these sectors are expected to play a significant role in

achieving the

goal. Latvia’s carbon neutrality strategy states that CCS could

be relevant for

industrial sectors, yet not in the significant energy and transport sectors. The potential for CCS in

Latvia is low as the country has no industrial plants >100 ktCO2.

Latvia's CCS potential is estimated at 2.2 MtCO2 between 2022 and 2050, and on average 0.1

MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 0.1 MtCO2/y between 2040 and 2050, and the potential is

mainly related to the power & heat sector. Latvia does not have industrial plants above 100 ktCO2

(where CCS could be applied), and therefore, the potential for CCS in Latvia is considered low.

Storage potential in Latvia is estimated to be 3,400 Mt in aquifers. The relevance for storage in

Denmark is deemed low, as the estimated volumes are so insignificant.

Below is an overview of the CCS potential in Latvia.

Table 35: Summary of CCS potential in Latvia

SUMMARY OF CCS POTENTIAL

Category

CO2 emissions 2017 (MtCO2)

Plants >100 ktCO2

Co2 reduction targets

Indicator

1.0

Comments

CO2 emissions from the largest point sources; mainly from the

power and heat generation industry

•

2030: -65% from 1990 (national target) and -6% from 2005

(non-EU ETS)

177

2050: Carbon neutral

Latvia’s policies,

regulations and climate plans do not actively

pursue CCS development in the country today. However, the

country has recently committed to carbon neutrality, and CCS

is mentioned as potentially relevant to achieve climate

neutrality.

No specific targets have been set for the deployment of CCS in

Latvia.

National CCS focus/Support

CCS targets

174

175

176

177

GEUS, “Assessment of CO2 storage potential in Europe”

IOGP, “the potential for CCS and CCU in Europe”

Tallinn University of Technology, “Carbon Neutral Baltic

States:

Do we have CCUS among accepted options?”

Latvia’s Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Total CCS Potential (MtCO2) 2022-

2050

Own storage capacity (Mt)

Own storage potential/support

3,400

178

Mainly related to the power & heat sector

3,400 Mt of storage in aquifers

Domestic CO2 storage is not currently permitted in Latvia and

as no experiments have been conducted to ensure geological

suitability for carbon storage, developing these sites would be

difficult and could take several years

179

Potential for DK storage

Low

Carbon storage outside the country seems likely,

however, the estimated CCS volumes are deemed

insignificant

4.2.10.2 CCS national targets and policies Latvia

Latvia aims to become carbon neutral by 2050 but does not actively pursue CCS as a means to

achieve this climate target and currently has no CCS facilities in planning/construction. Thus,

specific targets related to CCS

have been set either. However, Latvia’s carbon neutrality

strategy states that CCS could be relevant for energy and industrial sectors

180

, indicating that the

policy support for CCS is slightly maturing.

Latvia has not previously provided funding or support to CCS research or projects. However, the

NECP indicates that Latvia will spend 2% of investments in total R&I investments in the field of

energy on CCS between 2021-2027

181

. However, the funds allocated to energy research are not

described, making it difficult to assess the degree to which the 2% to CCS is sufficient.

Latvia’s regulatory framework related to CCS has transposed the requirements

of the EU storage

Directive into national law. However, it has also prohibited CO2 storage in the country.

Latvia’s

legal and regulatory framework considers some parts of the CCS project cycle, including the

operator’s responsibilities, carbon

dioxide purity criteria and dispute resolution procedures, yet

key aspects of the CCS process such as storage and closure are not addressed due to the

prohibition and storage of CO2

182

Table 36: CCS national targets and policies in Latvia

CCS NATIONAL TARGETS AND POLICIES

Category

Country CCS policy

maturity/potential

National CO2 reduction targets

Indicator

Comments

CCS identified in the national climate strategy as potentially

relevant, yet lack of supportive policy measures and regulatory

restrictions create less favourable conditions for CCS.

•

2030: -65% from 1990 (national target) and -6% from 2005

(non-EU ETS)

183

•

2050: Carbon neutral

No specific targets have been set for the deployment of CCS in

Latvia.

Latvia’s regulatory framework has

transposed the EU storage

Directive into national law. However, the framework prohibits

CO2 storage in the country.

No national support system for the deployment of CCS in place,

yet Latvia’s NECP indicates that funds will be

allocated to R&I in

the field of energy on CCS between 2021-2027

184

, although it is

unclear if the funds will suffice for the deployment of CCS.

According to Section 82 of the Law On Pollution, storage of

carbon dioxide in geological formations and the water column is

prohibited in the territory of Latvia, the exclusive economic zone

and continental shelf thereof.

185

National CCS targets

CCS policies and legislations

CCS funding

CCS storage-related policies

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

GEUS “Assessment of CO2 Storage Potential in Europe”

Ramboll Expert

Strategy of Latvia for the Achievement of Climate Neutrality by 2050

Latvia’s Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

Global CCS Institute CO2RE database

Latvia’s Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

Latvia’s

Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2030)

Ecolex - Latvia, Law on pollution

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.10.3 CCS potential (capturable CO2 intended for storage) in Latvia

Total CO2 emissions from large stationary plants in Latvia were ~1 MtCO2 in 2017, of which all amounts come from thermal power and heat.

The overall significance of CCS within the thermal power and heat is considered low, as renewables are expected to lead the decarbonisation of the

power sector. However, in its strategy towards carbon neutrality in 2050, Latvia mentions with regards to the energy sector that the assessment of

the introduction of new technologies in relation to carbon capture and storage should be taken into consideration.

The calculated capturable quantity of CO2 is estimated at on average 0.1 MtCO2/y between 2022 and 2040 and 0.1 MtCO2/y between 2040 and

2050.

Table 37: CCS potential (intended for storage) in Latvia

Sector

CO2

emissions

2017,

MtCO2

Capturable quantity of

CO2, MtCO2

(avg. MtCO2/y

186

)

2022-2040

Power & Heat

1.2

(0.1)

2041-2050

1.0

(0.1)

•

The potential for the power and heat sector is low since the Latvian Government has plans to reduce its emissions with renewable

energy. However, in its strategy towards carbon neutrality in 2050, Latvia mentions with regards to the energy sector that the

assessment of the introduction of new technologies in relation to carbon capture and storage should be taken into consideration

187

•

Ramboll assesses that CCS could capture up to 20% of power and heat emissions towards 2050 since there are potential

competing alternatives that could be preferred, such as CCU

188

•

The CCS potential is about 0.1 MtCO2/y in 2050

They have mentioned plans to employ CCUS within the industry sector, however, their industry sectors do not have large stationary

plants (above 100 ktCO2/y), which is why CCS potential is not considered.

•

No other significant potential areas have been assessed

Comment

Industry

Other

186

187

188

Average CO2 capturable amount is calculated for the time period 2030-2040

Strategy of Latvia for the Achievement of Climate Neutrality by 2050

Interview with CCUS expert in Baltics

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.2.10.4 CO2 storage potential in Latvia

Latvia has a carbon storage capacity of 3,400 Mt, of which the majority, 3,000 Mt, is situated in

aquifers, and 400 Mt is situated in oil and gas fields

189

. Some capacity in the oil and gas fields is

currently being used for the storage of natural gas

190

. However, experiments testing the

geological suitability for carbon storage have not been initiated and could take years to complete

adding to the cost of developing domestic storage capacity

191

As described in section 4.2.10.2, any storage of carbon is currently prohibited domestically in

Latvia. However, this could change in the short term, as governmental opinion changes following

election cycles. Latvian attitude towards CCS is regarded as neutral

192

due to small CCS incentives

and lack of recognition of CCS in the national 2050 climate strategy

193

. Moreover, Latvia has not

yet allowed the export of carbon for storage but has been urged to by experts

194

As a result, Latvia does not have the carbon storage capacity to cover all upcoming CCS activity.

189

190

191

192

193

194

GEUS, “Assessment of CO2 storage potential

in Europe”

Ramboll/DEA, “Cata

Ramboll Expert

IOGP, “The potential for CCS and CCU in Europe”

INFORSE-Europe,

“Sustainable Energy Strategy for Latvia’s: Vision 2050”

Tallinn University of Technology,

“Carbon Neutral Baltic States: Do we have CCUS

among

accepted options?”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

4.3

ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING ESTIMATION OF CAPTURABLE CO2

Data basis for CO2-emissions

The analysis presented in this report is based on emissions data retrieved from the E-PRTR emissions data from the year 2017. The year 2017 was

chosen as it comprises the most complete data set, where all countries had had the opportunity to re-report and confirm emission numbers.

Moreover, the E-PRTR database includes emissions from biogenic sources, which are relevant from a CCS perspective.

Due to the incompleteness of the E-PRTR emissions data set in years after 2017, it is not possible to compare emissions from that database to

identify trends or outliers that can impact the estimates presented in the report. As a result, emissions data from the EU-ETS database from 2017

and 2019 was used. Specifically, the

industrial ‘Combustion of fuels’ emissions

was used. This covers the emissions released as a direct result of

the combustion of fuels used for heating in plants emitting more than 100 ktCO2/year. These emissions were compared to identify trends and

outliers.

Box 1 - A note on emissions comparison

Emissions compared below are based on values from the EU-ETS emissions database from the years 2017 and 2019 respectively. The emissions

are the confirmed unadjusted values. have been used as a tool to identify potential countries with severe reductions in emissions and thus

potentially need to have emissions values adjusted to reflect the countries’

current emission-level.

The E-PRTR database does not fully cover

both 2017 and 2019 for all countries that have been analyzed. As a result, the EU-ETS emissions database has been used instead. The datasets

included in this database have all been confirmed and the database covers all countries that have been analyzed in this report.

Table 38:

EU-ETS emissions comparison

EU-ETS

‘Combustion of Fuels’ emissions comparison

EU-ETS emissions,

2017 [MtCO2]

EU-ETS emissions,

2019 [MtCO2]

%-change

Comments

12.4

11.3

-9%

8.1

7.2

-11%

14.2

13.7

-3.5%

313.4

245.4

-22%

The decline in

emissions between

2017 and 2019 in

Germany was caused

by the decrease in

coal usage at power

plants

195

98.1

81.5

-17%

The UK experienced a

rapid decline in CO2

emissions between

2017 and 2019 as the

heat & power sector

cut emissions by

60%

196

61.3

53.9

-12%

162.8

144.8

-11%

12.5

6.2

-50%

Estonia has

phased out

several

plants

between

2017 and

2019

197

0.9

0.6

-33%

Lithuania decreased

emissions by 1/3

between 2017 and 2019

due to large decrease in

the use of natural gas

and by the heat & power

sector

198

1.3

1.6

23%

Latvia has seen an

increase in emissions

due to the national

energy strategy

focusing on

independent energy

supply

199

195

196

197

198

199

Clean Energy Wire, “Germany’s CO2 emissions set to fall markedly in 2019 as energy use declines”

IEA Emissions Database

Interview with Tallinn University CCS professor

IEA Emissions Database

National Energy and Climate Plan of Latvia

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

The general trend among all countries included in the analysis is a decline in emissions which is expected due to the global focus on reducing GHG

emissions. Events or actions causing substantial drops in emissions have all been addressed in our calculated estimates.

In Germany, 70% of the emissions are caused by the heat & power sector, which is currently going through a transition away from coal and oil

towards natural gas and zero-emission technologies. This has been accounted for in the estimates for CCS potential as CCS on coal and oil power

plants have been assumed to be zero due to the phase-out of coal and oil in Germany by as early as 2030 and 2038 at the latest. The United

Kingdom, Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania all have power sectors going through similar transitions, which have also had certain power generation

technologies excluded due to expected decommission before CCS reaches maturity. This is done because retrofitting CCS technology to plants

scheduled for decommissioning would be ineffective as only insignificant amounts of CO2 emissions would end up being captured by the CCS

system. Fitting CCS technology to a newer plant which is expected to run for a long time, would yield larger amounts of captured carbon and make

more sense as an investment as a result.

Latvia is the only country that has had its emissions increased. This is

due to the country’s national energy strategy,

which is currently focusing on

achieving a larger share of energy independence. Currently,

Latvia imports approximately 70% of the country’s electricity mostly from Sweden and

any domestic production of electricity

would as a result increase the emissions of Latvia. Moreover, Latvia’s emissions are insignificant

compared

to, e.g. Germany and Poland and has, as a result, had a low impact on the overall CCS potential estimates.

Technical assumptions for CCS potential

Estimation of CCS potential within each country is based on CO2 emissions from large sources, multiplied by technically capturable share (country-

based adjustments have been applied where necessary based on Ramboll’s

technical insights), and again multiplied by the expected share of CO2

that will be stored (estimated CCS share).

In the definition of the technical capture potential, this report applied some general assumptions for technically capturable volumes connected with

the power & heat plants and plants within the energy-intensive industries in Europe.

Table 39: Assumptions underlying technically capturable volume (technical capture potential) across the analysed countries

Sector

Industry

Significance of CCS

CCS application

200

Technical

capture

potential %

201

Power and heat

generation

Power and heat

plants, including

fossil, biomass-

fired plants etc.

In general, LOW for fossil-fired plants, as the focus

is typically on renewable power generation.

However, for some European countries currently

heavily relying on coal power generation, CCS on

coal power plants could be an attractive option.

MEDIUM/HIGH for biomass plants (incl. incineration

plants) due to interest for BECCS that can provide

CCS can be used in thermal power and heat plants

regardless of the fuel used during combustion is fossil or

renewable. The technology can be retrofitted to existing

plants or applied to newly constructed plants by collecting

and ‘cleaning’ the flue gasses

from the stacks.

Up to ~90%

200

201

Based on Ramboll’s technical insights and external research (mainly

The role of Carbon Capture and Storage in a Carbon Neutral Europe, Carbon Limits, 2020)

Share of volumes that are technically feasible to capture; Input based on Ramboll’s technical insights and external research (mainly

The role of Carbon Capture and Storage in a Carbon Neutral Europe, Carbon Limits,

2020)

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

negative emissions compensating some industry

and agricultural emissions hard to abate.

Iron and steel

(incl. other ferrous

metals)

MEDIUM; Both CCS and hydrogen can be applied.

Hydrogen replacing fossil fuels is expected to be

the preferred option. However, if hydrogen from

natural gas (blue hydrogen) is applied, then CCS is

key.

HIGH as emissions from refining and mineral oil

and gas are hard to abate.

HIGH, CCS is key in the cement sector as there are

no other ways to reduce the process emissions

significantly. While the use of biomass instead of

fossil fuels can reduce some emissions, BECCS

would still be relevant to provide negative

emissions).

MEDIUM; Mostly transitional solution as renewable

energy sources can be applied; In general, the

chemical industry is prioritising CCU over CCS.

CCS can be applied to current blast furnaces in the steel-

making process responsible for most of the CO2 emissions

in the iron and steel industry, enabling up to 50%

reduction of emissions. Alternatively, direct smelting

technology could be used to concentrate CO2 generation

further, enabling higher amounts of emissions reduction.

CO2 production from refineries is spread over multiple

stacks with varying CO2 emission amounts making it

infeasible to capture CO2 from all sources.

In the cement sector, 60-65% of CO2 is generated during

the heating process due to the combustion of fuels

providing heat and because of a reaction within the

cement during the heating process.

Up to ~60%

Refineries

Up to ~50%

Mineral production

(mainly cement,

but also glass

ceramics etc.)

Energy-intensive

industry

Up to ~50%

Chemicals

CCS can be applied to process emissions as well as

emissions from fuel combustion. Application varies due to

high diversity of the sector.

Ammonia and blue hydrogen production produce a

relatively pure CO2 stream, potentially allowing for very

high capture rates.

Up to ~50%

Pulp & paper

HIGH; Pulp and paper industry in most cases utilise

production residuals/biomass as energy input in

processing; BECCS here would be key here to

compensate for emissions from other industries

where they are harder to abate. Pulp and paper

plants are often located close to coastline and

rivers (as they need water in production), and this

makes it potentially easier to transport CO2

During the chemical pulping process, woodchips are

cooked by burning by-products from the paper-making

process. Installing CCS technology can be applied to

capture carbon from flue gasses.

Up to ~90%

Estimated CCS share

reflects what is actually expected for CCS given alternatives (CCU, renewable energy, heat pumps etc), and is based on

high-level qualitative and country-specific analysis (interviews and available research).

Box 2

–

Estimated CCS share

Note that table below presents the maximum estimated capturable share, i.e. peak share expected after years of gradual ramp-up.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Overview of assumptions for CO2 emissions from large sources, technical potential and estimated CCS share per country are presented in the table

below. See appendix for more information on estimated CCS share.

Table 40:

Overview of assumptions for CO2 emissions, technical potential, and estimated CCS share (peak estimates) potential per country

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2

Tech.

Est. CCS

CO2

Tech.

Est. CCS

CO2

Tech.

Est. CCS

CO2

Tech.

Est. CCS

CO2

Tech.

Est. CCS

emissions potential share emissions potential share emissions potential share emissions potential share emissions potential share

2017

16,9

0,2

1,5

0,0

3,1

0,7

0,0

20,3

1,3

0,0

2,9

46,8

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

N/A

90%

60%

N/A

50%

N/A

80%

90%

N/A

11,7

4,8

4,1

0,7

2,7

1,0

0,0

22,8

2,8

0,0

0,7

51,3

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

N/A

90%

N/A

50%

25%

N/A

80%

90%

N/A

14,2

0,0

2,5

2,7

2,6

1,5

0,0

0,2

1,2

0,5

0,0

25,4

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

N/A

50%

N/A

50%

N/A

75%

25%

N/A

50%

90%

N/A

263,8

16,4

28,6

1,7

21,1

24,6

0,0

25,0

0,9

0,8

23,3

406,2

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

N/A

50%

20%

N/A

30%

N/A

50%

N/A

99,7

9,9

6,7

0,0

10,8

4,8

0,6

0,0

7,2

1,0

1,2

4,4

146,3

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

N/A

10%

80%

50%

N/A

25%

N/A

90%

50%

N/A

Power and

Thermal power and heat generation

heat

WtE plants

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

Chemicals production

Industrial

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

plants

Pulp & paper

Mineral production (cement)

Mineral production (lime, plaster, ceramics, glass etc)

Other

Total

Food processing

Other

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2

Tech.

Est. CCS

CO2

Tech.

Est. CCS

CO2

Tech.

Est. CCS

CO2

Tech.

Est. CCS

CO2

Tech.

Est. CCS

emissions potential share emissions potential share emissions potential share emissions potential share emissions potential share

2017

55,7

8,9

0,0

10,6

16,9

0,0

0,5

0,1

0,9

1,4

95,0

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

N/A

90%

N/A

90%

75%

N/A

90%

N/A

121,2

0,0

7,1

1,2

1,7

1,0

1,7

0,0

6,8

2,1

0,0

166,7

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

30%

N/A

30%

N/A

50%

10%

N/A

50%

40%

N/A

7,9

0,0

0,6

0,0

3,4

11,9*

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

N/A

90%

N/A

0,0

0,1

0,0

1,7

0,0

2,6

0,0

0,7

0,0

5,2

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

N/A

20%

N/A

30%

N/A

90%

N/A

1,0

0,0

1,0

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

N/A

20%

N/A

Power and

Thermal power and heat generation

heat

WtE plants

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

Chemicals production

Industrial

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

plants

Pulp & paper

Mineral production (cement)

Mineral production (lime, plaster, ceramics, glass etc)

Other

Food processing

Other

Note: * CO” emissions in Estonia (EE), have been

adjusted in relation to the source (E-PRTR), as the CO2 emission from power and heat sector (20.7 Mt in 2017 according to E-PRTR) is

outdated since several fossils fuel-driven plants were close in the past couple of years. Therefore, a more representative number is 7.9 Mt.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

OVERVIEW AND EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SET-UPS

FOR TRANSPORT AND STORAGE OF CO2 IN DENMARK

This chapter aims to identify relevant market-based business models that ensure the lowest

possible price of Danish CO2 storage and provide an assessment of the competitiveness of the

Danish storage sites.

The following sections will go into depth with identifying the North European CO2 streams relevant

for Danish storage, possible set-ups for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark, the

competitiveness of the Danish CO2 storage and institutional considerations.

The conclusions from this chapter will create the basis for evaluation of various business models

for CO2 storage in Denmark, which will be examined in the next chapter.

5.1

KEY CONCLUSIONS ON THE POTENTIAL SET-UPS FOR TRANSPORT AND STORAGE

OF CO2 IN DENMARK

The total volume of up to ~45 MtCO2/y is potentially eligible for import from several North European

countries. Denmark has several sites with CO2 storage structures that can be paired with different

types of CO2 transportation options to provide various solutions for CO2 storage. Some of these

sites and transport set-ups can be combined to increase scale, enhance convenience, or decrease

costs. The most cost-efficient set-ups are onshore or nearshore, especially if they are combined

with CO2 transport pipelines from regions with large clusters of CO2 emission sources (e.g.

Hamburg, DE). Using transport pipelines from such regions enables an opportunity to offer flexible

low-priced transport solutions, which enhance the competitiveness of Danish storage solutions.

None of the solutions, however, can work by themselves, meaning there is a need for involvement

from the state.

When other aspects than costs are considered, both onshore and offshore solutions and both

transportation option (pipeline vs sea transportation) have advantages and disadvantages. The

onshore solution (especially Havnsø) is located close to the largest domestic CO2 source and can

allow flexibility if a gradual build-up is preferred (which is less meaningful in the case of offshores

that work best with transport pipeline). On the other hand, the offshore solution can prove to be

faster to implement due to a potentially shorter permitting process and the ability to reuse some of

the existing infrastructure.

The table below summarises the key conclusions on the potential set-ups for the transport and

storage of CO2 in Denmark.

Table 41: Key Conclusions on the overview and evaluation of the potential set-ups for

transport and storage of co2 in Denmark

Topic

North European CO2

streams relevant for

danish storage

Key Conclusions

The indicative CO2 volumes relevant for Denmark (including domestic CO2 volumes) are

estimated at up to ~45 MtCO2/y.

The foreign storages that could potentially compete with Danish CO2 storages are mainly the UK

and Norway. The import of CO2 is mainly relevant from DE, SE and FI. There is some potential

for CO2 import from PL and NL, while no or insignificant import is expected from the Baltics, NO

or UK (the latter two have well developed domestic storage projects).

Available options for storage are Gassum (onshore), Havnsø (onshore), Hanstholm (nearshore)

and the Northern oil and gas fields in the North Sea (offshore). Available options for transport

are shuttle tankers, vessels, and pipelines.

Nine possible set-ups for transport and storage og CO2 in Denmark have been identified: Two

onshore, two near shore and five offshore. They include different combinations of transport

and storage options, meaning that some set-ups will require ports and intermediate storage.

In general, the cost comparison shows that onshore storage is the most cost-effective solution

(both when pipeline and sea transport is applied), followed by nearshore storage and with

offshore storage as the most expensive solution. On the other hand, pipelines provide scale

advantage and are thus the most effective transport solution at large-scale.

Possible set-ups for

transport and storage

of CO2 in Denmark

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

In addition to being the least expensive option, the onshore storage has the advantage of

being located close to the large domestic CO2 emission sources (Copenhagen area). However,

uncertainty whether the site can be used (and thus need for seismic tests and drilling) and the

general risk of public opposition can lead to a longer permitting process than in the case of the

offshore site.

Although the most expensive option, offshore storage offers several advantages, especially in

the form of known feasibility and demonstrated tightness. It can be potentially easier to obtain

necessary permits (especially compared to onshore sites). Furthermore, some of the existing

equipment (platforms and support systems) can be potentially reused, meaning that the

offshore solution can be potentially even quicker implementer than the onshore or nearshore

solution.

Solutions with a pipeline from Germany would provide a more certain CO2 stream from

abroad, making it potentially easier (and cheaper) to find investors. On the other hand, this

type of solution is only meaningful when the full-scale operations are planned for construction

from the beginning, while sea transportation enables small-scale start with gradual build-up.

Note that a more gradual start is also possible in the case of the onshore storage, where

pipelines from source and other connecting infrastructure can be added afterwards.

Competitiveness of

Danish CO2 storage

The competitiveness of CO2 storage is defined by meeting the following criteria: a low-cost

solution, with low marginal cost, and the ability to create a solution that allows flexibility

Based on the above, it is Ramboll’s assessment that Denmark

can offer highly competitive

solutions that are cost-effective, flexible and a convenient option for the target countries (mainly

Germany, Sweden, Finland and potentially Poland). The most cost-competitive solutions include

set-ups where large CO2 amounts are contracted via pipeline and those that comprise or combine

onshore and nearshore storage sites.

Institutional

considerations

It is important to consider varying institutional set-ups of CCS since although CCS is technically

feasible and can remove CO2 emissions on a large scale, the business case does not exist without

state and Government involvement.

To understand the need for state involvement as well as the interplay between different actors

and institutional set-ups, several case studies have been studied: the Norwegian full-scale

carbon capture, transport and storage demonstration project

“Longship”, three large CCUS

developments in “the UK and the Government’s CCS business model considerations” as well

the Porthos CCS project in the Netherlands.

See 5.4.2. for the conclusions based on the case studies mentioned above.

5.2 MAPPING OF NORTH EUROPEAN CO2 STREAMS RELEVANT FOR DANISH STORAGE

As assessed in chapter 4, many of the North European countries are expected to apply CCS as a

measure to achieve 2030 and 2050 decarbonisation targets. However, not all of these countries

have sufficient storage capacity (or an intention to store CO2 domestically) and will therefore

need to seek foreign storage.

Based on insights from the previous chapter, this section will provide a mapping of possible CO2

flows between Denmark and Northern Europe, considering potential competing storages,

geographical conditions, clusters etc.

The foreign storages that could

compete with Danish CO2 storages are mainly the UK and Norway

with

storages situated offshore in the North Sea. They could potentially compete with a large

share of the CO2 export coming from the countries deemed relevant to export CO2 to Denmark

(i.e. Germany, Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands but perhaps less likely Poland). Poland could

also pose a potential competitive threat and compete with possible CO2 export streams from

Finland and Sweden. Of course, this is if they decide to pursue CO2 storage in the future (as

mentioned previously, geological storage of CO2 is prohibited until at least 2024 in the country).

Competition from the Baltics of CO2 exports is not expected since geological storage is not

possible in Estonia, while in Latvia and Lithuania, CO2 storage is currently prohibited. Additionally,

in Latvia and Lithuania, the CO2 CCS potential is very limited as policies and climate strategies in

these countries are not prioritising CCS and have a preference for CCU if they turn to greenhouse

gas removal technologies.

202

CO2 exports from the following countries

are expected to be most relevant:

202

Ramboll analysis

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

•

Germany:

Large volumes of captured CO2 volumes intended for storage in foreign

countries are expected, as the country has clearly announced it will not utilise CO2

storage capacities on its own territory. The CO2 volumes are concentrated around the

Hamburg area and Northern Germany, where there are numerous power plants and large

iron and steel plants. Transport of CO2 from Germany to Denmark by ship and through a

pipeline are both feasible possibilities.

Sweden and Finland:

Although there is not a heightened focus on CCS in the countries’

climate strategies, compared to the focus on renewable energy and green hydrogen, the

pulp and paper industries in these countries are the two largest in Europe. BECCS could

therefore become highly relevant for both of these countries so they can close the CO2

emissions mitigation gap to reach their climate neutrality targets. Geological storage is

not possible in Finland, and although Sweden has some storage capacities, the country

has expressed a preference to export CO2. Moreover, many of the pulp and paper plants

are situated close to the coast or rivers (since they use a lot of water resources in their

production). It would be potentially effortless to export the CO2 from plants situated close

to the coasts with shuttle tankers.

•

CO2 exports might potentially also come from the Netherlands and Poland:

•

The Netherlands:

The country has expressed that CCS is a temporary solution to emission

removal until CCU and renewables become available at full scale. However, natural gas

production is not expected to be phased out in the Netherlands, at least in the short- and

medium-term; thus CCS has a large potential to be a key source to mitigate emissions at

these plants. The Netherlands has CO2 storage capacities and is planning CCS projects,

e.g. the Porthos project is the most known large-scale project. However, other projects

are also being planned: Athos in Amsterdam and the Carbon Connect Delta project

203

Depending on how the Dutch CCS projects progress, there might be some potential for

CO2 exports in the short term, industry cluster projects acknowledge that the demand for

storing CO2 might exceed the storage capacity and especially if the CCS project deliveries

are faced with delays

204

. This means that the export of captured carbon to international

carbon storage sites could be necessary for the short-to-medium term. Additionally, the

Netherlands have ambitious renewable energy targets, however, they are the country

furthest away in the EU from achieving their announced renewable energy targets

205

. To

make up for this gap due to the delay of renewables deployment, CCS could be a potential

solution to mitigate emissions. Therefore, CO2 emissions from both industry and the

power & heat (mainly in the long-term since CCS is limited to industry sectors, to begin

with) sector could pose some opportunities to utilise CCS, and some amounts could be

exported. It is uncertain to which countries (or how the share of exported CO2 emissions

would be split between countries) potential Dutch CO2 export volumes will be transported

to. Norway, UK or Denmark could all be potential candidates, and therefore this is also

limiting the forecasted CCS volumes from The Netherlands to Denmark. Therefore,

Ramboll estimates that there is some potential of storing CO2 from the Netherlands in

Denmark, yet the potential is smaller than the CO2 streams coming from Germany,

Finland, and Sweden.

Poland:

The country has CO2 storage capacities, which could become relevant in the

future and potentially also be cheaper than exporting CO2 to other countries. However,

they have not announced interest in utilising their own CO2 capacities, and this is

prohibited until 2024. And thus, there is some potential for CO2 exports from Poland, but

this is highly dependent on political decisions, and the unfolding of these are highly

uncertain.

•

Norway and UK storages could potentially compete for all the CO2 volumes described above.

The potential of CO2 exports from the Baltic countries is limited or even deemed insignificant. As

mentioned, the country’s

policies are not focusing

or prioritising CCS, and the CCS potential of

CO2 for CCS are limited. Nevertheless, the governing party in power changes often in these

countries and especially the Latvian and Lithuanian Government (depending on the ruling political

party) have shifted between allowing CO2 storage and prohibiting it, which poses uncertainty with

204

205

European Commission, “Candidate

PCI projects in cross-border carbon dioxide transport networks”

Eurostat

– “Renewable energy statistics”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

regards

to the countries’ positioning towards CCS. Nevertheless, CCU is preferred above CCS in all

of the Baltic countries.

206

Figure 10: Overview of North European CO2 streams relevant for Danish storage

Source: Ramboll analysis, E-PRTR database

The indicative CO2 volumes relevant for Denmark (including domestic CO2 volumes) are

estimated at up to

~45 MtCO2/y.

Note that the volumes presented below are not final and only

potential volume estimates subject to change since they depend on future policy decisions and

climate strategies in different countries. This poses uncertainties since the political landscape and

policies change, making it difficult to forecast the CO2 CCS potential. Additionally, the imported

CO2 volumes are also dependent on the development of CO2 prices, competition from foreign

CO2 storages and Denmark’s own CO2 storage capacity developments.

Table 42: Estimated CO2 volume that can be potentially imported to DK (MtCO2/y)

Country

Total CO2

intended for

CCS

(MtCO2/y)

207

Comment

Potential

import to

(MtCO2/y)

~21

Germany

~20% of all emissions are from clusters in Northern Germany; Since

capturable amount only includes large CO2 sources, an even higher

share is expected from these clusters. Consequently, Ramboll estimates

that up to 35% of emissions are within clusters; Additional CO2 can be

imported via shuttle tanker transport. Due to general constraints, i.e.

that some CO2 can be difficult to access or not feasible for dispersed

sources or sent to other competing countries, Ramboll makes the

assumption that up to ~50% of the estimated CO2 volumes can be

potentially transported to Denmark.

206

207

Expert interview; Tallinn University of Technology

Calculated as an average annual value for the years from the start point (e.g. 2025 for UK and 2030 for some other countries) and up to 2050

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Finland

Sweden

The majority of capturable emissions comes from the pulp & paper

industry, which are often located close to coastline or rivers, and thus

easily accessible. For financial estimates in this chapter, we assume that

up to ~75% of CO2 volumes intended for CCS will be transported to

foreign storages, including Denmark, of which half of the 75% can

potentially be exported to Denmark. Only shuttle tanker transport

applies.

Although the Netherlands have their own storage capacities, there

might be potential for CO2 export. The majority of emission sources are

close to coastline or rivers (and thus accessible), which makes them

somewhat feasible for CO2 export. However, both Norway and the UK,

in addition to Denmark, could compete for these exported CO2 volumes.

Based on these conditions, Ramboll estimates that 20% of estimated

CCS volume will be imported to Denmark; Shuttle tanker transport

applies for onshore and nearshores storage solutions, while either

shuttle tanker or pipeline applies for the offshore solution.

In Poland, there are some large energy clusters in the central and

southern part of the country. However, a large share of the plants in the

south are coal-driven and thus not relevant since the large majority will

be phased out. Although CO2 could potentially be transported from the

central part of the country (inland locations) via rivers, there is a high

probability that some of the CO2 is too difficult to access or not feasible

for dispersed sources. Existing and planned natural gas plants are

considered most relevant

–

these are relatively spread all over the

country. Further, emissions from industry are highest in the south and

south-eastern parts of the country. Consequently, for financial

estimates, we make a conservative assumption that ~25% of the

estimated impact will be transported to Denmark. Only shuttle tanker

transport applies since CO2 transported by a pipeline is deemed too

risky to construct if Poland starts to invest in their own storages.

The

Netherlands

Poland

Total CO2 that can be imported to DK (MtCO2/y)

~40

In terms of

domestic CO2 sources in Denmark,

we have estimated them to be at about ~5

MtCO2/y (~3 MtCO2/y from the Copenhagen area and ~2 MtCO2/y from the Aalborg area)

208

•

CO2 clusters are present in the Copenhagen area since it is an urban area with CO2

volumes coming from, e.g., Amager Bakke, Amagerværket, HC Ørsted power plant,

Avedøre power plant, Roskilde waste incineration plant and others

In Aalborg, situated in Northern Denmark, there are also CO2 sources from Aalborg

Portland, a cement plant and Nordjyllandsværket power plant

Other potential CO2 sources could be captured in the Aarhus area, which is also

urbanized.

POSSIBLE SET-UPS FOR TRANSPORT AND STORAGE OF CO2 IN DENMARK

5.3

The full CCS chain consists of several elements:

•

Capture at source

Compression/liquefaction

Intermediate storages at export

–

option at capture site and/or at a storage site

Transportation: pipeline transportation or ship (shuttle tanker of the vessel)

Intermediate storages close to storage - option

Geological storage

This section will map available options for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark (last three of

the above-listed bullets),

i.e. part of the CCS value chain within Denmark’s scope. Different

options will then be compiled into different possible set-ups, paired with estimated costs and

compared to identify the most cost-effective solutions.

Options for transport and storage in Denmark, as well as cost estimates, are based on Catalogue

of Geological Storage of CO2 in Denmark by Danish Energy Agency and Ramboll (2021) and

Catalogue on Technology Data for Energy Transport published by the Danish Energy Agency and

Energinet

(2017, updated in 2020), supplied with Ramboll’s technical and commercial insights

(e.g. in relation to scaling up of costs for large-scale scenarios).

208

Danish Energy Agency/Ramboll - Catalogue of geological storage of co2 in Denmark

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Estimates such as costs, capacity etc., can only be clearly defined after design and data collection

has been performed and should therefore be treated as indicative and with some uncertainty.

Box 3

–

A note on set-ups

All storage and transport set-ups presented in this chapter are potential illustrative scenarios

only. This also pertains to the suggested storage and pipeline locations as well as the shipping

routes. Thus, the set-ups are not to be regarded as definitive rather as potential suggestions

for feasible scenarios. The set-ups take a point of departure in the Catalogue of Geological

Storage of CO2 in Denmark by Danish Energy Agency and Ramboll (2021).

5.3.1

Available options for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark

5.3.1.1 Suitable storage sites in DK

Based on Ramboll’s previous analyses

209

, and mapping by GEUS, three different generic scenarios

are assessed for suitable storage sites in DK: onshore saline aquifers, near shore saline aquifers

and offshore depleted oil/gas fields.

Ramboll finds all geological storage scenarios analysed in this study to be feasible and realistic

210

However, the present report should not be used for decision making for the development of

concrete storage projects.

Onshore and nearshore saline aquifers:

An aquifer is a porous sandstone with water naturally

present in the pores in the sand. Consequently, injected

carbon dioxide

can behave the same way

water does (occupy the pores) or potentially be dissolved into the water over a longer time.

The

system consists of an injection well, injection pump for additional compression, monitoring in the

well cellar and different monitoring systems spread out on the surface of the anticipated

delineation of the CO

plume

211

. The below geological structures are considered to be realistic

options for onshore CO

storage in Denmark

212

Onshore structures:

North Jylland:

Vedsted structure (storage capacity as published by GEUS: 162 Mt); The

structure is mature for further development.

East Jylland:

Gassum structure (630 Mt), Voldum structure (288 Mt) and Paarup structure

(91 Mt); All these three structures could be developed as storage options.

Sjælland:

Havnsø structure (927 Mt); A large and promising structure, that has not been

drilled.

Near shore structures:

Hanstholm structure (2,753 Mt); The expected injection site is located some 30-50 km

offshore from the Port of Hanstholm. A similar but very immature type of near shore

storage option may exist in the southern part of the North Sea (off the coast of Esbjerg),

with the geological structure located some 100 km offshore.

Røsnæs structure (227 Mt); Located under the Great Belt with a smaller part below the tip

of Røsnæs. This means that wells potentially could be drilled from land.

Offshore depleted oil/gas fields

213

: Oil &

gas has been produced from the Danish North Sea since

the early 1970s, and some of the fields are approaching the end of field life. The depleted

northern sandstone fields in the Central Graben are at this point in time considered most suitable

for the timely development of geological CO2 storage. Chalk fields may be relevant later: requires

re-use of long horizontal wells and wellhead platforms,

The different storage options are presented in the figure below:

209

210

211

212

213

Catalogue of geological storage of CO2 in Denmark, Ramboll/DEA, 2021 and CCUS Technology Catalogue, Ramboll, 2020

Catalogue of geological storage of CO2 in Denmark, Ramboll/DEA, 2021

M. Thomsen and J. Flørning, ‘CO2 neutral energy system utilizing the subsurface’, Copenhagen, 2019

Catalogue of geological storage of CO2 in Denmark, Ramboll/DEA, 2021

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Figure 11: Overview of potential CO2 storage options in Denmark

Source: GEUS

5.3.1.2 Available options for the transport of CO2 to the storage site

214

CO2 emission sources and suitable geological storage sites are likely to be geographically

separated. Consequently, the realisation of carbon capture storage will nearly always involve the

transportation of CO₂. The

main technologies deemed suitable for the transport of CO2 are:

Pipeline transport

Ship transport (shuttle tanker transport combined with intermediate storage or transport

by vessels equipped with storage facilities)

Road transport

The different modes of transportation have varying advantages and disadvantages. Take CO2

transport by a shuttle tanker; this provides more flexibility than pipeline solutions since the routes

of transport can be easily adjusted. This is particularly beneficial because transportation is needed

for a new CO2 source location or storage site location. Further, the transport capacity can also be

adjusted depending on demand. Standard carrier shuttle tankers can also be used for other

transport of goods /e.g. LNG), if the need for transporting CO2 decreases.

On the other hand, shuttle tanker transport of CO2 is more expensive than pipeline transport for

short to medium distances and costly CO2 terminals and intermediate storage facilities are also

required for this mode of transportation. Thus, both the shuttle tanker's capital expenditure and

the terminal fees are fixed regardless of the distances. If large volumes of CO2 (providing

economies of scale) are transported or if CO2 point sources are located inland, then a pipeline

solution will be the most cost-efficient option. As shown in the graph below conducted by ZEP

215

pipeline transport is estimated to be more cost-efficient for transport distances of 500-700 km,

after which shuttle tanker becomes economically more feasible.

214

215

Catalogue on Technology Data for Energy Transport published by the Danish Energy Agency and Energinet (2017, updated in 2020)

The Cost of CO₂ Transport –

Post-demonstration CCS in the EU. ZEP report 2010.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Figure 12:

Cost of CO₂ transport (EUR/tonne/km, 2010 cost level) by pipeline at 50%

capacity and by ship at 100% capacity (including terminal) for 10 MtCO2/y

Note: In the research below, transport of 10 MtCO2/y was compared between ships (shuttle tanker) and pipeline. Further, the

study underlies the assumption that pipeline utilisation is 50%. Different assumptions change the intersection point of when

which transport mode becomes more cost-efficient. Source: ZEP, Catalogue on Technology Data for Energy Transport

published by the Danish Energy Agency and Energinet (2017, updated in 2020).

When CO2 sources are concentrated (e.g. in the form of an industry cluster), the most

uncomplicated composition would be a capture, compression, pipeline transportation and storage.

Suppose several sources are combined and cannot be connected to a pipeline. In that case, there

will be a need for intermediate storage above the ground, which is connected to the permanent

storage by a pipeline for onshore/nearshore activities or shuttle tankers for offshore activities.

5.3.2

Mapping of possible set-ups for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark

Possible set-ups for CO2 transport and storage are presented in this section. They have been

created based on Ramboll’s expertise within CCS

and with inspiration from ongoing CCS projects

in Norway, the Netherlands, and Great Britain. Additionally, experience from the oil and gas

industry and knowledge from the district heating industry have been used to qualify the set-ups

presented below. This includes but is not limited to the know-how of large volume transport of

gas and liquids using pipelines, ships and trucks.

In the table below,

nine set-ups in total are presented:

Two onshore, two near shore and five

offshore (presented in

Table 43

below, and also visualised in Figure 13). They include different

combinations of transport and storage possibilities, meaning some set-ups will require ports and

intermediate storage (e.g. set-up #3). In contrast, other set-ups are based exclusively at sea

(e.g. set-up #7).

Set-ups including pipelines from Northern Germany or the Netherlands are still open to shuttle

tanker transport from these countries. This means that CO2 transportation via shuttle tankers

from these countries is expected to continue but decrease to some extent to take advantage of

the decrease in marginal cost enabled by a pipeline.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Table 43: Overview of potentially relevant set-ups for transport and storage of CO2 to Denmark

Shuttle tanker

Storage

type

Potential

site name

(and

capacity)

Vessel

Assumed

max.

injection

capacity

per year

Set-

Permanently moored FSU

CO2 Transport from

source

Intermediate

storage and

preparation

facilities

Port

Pipeline

Injection

site

Well pad

Description

Well head platform

Transport from

intermediate

storage to well

Gassum

(630 Mt)

Onshore

Havnsø

(927 Mt)

10 MtCO2

(Gassum)

- Shuttle tankers transport CO2 from ports near emissions

sources to a port near the storage site. The CO2 is

transported from the port to the injection site via

pipeline, where it is injected into the onshore storage site

- Shuttle tankers transport CO2 from ports near emissions

sources to a port near the storage site.

- Additionally, CO2 from CPH is transported via pipeline to

the port

- The CO2 is transported from the port to the injection site

via pipeline, where it is injected into the onshore storage

site

- Assumption: 40%-80% (4MtCO2/y) will come from

DK/CPH through the pipeline, and the remaining CO2 via

sea from other sources

- Shuttle tankers transport CO2 from ports near emissions

sources to a port near the storage site

- The CO2 is transported from the port to the injection site

via pipeline, where it is injected into the nearshore

storage site

- Shuttle tankers transport CO2 from ports near emissions

sources to a port near the storage site

- Additionally, CO2 from CPH is transported via pipeline to

the port

- The CO2 is transported from the port to the injection site

via pipeline, where it is injected into the nearshore

storage site

- Assumption: 40%-80% (4MtCO2/y) will come from

DK/CPH through the pipeline, and the remaining CO2 via

sea from other sources

From DK/CPH

Røsnæs

(227 Mt)

Nearshore

Hanstholm

(2,753 Mt)

10 MtCO2

(Hanstholm)

From DK/CPH

Figure continues on the next page

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

–

MAY 2021

Storage

type

Potential site

name

(and

capacity)

Assumed

max.

injection

capacity

per year

Set-

CO2 Transport from

source

Intermediate

storage and

preparation

facilities

Transport from

intermediate

storage to well

Injection

site

Description

- Shuttle tankers transport CO2 from ports near emissions

sources to a port near the storage site

- CO2 is transported from the port to the injection site via

pipeline, where it is injected into the offshore storage site

- Vessels transport CO2 from ports near emissions sources

to injection sites

- The CO2 is transferred directly to the offshore storage

site, where it is injected

- Shuttle tankers transport CO2 from ports near emission

sources to a permanently moored FSU near the storage

site

- The CO2 is directly transferred from the FSU to the

injected site, where it is injected into an offshore storage

site

- Shuttle tankers transport CO2 from ports near emissions

sources to a port near the storage site

- Additionally, CO2 from Northern Germany is transported

to the port via an onshore pipeline

- CO2 is transported from the port to the injection site via

pipeline, where it is injected into the offshore storage site

- Assumption: 4-5 MtCO2/y will come from DE through a

pipeline, and the remaining CO2 via sea from other

sources

- Shuttle tankers transport CO2 from ports near emission

sources in DK, SE, FI & PL to a port near the storage site.

From the port, CO2 goes to the injection site via pipeline

- Additionally, pipelines from Northern Germany and the NL

transport CO2 from nearby CO2 emissions clusters to the

injection site via pipelines. From the injection site, the

CO2 is injected into the offshore storage site

- Assumption: 4-6 MtCO2/y will come from DE+NL via

pipeline, and the remaining CO2 via sea from other

sources

Depleted oil

and gas field

in the North

Sea

(estimated

Offshore

10 MtCO2

From DE

2,000 Mt)

From SE, FI, PL & DK

(rest)

From DE

From NL

Note:

Shuttle tankers

are considered pure transport vehicles, meaning they do not have cooling equipment and storage preparation equipment needed to connect directly to an injection

site. As a result, shuttle tankers need to unload CO2 into intermediate storage near refrigeration and storage preparation equipment before it can be transferred to an injection site;

Vessels

can be used for transport and carry cooling and storage preparation equipment. This means they can connect directly to injection sites;

Permanently moored FSU

stations are considered

stationary and cannot be moved. Shuttle tankers will transport CO2 to the station, which will prepare the CO2 for storage before sending it to the injection site;

Well pad:

An area that is

cleared or prepared for the drilling of wells, the area is a fenced-off area with drainage and other facilities to allow safe and environmentally friendly drilling of wells;

Wellhead platform:

An offshore steel structure for the support of production and/or injection wells and associated support systems;

Injection well:

A well for injection of CO2 into a

subsurface reservoir;

Intermediate CO2 storage:

A site with pressurised and cooled tanks for storage of liquified CO2;

Permanently moored vessel:

A so-called floating storage unit (FSU)

equipped with the injection facilities;

Source:

Ramboll analysis

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Figure 13: Illustration of different set-ups for ups for transport and storage of CO2 to

Denmark (see appendix for illustration of each set-up separately)

Note: Ports (especially foreign) are only illustrative suggestions for where CO2 could depart by ship transport.

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish Energy

Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage

in Denmark.”

It is Ramboll’s assessment

that no single storage site in Denmark is capable of handling 45

MtCO2/y alone. Meaning, that if a capacity of up to 45 MtCO2/y is desired, a combination of the

set-ups presented below must be used. The offshore storage sites do theoretically have adequate

storage capacity. However, even though they have the theoretical capacity to store the 45

MtCO2/y over a period of 30 years (1350 Mt in total), the maximum injection rate of the sites is

rated at 10 MtCO2/y. This is due to a large amount of the capacity being situated in depleted oil

and gas field that are in chalk reservoirs not suited for CO2 injection. Injection of CO2 into these

fields would require a large number of wells raising the price of CO2 injection to higher levels

216

Alternatively, large offshore aquifers could be utilised, however, they remain largely unmapped,

meaning there is a large amount of uncertainty regarding their storage capacity and possible

injection rates. As a result, offshore aquifers have not been considered in this report.

Note that shuttle tankers are currently not large enough to handle the estimated amounts of CO2

without deploying a large number of shuttle tankers. Set-ups below assume that larger shuttle

tankers (20,000 net tonnages or even above) will be available at the time storage is

operationalised. Larger shuttle tankers would require larger ports, which means that shuttle

tanker sizes will also vary depending on the size of the port near emissions sources. However,

some ports will remain small, which means large intermediate ports could be established where

smaller shuttle tankers from smaller ports could transport and unload CO2. Larger shuttle tankers

could then transport the aggregated CO2 from the intermediate port to the final port.

Furthermore, the set-ups are built upon the assumption that all pipeline, intermediate storage,

and injection site infrastructure will have to be constructed. Some infrastructure can theoretically

be re-used; however, given the large CO2 volumes assumed in this report, this is deemed a less

efficient and a more complex solution and will therefore not be considered.

More scenarios were considered, however, they were deemed technically, economically, or

politically infeasible for the time being. Particularly pipelines from Northern Germany and the

Netherlands were not included in the onshore and nearshore set-ups as the pipelines would have

to extend further, which was deemed too expensive.

216

Ramboll expert

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

5.3.3

Overview costs for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark per set-up

To assess which solution(s) are the most cost-effective, each of the set-ups described in 5.3.2 has

been matched with respective costs for transportation and storage of CO2 in Denmark.

Cost estimates include relevant considerations, such as type of storage and transportation

technology applied, quantities of CO2 expected through pipelines and sea, respectively, and

distance from the source. Cost estimates in this report are based on assumptions from Catalogue

of Geological Storage of CO2 in Denmark by the Danish Energy Agency and Ramboll (2021) and

the Catalogue on Technology Data for Energy Transport published by the Danish Energy Agency

and Energinet (2017, updated in 2020).

Costs have been compiled for two scenarios: 5 MtCO2/y and 10 MtCO2/y. In order to secure full

comparability across presented set-ups, the cost comparison is only performed for the scenario

with 5 MtCO2/y, as assumptions underlying the 10MtCO2/y scenario are more set-up specific. For

example, the amount of CO2 transported via pipeline in set-up 2 (pipeline from Copenhagen to

onshore storage and remaining share transported from other sources by sea) is constant in both

scenarios, i.e. it amounts to 80% at 5 MtCO2/y and only 40% at 10 MtCO2/y. While set-up 1 is

100% sea transport in both scenarios (5 MtCO2/y and 10 MtCO2/y). However, it is our opinion

that conclusions drawn from the cost benchmark at 5 MtCO2/y will also be applicable for larger

scenarios. Overview of cost estimates for 10 MtCO2/y is provided in the appendix.

The cost comparison shows that

onshore storage is the most cost-effective solution

(both

when

pipeline and sea transport is applied). On the other hand,

pipeline provides a scale advantage

and is thus the most effective transport solution at large-scale

(i.e., e.g. 5 MtCO2/y). More

specifically, the following conclusions can be drawn:

Set-up 2 (focus on pipeline transport from Copenhagen to onshore storage) is the least

expensive

Set-up 4 (focus on pipeline transport from Copenhagen to nearshore storage) is the least

expensive nearshore option but more expensive than onshore storage

Set-ups comprising offshore storage are more expensive than those with both onshore

and nearshore solutions

Set-up 8 (focus on pipeline transport from DE) is the least expensive of all offshore

storage options

Storage cost comprises cost to establish the storage (e.g., pre-FID studies, the pipeline from port

to storage, injection equipment, monitoring equipment etc.) and operations (incl. organisation,

power etc.). In the calculation for onshore storage, it is assumed that the Havnsø storage site,

accessed through Kalundborg harbour, will be used due to the estimated size, proximity to

Amager Forbrænding and the current momentum of the site. For nearshore storage, it is assumed

that the Hanstholm storage site, accessed through Hanstholm harbour, will be used due to the

size of the estimated storage capacity. Offshore storage will be assumed to be in the Northern

part of the North Sea oil and gas fields, accessed through Esbjerg harbour, due to the sites'

geological nature, meaning fewer wells are needed for the same flow rate.

Transport cost covers the cost of transporting CO2 from ports near emission sources in five

Northern European countries and domestically in Denmark, to a Danish intermediate storage

facility near a storage site, either through the pipeline or by sea. Pipeline transportation includes

CAPEX (for both pipeline and power stations), maintenance, monitoring and power costs. Sea

transportation includes CAPEX (for ships and intermediate storage at export ports), maintenance

and fuel. Note that the cost for transport by the sea does not include harbour fees or the cost for

liquefaction (which is typically included at the CO2 capture plant).

CO2 transport costs from shuttle tankers are included in the business cases in chapter 6, although

this could potentially be paid by the emitter or split between the emitter and the CO2 storage

provider. In the case that Denmark pays for the export

countries’ transport of CO2,

the export

countries will receive favourable conditions

–

especially in the less expensive onshore storage

solution option. The cost of covering export countries’ transport might be transferred to Danish

emitters, making it more expensive for them, and Danish emitter might choose storage solutions

in competing countries. If CO2 is imported at a large-scale, it could be more feasible to cover the

export countries’ transport costs since the price could come down

with economies of scale.

Note that there is still a lot of uncertainty about costs and performance, as only a few carbon

storage projects have been implemented in Europe, and mostly in association with oil and gas

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

production. In addition to the general cost levels, there is also uncertainty with respect to the

delimitation

of the operator’s responsibility after closing of the storage

(and costs for e.g.

monitoring) and to the technical development (e.g. injection rates in different types of reservoirs

as well as the choice of steel material, e.g. wells), which can both impact costs. Initially, we

assume that a conservative approach will be used, which may increase the cost for the first large-

scale projects. In line with operational experience, there may be a decline in cost due to a more

optimized design. The actual capacity may prove to be larger than the nameplate capacity.

Box 4

–

A note on costs

All individual costs inputs i.e. transportation and storage costs presented in this chapter and

utilised in the business cases in chapter 6 are not levelized costs.

Details regarding assumptions used for cost estimation in each set-up are described in Appendix.

Table 44: Cost for the different set-ups for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark

Set-up # 1

Onshore;

Shuttle

tankers ->

port ->

storage site

via pipeline

Set-up # 2

Onshore;

shuttle

tankers &

pipeline

(from C PH)

-> port ->

storage site

via pipeline

Set-up # 3

Nearshor

Shuttle

tankers ->

port ->

storage site

via pipeline

Set-up # 4

Nearshor

Shuttle

tankers &

pipeline

(C PH) ->

port ->

storage site

via pipeline

Set-up # 5

Offshore;

Shuttle

tankers ->

port ->

storage site

via pipeline

Set-up # 6

Offshore;

Vessels ->

injection

site

Set-up # 7

Offshore;

Shuttle

tankers ->

permanentl

y moored

FSU ->

injection

site

Set-up # 8

Offshore;

Shuttle

tankers &

pipeline

(from DE) -

> port ->

storage site

via pipeline

Set-up # 9

Offshore;

Shuttle

tankers

(SE, FI, PL

& DK) ->

port ->

storage via

pipeline;

Pipeline

from DE &

NL ->

storage

MDKK

5 MtC O2/y

120

n/a

4.770

180

390

1.750

1.925

525

n/a

9.101

525

223

967

473

527

920

3.036

2.430

n/a

1.435

835

600

2.723

473

n/a

2.250

2.668

2.461

n/a

207

6.417

n/a

5.950

467

2.627

n/a

1.607

1.020

221

114

107

MDKK

5 MtC O2/y

Pre-FID Cost

2D Seismic

Basline studies

Appraisal well

FEED Studies

Approvals

CAPEX

Intermediate storage

Injection plant

Pipeline

Injection wells

Wellhead platform

Mooring and loading system

Purpose built C O2 carrier/FSU

Accumulated OPEX

Base organisation

Intermediate storage

Injection plant

Pipeline

Injection wells

Monitoring

Power

Wellhead platform

Standby vessel

Mooring and loading system

Purpose built C O2 carrier/FSU

Closure costs

Abandonment cost (ABEX)

Post-C losure C ost/Monitoring

CAPEX

Transport shuttle

Vessel

Export intermediate storage

Accumulated OPEX

Transport ships fixed O&M

Vessels fixed O&M

Fuel costs

CAPEX

Onshore pipeline

Offshore pipeline

Pumping station

Accumulated OPEX

Onshore pipeline fixed O&M

Offshore pipeline fixed O&M

Power cost

195

2.315

180

420

140

1.575

n/a

2.938

175

223

521

427

670

884

n/a

805

405

400

3.669

1.419

n/a

2.250

4.412

3.738

n/a

673

n/a

106

MDKK

5 MtC O2/y

195

2.315

180

420

140

1.575

n/a

2.938

175

223

521

427

670

884

n/a

805

405

400

2.723

473

n/a

2.250

2.607

2.461

n/a

146

467

350

n/a

117

203

n/a

108

MDKK

5 MtC O2/y

370

230

4.065

180

420

350

2.835

280

n/a

4.512

350

223

521

825

920

884

694

n/a

1.311

711

600

3.669

1.419

n/a

2.250

4.499

3.738

n/a

761

n/a

136

MDKK

5 MtC O2/y

370

230

4.065

180

420

350

2.835

280

n/a

4.512

350

223

521

825

920

884

694

n/a

1.311

711

600

2.348

473

n/a

1.875

2.316

2.157

n/a

159

2.100

1.050

700

350

905

284

189

432

133

MDKK

5 MtC O2/y

120

n/a

4.770

180

390

1.750

1.925

525

n/a

9.101

525

223

967

473

527

920

3.036

2.430

n/a

1.435

835

600

3.669

1.419

n/a

2.250

4.587

3.738

n/a

848

n/a

175

114

MDKK

5 MtC O2/y

300

150

n/a

2.980

n/a

340

n/a

1.960

275

405

n/a

13.242

525

n/a

844

n/a

608

920

3.450

4.650

1.240

1.005

n/a

1.122

522

600

4.542

n/a

2.292

2.250

5.759

n/a

4.917

843

n/a

207

131

MDKK

5 MtC O2/y

120

n/a

3.855

n/a

390

n/a

1.925

525

375

640

11.443

525

n/a

967

n/a

527

920

3.036

2.430

620

831

1.587

1.275

675

600

3.669

1.419

n/a

2.250

4.575

3.738

n/a

837

n/a

185

124

MDKK

5 MtC O2/y

120

n/a

4.770

180

390

1.750

1.925

525

n/a

9.101

525

223

967

473

527

920

3.036

2.430

n/a

1.435

835

600

2.723

473

n/a

2.250

2.659

2.461

n/a

198

1.108

875

n/a

233

506

236

n/a

270

166

114

TRANSPORT

Total cost per ton, DKK/ton

*hereof storage

*hereof transport

Source: Catalogue of Geological Storage of CO2 in Denmark by Danish Energy Agency and Ramboll (2021) and Catalogue on

Technology Data for Energy Transport published by the Danish Energy Agency and Energinet (2017, updated in 2020),

supplied with Ramboll’s technical and commercial

insights (e.g. in relation to scaling up of costs for large-scale scenarios)

PIPELINE (from

port or from

emission source)

SHUTTLE

TANKER/

VESSEL

STORAGE

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

5.3.4

Other advantages and disadvantages of the different set-ups

In the previous sections, the different set-ups were evaluated based exclusively on costs. This

section aims to provide an overview of other aspects of the identified aspects, both those in

favour and disadvantages.

In addition to being the least expensive option (as described in the previous section), the onshore

storage has the advantage of being located close to the large domestic CO2 emission sources

(Copenhagen area). However, uncertainty whether the site can be used (and thus need for

seismic tests and drilling) and the general risk of public opposition can lead to a longer permitting

process than in the case of the offshore site.

Although the most expensive option, offshore storage offers several advantages, especially in

known feasibility and demonstrated tightness. It can be potentially easier to obtain necessary

permits (especially for the onshore site). Furthermore, some existing equipment (platforms and

support systems) can potentially be reused, meaning that the offshore solution can be

implemented even faster than the onshore or nearshore solution.

Solutions with a pipeline from Germany would provide a more certain CO2 stream from abroad,

making it potentially easier (and cheaper) to find investors. On the other hand, this type of

solution is only meaningful when the full-scale operations are planned for construction from the

beginning, while sea transportation enables small-scale start with gradual build-up. Note that a

more gradual start is also possible in the case of the onshore storage, where pipelines from

source and other connecting infrastructure can be added afterwards.

The table below provides a detailed overview of the advantages and disadvantages of each set-up

for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark.

Table 45: Overview of other (non-cost based) advantages and disadvantages of the

different set-ups

Set-up

Onshore

#1, #2

Advantages

- Havnsø is an attractive location for storage due to its

close proximity to large emission sources in the

Copenhagen area. Furthermore, it is close to a deep-

water port, making it feasible for transport with large

shuttle tankers (assumption for this project)

Disadvantages

- Since the site has not yet been

drilled, it is not 100% certain that

the site can be used for CO2

storage. It is, therefore, necessary

to carry out seismic surveys as well

as appraisal drilling, which can

extend the timeline (and also meet

public opposition due to the onshore

testing equipment)

- Due to the onshore location and

possible public opposition, permitting

process can be longer (and more

uncertain) than for the offshore

storage

- Nearshore reservoirs have not yet

been drilled, and it is not 100%

certain that they can be used for

CO2 storage. However, the seismic

equipment can be placed offshore,

meaning it is easier and can meet

less public opposition than onshore

- Although CO2 can be sourced from

the Aalborg area, the distance to the

largest source of domestic emissions

(Copenhagen area) is much longer

than for the onshore storage,

making it more expensive to

transport

- Although CO2 can be sourced from

the Aalborg area, the distance to the

largest source of domestic emissions

(Copenhagen area) is much longer

than for the onshore storage,

making it more expensive to

transport

Nearshore

#3, #4

- Pumping equipment can be located onshore, making

this solution less expensive than the offshore solution

(as the power connection can be done onshore and

does not need to be solved offshore)

- Similar to Havnsø, Hanstholm is located close to a

deep-water port that can receive large shuttle tankers

Offshore

All

offshore-

based

set-ups

- Tightness (and thus feasibility) of the geological

system has been already demonstrated, e.g. in

connection with EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) in North

America. Seismic studies still need to be carried out;

however, this process is expected to be shorter than is

the case for onshore or offshore storage sites.

- Furthermore, some of the existing equipment can be

reused (e.g. wells, platforms, parts of the topside

facilities, support systems). Together with the above,

this means that offshore storage can potentially be

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

deployed faster/earlier than the onshore and nearshore

solutions.

- Due to long-distance to shore and lower environmental

impact, less public opposition is expected and

potentially easier to obtain necessary permits.

#6, #7

- Injection directly from vessels or FSU requires simpler

infrastructure and allows to start with a smaller

solution and then potentially gradually scale-up

- A set-up without the need for construction of pipeline

means that potentially fewer stakeholders need to be

involved

# 8, #9

- Pipeline from source binds emitters, lowering

competition for CO2 and providing more security (thus

potentially making it easier and less expensive to find

investors, especially if the pipeline entails certain CO2

sources like iron & steel industry in the Hamburg area)

- Potential synergies with a planned P-t-X plant close to

Esbjerg port, i.e. if the plant will need to use carbon, it

could be possible to share the pipeline from emission

sources and also costs

- Solutions with vessels (set-up #6)

and with FSU (set-up #7) are more

expensive than with a pipeline from

the port (set-up #8)

- To be fully efficient, solutions with

pipeline transport from mission

source require that the full-scale

infrastructure is constructed from

the start (i.e. it is not meant to start

small and then expand/add-on later

on)

- Solution with pipeline form source

(e.g. DE) require pre-work, i.e.

collaboration and agreements with

German companies and potentially

state

5.4 ASSESSMENT OF DANISH COMPETITIVENESS FOR CO2 STORAGE

To assess the competitiveness of the Danish CO2 storage, criteria for competitiveness need to be

defined. In this case, the following

criteria

are considered suitable

to assess the

competitiveness of a CO2 storage solution:

A low-cost solution:

Although this report has not compared the cost of CO2 storage in

different countries, it was assessed that onshore storage is the least expensive solution

for CO2 storage, followed by near-shore storage and offshore storage as the most

expensive option. Similarly, when large CO2 volumes are concentrated, pipeline proves to

be the most cost-effective transport solution for distances of up to ~700 km. Combining

offshore solution with an onshore transport pipeline (from source) can thus potentially

provide a more cost-effective solution than a combination of offshore storage and CO2

transport by sea

Offers low marginal cost:

Ability to create a solution that allows flexibility

–

i.e. it is

possible to add or reduce volumes at a low additional cost

Provides high solution convenience

(for other countries): A solution that is convenient for

the CO2 producer; This could be geographical proximity or an easy and/or a low-cost way

to push over large amounts of CO2, i.e. without investing in multiple storage facilities and

complex logistics set-ups

Based on the analysis of the different

set-ups for transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark,

the following

factors

are identified in

providing Denmark with a competitive advantage:

•

Denmark can establish varying set-ups and even combine them if needed.

Possible

storage solutions include onshore, nearshore and offshore sites and the possibility of

establishing varying transport solutions (e.g., pipelines, shuttle tanker, vessels, etc.). All

storages can be potentially combined through a network of pipelines, allowing for a huge

storage capacity (e.g., ~40 MtCO2/y), high input flexibility and a low total cost per tonne

of CO2 (as a result of combining the least costly solutions for both storage and transport);

Different solutions can also be added/expanded over time

Denmark is strategically located close to Northern Germany,

which has one of the largest

CO2 sources in Europe. Close geographic proximity, combined with a possibility to build a

pipeline from a cluster in Northern Germany, can provide a very cost-effective and overall

convenient solution for Germany

Likewise, Denmark is favourably located regarding CO2 transport by sea from target

countries, Sweden, Finland, and Poland.

Although, e.g., SE has formally announced that

they are interested in collaboration with Norway for storage of CO2, many of the CO2 in

both Sweden and Finland comes from the pulp and paper plants that are spread along the

•

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

coasts. As the CO2 can be stored on the eastern side of Denmark (e.g., in Havnsø), or

loaded off for pipeline transport to other storage sites in Denmark, this could potentially

provide a cost-competitive solution that is also highly convenient (as large amounts of

CO2 will only need to be shipped halfway compared to storages in, e.g., UK or Norway).

Based on the above, Ramboll assesses that

Denmark can offer a highly competitive solution that

is cost-effective, flexible, and a convenient option for the target countries

(especially Germany,

Sweden, Finland and potentially Poland). The most cost-competitive solutions include set-ups

where large CO2 amounts are contracted via pipeline and those that comprise or combine onshore

and nearshore storage sites.

5.5

INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

It is important to consider varying institutional set-ups of CCS since although CCS is technically

feasible and can remove CO2 emission on a large scale, the business case for it does not exist.

Market failures prevent actors from developing CCS on their own. There are two principle market

failures at work:

•

The price of emitting CO2 is lower than the socioeconomic cost of emitting CO2.

This

incentivises businesses to emit CO2 since, from a financial perspective, this is more

profitable than what is logical from a socioeconomic perspective (negative externality)

CCS technology has the characteristics of a public good,

i.e., it is useful to the public/others

and not only to the technology developer. The developer will thus carry the costs while the

benefits are shared by the public (positive externality)

•

Additionally, there are investment barriers such as establishing a storage facility that comes with

a high up-front cost. In contrast, the costs become lower for any new actors entering to utilise the

existent set-up. They benefit from the experience and knowledge from the first developments,

which will lower costs for subsequent actors who enter. Thus, from a business perspective, it can

therefore be profitable to wait until the first movers have incurred the cost of early development.

Finally, there is a need for many actors since the whole chain involves activities from capture, to

transport and storage. This creates a risk in terms of the development and dependency of other

actors; A risk that is difficult for one industry actor to take.

217

The above highlights the inevitable need for state involvement since without it, there will be no

incentives with current conditions for market actors to embark on CCS deployment alone. Further,

it also stresses the importance of considering institutional set-ups. The interfaces that arise from

the transition between the different CCS value chain segments leads to uncertainties and possibly

complex institutional set-ups, which shall be addressed. However, suppose the institutional set-up

is robust and carefully planned. In that case, CCS can be deployed at scale, and the CCS

abatement cost might come down and be more favourable compared to other CO2-reduction

solutions.

To understand the need for state involvement and the interplay between different actors and

institutional set-ups, it is useful to outline cases in other countries with CCS projects. Following

case studies will be described below: the Norwegian full-scale carbon capture, transport and

storage demonstration project

“Longship”, three large CCUS

developments in the UK and the

Government’s CCS business model considerations,

and the Porthos CCS project in the

Netherlands. Main takeaways from the cases (regarding institutional set-ups) are presented at the

end of this section.

Box 5

–

A note on business case set-ups vs. business models

A pivotal distinction is made between business case set-ups and business models. Business

case set-ups bring forth the most relevant market-based cases for which the profitability and

break-even is calculated, whereas business models incorporate the organisational aspects; In

this case, pivotal institutional considerations necessary to develop transport and storage

infrastructure and operate it, which are discussed below.

217

Natalia Romasheva and Alina Ilinova -

“CCS Projects: How Regulatory Framework Influences Their Deployment”;

Norwegian Ministry of

Petroleum and Energy, Longship

–

Carbon capture and storage

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

5.5.1

Case studies from Norway, UK and the NL

5.5.1.1 Norway: The Longship carbon capture and storage project

The Norwegian Government proposed to the Norwegian Parliament that funding be provided to

establish a full-scale CCS project

named “Longship”. The objective of the Longship project

is to

demonstrate that CCS is feasible and secure and to facilitate learning and cost reductions in

subsequent projects. Further, according to the white paper to the Norwegian Parliament from the

Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy,

“Infrastructure

will be developed with additional

capacity that other projects can utilise. Hence, the threshold for establishing new carbon capture

projects will be lowered. Longship can also facilitate business development through harnessing,

transforming, and developing

new industries in Norway”

218

The Longship project set-up was based on a pre-feasibility study conducted by Gassnova in 2015,

which recommended that a transport and storage actor was needed to provide services to other

industry actors who did not possess expertise in CO2 transport and storage. Further, the study

suggested dividing the value chain into parts where each actor has responsibility for the

undertaking within their activities. Meanwhile, the state would minimise the risk of these actors by

acting as the intermediary between the interfaces of the value chain parts, which requires the

state to ensure the value chain functions throughout the design phase to the realisation and

operational phases, concerning the interfaces, schedules and operational risks.

The Longship project’s key operating parties are shown in the

picture below. They include the

Northern Lights Consortium,

which is a collaboration between Equinor, Norske Shell and Total E&P

who has the role of intermediate storage onshore, transport and geological storage. Equinor has

the lead responsibility of CCS studies performed by the Northern Lights. The Longship project also

includes industry companies capturing CO2 at their plants, hereunder, the cement company

Norcem AS

(part of the HeidelbergCement Group) as well as the waste-to-energy incineration

plant

Fortum Oslo Varme AS.

Figure 14: Overview of Longship project

Source: Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Longship

–

Carbon capture and storage

The Northern

Lights Consortium’s concept is shown in the below picture and

is an integrated part

of the Longship project.

218

Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Longship

–

Carbon capture and storage, p. 7

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Figure 15: Overview of Northern Lights concept

Source: Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Longship

–

Carbon capture and storage

In addition to the key stakeholders involved in the operation of the Longship CCS project, the

institutional set-up of the project importantly also includes the

Norwegian Government,

the

Norwegian state and Gassnova,

who is the state enterprise for CCS made up of members from

Gassnova and the Norwegian Ministry of Energy and Petroleum. The role of all the parties in the

institutional setup is described below.

•

The Norwegian Government

brought forth to the Norwegian Parliament that funding

should be allocated for the implementation of the Longship project. The Government

continues to foster international cooperation on technology development and emission

reduction, which are key to Longship. They also have the role to follow up on the Longship

project and the benefit realisation work in close collaboration with the industrial

companies and share the learnings of CCS in Europe and the world.

The Norwegian state

acts as the intermediary between Norcem, Fortum Oslo Varme (if

applicable) and Northern Lights. The state carries risks related to the interfaces between

the different parts of the project, as well as the risk associated with project scheduling

and costs. The state will need to balance the risks with the costs since costs will need to

be kept at a minimum to demonstrate the project feasibility and a successful effect of the

project. The state is expected to cover about two thirds (NOK 16.8 billion of 25.1 billion)

of the project costs. However,

the state’s eventual costs will depend on

the actual costs of

the project. The costs are high, and the state carries risk through funding agreements

with the industrial companies. The state will not engage in negotiations of state aid with

individual stakeholders. Uncertainty also prevails beyond

the state’s control that affects

the project success, such as other countries' climate policy development and the number

of subsequent projects implemented

Gassnova

leads the overall planning of Longship;

Follows up on the actors’ project

management through agreed reporting on behalf of the state, and manages the study

contracts with the industry partners. Gassnova evaluated the FEED studies and

subsequently provided project recommendations to the Government

219

. Gassnova also

coordinates the work on benefit realisation and facilitates the sharing of relevant

experience with other projects and stakeholders to ensure the overall project goals are

met.

Equinor

–

the majority of which is state-owned

–formed

a consortium with

Norske Shell

and Total E&P,

named

Northern Lights.

Equinor also has the lead responsibility of carrying

studies of CO2 transport in connection to the Longship project. They are jointly

responsible for the CO2 transport and storage part of the project. Knowledge and

•

219

In the Fall of 2016, Gassnova announced two competitions for state aid to carry out concept selection and front-end engineering design (FEED)

studies; one for CO2 capture on industrial sites and one for geological storage of CO2. After the studies were completed the Storting pledged

funding to initiate the FEED studies at Norcem and Fortum Oslo Varme.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

experience from the Petroleum industry have been and are vital to the CCS development

in Norway. The companies will own and develop the project, which comprises shuttle

tankers for transport of liquid CO2, a reception terminal in Øygarden municipality located

in Vestland county on the south-west coast of Norway, and pipeline to a well where CO2

will be injected into a storage formation beneath the seabed. The state aid agreement for

the transport and storage part of the project has been designed to regulate the cost and

the risk distribution of the project, including incentives to keep costs low and bring in new

projects. All of the

Northern Lights’ revenues will stem from CO2 storage from

recent

projects. Thus, Northern Lights has a solid incentive to develop the market for CO2

storage. Further, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy considers it pivotal that Northern

Lights’ capacity is utilised by industry actors

not financed directly by the Norwegian state.

The success of this will provide evident proof that the project has the desired effect.

Northern Lights has also contributed to the benefit realisation work during the FEED

phase. Northern Lights comprises a two-phase development plan: The first phase includes

an estimated capacity of 1.5 MtCO2/y (completed mid-2024) over 25 years. A subsequent

and potential second phase is estimated with a capacity of 5 MtCO2/y.

•

Norcem

is a Norwegian cement manufacturer part of the Heidelberg Cement Group, where

carbon capture from its activities at its factory in Brevik is performed. The company

conducted FEED studies and has also verified their selected carbon capture technologies,

optimised integration, prepared contracts with key suppliers and prepared benefit

realisation plans. The Norcem capture development has a large state grant (NOK 3.8

billion)

Fortum Oslo Varme

is a waste incineration plant, and carbon capture from its activities at

the waste incineration facility at Klemetsrud, Oslo is performed. The company conducted

FEED studies and has also verified their selected carbon capture technologies, optimised

integration, prepared contracts with key suppliers and prepared benefit realisation plans.

However, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy ranks Norcem significantly higher than

Fortum Oslo Varme since

the state’s costs and risks are

lower for

Norcem’s project than

Fortum Oslo Varme’s project.

The state aid is limited to NOK 2 billion in investments and

NOK 1 billion in operating expenses and the rest of the costs Fortum will need to apply for

external funding. Thus, the Fortum Oslo Varme project is dependent on external funding

for it to become operational and has therefore applied for a large grant via the EU

innovation fund

•

The Longship project highlights the importance of state involvement to a large extent, since not

only is the state itself involved combined with Government support, but Gassnova and Equinor are

both state-owned

organisations. Gassnova ensures that the state’s interests

are incorporated

throughout the project, whereas any substantial revenue gains made by Equinor is state-owned

and thus also controlled.

5.5.1.2

UK: CCUS developments

and the Government’s CCS business model

propositions

The UK Government has recently funded three large developments that will jointly deliver CCUS

applications to approximately 50% of the industrial emissions generated in the UK: Teesside

(NZT) and Humber projects (ZCH) which will be connected by the Northern Endurance Partnership

(NEP).

220

These developments

are a consequence of the UK’s Ten Point Plan, which outlines the

need and ambition to develop a CCUS industry.

221

The below picture shows the connection between the three developments in the UK.

220

221

Business Live

– “Huge North Sea carbon storage solution backed alongside the regional projects set to feed it”

HM Government

– “The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Figure 16: Overview of the three large development projects delivering CCUS solutions

in the UK

Source: Oil and gas climate initiative

The NZT is a full chain CCUS project led by oil and gas majors

BP,

Eni, Equinor, Shell, and Total,

with BP as the main operator. From 2025, the project aims to capture up to 10 mtCO2 emissions

per year.

The ZCH is a partnership that will build a net-zero industrial cluster and has the ambition to

decarbonise the North of England, including solutions such as low carbon hydrogen production,

CCUS and shared onshore and offshore infrastructure and greenhouse gas removal technology. It

comprises 12 formal partners:

•

Associated British Ports (UK’s

leading port operator),

British Steel (steel producer),

Centrica Storage (Gas facilities),

Drax (UK’s

third-largest electricity generator),

Equinor (Oil and gas),

Mitsubishi power (power generation equipment),

National Grid Ventures (developing and operating energy infrastructure),

PX Group (manages, operates, and maintains industrial facilities),

SSE Thermal (developer, owner and operator of electricity generation and energy storage

assets),

Triton Power (power generation),

Uniper (energy company) and

The University of Sheffield AMRC (network of world-leading research and innovation

centres working with manufacturing companies)

By 2026, ZCH expects to capture at least 17 MtCO2/y from projects across the Humber 2035.

The NEP will develop the offshore infrastructure to transport and store millions of tonnes of CO2 in

the UK North Sea.

BP, Eni, Equinor, National Grid, Shell

and

Total

formed the NEP Partnership,

with BP as the operator.

All three developments have secured funding from the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, which

the UK Government sets up to address the most significant industrial and societal challenges

using research and development based in the UK. Jointly the three developments have received

GBP 229 million in public and private funding. Thus, as was the case with the Norwegian Longship

project state funding, is once again proven to be key to mobilise CCUS projects and further unlock

private investments.

Further, the UK Government has published a whitepaper on potential business models for CCUS in

which the Government indicates which ones they find most promising:

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

•

CO2 transport and storage:

a regulated T&S network where financing follows a RAB

business model

222

, in which there is an economic and market regulator, and the risks are

allocated to those who are best able to manage them.

Power CCUS:

a payment model with payment availability of low carbon generation

capacity (providing a known return of investment payment for investors)

223

, and a

variable payment

(to account for a power CCUS plant’s added costs, relative to those of

an equivalent unabated plant). This payment combination could allow a plant to operate

flexibly, provide value to a low carbon electricity system with increasing renewable

capacity, and yet provide certainty to investors.

Industrial CCUS:

a hybrid model comprising three phases. Phase one entails an industrial

contract for difference (CfD) with upfront capital support to assist with revenue support

for a set duration, and CfD payments would cover the operating cost of capture, recovery

of the CAPEX investment made by the owner of the plant, and costs for accessing the CO2

T&S infrastructure. Phase two entails a transition to competitively allocated CfD after the

risks and costs are reduced in phase one, whilst upfront investment funding from the

Government is phased out. Phase 3 is a market-based approach, where CCUS is sustained

by the CO2 price alone, based on the assumption that as the market matures, costs of

CCUS technologies will come down, and pass-through costs will increase with a more

developed market for low-carbon industrial products along with policies allowing efficient

competition.

•

Together with the CCS Infrastructure Fund, the business models shall incentivise decarbonisation

and cost reductions while minimising the risk of market distortions. The Government recognises

the inherent market failures and emphasises the need for their involvement, primarily to support

the value chain interfaces and fund the initial clusters to help unlock capital investments.

However, it is important the financing model reflects the large upfront capital investments and

that the operational costs are expected to be lower, and thus supports investment and returns

across the asset’s lifetime.

The UK Government’s preferred model for CO2 transport and storage is further elaborated upon

below to highlight the importance of state involvement both in terms of funding but also in terms

of financial regulatory oversight and the need for risk allocation in order for the CCS market to

function efficiently. The CO2 transport and storage model shall incorporate the following pivotal

aspects:

•

The Government supports and incentivises the investment in CO2 infrastructure,

especially for the first developments

CO2 transport and storage regulated by an

independent body

to oversee the industry and

deploy Government policies to address natural monopolies issues linked to regional T&S

networks

Finance and funding through a

RAB model

222

consisting of regulated revenue streams

determined by a building block approach (representing a category of costs incurred by the

project company, which are scrutinised by the economic regulator to ensure costs are

efficient) paid by the users of the T&S network determined by an

economic regulator

mimic the incentives similar in a competitive market. The economic regulator and market

regulator would oversee the interface of capture plants to the T&S network, similar to the

Oil & Gas

Authority’s role in awarding CO2 storage licenses offshore. This role could be

performed by a single entity

T&S

risk shall be allocated to the party that is best able to manage them,

however, no risk

model has been developed. The Government will work with the CCUS T&S Expert Group to

develop an understanding of the risks

224

•

222

RAB is short for Regulated Asset Base: “The T&S company

would receive a licence from an economic regulator, which grants it the right to

charge a regulated price to users in exchange for delivering and operating the T&S network. To prevent monopolistic disadvantages, the charge is

set by an independent regulator who considers allowable expenses, over a set period of time, to ensure costs are necessary and reasonable.

Model variants could include the provision of financial support to decrease

the upfront capital expenditure.”, p 21. Source:

UK, Department for

Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

– “A Government Response on potential business models for Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage”

223

The availability payment could be a stable ongoing payment from a counterparty to the generator. This could be paid based on the availability

of low carbon generation plant, could be set relative to the cost of the generation and capture plant, taking into account capture rate availability,

and could be indexed to inflation.

224

UK, Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

– “A Government Response on potential business

models for Carbon Capture, Usage

and Storage”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

The UK Government’s whitepaper

on CCUS business models illustrates not only the need for state

funding. Still, it emphasises the need for the Government to propose and establish business

models and act as the intermediary as with the Longship case.

5.5.1.3 The Netherlands: The Porthos project

Porthos

225

CCS project is developed in the Netherlands to transport CO2 from industrial activities

in the Port of Rotterdam and store the emissions in empty gas fields (P18-2, P18-4 and P18-6)

below the North Sea. Over 15% of the Netherland’s

CO2 emissions are emitted in the Rotterdam

Port area. Various industry companies will capture the CO2, and they will supply it to an existing

pipeline that runs through the Rotterdam port area and is approximately 30 km. The CO2 will

then be transported through a 19 km-long offshore pipeline to a platform laid beneath the North

Sea, approximately 20-25 km off the coast. The project infrastructure is proposed to be

developed

as “open access” to capture, transport and store CO2 from industry

companies in the

Port of Rotterdam, such as refineries, chemical producers, and hydrogen plants. Companies will

be subject to pay a fee for having their carbon emissions transported and stored by the Porthos.

It is expected that the project will be operational from 2024, and during the first years, it is

estimated that 2.5 MtCO2 can be stored per year

226

The Porthos project is mapped below.

Figure 17: The Porthos project map

Source: Porthos CO2 transport and storage website

The key stakeholders in the project are the following three main parties:

•

The joint venture amongst the

Port of Rotterdam Authority, Gasunie

and

EBN,

who are all

state-owned and will be responsible for the transport and storage of CO2. The Port of

Rotterdam Authority contributes to the project with its experience and expertise in the

local situation and market, Gasuine has experience and knowledge within gas

infrastructure and transport, and EBN contributes with its expertise within offshore

infrastructure and has expertise within the field of deeper soil layers

parties contribute the following

The

Dutch government

who provides funding and mandate

•

225

226

Porthos stands for Port of Rotterdam CO₂ Transport Hub and Offshore Storage.

Porthos CO2 transport and storage website

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

•

Private companies

that will supply CO2 invest in carbon capture and pay for storage.:

The joint venture wanted to build the infrastructure, and to build it, they needed private

companies to commit as clients, however, while the clients also wanted the infrastructure, they

needed funding for capture infrastructure and storage fees. Meanwhile, the Dutch Government

wanted to ensure the infrastructure before providing funding to the private companies

227

. The

solution to this was to establish agreements with both the Government and companies supplying

CO2. Thus, so-called Joint Development Agreements (JDAs) has been signed between Porthos and

four companies: Air Liquide, Air Products, ExxonMobil and Shell, although the agreements are not

binding. The JDAs underlie that Porthos and the companies collectively work towards definite

transport and storage contracts

228

An important development to enable these companies and others to make investments within

decarbonisation has been the Dutch sustainable energy transition subsidy scheme (SDE++),

which was updated in 2020 from SDE+ to SDE++ to broaden the scope and provide funding for

CCS projects and other decarbonisation technologies. In 2021, the four private companies: Air

Liquide, Air Products, ExxonMobil and Shell, applied for EUR 2 billion from SDE++, which is

expected to be granted in the spring of 2022.

229

The SDE++ also provides funding for transport

and storage infrastructure. The subsidy scheme builds on a CO2 premium, which is based on the

cost (CAPEX and OPEX over a 15-year period) and revenues, as per the existent ETS scheme. The

SDE++ only provides a subsidy for the profitable part of the project (see the illustrative graph of

this), and the subsidy is adjusted on a yearly basis based on the ETS price. Since CCS is viewed

as a relatively complex technology, the subsidy rounds are conducted on an open book basis.

Receivers of the subsidy must report the costs incurred to avoid over subsidy. They are also

subject to completing feasibility studies, and the projects must be realised within a 5-year period.

The SDE++ funds the most competitive technologies, and the estimated costs of applications are

calculated by the Dutch Environment Agency, which provides a maximum subsidy. For CCS, the

maximum is EUR 62 per tCO2, but it can exceed EUR 100 per tCO2 depending on the project

(e.g., considering capture methods for hydrogen production in terms of methane).

230

Figure 18: The SDE++ provides subsidy only for the profitable part of the project

Source: Porthos CO2 transport and storage website

Funding for Porthos has also been collected from several other sources; for the feasibility studies,

Porthos was granted EUR 1.2 million from RVO (Netherlands Enterprise Agency) in 2018 and EUR

6.5 million from the European Commission in 2019, as well as a subsidy of EUR 102 million from

Brussels for the construction of the infrastructure in 2021. In 2020, Porthos was deemed a

“Project of Common Interest (PCI)” by the EU, which are cross border infrastructure projects

deemed pivotal and they link energy systems of EU countries.

The final investment decision is expected in 2022. It is dependent on technical development

infrastructure, Environmental Impact Assessment and permits, the securing of agreements with

227

The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs & Climate Policy: Clean Energy Solutions Center

– “Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage in

The

Porthos CO2 transport and storage website

Offshore Energy website

–” Porthos CCS project: Industry targets €2 billion in Dutch subsidies”

The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs & Climate Policy: Clean Energy Solutions Center

– “Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage in The

Netherlands (Webinar)”

228

229

230

Netherlands (Webinar)”

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

companies to supply CO2, as well as the Dutch government’s continued support to enable CCUS.

After the final investment decision, the construction of the project can be initiated.

226

The Porthos case outlines once again strong representation from state-owned entities,

Government intervention, especially to get the project started and to incentivise and enable the

private companies to commit to CCS ventures. Further, this case also importantly portrays

European funding to support site preparations.

5.5.2

Lessons learnt

There are three main takeaways from the cases presented above regarding institutional set-ups:

The necessity of

state involvement

in terms of funding (upfront capital expenditure), risk

management and supporting the initiatives

The need for a

body that acts on behalf of the state

and administers and maintains the

strategic overview of the project progress and follow-up

The need for parties who possess

operational and technical expertise

All three country cases highlight

the importance of state involvement

since other actors do not

have the capacity or economic incentive at present to drive the development for CCS on their

own. Thus, there is most likely a need for state-aid and state involvement in Denmark as well,

and the Danish Government will probably need to take a supportive role in the CCS initiative.

Further, the cases illustrate the

need for an organisation to take the overall lead and oversight

role;

One that will act on behalf of the state to ensure the project is progressing accordingly and

that the incentive structures that are in place are working efficiently to demonstrate market-based

success, e.g., in the Longship case this role is held by Gassnova. To this, a possible existent

candidate could be the Danish North Sea Fund

(“Nordsøfonden”), Energinet

or its subsidiary Gas

storage Denmark to take on this lead administrative and oversight role of CCS in a Danish

context. Another candidate to take on this role is the Danish Energy Agency. Alternatively, a new

entity might need to be established. It is also important to consider that the candidate covering

this role has the necessary expertise in the varying set-ups between onshore, nearshore, offshore

or a combination of these.

Additionally, an entity or a

group of entities representing the state to some extent in the

operational role of CO2 transport and storage

has also been identified in all cases. In Longship,

Equinor (state-owned) has the lead role of operating and overseeing the transportation and

storage of CO2, whereas, in Porthos, this role is held by three companies in a joint venture who

are all state-owned. Similarly, the regulated T&S network business model that the UK

Government is favouring is also comprising a state-economic regulatory body that can oversee

transport and storage interfaces of CO2. In Denmark, there is a limited number of companies that

are state-owned and would be suitable for this role. However, one candidate could be Energinet or

its subsidiary Gas storage Denmark might be candidates to take this responsibility. However,

these entities do not encompass offshore geological knowledge, so they would be more suitable in

a business model set-up comprising an onshore and possibly nearshore solution. In an offshore

set-up, this transport and storage operating role could also be a constellation comprising oil and

gas companies (e.g., Ineos, Total) underlying a model where there is a competition to ensure

costs are kept efficient, and revenues are allocated.

The cases also portray the

importance of involving parties with technical knowledge

about

geological storage, capture technology etc. Additionally, as EBN in the Porthos case possesses

knowledge about deeper soil levels, it can be necessary to involve this type of organisation in the

institutional set-up in Denmark (e.g. GEUS that has geological expertise).

It is essential to consider an appropriate institutional setup to incentivise the deployment of CCS

projects and to plan a constellation of value chain partners who can work seamlessly between the

interfaces of the value chain segments. It is also pivotal to tailor the institutional set-up so it fits

the chosen project location and infrastructure set-up (e.g., offshore, onshore, nearshore or a

hybrid of these) since the entities will need to possess expertise suitable to this.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

PROFITABILITY ASSESSMENT OF CO2 STORAGE IN

DENMARK

6.1

INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS CASES

The business cases in this chapter are developed to assess the return on investment of different

feasible set-ups for the transport and storage of CO2 in Denmark. An important distinction is

made between the business case set-ups and the business models. Business case set-ups bring

forth the most relevant market-based cases for which the profitability and break-even are

calculated, whereas business models incorporate the organisational aspects; In this case, pivotal

institutional considerations necessary to develop CCS infrastructure and operate it. This chapter

outlines the selected business case set-ups.

Box 6

– A note on the business cases’

profitability and underlying revenue

It is important to clearly state that all business cases assume state-aid in order to become

profitable. The reference price applied underlies state-aid, i.e. the price will be a combination

of e.g., CO2 prices, CO2 taxes, grants etc. Without these support mechanisms the CCS

business cases will neither result in the net present values (NPV) nor the payback periods

presented.

It is difficult to estimate a precise price for CO2 transport and storage since the market is

immature and there exists no defined market price at present. CO2 prices and subsidies are

potential ways to construct the price, however, it is highly uncertain to what extent, who and

how these will be allocated in the future (e.g., income from CO2 pricing will also cover other

technologies than CCS). Thus, we have instead developed an alternative reference price,

which is based on a feasible competing set-up in the countries that are the main competitors

to Denmark: UK and Norway.

Based on the assessment of Denmark’s competitive traits in section

1 three overarching business

cases are presented:

Case 1):

Small-scale - Denmark to become a domestic CO2 storage provider purely with sea

transportation only

This case is purely focused on the national market of CO2 transport and storage. Denmark will

store 5 MtCO2 from domestically sourced CO2 volumes at an offshore storage site in the Northern

fields, to which 3 Mt will be shipped with vessels from Copenhagen and 2 Mt from Aalborg. In

practice, CO2 can be picked up by vessels from any location, also from abroad and also depending

on market supply. However, this case assumed only Danish CO2 for the business case

calculations.

This case is appropriate if the intention is to have more flexibility and establish a starting point for

CO2 transport and storage in Denmark. This case can offer more flexibility in that it provides a

platform to get started with CO2 transport and storage while it does not necessarily limit the

option to expand the infrastructure later. However, it could limit

Denmark’s unique opportunity to

offer CO2 storage internationally and take on a leading CO2 storage provider role, which might be

difficult to claim later when competing countries have developed their infrastructure. Moreover,

since this case takes a point of departure in vessel transport as well as offshore storage, it is the

most expensive case in terms of cost per ton of CO2 (particularly demonstrated by the need for

higher operational expenditures due to a higher number of wellhead platforms, standby vessels as

well as mooring and loading systems required).

Note that small-scale cases could also be developed for onshore and nearshore storage, and these

solutions could potentially have similar advantages and lower costs than the offshore solution in

case 1. However, the scope of this report only comprises the offshore storage for the small-scale

solution.

Case 2):

Medium-scale - Denmark to become a domestic CO2 storage provider primarily while

serving the international market to some extent

In this case, Denmark is storing CO2 for 10 MtCO2/y and will still focus primarily on storing

domestic CO2 volumes; 5 MtCO2/y will be reserved for Danish CO2 volumes (3 MtCO2/y from

Copenhagen and 2 MtCO2/y from Aalborg), while also providing 5 Mt storage capacity for CO2

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

volumes coming from Germany, Sweden, Finland, Poland and/or the Netherlands. As such, the

primary focus will be to serve the national market while also entering the international market at

some scale.

This provides a starting point for becoming an internationally claimed player within CO2 transport

and storage in Northern Europe. This case is suitable if the intention is to enter the international

market from the beginning and take on less risk and limit the up-front capital investments than

comparing to case 3 (large-scale international CCS solution). All of the options, in this case, have

a lower cost per ton of CO2 than case 1 while being higher than case 3. Further, the options, in

this case, provides the opportunity to expand the CO2 transport and storage later. However, as

with case 1,

these options limit Denmark’s possibilities to offer CO2 storage internationally

on a

large scale and take on a leading CO2 storage provider role, which might be challenging to claim

later when competing countries have developed their infrastructure. Additionally, while the

solutions in case 2 require less complexity and investments in CCS infrastructure than case 3,

they will also result in a smaller number of market players. Thus, there is less competition and

potential for the case to become more market-oriented.

There are three different storage placement options for this case:

2A) Onshore CO2 storage,

2B) Nearshore CO2 storage, and

2C) Offshore CO2 storage

The onshore CO2 storage scenario includes a planned 10 MtCO2/y storage in Havnsø with a

pipeline from Copenhagen to Kalundborg and shuttle tanker transport to Havnsø harbour from

international countries. As previously demonstrated, the onshore possibility is the most affordable

option, and thus, Denmark can provide a cost-effective solution for potential export countries.

However, there might be some public opposition since there are housing areas onshore (and the

general opposition against onshore storage observed in some other countries).

The nearshore option includes a planned 10 MtCO2/y storage in Hanstholm about 50 km from

shore, a pipeline from Copenhagen to Hanstholm (partly onshore and partly offshore, via

Fredericia), one onshore pipeline from Aalborg to Hanstholm and one shorter, offshore pipeline

from Hanstholm port to the storage site. Furthermore, shuttle tanker transport is assumed to

Hanstholm harbour from international countries. This scenario is more expensive than the onshore

scenario yet less expensive than the offshore scenario.

The offshore scenario includes a CO2 storage site in the North Sea fields with a planned capacity

of 10 MtCO2/y, a pipeline from Copenhagen to Esbjerg (partly onshore and partly offshore, via

Fredericia), as well as shuttle tanker transport to Esbjerg harbour from international countries.

CO2 is then transported from Esbjerg to the offshore site via an offshore pipeline (the case

assumes reuse of the existing gas pipeline). This scenario is more expensive than 2A and 2B.

Furthermore, for many of the source countries, the distance to this storage by ship is not

significantly different from the offshore storage possibilities that UK or Norway is providing. Thus,

there will be a potentially lower incentive for export countries to opt for storing their CO2 in

Danish offshore storage comparing to Norwegian storages or even CO2 storages provided by the

UK, compared to the onshore and nearshore solutions.

Case 3):

Large-scale - Denmark to become an established large-scale international CO2 storage

provider while serving the domestic market simultaneously

In this case, Denmark is a large-scale CO2 storage provider for international markets. Denmark

has a competitive advantage in terms of its location, as Denmark is strategically located in close

proximity to Germany

–

the largest CO2 emitter in Europe and Sweden, Finland, Poland, and The

Netherlands. Denmark can provide an attractive and cost-effective pipeline solution for German

CO2 volumes, a pipeline spanning from Northern Germany to Esbjerg serving 20 MtCO2/y. In

total, Denmark will store 40 MtCO2/y; 20 MtCO2/y from Germany; 15 MtCO2/y in total from

Sweden, Finland and Poland, as well as 5 MtCO2/y domestically from Denmark. In this case, the

Netherlands is not accounted for since the case will mainly focus on serving pipeline and shipping

solutions for Germany and the countries located East of Denmark. However, this option does not

exclude any potential CO2 volumes coming from the Netherlands, e.g. by ships, and these

volumes would be considered as an additional upside.

This case includes storages in Havnsø (10 MtCO2/y), Hanstholm (10 MtCO2/y) and two offshore

storages in the Northern fields (20 MtCO2/y in total). It would also include a pipeline from

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Copenhagen to Esbjerg (partly onshore and partly offshore, via Fredericia), Hamburg to Esbjerg,

Esbjerg to Hanstholm, and from Hanstholm to Aalborg, one shorter offshore pipeline from

Hanstholm port to the Hanstholm site and two offshore pipelines from Esbjerg to the offshore

sites (the case assumes reuse of the existing gas pipeline in one case).

The advantage of this case is that Denmark will take on a leading CO2 storage provider role in

Europe by providing a unique CCS solution, which the other countries do not have the capacity or

possibility to offer. It will also commit Germany to store its CO2 volumes in Denmark through a

convenient and cost-efficient pipeline solution. Further, Denmark will make it favourable for

Sweden and Finland to store their CO2 in Denmark

–

by providing a pipeline connection from

Kalundborg to a mix of onshore, nearshore and offshore CO2 storage sites. This would make it

considerably more convenient for these countries to store CO2 in Denmark instead of shipping it

to the UK or Norway.

This case will also entail that various public and private bodies are involved and are responsible

for different parts of the value chain. Since there are so many transport infrastructures laid out, it

might involve more competition between players, and as such, CCS might become more market-

oriented.

The potential disadvantages are that this solution will require extensive state involvement and

investments in widespread CCS infrastructure. It will also require the EU to cooperate to support

and pass policies that will aid the CCS market.

6.2

OVERVIEW OF ANALYSED BUSINESS MODELS

The scope of the business cases comprises the nationally focused business case 1 and the

overarching nationally and partly internationally focused business cases 2A, 2B, 2C and the

internationally-focused business case 3:

Table 46: Overview of business cases 1, 2A, 2B, 2C and 3

Shuttle tanker

Port

Pipeline

Well pad

Well head platform

Vessel

Case

Storage

type

Potential

site name

(and

capacity)

Assumed

max.

injection

capacity/

year

CO2

Transport

from source

Intermediat

e storage

and

preparation

facilities

Transport

from

intermediat

e storage to

well

Injection

site

Depleted oil

and gas field

Offshore

in the North

Sea

(estimated

~2,000 Mt)

10 MtCO2

Onshore

Havnsø

(927 Mt)

10 MtCO2

From DK/CPH

Nearshore

Hanstholm

(2,753 Mt)

10 MtCO2

From DK/CPH

Offshore

Depleted oil

and gas field

in the North

10 MtCO2

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Sea

(estimated

~2,000 Mt)

From DK/CPH

Onshore

Havnsø

(927 Mt)

10 MtCO2

From DK/CPH

(Kalundborg)

Offshore

Depleted oil

and gas field

in the North

Sea

(estimated

~2,000 Mt)

10 MtCO2

From DK/

Kalundborg

(Esbjerg)

From DE/

Hamburg

Nearshore

Hanstholm

(2,753 Mt)

10 MtCO2

From

DK/Esbjerg

(Hanstholm)

Onshore

Gassum

(630 Mt)

5 MtCO2

From

DK/Esbjerg

(Aalborg)

Note:

Shuttle tankers

are considered pure transport vehicles, meaning they do not have cooling equipment and storage

preparation equipment needed to connect directly to an injection site. As a result, shuttle tankers need to unload CO2 into

intermediate storage near refrigeration and storage preparation equipment before it can be transferred to an injection site;

Vessels

can be used for transport and carry cooling and storage preparation equipment. This means they can connect directly

to injection sites;

Permanently moored FSU

stations are considered stationary and cannot be moved. Shuttle tankers will

transport CO2 to the station, which will prepare the CO2 for storage before sending it to the injection site;

Source: Ramboll analysis

Box 7

–

A note on specific storage locations

All storage and transport set-ups presented in this chapter are potential illustrative scenarios

only. This also pertains to the suggested storage and pipeline locations as well as the shipping

routes. Thus, the business cases are not to be regarded as definitive rather as potential

suggestions for feasible scenarios.

6.3 BUSINESS CASE ASSUMPTIONS

The below table summarises the assumptions applied in all four business cases. It is important to

note that all individual costs inputs, i.e. transportation and storage costs presented in this chapter

and utilised in the business cases, are not levelized costs.

Table 47: Input assumptions

231

Data input

Descripti

Assumptions comments

Alternative

reference

price

Revenue

It is difficult to estimate a precise price for CO2 transport and storage since the market is

immature, and there exists no defined market price at present. CO2 prices and subsidies

are potential ways to construct the price, however, it is highly uncertain to what extent,

who and how these will be allocated in the future (e.g. income from CO2 pricing will also

cover other technologies than CCS). Thus, we have instead developed an alternative

reference price based on a feasible competing set-up in the countries that are the main

competitors to Denmark: UK and Norway. Nevertheless, the alternative reference price

underlies state-aid, e.g., CO2 prices, CO2-taxes, grants etc., the constellation of them is

not known in developing the alternative reference price. Both UK and Norway are

developing CCS offshore storage sites solely, so a reference price reflecting this type of

storage is appropriate. Further, applying a transport cost for a shipping distance to a

location in these countries would also reflect a ballpark estimate of the transportation

costs. The below explains the price in more detail.

231

Ramboll experts

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

The reference price used in this case has been based on the average cost of the Danish

offshore storage site since the competing alternatives in both the UK and Norway are

offshore options and, thus, considered direct competitors and alternatives to the Danish

storages. Further, Edinburgh (Scotland) has been chosen as a reference storage location

since it is considered a feasible direct alternative for countries exporting CO2 in Europe.

Thus, the reference price also includes the shipping cost of transporting CO2 from the

emitting countries (Germany, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Denmark and the Netherlands) to

Edinburgh; The distances and volumes from each country are adjusted accordingly, and a

weighted average of these is calculated. The price has also been discounted according to

the 30-year technical lifetime.

The price estimate applied is subject to uncertainty, as the CCS market is in its early

stages, and the cost of CCS infrastructure is subject to technology developments and a

learning curve. However, the chosen methodology is deemed most reliable for the reasons

stated above, compared to alternative methods.

CO2

volume

Revenue

The volumes for each business case are based on the expected volumes coming from both

domestic CO2 streams and international CO2 streams in each business case. Case 1

assumes 5 MtCO2/y, and cases 2A, 2B and 2C, as demonstrated previously, all assume 10

MtCO2/y, whereas case 3 assumes 40 MtCO2/y.

Storage CAPEX is based on 5 MtCO2/y for case 1, while this is 10 MtCO2/y capacity for

business cases 2A, 2B and 2C. For business case 3, this is assumed to be 40 MtCO2/y, in

which costs for business model set-up 2, 4 and 5 have been combined. The storage CAPEX

comprises storage pre-FID costs (final investment decision), Storage instalment costs

232

and in the final year of the storage plant’s lifetime (year 30), storage abandonment costs

(ABEX) and storage post-closure costs are applied. ABEX is assumed to be 17.5% of total

storage instalment costs.

The operational expenditures for case 1 storage comprise the base organisation, injection

plant, injection wells, monitoring, power, wellhead platform, standby vessel as well as

mooring and loading system for storage capacity of 5 Mt. Business case 2A has the same

OPEX storage costs as set-up 2 for 10 Mt storage capacity (see chapter 5); Base

organisation, intermediate storage, injection plant, injection wells as well as monitoring

and power. Business case 2B has similar OPEX storage costs as set-up 4; Base

organisation, intermediate storage, injection plant, injection wells, monitoring, power and

wellhead platform. While business case 2C has the same OPEX storage as set-up 8; Base

organisation, intermediate storage, injection plant, injection wells, monitoring, power and

wellhead platform. Business case 3 storage OPEX is calculated based on costs combined

from set-up 2 (one for storage capacity of 5 Mt and one for storage capacity of 10 Mt), set-

up 4 and set-up 5.

Pipeline CAPEX comprises the cost of constructing pipelines and the number of pumping

stations needed to transport the CO2 volumes. Pipeline cost varies depending on the

length and rated capacity. Pumping stations are placed every 200 km for onshore pipelines

and at both ends of offshore pipelines, independent of length. Regarding case 1, 2C and

case 3, we are reusing the existent gas pipeline, and thus, costs for these are assessed to

be zero. However, since the pipeline starts in Nybro (a short distance from Esbjerg), a new

short, onshore pipeline will transport the aggregated CO2 from Esbjerg port to Nybro.

Pipeline OPEX comprises power, fixed O&M from transport pipeline as well as a pipeline

from port to storage site. Fixed O&M calculations are based 1% of CAPEX pertaining to

each business case and the technical lifetime value.

Shuttle tanker/vessels CAPEX comprises acquisition price and export intermediate storage

costs. For case 1, the acquisition price is based on a vessel of 20,000 t capacity in which 3

vessels are required. For the other cases, shuttle tankers of 20,000 t capacity are

assumed. For business case 2B 3 shuttle tankers are needed. For 2A and 2C 4 shuttle

tankers are required, while business case 3 requires 10 shuttle tankers.

The additional capital expenditures attributed to the injection systems and intermediate

storage onboard the vessels are covered in the storage CAPEX.

Shuttle tanker/vessels OPEX comprise fixed operations, maintenance, and fuel costs. The

fixed O&M costs are based on 5% of shuttle tanker/vessel CAPEX pertaining to each

business case and EUR 75/tCO2 export intermediate storage capacity. Fuel costs are based

on the number of loading/unloading cycles, days per cycle, fuel consumption per day, cost

of fuel and technical lifetime values.

The additional operational expenditures attributed to the injection systems and

intermediate storage onboard vessels are covered in storage OPEX.

It is assumed that the CO2 transport and storage projects have an operational lifetime of

30 years

233

2030 is the assumed start year of operation. CAPEX occurs in year 0, i.e. 2030, and in

year 1, i.e. 2031, OPEX and revenues are applied.

CAPEX

Storage

OPEX

CAPEX

Pipeline

OPEX

CAPEX

Shuttle

tanker/

vessel

OPEX

Operations

time period

Operation

start year

Years of

operation

Year

232

For case 1 storage instalment CAPEX comprise: Intermediate storage, Injection plant, Injection wells, Wellhead platform as well as Mooring and

loading system. For case 2A this includes: Intermediate storage, Injection plant and Injection wells. For case 2B and 2C: Intermediate storage,

Injection plant, Injection wells and Wellhead platform. For case 3: Intermediate storage, Injection plant, Injection wells as well as wellhead

platform for nearshore and offshore storages.

233

Ramboll expert

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

WACC

Financial

costs

The WACC applied in all business cases are based on the European Commission’s guide to

cost-benefit analysis indicative benchmark value of investment projects, which is 4%.

234

CO2 transport costs from shuttle tankers, vessels and pipelines are included in business cases 1,

2 and 3, although this could potentially be paid by the emitter or split between the emitter and

the CO2 storage solution provider. If Denmark pays

for the export countries’ transport of CO2, the

export countries will receive favourable conditions

–

especially in the less expensive onshore

storage solution

option. The cost of covering export countries’ transport might be transferred to

Danish emitters, which makes it more expensive for them, and Danish emitter might end up

choosing storage solutions in competing countries. If CO2 is imported at a large scale it could be

more feasible to cover the export countries’ transport costs, since,

with economies of scale, the

price could come down.

Additionally, no liquefaction is assumed in any of the calculations of the cost of sea transportation.

Liquefaction is a high cost, but if it is excluded in both our cost calculation and the references

price (i.e. the applied revenue), then it matters not so much. Also, the cost for transportation by

the sea does not include harbour fees. Liquefaction and harbour fees are typically included at the

CO₂ capture plant. However, as both

liquefaction and harbour fees are particular to sea transport,

this could potentially enhance the business case for using pipeline transport.

6.4

KEY CONCLUSIONS ON THE PROFITABILITY OF THE CO2 STORAGE IN DENMARK

Four out of five cases result in positive NPV values within a 30-year lifetime and range from a

payback period between 8-25 years. However, it is

pivotal to note that the assessed business

cases take a point of departure in the assumption that there will be a business case for

CO2 storage providers and the price will be a combination of, e.g., CO2 prices, CO2

taxes, grants etc.

However, the way in which the price is subsidised is not deemed necessary to

assess the profitability and break-even of the business cases. Rather, it is important to forecast a

price that is representative of a feasible market-based (i.e. competitive) scenario, and thus, we

have developed a reference price for transport and storage, which is based on what it would cost

for the export countries to export their CO2 to an offshore UK storage, which is deemed a

representative, competitive and feasible alternative to Danish CO2 storage solutions. The

reference price is based on an average of the various Danish offshore storage alternatives

presented in the set-ups (Chapter 5.3), which is based on what it would cost for the export

countries to export their CO2 to an offshore UK storage, which is deemed a representative,

competitive and feasible alternative to Danish CO2 storage solutions. Further, utilising a reference

price is seen as the most representative methodology, since forecasting the CO2 price and

subsidy mechanisms includes high uncertainty and an array of the possible pathway (e.g.,

uncertainty around how income from CO2 prices, taxes and grants are allocated, since they are

not solely allocated to CCS).

(large-scale international CCS solution), mainly due to the high revenue volumes per year (40

MtCO2/y), economies of scale from large-scale operations and from combining solutions, e.g.,

pipelines utilised for different types of storages. Furthermore, this case includes all types of

storages, meaning that CAPEX is lower than if only offshore storage was applied. Although case 3

has a significantly higher total cost than the domestic cases, the investment payback (payback

period is 11 years)

is expected sooner than for case 1, 2B and 2C, again due to expected large

CO2 volumes combined with economies of scale/ use of price-effective storage and transport

solutions.

Although providing a clear advantage in the form of flexibility, Case 1

(small-scale,

domestically focused case with sea transportation only)

results in a negative NPV (DKK ~

(2.0) billion)

and the

longest payback period (25 years).

The main reason is that this case

has a considerable higher OPEX than the rest of the domestically focused cases, and the highest

cost per ton CO2 among all cases. However, it is important to note that the case is built on the

assumption that only vessels will be used for the transportation of CO2 (which is the most

expensive transportation solution) during the 30-year business case period. If the transportation

is optimised during the ramp-up, by e.g. adding a pipeline of permanently moored FSU, the

business case could potentially improve. At the same time, the revenue applied in the model is

234

European Commission - Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

difficult to determine, and there is therefore associated uncertainty with regards to business case

results

–

i.e. business case would improve at higher revenue.

Case 2C

(medium-scale, domestically focused case, with offshore storage)

–

also an offshore

option in case 2 -

posts an NPV of DKK ~2.1 billion

and a

payback period of 15 years.

While

this is a positive NPV, it is more expensive than 2A, and 2C since offshore storage sites are more

expensive than onshore and nearshore solutions.

Case 2A

(medium-scale, domestically focused case, with onshore storage)

results in the

second-highest NPV of DKK ~11.5 billion

and has the

shortest payback period (8 years).

Case 2B

(medium-scale, domestically focused case, with nearshore storage) has an

NPV of DKK

~5.5 billion and a payback period of 13 years.

This case has the highest CAPEX of all

medium-size cases (i.e. 2A, 2B, 2C), however, OPEX is the second-lowest.

The results above are

based on a number of prerequisites,

including expected CO2 volumes,

strong project management and identification of qualified, responsible parties, financial support

(both nationally and in case 3 also internationally), that necessary permits are obtained without

major delays, technological enhancement and ability to start the operations no later than 2030 (or

at least in line with the volume uptake). Furthermore, some case-specific prerequisites apply, e.g.

that the reservoirs (especially the less known onshore and nearshore storages) can be used for

storage of CO2 and availability of the existing offshore pipeline infrastructure in time for the start

of constructions works (and that it is possible to fully retrofit it to handle the large CO2 volumes)

and that necessary international agreement, e.g. with German companies and state are secured

up-front before the pipeline is constructed. For case 1 (small-scale and domestically focused

case), one important prerequisite is that oil and gas companies possessing the concession rights

are willing to switch from oil & gas activities to CO2 storage.

Furthermore,

pro’s and con’s have been compiled

for both domestically focused cases (case 1

and 2) and the case with international solution (case 3). It is important to highlight that the

domestic-oriented solutions are less complex and more affordable options (especially case 2A,

which offers a highly price competitive option, with the highest IRR and with the shortest pay-

back period). However, when starting at a smaller scale, it can, in many cases, be more

challenging to move towards large-scale and international market solutions than starting at a

large scale from the beginning. On the other hand, the small-scale domestic case with vessel

transportation (case 1) is the one providing the highest degree of flexibility, as it can be ramped

up to the medium-size solution (or even large-scale, although choosing this way around can lead

to lost opportunities), and modified into other solutions stepwise. Consequently, this case gives

the possibility to explore the market before making the final decision on the strategic direction.

However, this case has also the highest total cost per ton of CO2.

The internationally oriented solution (case 3) enables full utilisation of the market potential (and

Denmark’s strategic location, with close proximity to DE, SE, FI and PL)

by offering a price

competitive, convenient, and potentially

binding solution. This solution can also play into the EU’s

plan to reach ambitious CO2 reduction targets and thus secure international financing and

cost/risk-sharing. On the other hand, this solution is significantly more complex (however not

unrealistic, as proven by the recent Baltic Pipe project), would imply a need for extensive state

involvement and investments in widespread CCS infrastructure, and also require EU to cooperate

in continuing to support and pass policies that will aid the CCS market. Furthermore, this solution

is the most meaningful if planned at a large scale from the beginning - adding storages or

infrastructure at a later time can impair this system's competitiveness and expected CO2

volumes.

The detailed cash flow results for each business case scenario are shown in the figures and tables

in the following sub-sections, with a corresponding summary description of the results.

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Table 48: Overview of the results from the assessment of the different business cases

CO2 Pipelines

Nearshore storage site

Onshore storage site

Offshore storage site

Case 1:

Small-scale domestically

focused case with sea transportation

Category

Repurposed pipelines

CO2 Shipping routes

Harbour

Case 2A:

Medium-scale, domestically

Case 2B:

Medium-scale, domestically

Case 2C:

Medium-scale, domestically

focused case, with onshore storage

focused case, with nearshore storage focused case, with offshore storage

Case 3:

Large-scale international CCS

solution

Illustration

of business

case

(see

appendix for

full size)

NPV (DKK)

and IRR

DKK/ton

Break-even

year

•

NPV:

~ (2.0) bn

172

2055

IRR:

~0.2%

NPV:

~11.5 bn

2038

IRR:

~12%

NPV:

~5.5 bn

7 bn

109

2043

IRR:

~7%

NPV:

~2.1 bn

132

2045

IRR:

~5%

NPV:

~26.6 bn

101

2041

IRR:

~9%

The source countries will capture CO2 with the intention for storage and choose Denmark as the storage destination

It is possible to identify and appoint parties with operational and technical CCS expertise to represent the state in order to secure fair competition (i.e. to avoid monopolisation of the market)

Likewise, all of the cases will require financial aid in order to be operational, as none of the solutions can operate without subsidies and grants

All necessary permits can be obtained without major delays

Required technology developments are achieved. For both cases, it is, e.g. assumed that shuttle tankers up to at least 20,000 tonnes will become available in the future

Operations start in 2030. The payback period assumes that the CCS systems (both storages and transport infrastructure) can be built in time to start operations no later than 2030, or at least

in line with the volume uptake

•

Especially for case 2A, there is a prerequisite that all necessary permits

can be obtained without major delays. Due to the onshore location of the

site, there is a risk of public opposition and difficulty obtaining necessary

permits.

•

Both for case 2A and 2B, it is a prerequisite that the reservoirs can be

used for the storage of CO2. None of these sites has been drilled yet,

and it will therefore be necessary to carry out seismic surveys as well as

appraisal drilling

•

The existent gas pipeline can be

reused for CCS purposes

•

The existent gas pipeline can be

reused for CCS purposes

•

EU and/or individual collaboration

countries will provide support for

the development of a CCS system

•

Agreements with German

companies and state are secured

upfront before the pipeline is

constructed

Pre-

requisites

•

Interest and willingness from the

oil & gas companies with

concession rights to switch from

gas/oil to CO2 operations

•

Pumping technology on vessels are

is proven to work efficiently and

commercialised

•

Existing injection wells can be

reused (other cases assume that

new wells will be built)

•

This case assumes focus on

domestic activities only and CO2

import from abroad is not

comprised; In practice, once on

vessels, CO2 can be transported

100

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

from different locations (both

domestically and internationally)

Pro’s

•

This model gives a high degree of

flexibility, as it can be re-evaluated

and potentially changed/adjusted

underway to match changing

conditions and market needs. E.g.

it is possible to switch to or add-on

more cost-efficient solutions

•

Likewise, in case 1, CO2

emitters/sources are not

committed to Denmark (which

would be the case with pipeline),

implying a potentially higher risk of

losing these customers to

competition (especially given

relatively high costs, which will

presumably impact the price on

CO2 transport and storage as well)

•

Vessels in case 1 are built for the

purpose and can potentially

become sunk cost if this solution is

dropped or changed over time (i.e.

are more difficult to retrofit to

other purposes, than, e.g. shuttle

tankers)

•

Particularly onshore and nearshore solution can be difficult and potentially unprofitable to expand to the

international scale later in time

•

Risk for public opposition against the onshore storage

101

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

6.5

6.5.1

BUSINESS CASE DEEP-DIVES

Case 1

–

Small-scale, domestically focused case, with offshore CO2 storage, but

sea transportation only (no pipeline or ports assumed)

Case 1 posts a negative

NPV of DKK ~ (2.0) billion

and a

payback time of 25 years.

Thus,

this case has the lowest NPV of all cases and the longest payback period due to the high OPEX,

although this case does not have costs related to pipeline transport. The operational expenditure

for vessels and storage (most significant contributors to this are the OPEX of wellhead platforms,

standby vessels, and mooring and loading systems) are higher than the rest of case 2 options.

The IRR is positive at

~ 0.2%.

Figure 19: Cash flow case 1

Source: Ramboll analysis

Figure 20: Business case overview 1

YEAR

Year

Revenue

Reference price

CO2 volume

Total revenue

OPEX

Storage

Vessels

Pipeline

Total operating expenditures

EBITDA

CAPEX

Storage, Pre-FID cost (one-time cost)

Storage, Instalment costs

Storage, Abandonment cost (ABEX)

Storage, Post-Closure Cost/Monitoring

Vessels, acquisition cost

Export intermediate storage

Pipeline, Instalment costs

Total capital expenditures

Depreciations

mDKK

EBIT

Cash flow

Discounted cash flow

Accumulated cash flow

Present value (PV), mDKK

Net present value (NPV), mDKK

IRR

WACC

mDKK

DKK

3.647

(1.989)

0,2%

0 kr.

-5.637 kr.

188 kr.

43 kr.

231 kr.

222 kr.

-5.406 kr.

188 kr.

43 kr.

231 kr.

213 kr.

-5.175 kr.

188 kr.

43 kr.

231 kr.

205 kr.

-4.944 kr.

188 kr.

43 kr.

231 kr.

90 kr.

-95 kr.

188 kr.

43 kr.

231 kr.

87 kr.

136 kr.

188 kr.

43 kr.

231 kr.

83 kr.

367 kr.

188 kr.

43 kr.

231 kr.

80 kr.

598 kr.

188 kr.

43 kr.

231 kr.

77 kr.

829 kr.

188 kr.

43 kr.

231 kr.

74 kr.

1.060 kr.

1.309 kr.

-1.078 kr.

-891 kr.

-275 kr.

169 kr.

Unit

2030

169 kr.

843 kr.

2031

169 kr.

843 kr.

2032

169 kr.

843 kr.

2033

169 kr.

843 kr.

2054

169 kr.

843 kr.

2055

169 kr.

843 kr.

2056

169 kr.

843 kr.

2057

169 kr.

843 kr.

2058

169 kr.

843 kr.

2059

169 kr.

843 kr.

2060

169 kr.

843 kr.

DKK

mDKK

490 kr.

122 kr.

0 kr.

612 kr.

231 kr.

490 kr.

122 kr.

0 kr.

612 kr.

231 kr.

490 kr.

122 kr.

0 kr.

612 kr.

231 kr.

490 kr.

122 kr.

0 kr.

612 kr.

231 kr.

490 kr.

122 kr.

0 kr.

612 kr.

231 kr.

490 kr.

122 kr.

0 kr.

612 kr.

231 kr.

490 kr.

122 kr.

0 kr.

612 kr.

231 kr.

490 kr.

122 kr.

0 kr.

612 kr.

231 kr.

490 kr.

122 kr.

0 kr.

612 kr.

231 kr.

490 kr.

122 kr.

0 kr.

612 kr.

231 kr.

mDKK

300 kr.

2.980 kr.

522 kr.

600 kr.

1.419 kr.

938 kr.

0 kr.

5.637 kr.

0 kr.

1.122 kr.

Source: Ramboll analysis

6.5.2

Case 2A

–

Medium-scale, domestically focused case, with onshore storage

Case 2A has an

NPV of DKK ~11.5 billion

and a

payback time of 8 years

2038.

The NPV is

the highest of all business cases in the medium-scale option, whereas the payback period is the

lowest of all business cases and is mainly due to OPEX and CAPEX for the onshore option being

the lowest and the reference price applied is the same for all cases (except the price for case 3,

which is slightly lower). The IRR also reflects these results and posts

~12%.

102

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Figure 21: Cash flow 2A

Source: Ramboll analysis

Figure 22: Business case overview 2A

YEAR

Year

Revenue

Reference price

CO2 volume

Total revenue

OPEX

Storage

Shuttle tanker/vessels

Pipeline

Total operating expenditures

EBITDA

Unit

2030

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2031

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2032

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2033

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2034

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2035

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2036

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2037

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2038

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2058

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2059

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2060

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

DKK

mDKK

188 kr.

209 kr.

16 kr.

413 kr.

1.250 kr.

188 kr.

209 kr.

16 kr.

413 kr.

1.250 kr.

188 kr.

209 kr.

16 kr.

413 kr.

1.250 kr.

188 kr.

209 kr.

16 kr.

413 kr.

1.250 kr.

188 kr.

209 kr.

16 kr.

413 kr.

1.250 kr.

188 kr.

209 kr.

16 kr.

413 kr.

1.250 kr.

188 kr.

209 kr.

16 kr.

413 kr.

1.250 kr.

188 kr.

209 kr.

16 kr.

413 kr.

1.250 kr.

188 kr.

209 kr.

16 kr.

413 kr.

1.250 kr.

188 kr.

209 kr.

16 kr.

413 kr.

1.250 kr.

188 kr.

209 kr.

16 kr.

413 kr.

1.250 kr.

CAPEX

Storage, Pre-FID cost (one-time cost) mDKK

Storage, Instalment costs

mDKK

Storage, Abandonment cost (ABEX)

mDKK

Storage, Post-Closure Cost/Monitoring mDKK

Shuttle tankers, acquisition cost

mDKK

Export intermediate storage

mDKK

Pipeline, Instalment costs

mDKK

Total capital expenditures

mDKK

Depreciations

mDKK

EBIT

Cash flow

Discounted cash flow

Accumulated cash flow

Present value (PV), mDKK

Net present value (NPV), mDKK

IRR

WACC

mDKK

DKK

21.213

11.540

12,49%

4,0%

308 kr.

4.170 kr.

730 kr.

566 kr.

1.892 kr.

2.625 kr.

679 kr.

9.674 kr.

0 kr.

1.295 kr.

322 kr.

0 kr.

-9.674 kr.

-9.674

927 kr.

1.250 kr.

1.202 kr.

-8.424 kr.

-8.424

322 kr.

927 kr.

1.250 kr.

1.156 kr.

-7.174 kr.

-7.174

322 kr.

927 kr.

1.250 kr.

1.111 kr.

-5.924 kr.

-5.924

322 kr.

927 kr.

1.250 kr.

1.068 kr.

-4.674 kr.

-4.674

322 kr.

927 kr.

1.250 kr.

1.027 kr.

-3.424 kr.

-3.424

322 kr.

927 kr.

1.250 kr.

988 kr.

-2.174 kr.

-2.174

322 kr.

927 kr.

1.250 kr.

950 kr.

-925 kr.

-925

322 kr.

927 kr.

1.250 kr.

913 kr.

325 kr.

325

322 kr.

927 kr.

1.250 kr.

417 kr.

25.323 kr.

322 kr.

927 kr.

1.250 kr.

401 kr.

26.572 kr.

1.618 kr.

-368 kr.

-46 kr.

-14 kr.

26.527 kr.

Source: Ramboll analysis

6.5.3

Case

–

Medium-scale, domestically focused case, with nearshore storage

Case 2B has an

NPV of DKK ~5.5 billion

and a

payback time of 13 years

2043.

Thus, this

case has a lower NPV and longer payback period than case 2A since the nearshore solution is

more expensive than an onshore solution. This case has the second-highest total CAPEX of all

options in case 2, however, OPEX is the second-lowest of all cases. The IRR is at

~7%.

Figure 23: Cash flow 2B

Source: Ramboll analysis

103

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Figure 24: Business case overview

YEAR

Year

Revenue

Reference price

CO2 volume

Total revenue

OPEX

Storage

Shuttle tanker/vessels

Pipeline

Total operating expenditures

EBITDA

Unit

2030

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2031

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2032

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2033

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2034

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2035

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2036

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2037

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2038

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2039

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2040

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2041

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2042

2043

2060

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

DKK

mDKK

166 kr.

1.663 kr. 1.663 kr.

mDKK

0 kr.

1.663 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

276 kr.

164 kr.

48 kr.

488 kr.

1.175 kr.

1.175 kr. 1.175 kr.

CAPEX

Storage, Pre-FID cost (one-time cost) mDKK

Storage, Instalment costs

mDKK

Storage, Abandonment cost (ABEX)

mDKK

Storage, Post-Closure Cost/Monitoring mDKK

Shuttle tankers, acquisition cost

mDKK

Export intermediate storage

mDKK

Pipeline, Instalment costs

mDKK

Total capital expenditures

mDKK

Depreciations

mDKK

EBIT

Cash flow

Discounted cash flow

Accumulated cash flow

Present value (PV), mDKK

Net present value (NPV), mDKK

IRR

WACC

mDKK

DKK 19.678

DKK 5.502

7,1%

4,0%

658 kr.

7.086 kr.

1.240 kr.

849 kr.

1.419 kr.

2.063 kr.

2.950 kr.

14.175 kr.

0 kr.

2.089 kr.

473 kr.

1.663 kr.

-14.175 kr.

703 kr.

1.175 kr.

1.130 kr.

-13.000 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

1.175 kr.

1.087 kr.

-11.825 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

1.175 kr.

1.045 kr.

-10.650 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

1.175 kr.

1.005 kr.

-9.475 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

1.175 kr.

966 kr.

-8.299 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

1.175 kr.

929 kr.

-7.124 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

1.175 kr.

893 kr.

-5.949 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

1.175 kr.

859 kr.

-4.774 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

1.175 kr.

826 kr.

-3.599 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

473 kr.

703 kr.

2.561 kr.

-1.386 kr.

-913 kr.

-282 kr.

18.992 kr.

1.175 kr. 1.175 kr.

794 kr.

763 kr.

-2.424 kr. -1.248 kr.

1.175 kr. 1.175 kr.

734 kr.

706 kr.

-73 kr. 1.102 kr.

Source: Ramboll analysis

6.5.4

Case

–

Medium-scale, domestically focused case, with offshore storage

Case 2C has an

NPV of DKK ~2.1 billion

and a

payback time of 15 years

2045.

Thus, this

case has a lower NPV and longer payback period than case 2A and case 2B. This case has the

second-highest total CAPEX of

all options in case 2,

however, OPEX is the second-lowest of all

cases. The IRR is at

~6%.

Figure 25: Cash flow 2C

Source: Ramboll analysis

Figure 26: Business case overview 2C

YEAR

Year

Revenue

Reference price

CO2 volume

Total revenue

OPEX

Storage

Shuttle tanker/vessels

Pipeline

Total operating expenditures

EBITDA

CAPEX

Storage, Pre-FID cost (one-time cost)

Storage, Instalment costs

Storage, Abandonment cost (ABEX)

Storage, Post-Closure Cost/Monitoring

Shuttle tankers, acquisition cost

Export intermediate storage

Pipeline, Instalment costs

Total capital expenditures

Depreciations

mDKK

EBIT

Cash flow

Discounted cash flow

Accumulated cash flow

Present value (PV), mDKK

Net present value (NPV), mDKK

IRR

WACC

mDKK

DKK

14.514

2.115

5,4%

0 kr.

-12.400 kr.

413 kr.

458 kr.

872 kr.

838 kr.

-11.528 kr.

413 kr.

458 kr.

872 kr.

806 kr.

-10.656 kr.

413 kr.

458 kr.

872 kr.

775 kr.

-9.784 kr.

413 kr.

458 kr.

872 kr.

589 kr.

-3.681 kr.

413 kr.

458 kr.

413 kr.

458 kr.

413 kr.

458 kr.

413 kr.

458 kr.

872 kr.

503 kr.

-194 kr.

413 kr.

458 kr.

872 kr.

484 kr.

678 kr.

2.234 kr.

-1.362 kr.

-948 kr.

-292 kr.

11.935 kr.

Unit

2030

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2031

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2032

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2033

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2040

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2041

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2042

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2043

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2044

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2045

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

2060

166 kr.

1.663 kr.

DKK

mDKK

547 kr.

210 kr.

34 kr.

791 kr.

872 kr.

547 kr.

210 kr.

34 kr.

791 kr.

872 kr.

547 kr.

210 kr.

34 kr.

791 kr.

872 kr.

547 kr.

210 kr.

34 kr.

791 kr.

872 kr.

547 kr.

210 kr.

34 kr.

791 kr.

872 kr.

547 kr.

210 kr.

34 kr.

791 kr.

872 kr.

547 kr.

210 kr.

34 kr.

791 kr.

872 kr.

547 kr.

210 kr.

34 kr.

791 kr.

872 kr.

547 kr.

210 kr.

34 kr.

791 kr.

872 kr.

547 kr.

210 kr.

34 kr.

791 kr.

872 kr.

mDKK

170 kr.

5.552 kr.

972 kr.

849 kr.

1.892 kr.

2.625 kr.

2.160 kr.

12.400 kr.

0 kr.

1.820 kr.

872 kr.

566 kr.

545 kr.

524 kr.

-2.810 kr. -1.938 kr. -1.066 kr.

Source: Ramboll analysis

104

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

6.5.5

Case 3

–

Large-scale international CCS solution

Case 2 has an

NPV of DKK ~26.6 billion

and a

payback time of 11 years

2041.

Thus, this

case has the highest NPV of all cases, while the payback period is the second shortest (after case

2A). Naturally, this case it the most expensive in terms of both CAPEX and OPEX, however, the

volumes are four times higher (40 MtCO2/y) than the options in case 2 and eight times higher

than case 1 (although the reference price is just slightly lower than the other cases), which results

in the case having the highest NPV. Further, this solution combines onshore, nearshore and

offshore storages, as well as pipeline (including the assumption that existing gas pipelines can be

utilised) and shuttle tanker transportation and this, results in a combination of solutions that

provides economies of scale as well as synergies (e.g., the same pipeline can be used for more

than one storage solution). The IRR is at

~9%.

Figure 27: Cash flow 3

Source: Ramboll analysis

Figure 28: Business case overview 3

YEAR

Year

Revenue

Reference price

CO2 volume

Total revenue

OPEX

Storage

Shuttle tanker/vessels

Pipeline

Total operating expenditures

EBITDA

Unit

2030

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2031

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2032

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2033

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2034

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2035

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2036

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2037

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2038

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2039

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2040

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2041

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

2060

159 kr.

6.367 kr.

DKK

mDKK

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

1.518 kr.

437 kr.

222 kr.

2.176 kr.

4.191 kr.

CAPEX

Storage, Pre-FID cost (one-time cost)

mDKK

Storage, Instalment costs

mDKK

Storage, Abandonment cost (ABEX) mDKK

Storage, Post-Closure Cost/Monitoring

mDKK

Shuttle tankers, acquisition cost

mDKK

Export intermediate storage

mDKK

Pipeline, Instalment costs

mDKK

Total capital expenditures

mDKK

Depreciations

mDKK

EBIT

Cash flow

Discounted cash flow

Accumulated cash flow

Net present value (NPV), mDKK

IRR

WACC

mDKK

DKK 26.577

8,7%

1.500 kr.

22.882 kr.

4.004 kr.

3.014 kr.

4.730 kr.

2.813 kr.

11.799 kr.

43.725 kr.

0 kr.

7.019 kr.

1.457 kr.

0 kr.

2.733 kr.

1.457 kr.

2.733 kr.

1.457 kr.

2.733 kr.

1.457 kr.

2.733 kr.

1.457 kr.

2.733 kr.

1.457 kr.

2.733 kr.

1.457 kr.

2.733 kr.

1.457 kr.

2.733 kr.

1.457 kr.

2.733 kr.

1.457 kr.

2.733 kr.

1.457 kr.

2.733 kr.

4.191 kr.

2.722 kr.

2.373 kr.

8.476 kr.

-4.285 kr.

-2.828 kr.

-872 kr.

74.978 kr.

-43.725 kr.

4.191 kr.

-43.725 kr.

4.030 kr.

3.875 kr.

3.726 kr.

3.582 kr.

3.444 kr.

3.312 kr.

3.185 kr.

3.062 kr.

2.944 kr.

2.831 kr.

-43.725 kr. -39.534 kr. -35.343 kr. -31.152 kr. -26.962 kr. -22.771 kr. -18.580 kr. -14.390 kr. -10.199 kr.

-6.008 kr.

-1.818 kr.

Source: Ramboll analysis

105

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

6.6

BUSINESS CASE PREREQUISITES

All business cases presented in this chapter build on a number of prerequisites. Following

prerequisites pertain to

all cases:

The source countries will capture CO2 with the intention for storage and choose Denmark

as the storage destination

Particularly in Poland, there is a risk that the country might start storing CO2 on

national territories in the future instead of exporting abroad

Additionally, it also requires all countries to choose CCS as the technology to

remove these estimated capturable volumes instead of, e.g. CCU. Although the

capturable volumes consider only the volumes intended for CCS, this is based on

the current market, which can change over the years (due to technology

development in other areas, political focus changes, etc.).

Furthermore, there is a general risk that the countries will fully or partly abandon

the decarbonisation targets or incur serious delays in technology deployment due

to possible unforeseen events

Another important risk related to potential CO2 volumes is that the biogenic

emission will not be subject to carbon taxation, decreasing the incentives for

carbon capture of these emissions

It is possible to identify and appoint parties with operational and technical CCS expertise

to represent the state in order to secure fair competition

(i.e. to avoid monopolisation of

the market). As mentioned in the chapter concerning institutional considerations, all cases

will most likely require state involvement, a state-run body that upholds the strategic and

administrative oversight of the project and parties (which to some degree represent the

state/state-owned) with operational and technical expertise within CCS. Particularly case

2, which combines onshore, nearshore and offshore storage solutions, require increased

governmental involvement

Likewise,

all of the cases will require financial aid in order to be operational,

as none of

the solutions can operate without subsidies and grants.

In case of the large,

internationally oriented solution (case 2), it is expected that EU and/or individual

collaboration countries will provide support for the development of a CCS system,

especially in a case, where a potential emission gap will be needed to be closed in order to

reach the ambitious decarbonisation target set by EU for 2030 (reduction of the

greenhouse gas emissions to at least 55% below 1990 levels by 2030). Furthermore, all

cases outlined in this report comprise costs for the full infrastructure (i.e. both storage

and transport of CO2 from source countries). Here it is also possible that transportation

costs can be potentially shared with the emitters (e.g. cost for the pipeline from Germany

or construction/acquisition of shuttle tankers). With reference to the bullet above,

securing of the financing and potential cost-sharing requires

proper and professional

project management

The offshore cases (2C and 3) underlie that an existent gas pipeline can be reused for

CCS purposes.

This means that the offshore pipeline infrastructure is available at the time

constructions works to start and that retrofitting to handle the large CO2 volumes is

possible

Required technology developments are achieved.

For both cases, it is, e.g. assumed that

shuttle tankers up to at least 20,000 tonnes would become available in the future

All necessary permits can be obtained without major delays.

Especially the onshore

storage can meet public opposition, resulting in the extended and potentially more

uncertain permitting process than for the offshore storage

Operations start no later than in 2030.

The payback period assumes that the CCS systems

(both storages and transport infrastructure) can be built in time to start operations no

later than 2030, or at least in line with the volume uptake. In case of large delays, the

risk is not only that the payback period will be longer, but also that volumes can be lost to

competing storages. In practice, the full uptake of the CO2 volumes is not expected from

year 1, and smaller delays or that only a share of operations can be carried during the

first couple of years will not necessarily imply significant complications. Furthermore,

106

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

based on recent experience with the Baltic Pipe project, it is possible that all of the

systems can be finalised even before 2030 (given that construction works can start

already in 2022, the onshore and nearshore solutions could be completed in 2027

(expected timeline of ~6 years) and the offshore solution in 2026 (expected timeline of

~5 years; the shorter timeline is due to the possibility to reuse of some equipment and

the geological structures being already known).

Other,

case-specific

prerequisites:

Case 1:

•

Oil & gas companies with concession rights need to have interest and be willing to switch

from gas/oil to CO2 operations.

A potential challenge could arise if oil and gas prices

increase significantly, which can impact the willingness of these companies to stop

exploiting before the governmentally set deadline. This could potentially require an

incentive system

•

By the time operations start, the onboard pumping technology has been fully developed

and tested (and proven to work efficiently) and has been commercialised.

Case 2:

•

Both for case 2A and 2B, it is a prerequisite that the reservoirs can be used for the

storage of CO2.

None of these sites has been drilled yet, and it will therefore be necessary

to carry out seismic surveys as well as appraisal drilling

Case 3:

In order to be fully efficient, the solution outlined in case 3 requires that the full-scale

infrastructure is constructed from the start

(i.e. it is not meaningful to start small and

expand later on). If a more gradual start is needed for this solution, then it is

recommended to start with the offshore site, as it can be built fastest, and to avoid that

price offered to customers increase significantly. Offshore solutions are assessed to be

more expensive than onshore and nearshore solutions and will thus probably result in

higher prices. High prices are expected to be more acceptable in the early stages of CCS,

and the price is expected to become more competitive over time (which can be obtained

by expanding with more price-competitive solutions).

Collaboration and agreements with German companies and potentially state can be

secured up front before the pipeline is constructed,

i.e. the pipeline form source (e.g.

Germany) will require some pre-work

107

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

6.7

PRO’S AND CON’S FOR THE ASSESSED BUSINESS

CASES

The table

below summarizes the key pro’s and con’s

for case 1, 2 and 3, based on the insights

gained in this chapter.

Table 49:

Overview of pro’s and con’s for the assessed business

cases

Case 1 & 2 (A, B & C)

Pro’s

•

Less complex and affordable option:

Especially case 2A offers a highly price

competitive option, and with the shortest

pay-back period

•

All of the domestically oriented solutions

are more flexible with regards to a gradual

build-up than the international case (as

long as the focus remains on the domestic

CO2 volumes). I.e. it is possible for this

solution to start at a smaller scale and then

add capacity as needed in line with the

market development

•

Especially case 1 gives a high degree of

flexibility, as it can be re-evaluated and

potentially changed/adjusted underway to

match changing conditions and market

needs. E.g. it is possible to switch to or

add-on other solutions (e.g. a permanently

moored FSU or pipeline that can optimise

costs but also reduce flexibility) over time,

when the market has been tested. It is

also possible to add international markets

any time, as the vessels can pick-up CO2

from various sources.

•

Relatively short construction time (~ 5

years) allows starting some operations

already in 2026 (given that construction

works start no later than in 2022)

•

Abandonment costs for existing oil & gas

infrastructure can be postponed if it is

reused for CO2 operations

•

Medium-scale solution (case 2, particularly

2A, onshore and 2B, nearshore) can be

difficult and potentially unprofitable to

expand to the international scale

afterwards, as moving towards more

expensive solutions can impair the

competitiveness of the system (especially

given that the market will move the

opposite way, i.e. towards more price

efficient solutions)

•

Risk for public opposition against onshore

storage

•

In the case of 2C (offshore solution), the

distance to the storage by ship is not

significantly different from the offshore

storage possibilities that UK or Norway is

providing. Thus, there will be a potentially

lower incentive for export countries to opt

for storing their CO2 in Denmark.

•

Case 1 has the highest cost per ton among

all cases, although it can be potentially

improved over time if it is expanded to

include more cost-efficient solutions

•

Likewise, in case 1, CO2 emitters/sources

are not committed to Denmark (which

would be the case with pipeline), implying

a potentially higher risk of losing these

customers to competition (especially given

relatively high costs, which will presumably

impact the price of CO2 transport and

storage as well)

•

Vessels in case 1 are built for the purpose

and can potentially become sunk cost if

this solution is dropped or changed over

time (i.e. are more difficult to retrofit to

other purposes, than, e.g. shuttle tankers)

Case 3

•

Case with the highest NPV

•

Denmark has a competitive advantage in terms of its

location, being strategically located in close proximity to

Germany, Sweden, Finland and Poland, to which it can

offer both a convenient and price competitive solution,

and thus secure CO2 volumes (especially from Germany

via a pipeline)

•

Denmark is beside the NL, the only EU country which has

shown willingness to develop storage capacity to store

CO2 from other EU countries. The ambitious EU targets

for decarbonisation will most probably require CSS to

close any potential gap in CO2 reductions, meaning that

the project can receive financial support from EU and/or

collaboration countries

•

This case will entail that various player from both public

and private bodies are involved and are responsible for

different parts of the value chain. Since there are so

many transport infrastructures laid out, it might involve

more competition between players, and as such, CCS

might become more market-oriented

•

CO2 transported via pipelines does not need to be

liquefied. Although liquefaction is not included for sea

transport in this report (as it is considered to be part of

carbon capture systems at source), it can be significant

and result in additional costs for emitters; Note that this

advantage also applies to some degree for case 2

Con’s

•

High project complexity meaning risk to the timeline.

However, the recent project experiences within gas

industry (Baltic Pipe) provide a steppingstone for the

development of such complex solutions. The Baltic pipe is

expected to be completed in 2022, and thus only after a

5-year process, showcasing that timely completion of

such projects is realistic

•

It will potentially require extensive state involvement and

investments in widespread CCS infrastructure. It will also

require the EU to cooperate in continuing to support and

pass policies that will aid the CCS market

•

The international solution will be meaningful only in case

when the full infrastructure is planned from the

beginning. Adding storages or infrastructure afterwards

can impair competitiveness of this system and the

expected CO2 volumes

108

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

APPENDIX

7.1

GRAPHICAL OVERVIEW OF BUSINESS MODEL SET-UPS

Figure 29: Set-up #1

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish Energy Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

Figure 30: Set-up #2

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish Energy

Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

109

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Figure 31: Set-up #3

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish Energy Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

Figure 32: Set-up #4

Source: Ramboll analysis;

Ramboll & the Danish Energy Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

110

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Figure 33: Set-up #5

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish Energy Agency, “Catalogue

of Geological CO2

Storage in Denmark”

Figure 34: Set-up #6

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish Energy Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

111

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Figure 35: Set-up #7

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish

Energy Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

Figure 36: Set-up #8

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish Energy Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

112

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Figure 37: Set-up #9

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish Energy Agency

7.2

GRAPHICAL OVERVIEW OF BUSINESS CASES

Figure 38: Business case 1

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll

& the Danish Energy Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

113

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Figure 39: Business case 2A

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish Energy Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

Figure 40: Business case 2B

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish Energy Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

114

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Figure 41: Business case 2C

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish

Energy Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

Figure 42: Business case 3

CASE 2:

40 MT CO2 PA

–

2 MT FROM CPH VIA PIPELINE, 20 MT FROM

DE VIA PIPELINE, 2 MT FROM AALBORG VIA PIPELINE, 16 MT SE/FI/PL

Nearshore storage site

Onshore storage site

Offshore storage site

CO2 Pipelines

CO2 Shipping routes

Harbour

Repurposed gas pipelines

for CO2 transport

Hanstholm

Aalborg

harbour

Gassum

Havnsø

Esbjerg

harbour

Northern

fields

Hanstholm

harbour

Source: Ramboll analysis; Ramboll & the Danish Energy Agency, “Catalogue of Geological CO2 Storage in Denmark”

115

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

7.3

OVERVIEW OF COSTS AND ASSUMPTIONS PER BUSINESS MODEL SET-UP

This appendix section provides an overview of the cost for establishing and operating nine

different CO2 transportation and storage set-ups based in Denmark.

Storage cost covers the cost of establishing, maintaining, and monitoring CO2 injection facilities

and CO2 storage sites.

Transport cost covers the cost of transporting CO2 from ports near emission sources in five

Northern European countries and domestically in Denmark to a Danish intermediate storage

facility near a storage site. The costs are provided for the nine proposed setups identified in

chapter 5.

Mapping of available options for transport and storage in Denmark, as well as cost estimates, is

based on Catalogue of Geological Storage of CO2 in Denmark (to be published by Danish Energy

Agency and Ramboll in 2021) and Catalogue on Technology Data for Energy Transport published

by the Danish Energy Agency and Energinet (2017). Cost estimates from these sources have been

supplemented by Ramboll’s technical

and commercial insights in connection with applying the

costs to specific set-ups and scaling up.

The cost estimates follow the general assumptions outlined below:

•

The technical project lifetime

is assumed to be 30 years. While some equipment may

have shorter lifetimes and some may have longer lifetimes, the average lifetime of

equipment is expected to be 30 years. As a result, the accumulated OPEX of the project

should supposedly cover 30 years of full operational expenditures. However, since

ramping of injection rates to the assumed capacities is expected to take some years, the

lifetime of the project at full operational capacity is expected to be effectively 27 years. As

the operational expenditures are expected to ramp with the injection rate, the

accumulated OPEX for the project will be reduced from covering 30 years to covering 27

years of full operational expenditures

Upgrading or retrofitting existing facilities

have not been included in the cost

estimates of the set-ups, meaning all infrastructure associated with the project must be

built from new

OPEX

•

Storage:

Covers storage facilities, injection facilities, wellhead platforms, wells,

pipelines, mooring/loading systems, and FSUs which are based on offshore oil and

gas industry norms, effectively percentages of CAPEX. This also includes

monitoring, energy, standby vessels, base organisation, and staff

Transport:

Covers fixed O&M for shuttle tankers, vessels, intermediate storage at

export sites, onshore and offshore pipelines. It also includes fuel used during

transportation

•

CAPEX

Storage:

Covers storage facilities, wellhead platforms, wells, pipelines,

mooring/loading systems, and FSUs which are based on standards from the oil

and gas industry and the size of the main components. This also covers any

support systems for the facilities

Transport:

Covers shuttle tankers, vessels, onshore and offshore pipeline, and

any pumping stations associated with the pipelines

•

Pre-FID cost for storage

are incurred prior to final investment decision and are required

to ensure the geological structures can store CO2 and to obtain the necessary approvals

for establishing CO2 storage sites

116

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

•

Intermediate storage

is used at the port receiving the CO2 as a buffer for delays. A

capacity of 50,000 t of intermediate storage was adequate for a 5 MtCO2/y scenario,

which, assuming the logistics are well optimised, will also be adequate for the 10 MtCO2/y

scenarios presented below. Capacity is considered to cost 2,500 EUR/t.

Ships (shuttle tankers and vessel)

for CO2 transport of the proposed size (20,000 t

net capacity) have not yet been developed but is widely expected to be, and as a result,

costs have been extrapolated using the cost of smaller ships as a basis

Shuttle tankers

carry equipment for loading and unloading to and from

intermediate storage facilities

Vessels

carry injection and intermediate storage capabilities

•

A floating storage unit (FSU)

is a permanently moored vessel with injection and

intermediate storage facilities where costs have been benchmarked against similar LNG

FSUs. It only applies to offshore storage

Energy consumption

at onshore injection facilities is expected to be covered by

electricity from the grid, where the cost of connection is included in the CAPEX of storage,

pipeline, and injection facilities. Nearshore injection facilities are assumed to be connected

by an AC electricity cable to the onshore grid, which will cover energy consumption. The

cost of the AC cable is included in the CAPEX cost of the nearshore pipeline. Offshore

operations (injection and intermediate storage) are assumed to connect to existing energy

providing infrastructure in the North Sea. This means the cost of constructing the

infrastructure that provides energy to the offshore operations is not included

Distances from exporting countries

are estimated based on the positions of ports near

the largest emission clusters in a given country

Abatement expenditures ABEX

includes the port-to-storage pipelines, but not the

transport pipelines, which are assumed can be repurposed after end-of-service, similarly

to current oil and gas pipelines

Cost estimates do not consider

compensation to the local community for the loss of

property value in the vicinity of the CO2 storage site or facilities. Furthermore, costs

related to upgrading of port facilities (jetty, quayside, etc.), liquefaction of CO2 at export

ports and any harbour fees related to docking have not been included

•

Table 50: Specific assumptions table

Overview of specific assumptions

Name

CO2 pipeline flow power

Cost, heavy fuel oil (HFO)

Cost, intermediate storage

capacity

Cost, shuttle tanker/vessel

Energy consumption,

shuttle tankers/vessels

Loading/unloading time per

cycle, shuttle tanker

Loading/unloading time per

cycle, vessel

Unit

kW/km/(t CO2/h)

EUR/ton

EUR/t

MDKK

MWh/day

Days

Value

0.02

270

2500

473

256

Comments

The amount of power it takes to pump a certain mass of

CO2 a certain flow rate

Assumed average price of HFO

CAPEX cost of establishing intermediate storage capacity

Cost of acquiring a CO2 shuttle tanker/vessel with

20,000 t net capacity

The assumed energy consumption of a ship transporting

20,000 net ton of CO2 when at sea

The accumulated time it takes to load and unload a

shuttle tanker per cycle

The accumulated time it takes to load and unload a

vessel per cycle

117

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Lower calorific value, heavy

fuel oil (HFO)

Pipeline, onshore,

3 MtCO2/y

Pipeline, onshore,

5 MtCO2/y

Pipeline, onshore,

10 MtCO2/y

Pipeline, onshore,

20 MtCO2/y

Pipeline, offshore, long

5 MtCO2/y

Pipeline, offshore, long

10 MtCO2/y

Pipeline, offshore, short

5 MtCO2/y

Pipeline, offshore, short

10 MtCO2/y

Pumping station, 3 MtCO2/y

MJ/kg

MDKK/km

39.0

2.9

3.5

5.3

7.0

Amount of energy assumed to be extracted from HFO in

a marine ICE engine

Assumed cost of onshore pipeline with 3 MtCO2/y

capacity, based on oil and gas industry standards

Assumed cost of onshore pipeline with 5 MtCO2/y

capacity, based on oil and gas industry standards

Assumed cost of onshore pipeline with 10 MtCO2/y

capacity, based on oil and gas industry standards

Assumed cost of onshore pipeline with 20 MtCO2/y

capacity, based on oil and gas industry standards

Assumed cost of an offshore pipeline with 5 MtCO2/y

capacity and no electricity cable, based on oil and gas

industry standards

Assumed cost of an offshore pipeline with 10 MtCO2/y

capacity and no electricity cable, based on oil and gas

industry standards

Assumed cost of an offshore pipeline with 5 MtCO2/y

capacity laid nearshore with an AC electricity cable, based

on oil and gas industry standards

Assumed cost of an offshore pipeline with 5 MtCO2/y

capacity laid nearshore with an AC electricity cable, based

on oil and gas industry standards

The pumping stations are placed every 200 km onshore

transport pipelines or at each end of offshore transport

pipelines

Pumping stations are placed every 200 km onshore

transport pipelines or at each end of offshore transport

pipelines

Pumping stations are placed every 200 km onshore

transport pipelines or at each end of offshore transport

pipelines

Pumping stations are placed every 200 km onshore

transport pipelines or at each end of offshore transport

pipelines

Expected rate of utilisation of the shuttle tankers, due to

maintenance and routine inspections

Expected rate of utilisation of the vessels, due to

maintenance and routine inspections

MDKK/km

7.0

MDKK/km

11.0

MDKK/km

7.0

MDKK/km

11.0

MDKK

Pumping station, 5 MtCO2/y

MDKK

Pumping station, 10

MtCO2/y

Pumping station, 20

MtCO2/y

Utilisation rate, shuttle

tankers

Utilisation rate, vessel

117

MDKK

233

MDKK

467

More details regarding specific assumptions and methodology for cost estimation are available in

the Catalogue of Geological Storage of CO2 in Denmark published by the Danish Energy Agency

and Ramboll in 2021 and the Catalogue on Technology Data for Energy Transport published by

the Danish Energy Agency and Energinet (2017).

Estimated costs for each set-up are presented below. Note

that the numbers do not include

levelized cost of storage.

118

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

OPTION #1: Onshore, shuttle tanker to Kalundborg harbour, then to Havnsø via pipeline

Table 51: Overview option #1

Cost category

Pre-FID

2D seismic

Baseline studies

Appraisal well

MDKK

127

110

Based on the size of the area to

be assessed

Surveys all relevant pre-injection

data

The number of appraisal wells

increases linearly with the size of

the area to be appraised

Front end engineering design

Regulatory approvals for

establishing CO2 storage sites

Unit

MtCO2/y

Comment

FEED studies

Approvals

Total pre-FID costs

CAPEX

Intermediate storage

Injection plant

Pipeline

MDKK

195

308

MDKK

180

420

140

180

840

212

Assumed storage size of 50,000 t

Includes booster pumps, heat

exchangers and boiler system

The pipeline between storage and

injection site; cost is based on

the length and industry-standard

per km cost

The number of injection wells

scales linearly to accommodate

natural injection rate limitations

of the storage site

The offshore structure that

supports injection wells and

associated support systems

System for mooring and/or

unloading CO2 offshore

Permanently moored FSUs near

offshore storage site have

intermediate storage and

injection capabilities

STORAGE

Injection wells

MDKK

1,575

3,150

Wellhead platform

MDKK

n/a

Mooring/loading system

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

MDKK

n/a

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Base organisation

Intermediate storage

MDKK

2,315

4,382

MDKK

175

223

247

223

Covers day-to-day operations of

the organisation

Facility size remains constant as

additional buffer size does not

provide value

The accumulated variable cost for

operating the injection plant

systems

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime period

The accumulated variable cost of

operating wells for injection of

CO2 into subsurface reservoirs

Injection plant

MDKK

521

1,042

Pipeline

MDKK

Injection wells

MDKK

427

854

119

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Monitoring

Power

MDKK

670

884

948

1,768

Post-injection monitoring is only

evaluated over a 20-year period

Power scales linearly with the

project size and is based on 0.5

DKK/KWh pricing

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the wellhead platform

Scales linearly with the number

of vessels expected to be near

the storage site

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the mooring/loading

system offshore

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the FSU offshore

Wellhead platform

Standby vessel

MDKK

n/a

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

n/a

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

Total acc. OPEX

Closure costs

Abandonment cost

Post-Closure cost

Total closure costs

CAPEX

Transport shuttle

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

2,938

5,139

MDKK

405

400

805

767

566

1,333

Evaluated as 17,5% of total

storage CAPEX

Cost of monitoring the storage

site post-closure

MDKK

1,419

2,365

Import via shuttle tankers is

assumed to be 100% of the

import volume

The additional cost of equipment

for the vessels is included in the

CAPEX and OPEX for storage

Total export intermediate storage

is 120,000 t and 140,000 t for

each scenario, respectively, split

between the exporting countries

relative to their expected export

volume

Vessel

MDKK

n/a

Export intermediate storage

MDKK

2,250

2,625

Shuttle tanker/ Vessel

CO2 TRANSPORT

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Transport shuttle fixed O&M

MDKK

3,669

4,990

3,738

5,319

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

Shuttle tankers during transport

are assumed to consume 256

MWh per day, which drives fuel

costs

Vessels fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Fuel

MDKK

673

1,347

Total acc. OPEX

MDKK

4,412

6,666

120

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

CAPEX

Onshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

One pumping stations is added

for every 200 km of pipeline

commenced and one at each end

of the offshore pipeline

Offshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Pumping station

MDKK

n/a

Pipeline

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Onshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

n/a

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Based on 0.5 DKK/KWh pricing

Offshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Power

Total acc. OPEX

Total cost/t

*hereof

storage

*hereof transport

MDKK

DKK/t

n/a

106

n/a

Other case-specific assumptions:

•

Transport pipelines are not included in this set-up

50% of German CO2 exports are assumed to come from Rostock (East of Jutland), and

the remaining 50% is assumed to come from Hamburg (West of Jutland)

100% of exports from NL is assumed to come from Rotterdam harbour

121

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

OPTION #2: Onshore, shuttle tanker to Kalundborg harbour and pipeline from

Copenhagen to Kalundborg harbour, then to Havnsø via pipeline

Table 52: Overview option #2

Cost category

Pre-Fid

2D seismic

Baseline studies

Appraisal well

MDKK

127

110

Based on the size of the area to

be assessed

Surveys all relevant pre-injection

data

The number of appraisal wells

increases linearly with the size of

the area to be appraised

Front end engineering design

Regulatory approvals for

establishing CO2 storage sites

Unit

MtCO2/y

Comment

FEED studies

Approvals

Total pre-FID costs

CAPEX

Intermediate storage

Injection plant

Pipeline

MDKK

195

308

MDKK

180

420

140

180

840

212

Assumed storage size of 50,000 t

Includes booster pumps, heat

exchangers and boiler system

The pipeline between storage and

injection site; cost is based on

the length and industry-standard

per km cost

The number of injection wells

scales linearly to accommodate

natural injection rate limitations

of the storage site

The offshore structure that

supports injection wells and

associated support systems

System for mooring and/or

unloading CO2 offshore

Permanently moored FSUs near

offshore storage site have

intermediate storage and

injection capabilities

STORAGE

Injection wells

MDKK

1,575

3,150

Wellhead platform

MDKK

n/a

Mooring/loading system

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

MDKK

n/a

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Base organisation

Intermediate storage

MDKK

2,315

4,382

MDKK

175

223

247

223

Covers day-to-day operations of

the organisation

Facility size remains constant as

additional buffer size does not

provide value

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the injection plant

systems

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime period

Injection plant

MDKK

521

1,042

Pipeline

MDKK

122

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Injection wells

MDKK

427

854

Accumulated variable cost of

operating wells for injection of

CO2 into subsurface reservoirs

Post-injection monitoring is only

evaluated over a 20-year period

Power scales linearly with the

project size and is based on 0.5

DKK/KWh pricing

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the wellhead platform

Scales linearly with the number

of vessels expected to be near

the storage site

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the mooring/loading

system offshore

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the FSU offshore

Monitoring

Power

MDKK

670

884

948

1,768

Wellhead platform

Standby vessel

MDKK

n/a

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

n/a

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

Total acc. OPEX

Closure costs

Abandonment cost

Post-Closure cost

Total closure costs

CAPEX

Transport shuttle

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

2,938

5,139

MDKK

405

400

805

767

566

1,333

Evaluated as 17,5% of total

storage CAPEX

Cost of monitoring the storage

site post-closure

MDKK

473

1,419

Import via shuttle tankers is

assumed to increase from 20% of

the import volume to 60%

between the 5 and 10 MtCO2/y

scenarios

Additional cost of equipment for

the vessels is included in the

CAPEX and OPEX for storage

Total export intermediate storage

is 120,000 t and 140,000 t for

each scenario, respectively, split

between the exporting countries

relative to their expected export

volume

Vessel

MDKK

n/a

Export intermediate storage

MDKK

2,250

2,625

Shuttle tanker/ Vessel

CO2 TRANSPORT

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Transport shuttle fixed O&M

MDKK

2,723

4,044

MDKK

2,461

4,042

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

Shuttle tankers during transport

have been assumed to consume

256 MWh per day, which drives

fuel costs

Vessels fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Fuel

MDKK

146

875

Total acc. OPEX

MDKK

2,607

4,917

123

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

CAPEX

Onshore pipeline

MDKK

350

Normally cost would be 5,3

MDKK/km for 10MT/y, but this is

adjusted as the same amount

goes through the pipeline from

CPH-Kalundborg as in 5Mt/y

scenario

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

One pumping stations is added

for every 200 km of pipeline

commenced and one at each end

of an offshore pipeline

Offshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Pumping station

MDKK

117

Pipeline

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Onshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

467

MDKK

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Based on 0.5 DKK/KWh pricing

Offshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Power

Total acc. OPEX

Total cost/t

*hereof

storage

*hereof transport

MDKK

DKK/t

108

203

108

203

Other case-specific assumptions:

•

A 100 km CO2 transport pipeline from CPH to Kalundborg harbour is included in this set-

up carrying 4 MtCO2/y

Additional import volume between the 5 and 10 MtCO2/y cases is assumed to be

transported using only shuttle tankers

50% of German CO2 exports are assumed to come from Rostock (East of Jutland), and

the remaining 50% is assumed to come from Hamburg (West of Jutland)

100% of exports from NL is assumed to come from Rotterdam harbour

124

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

OPTION #3: Nearshore, shuttle tanker to Hanstholm harbour, then to Hanstholm

storage site via pipeline

Table 53: Overview option #3

Cost category

Pre-Fid

3D seismic

Baseline studies

Appraisal well

MDKK

230

127

460

Based on the size of the area to

be assessed

Surveys all relevant pre-injection

data

The number of appraisal wells

increases linearly with the size of

the area to be appraised

Front end engineering design

Regulatory approvals for

establishing CO2 storage sites

Unit

MtCO2/y

Comment

FEED studies

Approvals

Total pre-FID costs

CAPEX

Intermediate storage

Injection plant

Pipeline and power cable

MDKK

370

658

MDKK

180

420

350

180

840

550

Assumed storage size of 50,000 t

Includes booster pumps, heat

exchangers and boiler system

The pipeline between storage and

injection site; cost is based on

the length and industry-standard

per km cost; includes an AC cable

providing power to injection

operations

The number of injection wells

scales linearly to accommodate

natural injection rate limitations

The offshore structure that

supports injection wells and

associated support systems

System for mooring and/or

unloading CO2 offshore

Permanently moored FSUs near

offshore storage site have

intermediate storage and

injection capabilities

STORAGE

Injection wells

MDKK

2,835

5,670

Wellhead platform

MDKK

280

396

Mooring/loading system

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

MDKK

n/a

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Base organisation

Intermediate storage

MDKK

4,065

7,636

MDKK

350

223

495

223

Covers day-to-day operations of

the organisation

Facility size remains constant as

additional buffer size does not

provide value

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the injection plant

systems

Costs are evaluated as a 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime period

Accumulated variable cost of

operating wells for injection of

CO2 into subsurface reservoirs

Injection plant

MDKK

521

1,042

Pipeline and power cable

MDKK

149

Injection wells

MDKK

825

1,650

125

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Monitoring

Power

MDKK

920

884

1,301

1,768

Post-injection monitoring is only

evaluated over 20 years

Power scales linearly with the

project size and is based on 0.5

DKK/KWh pricing

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the wellhead platform

Scales linearly with the number

of vessels expected to be near

the storage site

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the mooring/loading

system offshore

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the FSU offshore

Wellhead platform

Standby vessel

MDKK

694

n/a

981

n/a

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

n/a

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

Total acc. OPEX

Closure costs

Abandonment cost

Post-Closure cost

Total closure costs

CAPEX

Transport shuttle

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

4,512

7,609

MDKK

711

600

1,311

1,336

849

2,185

Evaluated as 17,5% of total

storage CAPEX

Cost of monitoring the storage

site post-closure

MDKK

1,419

2,838

Import via shuttle tankers is

assumed to be 100% of the

import volume

Additional cost of equipment for

the vessels is included in the

CAPEX and OPEX for storage

Total export intermediate storage

is 120,000 t and 140,000 t for

each scenario, respectively, split

between the exporting countries

relative to their expected export

volume

Vessel

MDKK

n/a

Export intermediate storage

MDKK

2,250

2,625

Shuttle tanker/ Vessel

CO2 TRANSPORT

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Transport shuttle fixed O&M

MDKK

3,669

5,463

MDKK

3,738

5,958

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

Shuttle tankers during transport

have been assumed to consume

256 MWh per day, which drives

fuel costs

Vessels fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Fuel

MDKK

761

1,522

Total acc. OPEX

MDKK

4,499

7,480

Pipeline

CAPEX

Onshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

126

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Offshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

Shuttle tankers during transport

are assumed to consume 256

MWh per day, which drives fuel

costs

Pumping station

MDKK

n/a

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Onshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

n/a

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Based on 0.5 DKK/KWh pricing

Offshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Power

Total acc. OPEX

Total cost/t

*hereof

storage

*hereof transport

MDKK

DKK/t

n/a

136

n/a

115

Other case-specific assumptions:

•

Transport pipelines are not included in this set-up

50% of German CO2 exports is expected to come from Rostock (East of Jutland), and the

remaining 50% is expected to come from Hamburg (West of Jutland)

100% of exports from NL is assumed to come from Rotterdam harbour

Energy is provided to the injection site via an AC electricity cable from the onshore grid to

the nearshore injection operations

127

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

OPTION #4: Nearshore, shuttle tanker to Hanstholm harbour and pipeline from

Copenhagen to Hanstholm harbour, then to Hanstholm storage site via pipeline

Table 54: Overview option #4

Cost category

Pre-Fid

3D seismic

Baseline studies

Appraisal well

MDKK

230

127

460

Based on the size of the area to

be assessed

Surveys all relevant pre-injection

data

The number of appraisal wells

increase linearly with the size of

the area to be appraised

Front end engineering design

Regulatory approvals for

establishing CO2 storage sites

Unit

MtCO2/y

Comment

FEED studies

Approvals

Total pre-FID costs

CAPEX

Intermediate storage

Injection plant

Pipeline and power cable

MDKK

370

658

MDKK

180

420

350

180

840

550

Assumed storage size of 50,000 t

Includes booster pumps, heat

exchangers and boiler system

The pipeline between storage and

injection site; cost is based on

the length and industry-standard

per km cost; includes an AC cable

providing power to injection

operations

The number of injection wells

scales linearly to accommodate

natural injection rate limitations

The offshore structure that

supports injection wells and

associated support systems

System for mooring and/or

unloading CO2 offshore

Permanently moored FSUs near

offshore storage site have

intermediate storage and

injection capabilities

STORAGE

Injection wells

MDKK

2,835

5,670

Wellhead platform

MDKK

280

396

Mooring/loading system

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

MDKK

n/a

180

n/a

180

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Base organisation

Intermediate storage

MDKK

4,065

7,636

MDKK

350

223

495

223

Covers day-to-day operations of

the organisation

Facility size remains constant as

additional buffer size does not

provide value

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the injection plant

systems

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime period

Accumulated variable cost of

operating wells for injection of

CO2 into subsurface reservoirs

Injection plant

MDKK

521

1,042

Pipeline and power cable

MDKK

149

Injection wells

MDKK

825

1,650

128

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Monitoring

Power

MDKK

920

884

1,301

1,768

Post-injection monitoring is only

evaluated over a 20-year period

Power scales linearly with the

project size and is based on 0.5

DKK/KWh pricing

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the wellhead platform

Scales linearly with the number

of vessels expected to be near

the storage site

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the mooring/loading

system offshore

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the FSU offshore

Wellhead platform

Standby vessel

MDKK

694

n/a

981

n/a

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

n/a

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

Total CAPEX

Closure costs

Abandonment cost

Post-Closure cost

Total closure costs

CAPEX

Transport shuttle

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

4,512

7,609

MDKK

711

600

1,311

1,336

849

2,185

Evaluated as 17,5% of total

storage CAPEX

Cost of monitoring the storage

site post-closure

MDKK

473

1,892

Import via shuttle tankers is

assumed to increase from 20% of

the import volume to 60%

between the 5 and 10 MtCO2/y

scenarios

The additional cost of equipment

for the vessels is included in the

CAPEX and OPEX for storage

Total export intermediate storage

is 100,000 t and 110,000 t for

each scenario, respectively, split

between the exporting countries

relative to their expected export

volume

Vessel

MDKK

n/a

Export intermediate storage

MDKK

1,875

2,063

Shuttle tanker/ Vessel

CO2 TRANSPORT

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Transport shuttle fixed O&M

MDKK

2,348

3,955

2,157

4,225

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

Shuttle tankers during transport

have been assumed to consume

256 MWh per day, which drives

fuel costs

Vessels fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Fuel

MDKK

159

952

Total acc. OPEX

MDKK

2,316

5,177

129

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

CAPEX

Onshore pipeline

Offshore pipeline

MDKK

1,050

700

1,050

700

Cost of pipeline from CPH to

Hanstholm is split into two parts,

onshore part and offshore part;

throughput of 4 MtCO2/y is

assumed the same for both

scenarios meaning no change in

price

One pumping stations is added

for every 200 km of pipeline

commenced and one at each end

of an offshore pipeline

Pumping station

MDKK

350

Pipeline

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Onshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

2,100

MDKK

284

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Based on 0.5 DKK/KWh pricing

Offshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

189

297

Power

Total acc. OPEX

Total cost/t

*hereof

storage

*hereof transport

MDKK

DKK/t

432

905

133

432

1,013

112

Other case-specific assumptions:

•

A 400 km CO2 transport pipeline from CPH to Hanstholm harbour is included in this set-

up, consisting of 300 km onshore pipeline and 100 km offshore pipeline, assumed to

transport 4 MtCO2/y for both the 5 and 10 MtCO2/y scenarios. Additional import volume

for the 5 and 10 MtCO2/y scenarios is assumed to be transported from emission sources

to Hanstholm harbour using shuttle tankers

50% of German CO2 exports are assumed to come from Rostock (East of Jutland), and

the remaining 50% is assumed to come from Hamburg (West of Jutland)

100% of exports from NL is assumed to come from Rotterdam harbour

Energy is provided to the injection site via an AC electricity cable from the onshore grid to

the nearshore injection operations

•

130

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

OPTION #5: Offshore, shuttle tanker to Esbjerg harbour, then to the North Sea offshore

storage site via pipeline

Table 55: Overview option #5

Cost category

Pre-Fid

3D seismic

Baseline studies

Appraisal well

MDKK

n/a

Based on the size of the area to

be assessed

Surveys all relevant pre-injection

data

Appraisal wells are not included

as the geological structures of the

offshore storage sites are

assumed to be well known due to

prior mapping by the oil and gas

industry

Front end engineering design

Regulatory approvals for

establishing CO2 storage sites

Unit

MtCO2/y

Comment

FEED studies

Approvals

Total pre-FID costs

CAPEX

Intermediate storage

Injection plant

Pipeline

MDKK

120

170

MDKK

180

390

1,750

180

780

2,750

Assumed storage size of 50,000 t

Includes booster pumps, heat

exchangers and boiler system

The pipeline between storage and

injection site; does not include

the cost of electricity cable; cost

is based on the length and

industry-standard per km cost

The number of injection wells

scales linearly to accommodate

natural injection rate limitations

The offshore structure that

supports injection wells and

associated support systems

System for mooring and/or

unloading CO2 offshore

Permanently moored FSUs near

offshore storage site have

intermediate storage and

injection capabilities

STORAGE

Injection wells

MDKK

1,925

3,850

Wellhead platform

MDKK

525

742

Mooring/loading system

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

MDKK

n/a

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Base organisation

Intermediate storage

MDKK

4,770

8,302

MDKK

525

223

742

223

Covers day-to-day operations of

the organisation

Facility size remains constant as

additional buffer size does not

provide value

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the injection plant

systems

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime period

Injection plant

MDKK

967

1,934

Pipeline

MDKK

473

743

131

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Injection wells

MDKK

527

1,054

Accumulated variable cost of

operating wells for injection of

CO2 into subsurface reservoirs

Post-injection monitoring is only

evaluated over 20 years

Power scales linearly with the

project size and is based on 0.5

DKK/KWh pricing

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the wellhead platform

Scales linearly with the number

of vessels expected to be near

the storage site

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the mooring/loading

system offshore

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the FSU offshore

Monitoring

Power

MDKK

920

3,036

1,301

6,072

Wellhead platform

Standby vessel

MDKK

2,430

n/a

3,437

n/a

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

n/a

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

Total CAPEX

Closure costs

Abandonment cost

Post-Closure cost

Total closure costs

CAPEX

Transport shuttle

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

9,101

15,506

MDKK

835

600

1,435

1,453

849

2,301

Evaluated as 17,5% of total

storage CAPEX

Cost of monitoring the storage

site post-closure

MDKK

1,419

2,838

Import via shuttle tankers is

assumed to be 100% of the

import volume

Additional cost of equipment for

the vessels is included in the

CAPEX and OPEX for storage

Total export intermediate storage

is 120,000 t and 140,000 t for

each scenario, respectively, split

between the exporting countries

relative to their expected export

volume

Vessel

MDKK

n/a

Export intermediate storage

MDKK

2,250

2,625

Shuttle tanker/ Vessel

CO2 TRANSPORT

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Transport shuttle fixed O&M

MDKK

3,669

5,463

3,738

5,958

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

Shuttle tankers during transport

are assumed to consume 256

MWh per day, which drives fuel

costs

Vessels fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Fuel

MDKK

848

1,697

Total acc. OPEX

MDKK

4,587

7,655

132

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

CAPEX

Onshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

One pumping stations is added

for every 200 km of pipeline

commenced and 1 at each end of

the offshore pipeline

Offshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Pumping station

MDKK

n/a

Pipeline

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Onshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

n/a

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Based on 0.5 DKK/KWh pricing

Offshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Power

Total acc. OPEX

Total cost/t

*hereof

storage

*hereof transport

MDKK

DKK/t

n/a

175

114

n/a

146

Other case-specific assumptions:

•

Transport pipelines are not included in this set-up

50% of German CO2 exports are assumed to come from Rostock (East of Jutland), and

the remaining 50% is assumed to come from Hamburg (West of Jutland)

100% of exports from NL is assumed to come from Rotterdam harbour

Infrastructure for providing energy offshore is assumed to already be installed and has

not been included in the above estimates

Injection wells are placed in the Northern part of the North Sea oil and gas fields as the

geological structure of these sites means fewer wells are needed for the same injection

rate compared to the remaining Danish oil and gas fields

133

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

OPTION #6: Offshore, vessel to North Sea offshore storage site, then direct injection of

CO2 into storage site using onboard equipment

Table 56: Overview option #6

Cost category

Pre-Fid

3D seismic

Baseline studies

Appraisal well

MDKK

150

n/a

250

100

n/a

Based on the size of the area to

be assessed

Surveys all relevant pre-injection

data

Appraisal wells are not included

as the geological structures of the

offshore storage sites are

assumed to be well known due to

prior mapping by the oil and gas

industry

Front end engineering design

Regulatory approvals for

establishing CO2 storage sites

Unit

MtCO2/y

Comment

FEED studies

Approvals

Total pre-FID costs

CAPEX

Intermediate storage

Injection plant

Pipeline

MDKK

300

100

500

MDKK

n/a

340

n/a

680

n/a

Intermediate storage is included

in the cost of the vessel

Includes booster pumps, heat

exchangers and boiler system

Pipeline between storage and

injection site; does not include

cost of electricity cable; cost is

based on length and industry-

standard per km cost

Number of injection wells scale

linearly to accommodate natural

injection rate limitations

The offshore structure that

supports injection wells and

associated support systems

Includes a SAL system allowing

vessels to attach themselves to

wells and start injection of the

transported CO2

Permanently moored FSUs near

offshore storage site have

intermediate storage and

injection capabilities

STORAGE

Injection wells

MDKK

1,960

3,920

Wellhead platform

MDKK

275

550

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

405

675

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

MDKK

n/a

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Base organisation

Intermediate storage

MDKK

2,980

5,825

MDKK

525

n/a

525

n/a

Covers day-to-day operations of

the organisation

Facility size remains constant as

additional buffer size does not

provide value

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the injection plant

systems

Injection plant

MDKK

844

1.688

134

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime period

Accumulated variable cost of

operating wells for injection of

CO2 into subsurface reservoirs

Post-injection monitoring is only

evaluated over 20 years

Power scales linearly with the

project size and is based on 0.5

DKK/KWh pricing

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the wellhead platform

Scales linearly with the number

of vessels expected to be near

the storage site

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the mooring/loading

system offshore

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the FSU offshore

Injection wells

MDKK

608

1.216

Monitoring

Power

MDKK

920

3,450

1.840

6,900

Wellhead platform

Standby vessel

MDKK

4,650

1,240

9,300

2,480

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

1,005

1,675

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

Total CAPEX

Closure costs

Abandonment cost

Post-Closure cost

Total closure costs

CAPEX

Transport shuttle

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

13,242

25,624

MDKK

522

600

1,122

1,019

849

1,868

Evaluated as 17,5% of total

storage CAPEX

Cost of monitoring the storage

site post-closure

MDKK

n/a

Import via shuttle tankers is

assumed to be 0% of the import

volume

Import via vessels is assumed to

be 100% of the import volume;

the additional cost of equipment

for the vessels is included in the

CAPEX and OPEX for storage

Total export intermediate storage

is 120,000 t and 140,000 t for

each scenario, respectively, split

between the exporting countries

relative to their expected export

volume

Vessel

MDKK

2,292

4,584

Shuttle tanker/ Vessel

Export intermediate storage

MDKK

2,250

2,625

CO2 TRANSPORT

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Transport shuttle fixed O&M

MDKK

4,542

7,209

n/a

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

Shuttle tankers during transport

are assumed to consume 256

Vessels fixed O&M

MDKK

4,917

8,315

Fuel

MDKK

843

1,686

135

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

MWh per day, which drives fuel

costs

Total acc. OPEX

CAPEX

Onshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

One pumping stations is added

for every 200 km of pipeline

commenced and one at each end

of the offshore pipeline

MDKK

5,759

10,000

Offshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Pumping station

MDKK

n/a

Pipeline

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Onshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

n/a

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Based on 0.5 DKK/KWh pricing

Offshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Power

Total acc. OPEX

Total cost/t

*hereof

storage

*hereof transport

MDKK

DKK/t

n/a

207

131

n/a

189

125

Other case-specific assumptions:

•

Transport pipelines are not included in this set-up

All transport of CO2 happens via vessels with onboard intermediate storage and injection

capabilities, meaning no intermediate storage near the storage site is needed for the set-

50% of German CO2 exports are assumed to come from Rostock (East of Jutland), and

the remaining 50% is assumed to come from Hamburg (West of Jutland)

100% of exports from NL is assumed to come from Rotterdam harbour

Appraisal wells are not included as the geological structures of the offshore storage sites

are assumed to be well known due to prior mapping by the oil and gas industry

Infrastructure for providing energy offshore is assumed to be already installed and has

not been included in the above estimates

Injection wells are placed at five different injection clusters with two platforms at each

cluster. The clusters will be found in the Northern part of the North Sea oil and gas fields

as the geological structure of these sites means fewer wells are needed for the same

injection rate compared to the remaining Danish oil and gas fields

The cost of pipelines between the clusters has not been included as no pre-existing cost

estimates have been found. Construction of these pipelines might be necessary if this set-

up structure will be used as the.

This set-up is the most expensive due to increased cost for Wellhead platform, standby

vessels, mooring/loading system, CAPEX and OPEX for vessels, which is caused by a

decrease in utilisation rate and increase in loading/unloading time per cycle

•

136

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

OPTION #7: Offshore, shuttle tanker to offshore FSU near North Sea storage site, then

to North Sea storage site using FSU onboard injection equipment

Table 57: Overview option #7

Cost category

Pre-Fid

3D seismic

Baseline studies

Appraisal well

MDKK

n/a

Based on the size of the area to

be assessed

Surveys all relevant pre-injection

data

Appraisal wells are not included

as the geological structures of the

offshore storage sites are

assumed to be well known due to

prior mapping by the oil and gas

industry

Front end engineering design

Regulatory approvals for

establishing CO2 storage sites

Unit

MtCO2/y

Comment

FEED studies

Approvals

Total pre-FID costs

CAPEX

Intermediate storage

Injection plant

MDKK

120

170

MDKK

n/a

Intermediate storage is included

in the cost of the FSU

Includes booster pumps, heat

exchangers and boiler system

390

780

n/a

Pipeline between storage and

injection site; does not include

cost of electricity cable; cost is

based on length and industry-

standard per km cost

Number of injection wells scale

linearly to accommodate natural

injection rate limitations

Offshore structure that supports

injection wells and associated

support systems

The estimated cost is based on

industry standards from the oil

and gas industry

Permanently moored FSUs near

offshore storage site have

intermediate storage and

injection capabilities

STORAGE

Pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Injection wells

MDKK

1,925

3,850

Wellhead platform

MDKK

525

742

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

375

530

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

MDKK

640

905

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Base organisation

Intermediate storage

MDKK

3,855

6,808

MDKK

525

n/a

742

n/a

Covers day-to-day operations of

the organisation

Facility size remains constant as

additional buffer size does not

provide value

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the injection plant

systems

Injection plant

MDKK

967

1,934

137

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime period

Accumulated variable cost of

operating wells for injection of

CO2 into subsurface reservoirs

Post-injection monitoring is only

evaluated over 20 years

Power scales linearly with the

project size and is based on 0.5

DKK/KWh pricing

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the wellhead platform

Scales linearly with the number

of vessels expected to be near

the storage site

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the mooring/loading

system offshore

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the FSU offshore

Injection wells

MDKK

527

1,054

Monitoring

Power

MDKK

920

3,036

1,301

6,072

Wellhead platform

Standby vessel

MDKK

2,430

620

3,437

1,240

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

831

1,662

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

Total CAPEX

Closure costs

Abandonment cost

Post-Closure cost

Total closure costs

CAPEX

Transport shuttle

MDKK

1,587

2,244

MDKK

11,443

19,686

MDKK

675

600

1,275

1,191

849

2,040

Evaluated as 17,5% of total

storage CAPEX

Cost of monitoring the storage

site post-closure

MDKK

1,419

2,838

Import via shuttle tankers is

assumed to be 100% of the

import volume unloading at an

FSU near the storage site

The additional cost of equipment

for the vessels is included in the

CAPEX and OPEX for storage

Total export intermediate storage

is 120,000 t and 140,000 t for

each scenario, respectively, split

between the exporting countries

relative to their expected export

volume

Vessel

MDKK

n/a

Export intermediate storage

MDKK

2,250

2,625

Shuttle tanker/ Vessel

CO2 TRANSPORT

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Transport shuttle fixed O&M

MDKK

3,669

5,463

MDKK

3,738

5,958

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

Shuttle tankers during transport

are assumed to consume 256

MWh per day, which drives fuel

costs

Vessels fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Fuel

MDKK

837

1,675

138

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Total acc. OPEX

CAPEX

Onshore pipeline

MDKK

4,575

7,632

MDKK

n/a

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

One pumping stations is added

for every 200 km of pipeline

commenced and one at each end

of the offshore pipeline

Offshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Pumping station

MDKK

n/a

Pipeline

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Onshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

n/a

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Based on 0.5 DKK/KWh pricing

Offshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Power

Total acc. OPEX

Total cost/t

*hereof

storage

*hereof transport

MDKK

DKK/t

n/a

185

124

155

106

•

Transport pipelines are not included in this set-up

All transport of CO2 happens via transport shuttles which unload to a permanent floating

storage unit (FSU) with intermediate storage and injection capabilities near offshore

storage sites

50% of German CO2 exports are assumed to come from Rostock (East of Jutland), and

the remaining 50% is assumed to come from Hamburg (West of Jutland)

100% of exports from NL is assumed to come from Rotterdam harbour

Appraisal wells are not included as the geological structures of the offshore storage sites

are assumed to be well known due to prior mapping by the oil and gas industry

Infrastructure for providing energy offshore is assumed to already be installed and has not

been included in the above estimates

Injection wells are placed in the Northern part of the North Sea oil and gas fields as the

geological structure of these sites means fewer wells are needed for the same injection

rate compared to the remaining Danish oil and gas fields

139

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

OPTION #8: Offshore, shuttle tanker to Esbjerg harbour and pipeline from Hamburg to

Esbjerg harbour, then to the storage site via pipeline

Table 58: Overview option #8

Cost category

Pre-Fid

3D seismic

Baseline studies

Appraisal well

MDKK

n/a

Based on the size of the area to

be assessed

Surveys all relevant pre-injection

data

Appraisal wells are not included

as the geological structures of the

offshore storage sites are

assumed to be well known due to

prior mapping by the oil and gas

industry

Front end engineering design

Regulatory approvals for

establishing CO2 storage sites

Unit

MtCO2/y

Comment

FEED studies

Approvals

Total pre-FID costs

CAPEX

Intermediate storage

Injection plant

Pipeline

MDKK

120

170

MDKK

180

390

1,750

180

780

2,750

Assumed storage size of 50,000 t

Includes booster pumps, heat

exchangers and boiler system

Pipeline between storage and

injection site; does not include

the cost of electricity cable; cost

is based on length and industry-

standard per km cost

Number of injection wells scale

linearly to accommodate natural

injection rate limitations

The offshore structure that

supports injection wells and

associated support systems

The estimated cost is based on

industry standards from the oil

and gas industry

Permanently moored FSUs near

offshore storage site have

intermediate storage and

injection capabilities

STORAGE

Injection wells

MDKK

1,925

3,850

Wellhead platform

MDKK

525

742

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

n/a

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

MDKK

n/a

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Base organisation

Intermediate storage

MDKK

4,770

8,302

MDKK

525

223

742

223

Covers day-to-day operations of

the organisation

Facility size remains constant as

additional buffer size does not

provide value

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the injection plant

systems

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime period

Injection plant

MDKK

967

1,934

Pipeline

MDKK

473

743

140

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Injection wells

MDKK

527

1,054

Accumulated variable cost of

operating wells for injection of

CO2 into subsurface reservoirs

Post-injection monitoring is only

evaluated over 20 years

Power scales linearly with the

project size and is based on 0.5

DKK/KWh pricing

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the wellhead platform

Scales linearly with the number

of vessels expected to be near

the storage site

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the mooring/loading

system offshore

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the FSU offshore

Monitoring

Power

MDKK

920

3,036

1,301

6,072

Wellhead platform

Standby vessel

MDKK

2,430

n/a

3,437

n/a

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

n/a

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

Total CAPEX

Closure costs

Abandonment cost

Post-Closure cost

Total closure costs

CAPEX

Transport shuttle

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

9,101

15,506

MDKK

835

600

1,435

1,453

849

2,301

Evaluated as 17,5% of total

storage CAPEX

Cost of monitoring the storage

site post-closure

MDKK

473

1,419

Import via shuttle tankers is

assumed to increase from 20% of

the import volume to 50%

between the 5 and 10 MtCO2/y

scenarios

The additional cost of equipment

for the vessels is included in the

CAPEX and OPEX for storage

Total export intermediate storage

is 120,000 t and 140,000 t for

each scenario, respectively, split

between the exporting countries

relative to their expected export

volume

Vessel

MDKK

n/a

Export intermediate storage

MDKK

2,250

2,625

Shuttle tanker/ Vessel

CO2 TRANSPORT

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Transport shuttle fixed O&M

MDKK

2,723

4,517

2,461

4,680

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

Shuttle tankers during transport

are assumed to consume 256

MWh per day, which drives fuel

costs

Vessels fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Fuel

MDKK

198

991

Total acc. OPEX

MDKK

2,659

5,672

141

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

CAPEX

Onshore pipeline

MDKK

875

1,325

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

One pumping stations is added

for every 200 km of pipeline

commenced and one at each end

of the offshore pipeline

Offshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Pumping station

MDKK

233

Pipeline

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Onshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

506

695

MDKK

236

358

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Based on 0.5 DKK/KWh pricing

Offshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Power

Total acc. OPEX

Total cost/t

*hereof

storage

*hereof transport

MDKK

DKK/t

270

506

166

114

338

695

139

Other case-specific assumptions:

•

A 250 km CO2 transport pipeline from Hamburg to Esbjerg harbour is included in this set-

up carrying 4 MtCO2/y in the 5 MtCO2/y scenarios and 5 MtCO2/y in the 10 MtCO2/y

scenarios. Additional imported CO2 volume between the 5 and 10 MtCO2/y scenarios is

assumed to be transported from the emission source to Esbjerg harbour using shuttle

tankers

50% of German CO2 exports is expected to come from Rostock (East of Jutland), and the

remaining 50% is expected to come from Hamburg (West of Jutland)

100% of exports from NL is assumed to come from Rotterdam harbour

Appraisal wells are not included as the geological structures of the offshore storage sites

are assumed to be well known due to prior mapping by the oil and gas industry

Infrastructure for providing energy offshore is assumed to already be installed and has

not been included in the above estimates

Injection wells are placed in the Northern part of the North Sea oil and gas fields as the

geological structure of these sites means fewer wells are needed for the same injection

rate compared to the remaining Danish oil and gas fields

•

142

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

OPTION #9: Offshore, shuttle tanker to Esbjerg harbour, then to the storage site via

pipeline and two separate pipelines from Hamburg and Rotterdam to North Sea storage

site

Table 59: Overview option #9

Cost category

Pre-Fid

3D seismic

Baseline studies

Appraisal well

MDKK

n/a

Based on the size of the area to

be assessed

Surveys all relevant pre-injection

data

Appraisal wells are not included

as the geological structures of the

offshore storage sites are

assumed to be well known due to

prior mapping by the oil and gas

industry

Front end engineering design

Regulatory approvals for

establishing CO2 storage sites

Unit

MtCO2/y

Comment

FEED studies

Approvals

Total pre-FID costs

CAPEX

Intermediate storage

Injection plant

Pipeline

MDKK

120

170

MDKK

180

390

1,750

180

780

2,750

Assumed storage size of 50,000 t

Includes booster pumps, heat

exchangers and boiler system

Pipeline between storage and

injection site; does not include

cost of electricity cable; cost is

based on length and industry-

standard per km cost

Number of injection wells scales

linearly to accommodate natural

injection rate limitations

Offshore structure that supports

injection wells and associated

support systems

The estimated cost is based on

industry standards from the oil

and gas industry

Permanently moored FSUs near

offshore storage site have

intermediate storage and

injection capabilities

STORAGE

Injection wells

MDKK

1,925

3,850

Wellhead platform

MDKK

525

742

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

n/a

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

MDKK

n/a

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Base organisation

Intermediate storage

MDKK

4,770

8,302

MDKK

525

223

742

223

Covers day-to-day operations of

the organisation

Facility size remains constant as

additional buffer size does not

provide value

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the injection plant

systems

Injection plant

MDKK

967

1,934

143

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Pipeline

MDKK

473

743

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime period

Accumulated variable cost of

operating wells for injection of

CO2 into subsurface reservoirs

Post-injection monitoring is only

evaluated over 20 years

Power scales linearly with the

project size and is based on 0.5

DKK/KWh pricing

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the wellhead platform

Scales linearly with the number

of vessels expected to be near

the storage site

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the mooring/loading

system offshore

Accumulated variable cost for

operating the FSU offshore

Injection wells

MDKK

527

1,054

Monitoring

Power

MDKK

920

3,036

1,301

6,072

Wellhead platform

Standby vessel

MDKK

2,430

n/a

3,437

n/a

Mooring/loading system

MDKK

n/a

Purpose built CO2 carrier /

FSU

Total CAPEX

Closure costs

Abandonment cost

Post-Closure cost

Total closure costs

CAPEX

Transport shuttle

MDKK

n/a

MDKK

9,101

15,506

MDKK

835

600

1,435

1,453

849

2,301

Evaluated as 17,5% of total

storage CAPEX

Cost of monitoring the storage

site post-closure

MDKK

473

1,419

Import via shuttle tankers is

assumed to decrease from 80%

of the import volume to 60%

between the 5 and 10 MtCO2/y

scenarios

Additional cost of equipment for

the vessels is included in the

CAPEX and OPEX for storage

Total export intermediate storage

is 120,000 t and 140,000 t for

each scenario, respectively, split

between the exporting countries

relative to their expected export

volume

Vessel

MDKK

n/a

Export intermediate storage

MDKK

2,250

2,625

Shuttle tanker/ Vessel

CO2 TRANSPORT

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Transport shuttle fixed O&M

MDKK

2,723

4,044

2,461

4,042

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

5% of CAPEX + 75 EUR/ton

export intermediate storage per

year over the full technical

project lifetime

Shuttle tankers during transport

are assumed to consume 256

MWh per day, which drives fuel

costs

Vessels fixed O&M

MDKK

n/a

Fuel

MDKK

207

827

144

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Total acc. OPEX

MDKK

2,668

4,869

CAPEX

Onshore pipeline

MDKK

n/a

Based on industry-standard price

per km for pipelines of the

assumed capacity

The offshore pipeline is a

combination of the Hamburg and

Rotterdam pipelines, both

transporting CO2 directly to the

North Sea storage sites; does not

include electricity cable cost;

pipelines with the same capacity

is assumed to be used in both

scenarios causing cost to stay the

same

One pumping stations is added

for every 200 km of pipeline

commenced and one at each end

of the offshore pipelines; it does

not include electricity cable cost

Offshore pipeline

MDKK

5,950

Pipeline

Pumping station

MDKK

467

Total CAPEX

Acc. OPEX

Onshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

6,417

MDKK

n/a

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Costs are evaluated as 1% of

CAPEX per year for the full

technical lifetime

Based on 0.5 DKK/KWh pricing

Offshore pipeline fixed O&M

MDKK

1,607

Power

Total acc. OPEX

Total cost/t

*hereof

storage

*hereof transport

MDKK

DKK/t

1,020

2,627

221

114

107

1,530

3,137

166

Other case-specific assumptions:

•

A 400 km CO2 offshore transport pipeline from Hamburg to the North Sea storage sites is

included in this set-up carrying 2 MtCO2/y in the 5 MtCO2/y scenario and 3 MtCO2/y in

the 10 MtCO2/y scenario

A 450 km CO2 offshore transport pipeline from Rotterdam to the North Sea storage sites

is included in this set-up carrying 2 MtCO2/y in the 5 MtCO2/y scenario and 3 MtCO2/y in

the 10 MtCO2/y scenario

The remaining increase in import volume between the 5 and 10 MtCO2/y cases is

assumed to be transported using shuttle tankers to Esbjerg harbour and transported via

pipeline to the North Sea storage site

German CO2 exports not included in the pipeline is assumed to come from Rostock (East

of Jutland)

No CO2 export other than export via pipeline is expected from the Netherlands

Appraisal wells are not included as the geological structures of the offshore storage sites

are assumed to be well known due to prior mapping by the oil and gas industry

Infrastructure for providing energy offshore is assumed to already be installed and has

not been included in the above estimates

•

145

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

•

Injection wells are placed in the Northern part of the North Sea oil and gas fields as the

geological structure of these sites means fewer wells are needed for the same injection

rate compared to the remaining Danish oil and gas fields

146

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

7.4

OVERVIEW OF ESTIMATED CCS SHARE BY COUNTRY

Table 60: Estimated CCS share; Finland

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2 Emissions

(2017) [Mt]

Technically

capturable share

Estimated CCS share

(what is actually expected

for CCS given alternatives

etc)

Comments on estimated CCS share (if

relevant)

Power and heat

generation

Thermal power and heat generation

16,9

90%

N/A Thermal power and heat generation are not

considered relevant, since Finland will employ

electrification and other initatives to make up for

emissions.

90% Finland has one large WtE facility that is

considered relevant if Finland chooses to deploy

BECCS, which the country has indicated in its

Government strategies that it might.

60% Finland has two large iron and steel facilities,

which have potential for carbon capture.

N/A

50% CO2 prduction from refineries using fossil fuels

have a potential to utilise CCS.

50% One petrochemical plant in operation, however,

reduction of CO2 emission can also be achieved

by easier mesasures (widely available in Finland),

i.e., recycling of chemicals and electrification.

N/A

WtE plants

0,2

90%

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

1,5

3,1

60%

N/A

50%

Chemicals production

0,7

50%

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

Industrial plants

Pulp & paper

20,3

50%

80%

Mineral production (cement)

1,3

90%

80% If Finland chooses to implement BECCS into their

climate strategy, the pulp & paper industry is

highly suitable;

Large volumes of CO2 from biomass in pulp &

paper production facilities could be counted as

negative emissions if captured and stored, the

large factories are often located near rivers,

90% making transport ofin operations; use of facilities

Two cement plants CO2 away from the biofuels

can reduce some emissions, however CCS would

be highly relvant to achieve carbon neutrality.

N/A

Mineral production (lime and plaster, ceramics, glass

and mineral fibers etc)

Food processing

Other

Total

Other

2,9

46,8

90%

N/A

147

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Table 61: Estimated CCS share; Sweden

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2 Emissions

(2017) [Mt]

Technically

capturable share

Estimated CCS share

(what is actually expected

for CCS given alternatives

etc)

Comments on estimated CCS share (if relevant)

Power and heat

generation

Thermal power and heat generation

11,7

90%

N/A The majority of fossil plants are expected to be phased out

by 2050, making any CCS retrofit a less attractive option

compared to alternatives such as electrification.

90% WtE plants in Sweden is considered relevant as Sweden has

openly cpmmunicated a strategy to deploy BECCS.

0% Fossil free production using green hydrogen expected by

2035.

N/A

50% To minimise CO2 emissions, Sweden is expected to retrofit

any refinery with carbon capture technologies if the

economic return is positive.

25% The chemical industry is expected to rely roughly 50% on

N/A CCS, and 50% on CCU.

80% Large volumes of CO2 from biomass could be captured in

the pulp & paper production facilities and counted as

negative emissions if stored, the large factories are often

located near rivers, making transport of CO2 away from

the facilities cheaper and more convenient.

90% To minimise CO2 emissions, Sweden is expected to retrofit

most cement plants with carbon capture technologies if it

economically viable.

N/A

WtE plants

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

4,8

4,1

0,7

2,7

90%

60%

N/A

50%

Chemicals production

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

Industrial plants

Pulp & paper

1,0

22,8

50%

80%

Mineral production (cement)

2,8

90%

Other

Total

Mineral production (lime and plaster, ceramics, glass

and mineral fibers etc)

Food processing

Other

0,7

51,3

90%

N/A

148

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Table 62: Estimated CCS share; Norway

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2 Emissions

(2017) [Mt]

(From EU-ETS)

Technically

capturable share

Estimated CCS share

Comments on estimated CCS share (if relevant)

(what is actually expected

for CCS given alternatives

etc)

50% Presumably mainly related to oil & gas activities,

energy majors are expected to prioritise CCS due to

governmental focus on decarbonisation.

N/A

50% Fossil-reliant industries, such as steel, could choose

to use CCS rather than invest in options like

hydrogen.

N/A

75% Energy majors see CCS as a way of protecting a

chunk of their existing extraction and refining

business, because if the technology is proven to work

at scale it can potentially offset the CO2 emissions

from their operations.

25% The chemical industry is expected to rely roughly

50% on CCS and 50% on CCU.

N/A

50% The pulp & paper industry in Norway is estimated to

implement some CCS to achieve negative emissions.

90% To minimise CO2 emissions, Norway is expected to

retrofit most cement plants with carbon capture

technologies if it is technologically possible.

90% Due to the large support towards CCS from the

government, carbon capture technologies are

expected to be widely installed in any industry where

economically viable.

N/A

Power and heat

generation

Thermal power and heat generation

14,2

WtE plants

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

2,5

90%

60%

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

2,7

2,6

N/A

50%

Chemicals production

Industrial plants

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

Pulp & paper

1,5

0,2

50%

80%

Mineral production (cement)

1,2

90%

Mineral production (lime and plaster, ceramics, glass

and mineral fibers etc)

0,5

90%

Other

Total

Food processing

Other

25,4

90%

N/A

149

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Table 63: Estimated CCS share; UK

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2 Emissions

(2017) [Mt]

Technically

capturable share

Estimated CCS share

(what is actually expected

for CCS given alternatives

etc)

Comments on estimated CCS share (if relevant)

Power and heat

generation

Thermal power and heat generation

99,7

90%

10% The UK plans to develop a hydrogen economy to supply

industrial processes, long-distance HGVs and ships, and

for electricity and heating. For heating, by 2035, existing

homes should replace their heating systems for it to be

low-carbon or ready for hydrogen, so that the share of

low-carbon heating increases from 4.5% today to 90% in

2050. The hydrogen used in the CCC scenarios are

assumed to come mainly from steam methane reforming

with CCS in the UK.

80% Expected to be prioritised highly and that any WtE plant

built, after 2040, will have the technology deployed from

the beginning.

50% Carbon capture is the only current technology that abates

carbon emissions at scale for the steel & iron industry,

and CCS is expected to be highly prioritised compared to

CCU within the industry.

N/A

25% CCS faces competiton in this industry from electrification,

and hydrogen and thus, a 50% allocation towards CCS is

expected.

25% CCS faces competiton in this industry from electrification,

hydrogen and CCU, a 50% allocation towards CCS is

25% expected.

N/A

90% Carbon capture is the only current technology that can

abate carbon emissions at scale for the cement industry,

and thus, CCS is expected to be highly prioritised.

90% Carbon capture is the only current technology that abates

carbon emissions at scale for the mineral industry, and

CCS is expected to be highly prioritised compared to CCU

and other abatement technolgies within the industry.

50% Carbon capture is the only current technology that abates

carbon emissions at scale for the food processing

industry, however CCS is expected to be prioritised

equally with other developing abatement technolgies like

N/A CCU within the industry.

N/A

WtE plants

9,9

90%

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

6,7

60%

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

10,8

N/A

50%

Chemicals production

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

Industrial plants

Pulp & paper

Mineral production (cement)

4,8

0,6

7,2

50%

80%

90%

Mineral production (lime and plaster, ceramics, glass

and mineral fibers etc)

1,0

90%

Food processing

1,2

90%

Other

Total

Other

4,4

146,3

N/A

150

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Table 64: Estimated CCS share; Germany

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2 Emissions

(2017) [Mt]

Technically

capturable share

Estimated CCS share

(what is actually expected

for CCS given alternatives

etc)

Comments on estimated CCS share (if

relevant)

Power and heat

generation

Thermal power and heat generation

263,8

90%

WtE plants

16,4

90%

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

28,6

60%

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

1,7

21,1

N/A

50%

Chemicals production

24,6

50%

5% Germany has a cliamte neutrality target in

2050 and aims to reduce emissions by 95%

and the last 5% will need to be removed with

technology such as CCS.

50% BECCS is listed by the goverment as one of

the CCS focus areas, and WtE is possibly the

largest BECCS applications.

20% Green hydrogen is prioritised, however,

Germany cannot produce all the green

hydrogen they need by itself, and is, therfore,

expected to collaborate with other countries.

However, blue hydrogen is expected to be a

transitional solution.

N/A

30% High priority due to the long-term

commitment made to natural gas via the Nord

Stream pipeline.

30% CCS is not expected to be prioritised as highly

as in other industries due to a focus on CCU.

0% Expected to be replaced entirely with zero-

carbon technologies.

N/A

50% Most new cement plants are expected to

implement carbon capture technologies for the

purpose of storage, however as there are

currently a lot of cement factories in DE which

are either old or small, only around 50% of the

total emissions from the cement industry is

expected to be captured and stored.

N/A

Industrial plants

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

Pulp & paper

Mineral production (cement)

25,0

50%

80%

90%

Other

Total

Mineral production (lime and plaster, ceramics, glass

and mineral fibers etc)

Food processing

Other

0,9

0,8

23,3

406,2

90%

N/A

151

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Table 65: Estimated CCS share; The Netherlands

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2 Emissions

(2017) [Mt]

Technically

capturable share

Estimated CCS share

(what is actually expected

for CCS given alternatives

etc)

Comments on estimated CCS share (if

relevant)

Power and heat

generation

Thermal power and heat generation

55,7

90%

5% Small part of the energy mix is renewable, which is

expected, due to the high population density and

thus low room for renewable energy generation

technology. NL had problems reaching their 2020

goals and is expected to continue using gas fired

power plants for some time.

90% WtE plants are expected to be used long-term and

thus, makes for an obvious choice to retrofit

carbon capture equipment and reach negative

emissions by storing it afterwards.

N/A

90% CCS will be prioritised highly as it is the only current

technology that can abate emissions at the

expected scale of the mineral oil and gas refinery

industry in the Netherlands.

75% In general, in the chemical industry in the NL CCS is

expected to be prioritised over CCU or other

emission abatement technologies

75%

N/A

90% High priority as current emissions from the cement

production process are hard to abate with any

other current technology.

N/A

WtE plants

8,9

90%

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

10,6

60%

N/A

50%

Chemicals production

Industrial plants

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

Pulp & paper

Mineral production (cement)

16,9

0,5

50%

80%

90%

Other

Total

Mineral production (lime and plaster, ceramics, glass

and mineral fibers etc)

Food processing

Other

0,1

0,9

1,4

95,0

90%

N/A

152

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Table 66: Estimated CCS share; Poland

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2 Emissions

(2017) [Mt]

Technically

capturable share

Estimated CCS share

(what is actually expected

for CCS given alternatives

etc)

Comments on estimated CCS share (if relevant)

Power and heat

generation

Thermal power and heat generation

121,2

90%

30% Decarbonisation of the Polish power & heat generation

sector will be driven by electrification, but some newer

coal plants, upcoming natural gas plants and CPH plants

will be relevant for CCS.

There are currently 4 coal plants, 7 MSW/CPH plants and

2 natural gas plants that are newer and relevant: Total

emissions at 28Mt/y. Furthermore, 5 natural gas plants

are planned (all planned at around 2025) with total

emissions at 6Mt/y. Therefore, total emissions at these

plants are ~30Mt/y, of which 10Mt/y (30%) estimated

to have CCS potential.

N/A

30% Due to fossil industry dominance, blue hydrogen is

expected to play key role as a transistional technology,

therfore a high CCS potential is expected.

N/A

50% CCS is a last resort technology at scale in Poland,

however, there is a potential for blue hydrogen to

become a transistional fuel in Poland, making CCS

necessary.

10% CCU expected to be prioritised over CCS in Poland.

10%

N/A

50% CCS considered a relevant option. Some of the industry is

looking intro RDF (Refused-derived fuel) instead of fossil

fuels, however, also here BECCS could be relevant to

obtain negative emissions and compensate for other

industries that are hard to abate.

40% CCS is a last resort technology for emissions abatement

at scale in Poland, so other technologies like CCU and

electrification will be explored first.

N/A

WtE plants

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

7,1

90%

60%

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

1,2

1,7

N/A

50%

Industrial plants

Chemicals production

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

Pulp & paper

Mineral production (cement)

1,0

1,7

6,8

50%

80%

90%

Mineral production (lime and plaster, ceramics, glass

and mineral fibers etc)

Food processing

Other

2,1

90%

Other

Total

23,8

166,7

90%

N/A

153

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Table 67: Estimated CCS share; Estonia

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2 Emissions

(2017) [Mt]

Technically

capturable share

Estimated CCS share

(what is actually expected

for CCS given alternatives

etc)

Comments on estimated CCS share (if

relevant)

Power and heat

generation

Thermal power and heat generation

7,9 (20,7)

90%

5% The number (20.7 Mt in 2017) is outdated since a

number of fossil fuel driven plants were close in

the past couple of years. Therefore a more

represenative number is 7.9 Mt than as provided

by the E-PRTR in 2017. Since Estonia closed

down oil-shale driven plants quite rapidly in the

past couple of years, the country's energy supply

security has been at risk. For this reason, the

existent oil-shale plants will need to keep running

until at least 2035 to secure the country's energy

supply, which is why 5% is assumed to be

potential for CCS in these fossil fuel driven plants.

The oil-shale plants will be phased-out after 2035

according to strategy plans.

N/A

90% High priority as current emissions from the

cement production process are hard to abate

with any other current technology.

N/A

Industrial plants

WtE plants

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

Chemicals production

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

Pulp & paper

Mineral production (cement)

0,6

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

Other

Total

Mineral production (lime and plaster, ceramics, glass

and mineral fibers etc)

Food processing

Other

3,4

11,9

90%

N/A

154

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Table 68: Estimated CCS share; Lithuania

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2 Emissions

(2017) [Mt]

Technically

capturable share

Estimated CCS share

(what is actually expected

for CCS given alternatives

etc)

Comments on estimated

CCS share (if relevant)

Power and heat

generation

Thermal power and heat generation

WtE plants

0,1

90%

N/A

20% WtE plants considered relevant

for CCS in general, however,

Lithuania has not

communicated any strategy to

deploy BECCS in this sector.

N/A

0% Expected to be replaced

entirely with green hydrogen

N/A

30% CCU is preferred over CCS;

however it is still unproven at

scale compared with CCS. CCS

expected to me a medium-

term solution at best.

N/A

90% CCS is expected to take the

majority share in the cement

industry in Lithuania as it is

expected to be the cheapest

abatement option.

N/A

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

Chemicals production

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

1,7

2,6

60%

N/A

50%

Industrial plants

Pulp & paper

Mineral production (cement)

0,7

80%

90%

Other

Total

Mineral production (lime and plaster, ceramics, glass

and mineral fibers etc)

Food processing

Other

5,2

90%

N/A

155

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Ramboll - ccccc

Table 69: Estimated CCS share; Latvia

Industry

Sub-industry

CO2 Emissions

(2017) [Mt]

Technically

capturable share

Estimated CCS share

(what is actually expected

for CCS given alternatives

etc)

Comments on estimated CCS

share (if relevant)

Power and heat

generation

Thermal power and heat generation

1,0

90%

Industrial plants

Other

Total

WtE plants

Steel & iron production/ferrous metals

Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc)

Mineral oil and gas refineries

Chemicals production

Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production)

Pulp & paper

Mineral production (cement)

Mineral production (lime and plaster, ceramics, glass

and mineral fibers etc)

Food processing

Other

1,0

90%

60%

N/A

50%

80%

90%

N/A

20% Low potential as the Latvian

Government will phase out

emissions in this sector and has

promoted the potential for CCS

in industrial activities and not

power and heat. However, no

industiral installations currently

produce more than 100

ktCO2/y.

N/A

156

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

OKTOBER 2021

KEFM

CCS - INTERNATIONALE

ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED,

NATUR OG MILJØ

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ADRESSE

COWI A/S

Parallelvej 2

2800 Kongens Lyngby

TLF

FAX

WWW

+45 56 40 00 00

+45 56 40 99 99

cowi.dk

OKTOBER 2021

KEFM

CCS - INTERNATIONALE

ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED,

NATUR OG MILJØ

PROJEKTNR.

DOKUMENTNR.

A231499

A231499-01

VERSION

UDGIVELSESDATO

BESKRIVELSE

UDARBEJDET

KONTROLLERET

GODKENDT

15 oktober 2021

NMSC, LOVGX,

LNKR/CCRN

LOKL, EMJT, PEFI,

MMK

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

INDHOLD

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

6.1

6.2

6.3

7.1

Baggrund og formål

Metode, afgrænsning og struktur

Metode og afgrænsning

Struktur

Opsummering og perspektivering

Summary

CO₂-fangstanlæg –

sikkerhed, miljø og natur

CO₂-mellemlager

- sikkerhed, miljø og natur

CO₂ geologisk lagring –

sikkerhed, natur og

miljø

CO₂-transport

infrastruktur

Oversigt over relevante internationale projekter

Sikkerheds- og miljømæssige forhold

Kuldioxid (CO₂ )

Aminer

Ammoniak (NH₃)

Oxygen (O₂)

CO₂-fangstanlæg

- Vurdering af sikkerhed,

natur og miljø

Sikkerhed

Miljø

Natur

Mellemlager faciliteter - Vurdering af sikkerhed,

natur og miljø

Sikkerhed

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

7.2

7.3

8.1

8.2

8.3

9.1

9.2

9.3

Miljø

Natur

Geologisk lagring af CO₂ på land og til havs

Vurdering af sikkerhed, natur og miljø

Sikkerhed

Miljø

Natur

Transport

af CO₂ på land og til havs

- Vurdering

af sikkerhed, natur og miljø

Sikkerhed

Miljø

Natur

Referencer

BILAG

Bilag A

Teknisk beskrivelse af CCS anlæg

A.1

CO₂-fangstanlæg

A.2

Mellemlager-faciliteter

A.3

Geologisk lagring af CO₂ på land og til havs.

A.4

Transport af CO₂ på land og til havs

Bilag B

Opsummering af CCS erfaringer med

sikkerhed, miljø og natur

Longlist over litteratur gennemgået

Bilag C

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Baggrund og formål

I klimaaftalen for energi og industri mf. (juni 2020) aftalte et bredt flertal af Fol-

ketingets partier, at der fremover skal være mulighed for fangst, transport og

lagring af CO₂ i Danmark og for at transportere indfanget CO₂ på tværs af lan-

degrænser under forudsætning af, at det foregår under forsvarlige sikkerheds-

og miljømæssige forhold.

Dette er i juni 2021 fulgt op af en bred aftale mellem regeringen og en lang

række partier i Folketinget om en køreplan for

lagring af CO₂.

En aftale, hvori

det af parterne anerkendes, at Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) er et centralt

virkemiddel for at afbøde klimaforandringerne internationalt og som bakker op

om, at CCS skal spille en væsentlig rolle i bestræbelserne for at nå de nationale

klimamål. Aftalen understreger, at der skal skabes et grundlag for sikker og mil-

jømæssig forsvarlig lagring af CO₂ i undergrunden,

og at der skal sættes gang i

yderligere undersøgelse af lagringsfaciliteter i Danmark [1].

Formålet med denne rapport er at beskrive internationale erfaringer med CCS

med hensyn til sikkerheds-, natur- og miljømæssige forhold, således at dette

kan indgå i det videre arbejde med sikring af disse forhold i forbindelse med

dansk anvendelse af CCS som klimavirkemiddel. Rapporten skal dermed også

forholde sig til, hvorvidt de internationale erfaringer er relevante i en dansk

sammenhæng.

Rapporten skal indgå som baggrund og afgrænsning af det videre arbejde med

udvikling af CCS i Danmark, hvilket vil omfatte strategisk miljøvurdering af ud-

bud af arealer for injektion og geologisk lagring af

CO₂

i undergrunden samt mil-

jøvurdering og miljøgodkendelse af helt konkrete projekter for CCS.

CCS omfatter fangstanlæg på

CO₂

punktkilder, infrastruktur til transport, mel-

lemlagerfaciliteter samt permanent geologisk lagring i undergrunden.

CO₂-fangst

er velkendt teknologi som siden først i 1970'erne har været anvendt

i olieindustrien specielt USA til at forbedre indvindingspotentiale i olielagre (en-

hanced oil recovery (EOR)).

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Siden 1996 har CO₂-fangst

og lagring været anvendt i Norge til at reducere

CO₂-udledninger fra indvinding af gas i Nordsøen. Den opfangede CO₂ sendes til

permanent lagring i strukturer tæt på gasindvindingsområderne i Sleipner og

Snøhvitfelterne.

CO₂-fangst

anvendes i Danmark i forbindelse med opgradering af biogas og har

på forsøgsbasis være afprøvet på Esbjergværket. En mindre del af den opsam-

lede CO₂

anvendes i medicinal- og fødevareindustri.

Transport af

CO₂

mellem opsamlings- og anvendelsessted sker for nuværende i

Danmark primært med tankvogne. Der er endnu ikke foretaget geologisk lagring

CO₂

i Danmark.

På globalt plan opererer der i dag 27 kommercielle CCS-faciliteter med en sam-

let kapacitet til at fange og lagre ca. 40 mio. tons

CO₂

per år [2]. De er primært

baseret i USA altovervejende som en del af øget olieindvinding (EOR).

Herudover eksisterer en række pilot- og demonstrationsprojekter verden over,

med fokus på at udvikle og teste teknologi samt projekter i mere eller mindre

moden udvikling. Blandt andet er man i Norge påbegyndt et feasibility- og kon-

ceptstudie for Longship projektet. Det er en realisering af et fuldskala CCS pro-

jekt

med CO₂-fangst,

skibstransport, mellemlagring og transport til offshore la-

ger via rør.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

2.1

Metode, afgrænsning og struktur

Metode og afgrænsning

Udgangspunktet for rapporten har været tilgængelig litteratur, forskningsrappor-

ter, konsulentrapporter samt information fra diverse organisationer (f.eks.: Glo-

bal CCS Institute, IEA, UK EPA) vedr. internationale CCS-projekter inkl. eventu-

elle pilot- og testprojekter.

En komplet litteraturliste fremgår af bilag C.

For at indkredse relevante anlæg og projekter er der indledningsvis lavet en

oversigt over internationale CCS-anlæg inkl. pilot og testanlæg samt projekter

på bedding, hvorfra erfaringer kunne være relevante.

Rapporten beskriver, i det omfang de foreligger, internationale erfaringer for alle

de enkelte led i CCS-kæden, det vil sige: 1)

CO₂-fangst,

2) mellemlagring og 3)

lagring samt 4) infrastruktur til transport.

For hver af de forskellige led i kæden (1-4) er redegjort for erfaringer med hen-

syn til sikkerhed, miljø og natur ved forundersøgelser, anlæg og etablering, drift

og afvikling.

Der hvor det ikke har været muligt at identificere eksplicitte internationale erfa-

ringer er det anført.

2.1.1 Relevans for danske forhold

Der er i erfaringsopsamlingen fokuseret på de anlægstyper/metoder, som vurde-

res at være relevante i dansk sammenhæng, det vil sige, der er ikke medtaget

erfaringer fra

brug af CO₂ til

et øge olieudvinding (EOR), og der er fokuseret på

CO₂

fangstmetoder, som dels er teknisk modne, kommercielle samt relevante

for større danske punktkilder og biogasanlæg.

Yderligere er der i forbindelse med opsummering og perspektivering af de inter-

nationale erfaringer med sikkerhed, miljø og natur vurderet og taget stilling til

relevans i en dansk kontekst. Det kan f.eks. være, hvorvidt de beskrevne miljø-

påvirkninger er sammenlignelige eller hvorvidt påvirkede naturtyper og habitater

er relevante og sammenlignelige.

2.1.2 Tekniske anlæg

CO₂-fangst

vil kunne være relevant for større punktkilder, hvor der ønskes en

reduktion af den direkte udledning

af CO₂.

Det kan være fra eksempelvis ce-

mentproduktion, kraftvarmeanlæg (inklusiv de affalds- og biomasssefyrede an-

læg) samt biogasanlæg.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

CO₂-fangstteknologier

afgrænses specifikt til anlæg med højteknologisk moden-

hed, som allerede er eller er tæt på at være kommercielt tilgængelige, det vil

sige:

›

Rensning af røggas (post combustion) ved hhv. aminvask og nedkølet am-

moniak (oftest benævnt chilled ammonia)

Dannelse af røggas med høj CO₂-koncentration

ved forbrænding ved iltrige

betingelser (oxyfuel).

Mellemlagerfaciliteter vil omfatte lagring i tanke samt med stor sandsynlighed

kondensering / liquefaction-faciliteter.

Lagring af CO

finder sted i geologiske strukturer med stort porevolumen (f.eks.

i sandsten) overlejret af et impermeabelt lag (f.eks. lersten). Lagring vil under

danske forhold typisk skulle ske 1-2 km. under overfladen. Potentielt egnede

strukturer til lagring i Danmark findes både offshore, tæt på land og på land.

Der overvejes både

CO₂-lagring

i tidligere oliegasfelter og i nye uafprøvede

strukturer.

I Bilag A fremgår en mere detaljeret beskrivelse af de forskellige tekniske an-

læg. De er så vidt muligt beskrevet medhensyn til forundersøgelser, anlæg og

etablering, drift og afvikling.

2.1.3 Sikkerhed

Sikkerhed omfatter de aspekter ved CCS, som knytter sig til pludselige hændel-

ser, som specifikt har med håndteringen af CO₂ og tilknyttede

hjælpestoffer at

gøre, og som kan udgøre en fare for menneskers liv og helbred. Hændelserne

medfører enten udsættelse for farlige stoffer, fysiske påvirkninger eller for

begge dele. Påvirkning af natur og miljø ved pludselige hændelser behandles un-

der henholdsvis natur- og miljøafsnittene.

Generelle arbejdsmiljømæssige farer fra aktiviteter som konstruktionsarbejde på

store industriprojekter, herunder offshore installationer, transport af gods på

landevej, jernbane og skib og transport af stoffer i rørledninger, er ikke behand-

let, medmindre, der er forhold, som er specifikke for CCS.

2.1.4 Miljø

Under miljø indgår udledninger til luft, vand og jord. Herudover indgår energifor-

brug og CO₂ aftryk, brug af ressourcer samt affald.

2.1.5 Natur

Under natur indgår vurdering af inddragelse af arealer samt påvirkninger af ar-

ter, habitater og økosystemer som følge fysisk aktivitet, støj, emissioner til luft,

vand og jord og uheld med udledning af farlige stoffer. Der inkluderes både de

midlertidige og de mere langsigtede påvirkninger.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

2.2

Struktur

For at indkredse de internationale anlæg og projekter, hvorfra det vil være rele-

vant at indhente erfaringer er der i afsnit 3 lavet en oversigt over internationale

CCS-anlæg inkl. pilot og testanlæg samt projekter på bedding.

Med udgangspunkt i dels de projekter der findes internationalt samt de tekniske

anlæg og de forskellige faser (forundersøgelser, anlæg etablering, drift og afvik-

ling) beskrives ud fra relevante referencer og erfaringer de væsentligste sikker-

heds-, miljø- og naturmæssige forhold.

De sikkerhedsmæssige forhold er for alle de enkelte led i CCS-kæden relateret til

større udslip af farlige stoffer, f.eks.

CO₂.

For at undgå gentagelser er der i af-

snit 5 udarbejdet en generel beskrivelse af de relevante stoffer samt de sikker-

heds- og miljømæssige forhold i forbindelse med større udslip.

Rapporten er opbygget således, at der startes med erfaringer for

CO₂ fangst,

CO₂ mellemlager, CO₂ lagring og til

sidst medtager

CO₂ infrastruktur.

I Bilag A fremgår en beskrivelse af de tekniske anlæg fordelt på faserne forun-

dersøgelser, anlæg og etablering, drift og afvikling.

I Bilag B er lavet en opsummering af de væsentligste sikkerheds-, natur- og mil-

jømæssige forhold identificeret i undersøgelsen.

I Bilag C fremgår en "longlist" over den samlede litteratur, der er gennemgået i

forbindelse med udarbejdelse af rapporten.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Opsummering og perspektivering

Nedenfor præsenterer vi opsummeringen af de væsentligste erfaringer vedrø-

rende sikkerhed, miljø og natur for CCS

. Erfaringerne er identificeret ved en

gennemgang af relevante internationale projekter og erfaringer. Erfaringerne er

opsummeret dels meget overordnet i afsnit 3.1, dels lidt mere i detalje for hvert

enkelt led i CCS-kæden i afsnit 3.2-3.5. Endvidere henvises til bilag B for en

samlet oversigtlig opsummering af sikkerheds-, miljø- og naturmæssige forhold

ved CCS.

Figur 1 giver et overblik over de enkelte led i CCS værdikæden. Den endelige

konfiguration kan se ud på mange måder og vil afhænge af det konkrete pro-

jekt.

Figur 1: Illustration af de enkelte led i en CCS værdikæde

3.1

Summary

Helt generelt og på tværs af de enkelte led og projekter er erfaringerne med

hensyn til CCS og sikkerheds-, miljø- og naturmæssige forhold:

›

Der er international erfaring med CCS omfattende både offshore og onshore

geologisk lagring af

CO₂

Langt de fleste kommercielle CCS projekter er etableret med henblik på En-

hanced Oil Recovery

CO₂-fangst

er en moden teknologi, og der er leverandører på markedet, der

kan levere anlæg, som efterlever krav til sikkerhed, miljø og natur

Der anvendes

meget energi til CO₂-fangst,

konditionering og transport, og

det er vigtigt at have fokus på energieffektivitet og optimering i hele kæden

CCS: Carbon Capture and Storage

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

›

Internationale projekter for CO₂ lagring

har tilknyttet et omfattende moni-

toreringsprogram både i forbindelse med forundersøgelse, drift og afvikling

af lageret

›

Overvågning udført i forbindelse med de internationale lagre har vist, at

CO₂ forbliver sikkert i lageret,

og der er ikke konstateret

CO₂-udslip

fra no-

gen af de eksisterende geologiske lagre.

Desuden viser erfaringerne at anlæg, etablering samt afvikling

af CO₂-

fangstanlæg og mellemlagerfaciliteter sker som for andre typiske industri-/pro-

cesanlæg og at de ikke medfører væsentlige specifikke sikkerheds-, miljø- og

naturmæssige påvirkninger. Påvirkningerne er primært relateret til et arealbe-

hov og eventuel inddragelse af beskyttede eller sårbare naturtyper samt til for-

styrrelser, som følge af fysiske indgreb, trafik og støj. Påvirkningerne af miljø og

natur vil afhænge af den konkrete placering i forhold til beskyttede områder og

nærhed til nærmeste naboer.

Under drift

af CO₂-fangstanlæg

er den væsentligste bekymring identificeret i de

internationale referencer, de aminbaserede anlægs udledninger til luft. En mål-

rettet indsats har ført til en udvikling af fangstanlæggene, de aminer der anven-

des samt metoderne til at vurdere den miljømæssige påvirkning. I Norge er man

langt fremme med etablering af større fangstanlæg på landbaserede kilder, som

er godkendt af de norske myndigheder.

I drift af anlæggene skal der ved

større oplag af CO₂

endvidere tages hensyn til

de risikomæssige forhold ved placering af anlæggene.

I forhold til sikkerhed og geologisk lagring

af CO₂

er erfaringerne positive. Der

er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld og større udslip af CO₂ fra geologiske CO₂

lagre, ej heller store udsivninger på grund af migrering af den oplagrede CO₂.

Det vurderes, at godt kendskab til lageret og dets egenskaber, løbende monito-

rering samt placering i områder med lav tektonisk aktivitet betyder, at der er lav

risiko for større udslip af CO₂.

Seismiske undersøgelser er en vigtig aktivitet i monitorering af lagrene og der er

i de internationale referencer fokus på denne aktivitet og de afledte påvirkninger

på fisk og marine pattedyr. Det er vurderet, at den skadelige påvirkning af fisk

og pattedyr som følge af seismiske undersøgelser og overvågning typisk medfø-

rer en lokal, midlertidig påvirkning, som kan reduceres med passende afværge-

foranstaltninger.

Påvirkningen skal dog ses i sammenhæng med øvrige aktiviteter og marine på-

virkninger i samme influensområde. Afværgeforanstaltninger som medfører, at

marine pattedyr skræmmes væk fra et område, forudsætter eksempelvis, at der

er upåvirkede områder i nærheden.

Ved seismiske undersøgelser på land anvendes store og tunge køretøjer, der kan

sætte aftryk i landskabet, beskadige vegetation og det øverste jordlag. Der kan

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

også være tale om forstyrrelser af fugle- og dyrevildt samt øvrige beskyttede ar-

ter. Påvirkningerne kan reduceres med afværgeforanstaltninger, som eksempel-

vis tidsmæssig planlægning af arbejdet for at undgå sårbare perioder, udlæg af

køreplader m.m.

I forbindelse med forundersøgelser og anlæg af de geologiske lagre beskrives

endvidere påvirkninger som fysiske forstyrrelser af havbund, udledninger til

vand af kemikalier, boremudder, borespåner og cement samt støj, emissioner og

energiforbrug fra skibe og borerig. Det er påvirkninger som er sammenlignelige

med dem som identificeres og håndteres i forbindelse med olie- og gasudvinding

i Nordsøen.

Påvirkningerne i forbindelse med anlæg og etablering af geologisk lager på land

vurderes at være mindre end for offshore lagre. Specielt seismiske undersøgel-

ser vil ikke have samme påvirkning på land, da lyd propagerer hurtigere og læn-

gere i vand end i atmosfærisk luft [3]. På land vil der endvidere i langt større

omfang være mulighed for at opsamle affald og udledninger.

Påvirkninger fra drift af et geologisk lager inkluderer diffus

udledning af CO₂ fra

ventilering, tryksatte koblinger mv, støj fra udstyr, udledning af kemikalier samt

energiforbrug og emissioner.

Væsentligheden af de miljø- og naturmæssige påvirkninger både offshore og på

land vil afhænge af den konkrete placering herunder nærheden til f.eks. § 3 lo-

kaliteter, truede arter, beskyttede områder samt områder med beboelse.

I forbindelse med transport af CO₂

er påvirkningerne fra skibs-, tog- og lastbils-

transport primært støj og emissioner. Ved etablering og placering af rørlednin-

ger, vil der være en permanent fysisk ændring og påvirkning langs tracé, både

hvis det sker offshore og på land. Herudover vil der være en række mere midler-

tidige påvirkninger i anlægsfasen som støj, energiforbrug og emissioner samt

lys. Etableres rørene til havs kan der endvidere opstå risiko for midlertidig

spredning af sediment samt midlertidig forstyrrelse af vandsøjlen.

De natur- og miljømæssige påvirkninger vil afhænge af den konkrete placering

af transportkorridoren herunder nærheden til f.eks. § 3 lokaliteter, truede arter

,beskyttede områder og boliger.

Nedenfor gennemgås de væsentligste sikkerheds-, miljø- og natur forhold i

hvert af de fire led i værdikæden vist i Figur 1:

CO₂-fangst,

mellemlager, geolo-

gisk lagring

og CO₂-transport.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

3.2

CO₂-fangstanlæg –

sikkerhed, miljø og natur

CO₂ fangstanlæg

vil typisk placeres i nærhed af en CO₂

punktkilde og er dermed

en del af et større industrielt anlæg. Både rensning af røggas (post combustion)

ved hhv. aminvask og nedkølet ammoniak samt oxyfuel processen kan etableres

som en del af nye anlæg eller etableres som retrofit på eksisterende punktkilder.

CO₂ fangst er kendt teknologi og de internationale erfaringer

med sikkerhed,

miljø og natur vil kunne bruges i dansk sammenhæng, da teknologien i hoved-

træk vil være ens.

For CO₂-fangstanlæg

vil de tekniske forundersøgelser typisk skulle afdække mu-

ligheder for udnyttelse af overskudsvarme, afdækning af kølebehov samt inte-

gration med damp- og fjernvarmesystemer for at sikre høj energieffektivitet.

Ved retrofit kan der være behov for, at der samtidig etableres yderligere rens-

ning af røggas for at få fangstanlægget til at fungere.

Forundersøgelser knyttet til fangstanlæg forventes ikke i sig selv at have væ-

sentlige sikkerheds-, miljø- og naturmæssige forhold. Det forventes,

at CO₂

fangstanlæggene også i dansk sammenhæng typisk vil etableres som en del af

et større industrianlæg.

Det skal i forbindelse med planlægning sikres, at den valgte placering sker under

hensyn til de risiko-, miljø- og naturmæssige forhold, som gælder på den en-

kelte lokalitet. Det nødvendige plangrundlag skal tilvejebringes, og de nødven-

dige tilladelser indhentes.

Anlæg og etablering af CO₂-fangstanlæg

vil foregå som for andre typiske indu-

stri-/procesanlæg. På basis af de internationale erfaringer vurderes anlæggene

ved anlæg og etablering ikke at omfatte væsentlige og specifikke sikkerheds-,

miljø- og naturmæssige forhold.

Under drift er den væsentligste bekymring, som er identificeret i de internatio-

nale referencer, de aminbaserede anlægs udledninger til luft. Med røggassen

kan der forekomme emissioner af amin, ammoniak (NH₃), flygtige organiske

stoffer (VOC) samt toksiske nitrosaminer og nitraminer fremkommet ved reak-

tion med NO

For chilled ammonia processen er det primært udledning af am-

moniak, der nævnes.

Der er erfaringer fra Norge og England, som man med fordel kan drage nytte af i

en dansk sammenhæng.

I Norge har man udviklet en metode (toolbox) til at vurdere udledninger til luft,

herunder både den direkte emission, koncentrationer af forurenende stoffer i

omgivelserne (immissioner) samt deposition. Folkhelseinstituttet har i den for-

bindelse sat grænseværdier for koncentration af nedbrydningsprodukter i omgi-

velserne. Den løbende udvikling af

CO₂-fangstmetoder

og anlæg har betydet, at

flere leverandører i dag er i stand til at levere anlæg, som lever op til de norske

krav.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

I Storbritannien har Environment Agency i 2021 udgivet et BAT Review og en

vejledning for

CO₂-fangst

og i samme anledning defineret grænseværdier for luft

for både aminen MEA og nedbrydningsproduktet NDMA.

I dansk sammenhæng er der allerede i forvejen defineret B-værdier for enkelte

aminer, som kan bruges i forbindelse med godkendelse af anlæg. Der foreligger

dog p.t. ikke B-værdier for nedbrydningsprodukterne Nitrosaminer og Nitraminer

og ej heller for alle aminer, som erfaringsmæssigt anvendes

til CO₂-

fangstanlæg.

Der foreligger i dansk sammenhæng, som grundlag for godkendelser, generelle

metoder for beregning af immission og også deposition af udvalgte stoffer. Det

skal vurderes, hvorvidt disse er brugbare, eller om der skal udvikles nye meto-

der inkl. vejledninger. Der kan i den sammenhæng hentes inspiration i Norge,

som allerede har godkendt anlæg og i Storbritannien som via BAT-Review for

CO₂ fangstanlæg også har

sat grænseværdier for udvalgte stoffer.

For fangstanlæg med chilled ammonia skal der tilsvarende være foranstaltnin-

ger, der reducerer udledning af

ammoniak (NH₃),

og som sikrer, at anlægget le-

ver op til gældende grænseværdier. Ammoniak er et kendt stof, som der findes

gængse metoder og grænseværdier til at vurdere på basis af.

Der vil være behov for i de konkrete tilfælde at vurdere, om de aminbaserede

anlæg og anlæg med ammoniak bliver omfattet af Risikobekendtgørelsen.

Den primære problemstilling i forhold til et fangstanlæg baseret på oxyfuel er til-

stedeværelsen af rent ilt, idet ilt er brandnærende. Ved oplag af ilt i mængder

over 200 ton vil anlæg være kolonne 2 anlæg og dermed være omfattet af Risi-

kobekendtgørelsen.

I de internationale referencer nævnes energiforbrug og det relaterede CO₂-

footprint som faktorer, der potentielt kan udgøre en væsentlig miljøpåvirkning

for CO₂ fangstanlægget.

Energiforbruget vil afhænge dels af fangstmetoden,

men også af integrationen med øvrige processer samt muligheden for at komme

af med varme til f.eks. fjernvarme.

Der er ikke via de internationale referencer identificeret væsentlige påvirkninger

på natur af CO₂-fangstanlæg.

Og der er ikke fundet referencer, der meget speci-

fikt har redegjort for den naturmæssige påvirkning af emissioner og eventuelle

depositioner.

I en dansk sammenhæng vil anlæggets deposition af giftige stoffer skulle vurde-

res i forhold til en konkret placering, nærhed til sårbare naturområder samt

eventuelle tålegrænser.

Der er ikke fundet eksempler i de internationale referencer for

CO₂-fangstanlæg,

der ved uheld har resulteret i et større udslip

af CO₂, aminer eller andre forure-

nende stoffer.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Den stående mængde CO₂ i et fangstanlæg

vurderes at være forholdsvis lille, da

CO₂ først i forbindelse med mellemlagring komprimeres og evt. køles.

Muligt ud-

slip af CO₂ fra fangstanlæg

i forbindelse med lækage vurderes derfor typisk at

være begrænset. Det bør dog også vurderes for de konkrete anlæg.

For de fangstanlæg, hvor der sker en kondensering af CO₂, kan køleenheden in-

deholde ammoniak (NH₃), hvilket i dansk sammenhæng kan betyde,

at anlæg-

get bliver omfattet af Risikobekendtgørelsen.

Afvikling

af et CO₂ fangstanlæg

vil skulle forberedes og effektueres som for an-

dre typiske industri-/procesanlæg, og der er ikke via de internationale erfaringer

identificeret væsentlige specifikke sikkerheds-, miljø- og naturmæssige forhold.

3.3

CO₂-mellemlager

- sikkerhed, miljø og natur

Mellemlager-faciliteter vil typisk skulle

etableres i nærheden af CO₂-punktkilder

og -fangstanlæg og på eller i umiddelbar nærhed af havne- og/eller industriom-

råder, hvor transport med skib er mulig. Mellemlager-faciliteter vil formentlig

omfatte kondensering / liquefaction-faciliteter og lagring i tanke.

Lagerkapaciteten på mellemlageret vil typisk afhænge af lastbilernes eller skibe-

nes cyklustid.

Det skal i forbindelse med planlægning sikres, at den valgte placering sker under

hensyn til de risiko-, miljø- og naturmæssige forhold, som gælder på den en-

kelte lokalitet. Det nødvendige plangrundlag skal tilvejebringes, og de nødven-

dige tilladelser indhentes.

Specielt de sikkerhedsmæssige forhold, det vil sige risiko for større udslip af

CO₂,

skal vurderes. I det norske Northern Lights projekt

er der for mellemlage-

ret beregnet stedbunden risiko for området omkring, som er holdt op imod ac-

ceptkriterier for forskellig anvendelse. Det vil være relevant at udføre noget til-

svarende for fremtidige, større mellemlagre i Danmark.

Det skal anføres, at der ikke i de internationale referencer er fundet eksempler

på uheld med

større udslip af CO₂ fra CO₂-mellemlagre.

Anlæg, etablering, drift og afvikling af CO₂-mellemlagre

vil foregå som andre ty-

piske industri-/procesanlæg. I drift vurderes de væsentligste miljømæssige for-

hold at være støj og trafik til og fra anlægget.

Northern Lights Projektet (NLP) er en del af det norske Langskip CCS projekt.

NLP omfatter skibstransport

af CO₂

fra punktkilder til mellemlager,

CO₂-

mellemlager i tanke, en offshore rørledning ud til en undersøisk satellit, hvor der

sker injektion

af CO₂

i undersøisk lager.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

For de mellemlagre, hvor der

sker en kondenseringen af CO₂, kan køleenheden

indeholde ammoniak (NH₃), hvilket i dansk sammenhæng kan betyde at anlæg-

get bliver omfattet af Risikobekendtgørelsen og at der herudover kan være risiko

for spild, eller udslip af ammoniak.

Naturpåvirkningen ved etablering og drift af mellemlagerfaciliteter vil afhænge

af anlæggets placering i forhold til eksisterende sårbar natur og vil primært

være relateret til et arealbehov og eventuel inddragelse af beskyttede eller sår-

bare naturtyper samt til forstyrrelse af beskyttede arter, som følge af fysiske

indgreb, trafik og støj.

3.4

CO₂ geologisk lagring –

sikkerhed, natur og

miljø

Et geologisk lager består af en række elementer:

›

et reservoir, dvs. et geologisk lag/ bjergart med en vis porøsitet, f.eks. en

sandsten

en "cap rock"/forsegling, dvs. en impermeabel bjergart som f.eks. lersten

en lukning, dvs. en afgrænsning af reservoiret i geologiske strukturer som

f.eks. antiklinaler/ domer, forkastningsblokke (forskudte jordlag) eller stra-

tigrafiske afgrænsede lag.

Når CO₂ injiceres i et reservoir,

vil det presse formationsvandet væk og bevæge

sig ind i porerummet på bjergarten.

For at sikre at CO₂ forbliver i væskefase må det opbevares ved tryk

større end

dets kritiske tryk som er 73,9 bar, hvilket vil sige i en minimumsdybde på ca.

800 m.

I reservoiret er der 4 mekanismer,

der arbejder sammen for at "fange" CO₂.

1) en strukturel fælde,

kapillær fangst dvs. CO₂ bliver immobiliseret i porerummet,

opløsning af CO₂ i formationsvandet,

samt

reaktion mellem opløst CO₂ og bjergartsmineralerne, hvorved nye mineraler

dannes.

CO₂ lagrene

ved

Sleipner Vest og Snøhvit i Norge er eksempler på offshore CO₂

sandstenslagre, som er sammenlignelige med nogle af de potentielle danske

lagre i Nordsøen.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Udtømte olie- og gasfelter kan potentielt

også anvendes som kommende CO₂-

lagre. Fordelen ved dem er, at det allerede er bevist, at forseglingen virker over

geologisk tid, og at der eksisterer en stor mængde data og viden om reservoiret.

Yderligere er der et potentiale for brug af eksisterende infrastruktur.

Indsamling af seismiske data og boringer er en fundamental del af forundersø-

gelserne for at forstå tilstedeværelsen, udbredelsen og kvaliteten af geologiske

lagre.

Offshore foregår seismisk dataindsamling med specialbyggede seismiske skibe.

Til lands benyttes typisk vibratorlastbiler til at udsende lydbølger, som opsamles

af geofoner på overfladen. For at påvise type af bjergart og undersøge egenska-

berne af reservoir og forsegling kræves tillige boring af en brønd.

I forbindelse med injektion skal en ny brønd bores eller en eksisterende boring

konverteres til CO₂-injektion.

CO₂ er korrosiv og

internationale erfaringer viser, at den vigtigste grund til at in-

jektionsbrønde fejler skyldes, at der er brugt konstruktionsmaterialer, som ikke

er tilpasset CO₂.

Bekymringerne er typisk rettet mod cementen og eventuel re-

aktion med CO₂.

Risikofaktorer ved boring er også, at man ved boring rammer lommer af kulbrin-

ter i form af olie eller gas eller lommer af naturligt forekommende

CO₂,

som kan

resultere i et blowout. Sandsynligheden vurderes som lav, og der er ikke identi-

ficeret internationale eksempler på sådanne uheld i forbindelse med boring til

geologisk CO₂ lagring.

Samtidig vil der i dansk sammenhæng forud for eventu-

elle boringer skulle udføres seismiske undersøgelser, som vil give information

om eventuel forekomst af olie, gas

og CO₂

i undergrunden. Yderligere er der

ikke kendskab til naturligt

forekommende CO₂ i dansk undergrund.

Driften af selve CO₂ lageret består af injektion af CO₂ og monitering af reservoi-

ret både til havs og på land. For selve reservoiret og forseglingsbjergarten gøres

det med seismiske undersøgelser. Også andre metoder benyttes, f.eks. mikro-

gravimetriske undersøgelser, hvor ændringer af tyngdeforholdene måles, idet

CO₂ er lettere end det saline vand.

På land er monitering

af CO₂'s

mulige indtrængning i grundvandet også nødven-

digt. Monitoreringen består typisk af et antal overvågningsboringer, hvorfra der

kan indsamles flowdata og tages jævnlige vandprøver.

Der er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld og større udslip af CO₂ fra geologiske

CO₂ lagre,

ej heller store udsivninger på grund af migrering af den oplagrede

CO₂.

Det vurderes, at netop godt kendskab til lageret og dets egenskaber, lø-

bende monitorering samt placering i områder med lav tektonisk aktivitet bety-

der, at der er meget lav risiko for større

udslip af CO₂.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Internationale erfaringer rapporterer om fortsat overvågning efter injektions-

brønden er afviklet.

Monitorering udført fra 1996 og frem til 2017 af CO₂ udled-

ning fra Sleipner og også på andre lagre har alle vist,

at CO₂ forbliver sikkert i

lageret.

De væsentligste miljømæssige påvirkninger identificeret via de internationale er-

faringer for geologisk lagring offshore omfatter udledninger til vand af kemika-

lier, boremudder, borespåner og cement mv. i forbindelse med boring og etable-

ring af brønde samt støj, emissioner og energiforbrug fra skibe og borerig i for-

bindelse med forundersøgelser og anlæg og etablering.

De miljømæssige forhold i forbindelse med anlæg og etablering af geologisk la-

ger på land vurderes ikke at være meget anderledes end de forhold, som er be-

skrevet for et offshore lager. Den store forskel er, at anlæg og etablering sker

på land med landgående maskiner og transportmetoder. Det betyder, at der i

langt højere grad vil være risiko for påvirkning af mennesker i umiddelbar nær-

hed af site. Samtidig vurderes f.eks. affald og spild at udgøre en mindre miljø-

mæssig påvirkning, idet der på land kan ske en kontrolleret opsamling og hånd-

tering.

Drift af geologisk lager indbefatter injektion af CO₂ i lageret, vedligehold af

brønd samt monitorering af lageret. De væsentligste miljømæssige påvirkninger

fra drift inkluderer: Diffus udledning af CO₂ fra ventilering, tryksatte koblinger

mv, støj fra udstyr, udledning af kemikalier samt energiforbrug og emissioner.

I forhold til påvirkning af natur er der i de internationale referencer fokus på ud-

førelse af seismiske undersøgelser, specielt offshore. På land anvendes store og

tunge køretøjer, der kan sætte aftryk i landskabet, beskadige vegetation og det

øverste jordlag. Der kan også være tale om forstyrrelser af fugle- og dyrevildt

samt øvrige beskyttede arter. Påvirkningerne er midlertidige og kan undgås eller

mindskes ved planlægning af undersøgelserne og passende afværgeforanstalt-

ninger.

Seismiske undersøgelser på havet kan påvirke fisk og marine pattedyr i form af

høreskader og forstyrrelser, som kan medføre undvigeadfærd eller påvirke fø-

desøgning. Det vurderes, at den skadelige påvirkning af fisk og pattedyr som

følge af seismiske undersøgelser og overvågning medfører en lokal, midlertidig

påvirkning, som kan reduceres med passende afværgeforanstaltninger.

Ud over de seismiske undersøgelser giver øvrig støjpåvirkning, f.eks. fra skibs-

trafik og anlægsarbejde en tilsvarende påvirkning af fisk og marine pattedyr. På-

virkningen fra seismiske undersøgelser i et konkret projekt, skal derfor vurderes

kumulativt med øvrig støjpåvirkning og ses i sammenhæng med øvrige marine

påvirkninger i samme influensområde. Afværgeforanstaltninger som medfører,

at marine pattedyr skræmmes væk fra et område, forudsætter eksempelvis, at

der er upåvirkede områder i nærheden.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Ved etablering og placering af anlæg, brønde og rørledninger, vil der yderligere

være en permanent påvirkning af havbunden og mere midlertidige påvirkninger

af marin natur som følge af sedimentspredning, støj, lys, udledning af kemikalier

og andre fysiske forstyrrelser.

Herudover afhænger de naturmæssige påvirkninger både offshore og på land af

en konkret vurdering og af lokaliteten. Herunder nærheden til f.eks. § 3 lokalite-

ter, truede arter og beskyttede områder.

Studier vedr. konsekvenser af CO₂-udslip i havet konkluderer, at CO₂ gasbobler

opløses inden for et par meter og at forsuring/fald i pH-værdi forsvinder inden

for 1 km. Fisk og skaldyr kan blive påvirket ved konstante udledninger og lav

pH-værdi, som over tid kan opløse kalkskaller og muslinger. De natur- og miljø-

mæssige påvirkninger af udslip vurderes samlet set som små, også ved potenti-

elle udslip fra flere CO₂-lagre.

Det understøttes også af vurderinger lavet i forbindelse med norske projekter,

hvor det er vurderet at et større udslip vil give en ubetydelig påvirkning af det

marine miljø. Dette er begrundet i typen af uheld, hvor der er tale om et akut

udslip med begrænset spredningsområde, og at CO₂ forventes at blive fortyndet

hurtigt i vandmasserne.

I konkrete vurderinger af udsivning og udslip af CO₂ fra lagring eller transport til

havs, vil det skulle indgå i vurderingen, at CO₂ i forvejen findes i havet i fluktue-

rende koncentrationer, og at de marine økosystemer derfor er forholdsvis robu-

ste over for mindre udsving. Samtidig optages i havene fortsat CO₂ fra atmo-

sfæren i så store mængder, at der sker en løbende forsuring. Vurderingen af et

konkret projekt vil derfor både skulle indeholde en vurdering af risikoen for en

lokal marin påvirkning

og en vurdering af formålet og effekten af CO₂-lageret,

som er med til at mindske stigningen af CO₂ i atmosfæren og dermed mindske

omfanget af den generelle forsuring.

Ved udsivning og udslip af CO₂ på land kan det forventes, at der vil være den

samme risiko for toksisk påvirkning af pattedyr, som for mennesker, ved indån-

ding af høje koncentrationer af CO₂

som beskrevet i afsnit 5.1. Konsekvensaf-

standene er lokale, men kan dog variere afhængig af giftigheden for de enkelte

arter. Ekstreme kuldepåvirkninger som følge af et uheld, kan også ramme andre

levende organismer end mennesker og vil kunne medføre alvorlig skade og død.

Kuldepåvirkninger vurderes ikke at være en relevant effekt ved udslip under

vand.

3.5

CO₂-transport

infrastruktur

Transport af CO₂ kan ske som en komprimeret gas eller på væskeform. CO

transporteres som gas under højt tryk i rørledninger, samt ved mellemtryk og

nedkølet som væske i tanke.

Der findes mere end 3.000 km CO

-rørledninger i Nordamerika, ca. 135 km fler-

fase rørledning til Snøhvit feltet i den norske del af Nordsøen og ca. 80-100 km

-rørledning på land mellem Rotterdam og Amsterdam. Rørledningstransport

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

af CO

og andre gasser under tryk er således en moden kommercielt tilgængelig

teknologi.

Rørledninger vil være relevant ifm. transport af store mængder CO₂, f.eks. fra

større punktkilder til eksportterminaler samt fra mellemlager videre til lagring i

undergrunden. Der findes flere

designstandarder for CO₂-rørledninger,

se blandt

andet DNV-RP-J202 og ISO 27913:2016.

Skibe vil være relevant for transport af

større mængder CO₂

på flydende form,

over længere afstande. Dette kan f.eks. være transport fra store punktkilder til

mellemlagringsfaciliteter eller fra mellemlagringsfaciliteter videre til offshore lag-

ring.

Transport af CO₂ på lastbil

eller i godsvogne sker i flydende form svarende til

skibstransportforholdene. Vej- og banetransport

af CO₂ vil være relevant for

små til mellemstore

mængder, f.eks. fra små punktkilder til CO₂-

anvendelsesfaciliteter eller eksportterminaler. Typisk kapacitet for en lastbil er

25–30

ton CO₂.

Ved transport med lastvogn, tog eller skib gælder de internatio-

nale transportregler for CO₂ i henhold til ADR

, RID

og IMDG

Der er via en artikel på en amerikansk nyhedsplatform identificeret et uheld med

udslip fra en

CO₂-rørledning

i USA i februar 2020. Ud fra artiklen er der tilsyne-

ladende tale om et rørbrud på en nedgravet rørledning forårsaget af forskydnin-

ger i jorden efter meget regn. Uheldet har angiveligt ikke forårsaget dødsfald.

Der er ikke fundet internationale referencer, der specifikt beskriver de miljø-

mæssige påvirkninger under anlæg, etablering og drift

af ny rørledning for CO₂.

De miljømæssige forhold vurderes at være tilsvarende dem, som identificeres

for typiske øvrige rørledninger anvendt til f.eks. transmission og distribution af

naturgas.

Dette dækker følgende miljøpåvirkninger, der skal overvejes i de konkrete til-

fælde: Støv og øvrige emissioner til luft knyttet til anlægsarbejdet, brug af res-

sourcer, eventuel udledning af overfladevand eller vand fra grundvandssænk-

ning (kun på land), brug og udledning af kemikalier ved klargøring og drift,

CO₂

aftryk samt generering af støj primært ved anlæg.

Ved etablering af CO₂-rørledninger

til havs, kan der endvidere være en fysisk

påvirkning af havbunden og mere midlertidige påvirkninger af marin natur som

følge af sedimentspredning, støj, lys, udledning af kemikalier og andre fysiske

forstyrrelser. Udledning af mindre mængder kemikalier i forbindelse med drift af

rørledninger er vurderet som ubetydelig i de udenlandske referencer.

ADR:

Konvention om International Transport af Farligt Gods ad Vej

RID:

Reglementet for international jernbanetransport af farligt gods

IMDG:

International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Miljø- og naturpåvirkninger fra skibstransport vil være relateret til støj og for-

styrrelser

samt energiforbrug og tilhørende forbrændingsemissioner og CO₂ af-

tryk. Herudover kan der

være mindre diffus udledning af CO₂ fra tanke og kob-

linger.

Der er ikke identificeret referencer, der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved last-

bil og godtogstransport af

CO₂.

Miljøpåvirkningen fra driftsfasen vil være relate-

ret til støj og forstyrrelser samt energiforbrug og tilhørende forbrændingsemissi-

oner og CO₂ aftryk. Herudover kan

der forekomme mindre diffus udledning af

CO₂ fra

tanke, koblinger mv.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Oversigt over relevante internationale

projekter

For at indkredse relevante anlæg og projekter, hvorfra erfaringer kunne være

relevante er der nedenfor lavet en oversigt over internationale CCS-anlæg inkl.

pilot og testanlæg samt projekter på bedding.

I Tabel 1 er listet 27 CCS projekter som er i fuldskaladrift i 2021 inklusiv ét som

har været i drift, men er midlertidig nedlukket [2], [4], [5], [6]. I det omfang

oplysninger foreligger, fremgår fangstanlæggets størrelse, type af punktkilde,

fangstmetode samt transportmetode og lagertype af Tabel 1.

Tabel 1: Oversigt over fuldskala CCS-anlæg i kommerciel drift [2], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

Navn

Al Reyadah Carbon

Capture, Use, and

Storage (CCUS)

Project, Abu Dhabi,

UAE

Produktion/år

Jern og stålpro-

duktion /2016

Beskrivelse

Separation af CO₂ fra

røggas fra jern- og stål-

produktion. Separation sker vha. aminbasert

fangstmetode med aminen MDEA med en kapa-

citet på 0,8 Mtpa. CO₂ transporteres via rørled-

ninger til Abu Dhabi National Oil Company og

bruges til EOR.

Separation

af CO₂ fra

syngas ved SMR (steam

methane reforming) produktion af hydrogen.

CO₂-fangst

sker via ved hjælp af VSA (vacuum

swing adsorption) med en kapacitet på 1 Mtpa.

CO₂

transporteres via rørledninger til EOR i Te-

xas.

Separation

af CO₂ fra

HMU (hydrogen manufac-

turing unit) til produktion af hydrogen.

CO₂-

fangst sker via ADIP-X processen (amin absorp-

tion) med en kapacitet på 1 Mtpa. CO₂ trans-

porteres via rørledning til geologisk lagring on-

shore. I sommeren 2020 er 5 mill. ton injiceret.

Separation af CO₂ fra procesgas. CO₂-fangst

sker angiveligt vha. oxyfuel-processen (oplys-

ningerne er sparsomme), med en kapacitet på

0,1 Mtpa. CO₂

transporteres med lastbil til et

oliefelt og bruges til EOR.

Separation

af CO₂ fra procesgas. CO₂-fangst

sker sandsynligvis ved fysiske teknikker (kon-

densering/komprimering), men ingen sikre op-

lysninger, med en kapacitet på ca. 0,2 Mtpa.

Transporteres via rørledning og anvendes til

EOR.

Separation

af CO₂ fra procesgas. CO₂-fangst

sker vha. aminbaseret metode (Alstom) med en

kapacitet på ca. 1 Mtpa.

CO₂

injiceres i et on-

shore lager direkte under industriparken.

Lager: salin sandstens reservoir, dybde 1.980

Bonanza BioEnergy,

Kansas, USA

Ethanol produk-

tion /2011

Separation

af CO₂ fra procesgas. CO₂-fangst

sker sandsynligvis ved fysiske teknikker (kon-

densering/komprimering), men ingen sikre op-

lysninger, med en kapacitet på ca. 0,1 Mtpa.

Air Products Steam

Methane Reformer

ved Valero Refinery

i Port Arthur, Texas,

USA

Hydrogen produk-

tion /2013

Quest (Shell), Al-

berta, Canada

Hydrogen produk-

tion/ 2015

Karamay Dunhua

Oil Technology

CCUS, Xinjiang,

Kina

Methanol produk-

tion / 2015

Arkalon Ethanol,

Kansas, USA.

Ethanol produk-

tion / 2009

Illinois Industrial

Carbon Capture and

Storage, Decateur,

Illinois, USA

Ethanol produk-

tion / 2017

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Navn

Produktion/år

Beskrivelse

CO₂

anvendes til EOR i Stewart Oil Field. Trans-

port via rørledning.

Core Energy,

Otsego County,

Michigan, USA.

Rensning af shale

gas /2016

Separation af CO₂ fra shale gas udvinding. CO₂-

fangst sker via amin adsorption med en kapaci-

tet på 0,5 Mtpa. CO₂ injiceres i et onshore lager

som tidligere var et EOR oliefelt (Niagaran Reef

Complex). Transport via rørledning.

Separation af CO₂

fra naturgas. CO₂-fangst

sker

med en kapacitet på 2.1 Mtpa.

Separation af CO₂ fra

naturgas.

CO₂-fangst

sker

vha. membranteknologi.

CO₂-fangst

sker på en

flydende produktionsenhed og anvendes i EOR i

Santos Basin Pre-Salt. Direkte injektion fra off-

shore produktionsfacilitet.

Separation af CO₂ fra procesgas. CO₂-fangst

med en kapacitet på op til 0,3 Mtpa. CO₂ an-

vendes til EOR. Transport er ikke oplyst.

Separation

af CO₂ fra naturgas. CO₂-fangst

med en kapacitet på 3,4-4

Mtpa. CO₂

er lagret i

et onshore lager på Barrow Island. Transport til

lager sker i rør.

Lager: salin sandstens reservoir, dybde 2.300m

Qatar Petroleum,

LNG CCS, Qatar

Petrobras Santos

Basin Pre-Salt Oil

Field CCS, Brasilien

Naturgas opgra-

dering /2019

Naturgas opgra-

dering /2011

PCS Nitrogen, Loui-

siana, USA

Gødningsproduk-

tion

Gorgon Carbon

Dioxide Injection,

Australien

Naturgas opgra-

dering /2019

Alberta Carbon

Trunk Line (ACTL)

with North West

Redwater Partner-

ship's Sturgeon Re-

finery CO₂ Stream,

Canada

Alberta Carbon

Trunk Line (ACTL)

with Nutrien

CO₂

Stream, Canada

Coffeyville Gasifica-

tion Plant, Kansas,

USA

Olieraffinering /

2020

Separation

af CO₂ fra

naturgas mv.

CO₂-fangst

med en kapacitet på 1,3-1,6

Mtpa. CO₂

anven-

des til EOR. Transport til lager sker i rør ACTL.

Gødningsproduk-

tion / 2020

Separation

af CO₂ fra procesgas. CO₂-fangst

med en kapacitet på 0,3

Mtpa. CO₂ anvendes til

EOR. Transport til lager sker i rør ACTL.

Gødningsproduk-

tion / 2013

Separation

af CO₂ fra procesgas. CO₂-fangst

med en kapacitet på 1

Mtpa. CO₂ anvendes til

EOR på North Burbank oil unit, Oklahoma, US.

Transport til lager ikke oplyst.

Separation

af CO₂ fra procesgas med en kapaci-

tet på 0,7

Mtpa. CO₂ anvendes til EOR

i oliefel-

ter i Oklahoma. Transport til lager sker i rør.

Separation

af CO₂ fra røggas. CO₂-fangst

sker

vha. Shell Cansolv teknologi som er aminbase-

ret med en kapacitet på 1 Mtpa. Hovedparten

anvendes til EOR i Weyburn Oil Unit. En mindre

dels sendes til geologisk lagring i det nærlig-

gende onshore lager Aquistore Project.

Separation

af CO₂ fra naturgas.

Kapacitet på 5-

8,4

Mtpa. CO₂

anvendes til EOR i Permian Ba-

sin. Transport til lager sker i rør.

Enid Fertilizer, Ok-

lahoma, USA

Gødningsproduk-

tion / 2013

Boundary Dam 3

Carbon Capture and

Storage Facility,

Saskatchewan,

Canada

Kulfyret energian-

læg/2014

Century plant, Den-

ver, USA

Naturgas opgra-

dering /2010

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Navn

Great Plains

Synfuels Plant and

Weyburn-Midale;

Saskatchewan,

Canada

Sinopec Zhongyuan

Carbon Capture Uti-

lization and Stor-

age, China

Sleipner, Norge

Produktion/år

Syntetisk natur-

gas/ 2000

Beskrivelse

Separation

af CO₂ fra

naturgas/procesgas.

CO₂-

fangst sker vha. Rectisol, proces med en kapa-

citet på 3

Mtpa. CO₂ anvendes til EOR

i Wey-

burn Oil Unit og Midale Oil Unit. Transport til la-

ger sker i rør.

Separation

af CO₂ fra naturgas/procesgas med

en kapacitet på 0,1 Mtpa. CO₂ anvendes til EOR

Zhongyuan oil field. Transport er ikke oplyst.

Petrokemisk pro-

duktion/ 2006

Naturgas opgra-

dering /1996

Separation af CO₂ fra naturgas. Fangstanlægget

er placeret på platform offshore. CO₂-fangst

sker vha. aminbaseret metode (MDEA) med en

kapacitet på 0,85 Mtpa. CO₂ injiceres

i et off-

shore geologisk sandstenslager ved Sleipner, ud

for Norge I alt 17 Mt er injiceret til lageret siden

1996.

Lager: salin sandstens reservoir på 1.000m

dybde.

Snøhvit, Norge

Naturgas opgra-

dering /2008

Separation

af CO₂ fra naturgas. Fangstanlægget

er placeret på øen Melkøya, hvor der sker en

opgradering af gas fra offshore installation.

CO₂-fangst

sker vha. aminbaseret metode med

en kapacitet på 0,7 Mtpa. CO₂ injiceres

i et off-

shore geologisk lager ved Snøhvit feltet. Trans-

port sker i rør.

I alt 4 Mt er injiceret til lageret siden 2008.

Lager: salin sandstens reservoir, dybde 2.550m

Terrell Natural Gas

Processing Plant ,

USA

Naturgas opgra-

dering /1970

Separation af CO₂

fra naturgas

med en kapaci-

tet på 0,4-0,5

Mtpa. CO₂ anvendes til EOR .

Transport sker via rørledning Canyon Reef Car-

riers CRC pipeline og Pecos pipeline.

Separation af

CO₂ fra naturgas med en kapaci-

tet på 0,8 Mtpa. CO₂ anvendes til EOR ved

Gha-

war oil field. Transport sker via rørledning.

Uthmaniyah CO₂

EOR Demonstration,

Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia

CNPC Jilin Oil Field

CO₂-EOR,

Kina

Naturgas opgra-

dering /2015

Naturgas opgra-

dering /2018

Separation

af CO₂ fra naturgas. CO₂-fangst

sker

vha. aminbaseret metode med en kapacitet på

ca. 1,2 Mtpa. CO₂ anvendes til EOR

i on-shore

ved Jilin oil field i det nordøst lige Kina. Trans-

port sker via rørledning.

Separation

af CO₂ fra naturgas. CO₂-fangst

sker

vha. Selexol med en kapacitet på ca. 7 Mtpa.

CO₂ anvendes til EOR

i en række felter i Wyo-

ming og Colorado. Transport sker via rørled-

ning.

Separation

af CO₂ fra røggas. CO₂-fangst

sker

vha. aminbaseret metode med en kapacitet på

1,4 Mtpa.

CO₂

anvendes til EOR i

West Ranch oil

field

nær Houston.

Shute Creek Gas

Processing Plant,

Wyoming, USA

Naturgas opgra-

dering /2018

Petra Nova Carbon

Capture, Texas USA

Kulfyret energian-

læg/ midlertidig

lukket i 2020

Som det fremgår af Tabel 1

sker CO₂-fangst

både på industrielle kilder, i forbin-

delse med naturgasopgradering og på energianlæg.

CO₂-fangst

sker vha. mange

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

forskellige metoder. De projekter som anvender aminvask og chilled ammonia

vil være relevante, at hente erfaring fra i denne sammenhæng.

I langt de fleste CCS projekter anvendes den opsamlede CO₂ til enhanced oil re-

covery (EOR) og bliver dermed sendt retur i eksisterende oliefelt med henblik på

at øge udvinding af olie. En del af den CO₂

der er injekseret vil blande sig med

råolien og dermed komme retur i forbindelse med den efterfølgende olieudvin-

ding.

Der er således ved EOR ikke tale om en permanent lagring af CO₂. Erfaring

fra projekter med EOR kan dog være relevant i forhold til andre led i CCS kæden

f.eks. i forhold til

CO₂-fangst

og -transport.

Transport

af CO₂

sker i langt overvejende grad via rørledning på land. Det er

ikke altid helt klart om rørene i de specifikke projekter

er lagt specifikt til CO₂

transport, eller om det er rør, som tidligere har været anvendt til transport af

f.eks. gas. Kun i et tilfælde (Snøhvit projektet) transporteres

CO₂ vha. rørled-

ning fra land til offshore lager.

Udover ovenstående fuldskala CCS projekter i kommerciel drift er der eller har

der været en række pilot- og testprojekter. Nedenfor er kort beskrevet et ud-

drag af primært europæiske pilot- og test projekter.

Pilot- og testprojekter har oftest omfattet

CO₂-fangst,

for at eftervise egnethed

af en specifik fangstmetode på en specifik kilde. I enkelte tilfælde har projek-

terne omfattet hele CCS kæden.

Pilot- og testprojekterne kan som de kommercielle anlæg bidrage med erfaringer

omkring sikkerhed, miljø og natur selvfølgelig afgrænset i forhold til projekter-

nes omfang, levetid og formål.

Tabel 2: Oversigt over pilot- og testanlæg [4], [9]

Navn

Brindisi

CO₂

Cap-

ture Pilot Plant,

Brindisi, Italien

Produktion/år

Kulfyret kraftværk

/ 2010-2012

Beskrivelse

pilot CO₂-fangstanlæg

til test af amin ab-

sorption.

Kapacitet 2,5 t CO₂ per time. CO₂ lag-

res i tanke med henblik på brug i et andet pilot-

forsøg med oplagring i Norditalien.

Et pilot CO₂-fangstanlæg

til test af pre-com-

bustion

CO₂-fangst.

Der bruges water-gas shift

efterfulgt af CO₂-absorption

i DPEG (dimethy-

læter polyethylene glykol).

Buggenum Carbon

Capture (CO₂

Catch-up) Pilot Pro-

ject, Buggenum,

Holland

CASTOR, Danmark

Energianlæg

/2011 og 2013.

Kulfyret energian-

læg / 2006 and

2007

Energianlæg,

2008

Cement produk-

tion

Et pilot CO₂-fangstanlæg

til test af forskellige

aminer.

CESAR, Danmark

Opfølgning på CASTOR projektet med modifika-

tion af pilotanlægget og test af to nye aminer.

Test af CO₂-fangst

på røggas fra cement pro-

duktion på Norcem Brevik med tre forskellige

post combustion teknologier. Testprogrammet

CO₂

Capture Test

Facility at Norcem

Brevik, Norge

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Navn

Produktion/år

Beskrivelse

blev udført med det formål at udvælge og be-

slutte egentlig fuldskala projekt.

Schwarze Pumpe

Oxy-fuel Pilot Plant,

Tyskland

Kulfyret energian-

læg

Test af oxyfuel

CO₂-fangst

på kulfyret energian-

læg. Anlægget blev startet op i 2008 og stop-

pede i 2014. En lille del af den opfangede

CO₂

blev injiceret i Ketzin storage site.

Test af

CO₂-fangst

anlæg på det 100% bio-

masse fyrede Drax energianlæg.

Pilotanlægget startede i 2019.

Drax bioenergy car-

bon capture pilot

plant, UK

Technology Centre

Mongstad (TCM),

Norge

Biomassefyrede

energianlæg

Diverse

Technology Centre Mongstad TCM er lokaliseret

ved raffinaderiet i Mongstad, ikke langt fra Ber-

gen og har været i drift siden 2012. Faciliteten

har testanlæg for

CO₂-fangst

med både chilled

ammonia og amin.

Omkring 51.000 tons

CO₂

blev over en periode

på 39 måneder opsamlet og injiceret ved brug

af et oxyfuel anlæg. Monitorering af lager blev

udført både under og 3 år efter injektion.

Lager :dolomitisk udtømt gas reservoir, dybde

4.500m

Lacq CCS Pilot Pro-

ject, Pau, Frankrig

CO₂ lager onshore

Ferrybridge Carbon

Capture Pilot (CCPi-

lot100+); UK

Renfrew Oxy-fuel

(Oxycoal 2) Project,

Mountaineer Valida-

tion Facility, USA

Energianlæg, bio-

masse og kulfyret

Test af post combustion aminbaseret

CO₂-

fangstanlæg på røggas fra energianlæg. Test-

program var fuldført i december 2013.

Test af en 40-MWth oxy-fuel burner på energi-

anlægget Renfrew, Scotland.

Energianlæg

CO₂-fangst

vha. af chilled ammonia metoden

fra et kulfyret anlæg.

CO₂ blev

lageret i perma-

nent geologisk lagring onshore. ca. 37.000 ton

CO₂

er injiceret i lageret. Injektion til lageret

stoppede i 2017 og følges op af 6 års post-in-

jektions monitorering.

Største testanlæg i Sverige.

CO₂-fangst

sker på

Preems hydrogen gas anlæg med amin baseret

anlæg fra Aker

. Det er meningen at CO₂ skal

transporteres til lager i Norge som en del af

Northern Lights projektet.

Preem raffinaderi i

Lysekil, Sverige

Raffinaderi

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Nedenfor fremgår CCS-projekter på bedding, som giver et godt indblik i forestå-

ende projekter. I forhold til erfaringer ligger der for nogle af projekterne forun-

dersøgelser og, eller miljøvurderinger, som kan bidrage til det samlede erfa-

ringsbillede indenfor sikkerhed, miljø og natur.

Tabel 3: Oversigt over kommercielle projekter i udvikling [4]

Navn

ACT Acorn, Skot-

land

Projektstadie

Tidlig udvikling

Beskrivelse

Ideen med projektet er at

opsamle CO₂ fra

naturgasterminal ved St. Fergus og sende

CO₂

retur til udtømte gasfelter i Nordsøen ved brug

af eksisterende gasledninger.

CO₂ kilden i St.

Fergus er udstødningsgas fra kompressorer til

drift af naturgasnettet. CO₂ opsamling ved ab-

sorption (sandsynligvis amin).

Idéen med projektet er at Caledonia Clean

Energy etablerer

et CO₂-fangstanlæg

i forbin-

delse med et nyt gasfyret

energianlæg. CO₂-

fangst vil være omkring 3 Mtpa. Den opsamlede

CO₂ vil

skulle transporteres til tømte gaslagre i

Nordsøen via eksisterende gasledninger.

Idéen med projektet er at

etablere CO₂-

fangstanlæg i forbindelse med hydrogenanlæg.

Den opfangede CO₂ skal sammen med CO₂-

fangst fra andre anlæg transporteres til de

tømte gasfelter ved Hamilton og Lennox i Liver-

pool bay.

CO₂-fangst

på Fortum Oslo Varme affaldsfor-

brændingsanlæg i en størrelse på 0.4 Mtpa er

planlagt til 2024. Den opsamlede

CO₂ forventes

at blive sejlet med skib til et mellemlager på

Norges vestkyst ikke langt fra Bergen og herfra

med rør ud til endelig offshore geologisk lager.

NLP er en del af Langskip CCS projektet. Pro-

jektet omfatter skibstransport fra punktkilder til

mellemlager, mellemlager i tanke, en offshore

rørledning ud til en undersøisk satellit, hvor der

sker injektion i undersøisk lager. Satellitten vil

styres af monitorerings- og kontrolfunktioner

fra Oseberg platformen.

Idéen med projektet er at etablere et

CO₂-

fangstanlæg på Drax 660 MW biomassefyrede

energianlæg i 2027. Kapacitet på 4,3 Mtpa. Den

opsamlede CO₂

planlægges at blive transporte-

ret via rør til endelige geologisk lagring i den

sydlige del af Nordsøen.

Ervia Cork CCS

er i undersøgelsesfasen for CO₂-

fangst fra punktkilder i Cork, blandt andet to

gasfyrede energianlæg og et raffinaderi. Den

opsamlede CO₂ skal transporteres

via eksiste-

rende rørledninger til Kinsale Gas Field.

Caledonia Clean

Energy, Skotland

Tidlig udvikling

HyNet North

West,UK

Tidlig udvikling

Langskip CCS -

Fortum Oslo

Varme,Norge

Moden udvikling

Langskip CCS - No-

thern Lights projek-

tet

Moden udvikling

Drax BECCS Pro-

ject, UK

Tidlig udvikling

Ervia Cork CCS, Ir-

land

Tidlig udvikling

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Sikkerheds- og miljømæssige forhold

Sikkerhed knytter sig til pludselige hændelser, som specifikt har med håndterin-

gen af CO₂ og tilknyttede hjælpestoffer at gøre, og som kan udgøre en fare for

menneskers liv og helbred. Hændelserne er på tværs af CCS-kæden i stor ud-

strækning knyttet til større udslip af kuldioxid

CO₂.

Herudover kan også udslip af

ammoniak, aminer og ilt være relevant for specifikke anlæg. Nedenfor gennem-

gås de farer som generelt er identificeret ved CCS aktiviteter. I afsnittene 8 - 9

er der anført forhold som er specifikke for de forskellige faser og anlæg.

5.1

Kuldioxid (CO₂ )

5.1.1 Indånding af

CO₂

CO₂ er

en naturlig bestanddel af atmosfærisk luft med en koncentration på ca.

400 ppm eller 0,04%. CO₂ findes i menneskers udåndingsluft i en koncentration

på ca. 38.000 ppm eller 3,8%.

CO₂ har en lav

akut giftighed for mennesker, men som for alle andre stoffer er

CO₂ giftig,

hvis koncentrationen er høj nok. Ved udsættelse for en koncentration

på mere end 5%

stiger blodets CO₂ koncentration og der opstår

acidose (fal-

dende pH i blodet). Ved koncentrationer

på mere end 10% CO₂ kan der opstå

kramper, koma og ved længerevarende udsættelse, i nogle tilfælde død. Ved ud-

sættelse for

koncentrationer på mere end 30% CO₂

kan der opstå næsten øje-

blikkelig bevidstløshed og død [10]. Udover giftvirkningen

vil CO₂ ved et udslip

også kunne sænke iltkoncentrationen i et område, så personer kvæles. Ved

kendte tilfælde af personer der er døde som følge af udsættelse for CO₂, vil der

som regel være tale om en kombination af CO₂ giftvirkning og kvælning

på

grund af iltmangel.

Faren ved udslip af

CO₂ er især

kendt fra udslip i lukkede rum, men der er også

eksempler på massive udslip fra minegange, hvor personer i almindelige boliger

i nærområdet er blevet dødeligt påvirket (Menzengraben, DDR, 1953) [11]. En

særlig

situation var et massivt udslip af CO₂,

anslået 1,6 millioner tons

CO₂,

fra

en bundvending (limnisk udbrud) af søen Lac Nyos i Cameroun i 1986. Der om-

kom ca. 1.700 mennesker og 3.500 stk. husdyr, i en afstand på op til 25 km fra

søen [12].

UK Health and Safety Executive har i flere publikationer estimeret konsekvensaf-

stande for henholdsvis store momentane udslip af

CO₂

og for store kontinuerte

udslip fra lækager [12], [13], [14]. For momentane udslip blev der studeret ud-

slipstørrelser på 50

–

2.000 tons. Disse udslipstørrelser svarer til variationen i

oplagsstørrelse fra tankvogne til større tanklagre.

For de største momentane udslip blev der fundet en konsekvensafstand på 120

–

300 meter. Ved kontinuerte udslip fra en lækage blev der fundet en konse-

kvensafstand på 100

–

200 meter. Konsekvensafstanden er defineret som den

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

afstand, inden for hvilken, der er en risiko for død på 1-5%. Ved længere af-

stande fra udslipspunktet er risikoen for død mindre.

Det er rimeligt at antage, at disse afstande er repræsentative for uheld på trans-

portsystemer og lagre fra

fangst af CO₂ og indtil injektion i slutlageret.

Et geologisk lager ligger typisk i en dybde på mere end 800 meter under jord-

overfladen/havbunden og den eneste direkte forbindelse med atmosfæren/havet

er et borerør med en række ventiler. Det er derfor vanskeligt at forestille sig, at

store mængder CO₂

fra et geologisk lager kan undslippe momentant og forår-

sage dødsfald i flere kilometers omkreds, som det har været tilfældet ved de før

omtalte udslip fra minegange og fra bundvending af søer. Det kan dog ikke ude-

lukkes at et voldsomt jordskælv eller et vulkanudbrud i et område med geolo-

gisk lagring af CO₂ kan frigive store mængder CO₂ til atmosfæren over kort tid.

Det må antages, at der ikke placeres geologiske lagre i risikoområder for jord-

skælv og vulkanudbrud, herudover er der ikke vulkanaktivitet i Danmark og

sandsynligheden for større jordskælv er endvidere meget lille grundet placering i

forhold til geologiske pladegrænser.

Derimod er store

CO₂

udslip fra injektion i geologiske formationer mulige

–

kendte

–

i forbindelse med blowouts [15]. Konsekvensafstanden

på 100 meter

fra et kontinuert udslip fra en lækage på 50 mm er i førnævnte publikationer fra

UK HSE anset for repræsentativ for et blowout, forudsat at udslippet sker til luf-

ten. Hvis udslippet sker lige over havbunden, er der ikke umiddelbar fare for

mennesker,

da den CO₂

der stiger op til overfladen vil fortyndes/optages i vand-

søjlen, inden den når atmosfæren [16].

Der er ikke identificeret blowouts fra underjordiske lagre, som er anlagt som de-

ciderede CO₂ lagre.

I ovennævnte kilde [15] anføres fire tilfælde af blowouts i forbindelse med bo-

ring i geologiske formationer med henblik på udnyttelse af den naturligt fore-

kommende CO₂ (Sheep Mountain, CO, USA; Crystal and Tenmile Geysers, Para-

dox Basin, UT, USA; Florina Basin, Grækenland; Torre Alfina geotermisk felt,

Italien). I kilden argumenteres for at disse hændelser lige så godt kunne være

opstået i forbindelse med anlæg af deciderede CO₂ lagre

, og at der bør drages

lære af dem.

De ovennævnte konsekvensafstande er udregnet ved hjælp af kommercielt til-

gængelige programmer. Der er stillet spørgsmålstegn ved, om disse program-

mer på tilfredsstillende vis modellerer de komplicerede forhold,

når tryksat CO₂

slipper ud i atmosfæren og spredes i omgivelserne, specielt hvad angår effekten

af sublimering af dannet tøris [10]. Det kan derfor ikke udelukkes, at der i frem-

tiden opnås ny viden om spredningsforholdene som vil revidere de konsekvens-

afstande, der er anført i denne rapport, og som kan få indflydelse på planlæg-

ningen omkring installationer med store mængder

CO₂.

Konsekvensafstanden er den afstand, ved hvilken risiko for dødsfald er 1-5%

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

I forbindelse med Northern Lights projektet er der udarbejdet en kvantitativ risi-

kovurdering (QRA) for mellemlageret på land [17].

Ved en QRA sættes de mulige konsekvenser i forhold til sandsynligheden for at

de identificerede hændelser indtræffer. Et af resultaterne af en QRA er et kort

med konturer omkring den undersøgte facilitet, som viser afstande med den

samme risiko for dødsfald for personer, der befinder sig i det pågældende om-

råde.

I nedenstående Figur 2 er gengivet et kort for landanlægget ved Northern

Lights. I det inderste orange område er der en risiko for dødsfald på 10

-5

per år

(svarende til et dødsfald per 100.000 år), i det gule 10

-6

per år (svarende til et

dødsfald per 1.000.000 år) og i det blå område 10

-7

per år (svarende til et døds-

fald per 10.000.000 år). Disse værdier svarer til de værdier, der anvendes af de

danske myndigheder til at afgøre, om risikoen er acceptabel.

Det inderste orange område må som udgangspunkt ikke strække sig ud over

virksomhedens matrikel. Ud til grænsen for det gule område må der ikke place-

res boliger eller anden følsom anvendelse, og ud til grænsen for det blå område

må der ikke placeres institutioner, der indgår i det offentlige beredskab eller fin-

des institutioner med svært evakuerbare personer.

I det aktuelle tilfælde er det vurderet, at de norske myndigheders acceptkrite-

rier, som på mange måder er de samme som de danske, er overholdt. Resulta-

terne kan dog ikke direkte overføres til et andet projekt, da omgivelsernes topo-

grafi er afgørende for udbredelsen af

et CO₂ udslip,

da der er tale om en kold,

tung gas.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Figur 2

Risikokonturer for et landanlæg i Northern Lights projektet [17]. Den blå

markering har en udstrækning på ca. 1 km i øst vestlig retning.

Store momentane udslip af CO₂ vil også have en effekt på

dyre- og planteliv

både i vandmiljøet og på land. Konsekvenserne af sådanne udslip på natur og

miljø er behandlet i afsnittene om natur og miljø.

5.1.1

Fysiske påvirkninger fra uheld med CO₂

Udover udsættelse for høje koncentrationer af CO₂

kan der ved større udslip

også opstå alvorlige skader som følge af ekstreme kuldepåvirkninger. I CCS

sammenhæng vil

CO₂

efter fangst blive komprimeret og evt. afkølet, før det

transporteres og oplagres.

Hvis der sker et udslip af komprimeret/afkølet CO₂

fra en rørledning, beholder eller et reservoir, opstår der risiko for ekstreme kul-

depåvirkninger for personer eller udstyr som påvirkes af udslippet. Ramte perso-

ner kan få alvorlige og livstruende forfrysninger, mens udstyr kan påvirkes, så

det mister sin integritet.

Da CO₂ efter fangsten håndteres under tryk, er der

mulighed for farlige trykstig-

ninger, som kan føre til sprængning af rør og beholdere med udslyngning af

sprængstykker til følge. På denne måde adskiller

CO₂

sig ikke fra andre trykbæ-

rende systemer, bortset fra at CO₂ ikke kan brænde.

Interne eksplosioner på

grund af indtrængning af atmosfærisk luft eller brand og eksplosion i undsluppet

CO₂,

er ikke mulige.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

I litteraturen findes oplysninger om en ulykke i Ungarn i 1969, med en 30 m³

tank indeholdende CO₂, som pludseligt brød sammen

[18]. Fragmenter med en

vægt på 1

–

3 tons blev slynget væk i en afstand på op til 300 meter og mindre

fragmenter op til 400 meter. Ulykken kostede 9 mennesker livet, hvoraf de 5

dødsfald skyldtes forfrysninger. De øvrige dødsfald antages at skyldes de fysiske

påvirkninger fra eksplosionen.

I en publikation for det engelske HSE Executive [19] konkluderer forfatterne, at

fartøjer i nærheden af et gasudslip ikke kan synke på grund af manglende op-

drift. Hvor der er forekommet forlis, skyldes det, at fartøjer har taget vand ind

på grund af urolig sø forårsaget af udslippet. Desuden kan et udslip skabe

strømninger i overfladen, som kan få opankrede fartøjer ud af position. Publika-

tionen nævner ikke specifikke eksempler, eller hvor ofte det er sket.

Ekstreme kuldepåvirkninger kan også ramme andre levende organismer end

mennesker og vil i lighed med påvirkning på mennesker kunne medføre alvorlig

skade og død. Kuldepåvirkninger vurderes ikke at være en relevant effekt ved

udslip under vand.

5.2

Aminer

Ved nogle fangstmetoder (se også afsnit A.1) bruges forskellige blandinger af

aminer. Der er nævnt ethanolamin (MEA), diethanolamin (DEA), metyldietanola-

min (MDEA), piperazin (PZ), 2-Amino-2-metylpropanol (AMP), diglykolamin

(DGA) og diisopropanolamin (DIPA). Ingen af de nævnte aminer udgør en akut

fare for mennesker i vandig opløsning, ved et udslip. Dampene har en lav akut

giftighed og aminerne er ikke klassificerede som brandfarlige. Aminerne er ge-

nerelt irriterende at få på huden og i øjnene, og nogle er klassificeret som æt-

sende. Håndtering følger de normale arbejdsmiljøregler, og ved udslip vurderes

der ikke at være akut fare for mennesker, udover de personer i umiddelbar nær-

hed af udslippet, som kan blive ramt og få ætsninger, afhængig af aminblandin-

gens karakter, samt evt. forbrændinger, afhængig af temperaturen på udslippet.

De anvendte aminer er ikke klassificeret som miljøfarlige, og der forventes der-

for ikke akutte virkninger på natur eller miljø ved udslip.

Nedbrydningsprodukter af aminer, herunder nitrosaminer, afhængig af hvilken

aminblanding der benyttes (se også afsnit A.1.3) kan

udledes fra CO₂-

fangstanlæg. Nitrosaminer har en lav akut giftighed, og der er ved de koncen-

trationer som forventes ikke fare for akut forgiftning med nitrosaminer. Nitrosa-

miner og andre nedbrydningsprodukter anses for at være kræftfremkaldende og

derfor farlige ved langvarig og gentagen påvirkning. Dette aspekt er behandlet

under afsnittet om miljø.

5.3

Ammoniak

(NH₃)

NH₃ i form af ammoniakvand

kan

også bruges til CO₂-fangst.

Koncentrationen af

NH₃ i ammoniakvandsopløsningen er typisk mindre end 25%.

Hvis koncentratio-

nen af NH₃ er højere end 25%

skal ammoniakvand betragtes som et risikostof i

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

henhold til Risikobekendtgørelsen, på grund af akut miljøfare. Hvis oplaget af

ammoniakvand > 25% er på mere end 100/200 tons skal der derfor udarbejdes

sikkerhedsdokument/sikkerhedsrapport. I det følgende forudsættes det, at kon-

centrationen af NH₃ i ammoniakvand er mindre end 25%.

I brugskoncentrationer på mindre end 25% er ammoniakvand klassificeret som

ætsende på hud og øjne og som irriterende for luftvejene og skal håndteres jf.

de normale arbejdsmiljøregler for sådanne stoffer. Ved uheld er der ikke akut

fare for mennesker, udover de personer i umiddelbar nærhed af udslippet, som

kan blive ramt og få ætsninger.

I delstrømme i CO₂-fangstprocessen

med ammoniak er der høje koncentrationer

af NH₃,

i området 2.000

–

15.000 ppm. Disse koncentrationer er livsfarlige for

mennesker, idet en udsættelse for 2.700 ppm i 10 minutter (AEGL 3, 10 min) el-

ler længere, anses for livstruende. Processtrømmene findes i lukkede rørsyste-

mer og beholdere, men ved udslip vil der være akut fare for personer der ud-

sættes for høje koncentrationer af NH₃. Umiddelbart vurderes

det, at der kun er

fare for personer på virksomheden, men hvis denne proces etableres, bør der

udføres spredningsberegninger for uheld ved den konkrete anvendelse, for at

fastlægge de specifikke konsekvensafstande.

NH₃ lukkes ikke

urenset ud i atmo-

sfæren, da der typisk indføres et

vasketrin, som bringer NH₃ koncentrationen i

afkastet ned til under 200 ppm.

Gasformig ammoniak er akut toksisk for levende organismer, der rammes af et

udslip, afhængig af koncentrationen. På grund af fortynding vil virkningen være

begrænset til områder med høj koncentration af ammoniak. Vandlevende orga-

nismer påvirkes ikke af et udslip af gasformig ammoniak. Ammoniakvand i de

koncentrationer der typisk anvendes i et fangstanlæg, er ikke klassificeret som

miljøfarlig, men der må alligevel forventes lokale akutte effekter, hvis ammoni-

akvand finder vej til vandmiljøet, ligesom lokal svidning af vegetationen må for-

ventes, hvis ammoniakvand løber ud på jorden.

5.4

Oxygen

(O₂)

I forbrændingsanlæg kan oxyfuel processen anvendes i stedet for almindelig for-

brænding med atmosfærisk luft. Ved oxyfuel processen tilføres ren

O₂

til for-

brændingsprocessen i stedet for atmosfærisk luft, som indeholder ca. 80% nitro-

gen. Herved fås en CO₂-rig røggas som efter tørring har en

CO₂

koncentration

på 70

–

90%

CO₂,

som kan komprimeres og anvendes til f.eks. lagring. Til oxy-

fuel processen er der behov for et lager af

O₂,

som opbevares i en tryktank.

Hvis oplaget af

O₂ er større end 200

(kolonne 2) hhv. 2000 tons (kolonne 3),

falder oplaget ind under Risikobekendtgørelsens bestemmelser og der skal udar-

bejdes sikkerhedsdokument/sikkerhedsrapport.

O₂ er en naturlig bestanddel

af atmosfærisk luft, hvor den findes i en koncentra-

tion på ca. 21%.

Som udgangspunkt er O₂ derfor ikke farlig for mennesker.

Sti-

ger koncentrationen af O₂

til 25% eller derover er der en stærkt stigende risiko

for

brand og eksplosion. O₂ er ikke i sig selv

brandfarlig, men er en nødvendig

forudsætning for en brand, sammen med en passende (høj) temperatur og et

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

brandbart materiale. Visse materialer kan bryde spontant i brand ved normal

omgivelsestemperatur, blot O₂ koncentrationen øges.

Indånding af

høje koncentrationer af O₂

op til 100% er ikke akut farlig for men-

nesker og bruges sågar terapeutisk i nogle sammenhænge. Langvarig udsæt-

telse for

høje koncentrationer af O₂ er dog sundhedsskadelig, men er ikke rele-

vant i denne sammenhæng.

Uanset om oplaget

af O₂ er større end tærskelmængden for risikovirksomhed,

bør der i konkrete tilfælde

udføres analyser af risikoen for udslip af O₂ og konse-

kvenserne af disse, i forbindelse med planlægningen.

Udslip af

O₂

vurderes ikke at udgøre en fare for natur og miljø.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

CO₂-fangstanlæg

- Vurdering af

sikkerhed, natur og miljø

Sikkerhed

6.1

6.1.1 Forundersøgelser

Der er ikke identificeret relevante referencer med omtale af sikkerhedsforhold

specifikt relateret til

forundersøgelser til etablering af CO₂-fangstanlæg.

6.1.2 Anlæg og etablering

Der er ikke identificeret relevante referencer med omtale af sikkerhedsforhold

specifikt relateret til anlæg og etablering af CO₂-fangstanlæg.

6.1.3 Drift

Almindelige farer ved drift af trykbærende udstyr i form af operationelle forhold

der kan føre til farlige trykstigninger,

er også gældende for CO₂-fangstanlæg.

I forhold til større uheld skal der ved oxyfuel-anlæg være opmærksomhed på ri-

sikoen for lækage på tanke og rørsystemer indeholdende store koncentrationer

af O₂ og deraf følgende udslip af store mængder O₂ med brand-

og eksplosions-

fare til følge. Ved chilled ammonia anlæg skal der være opmærksomhed på risi-

koen for lækage på rørsystemer indeholdende store koncentrationer af NH₃ med

forgiftningsfare til følge.

I afsnit 5.3 og 5.4 er der en beskrivelse af de mulige farer og konsekvenser ved

håndtering og udslip af O₂ og NH₃.

Udover O₂ og NH₃ som har potentiale til store uheld med lang rækkevidde, skal

der også være opmærksomhed på lækager af aminholdige systemer, som kan

forårsage ætsninger på personer der rammes af et udslip. I afsnit 5.2 er der en

beskrivelse af de mulige farer og konsekvenser ved håndtering og udslip af ami-

ner.

Den stående mængde ren CO₂ i et fangstanlæg er forholdsvis lille, da CO₂ først i

forbindelse med mellemlagring komprimeres og evt. køles. Udslip af CO₂ fra

fangstanlæg vil derfor være begrænset.

Der er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld

med CO₂-fangstanlæg

i de undersøgte

referencer.

6.1.4 Afvikling

Ved afvikling (nedrivning)

af CO₂-fangstanlæg

skal der udover de almindelige

arbejdsmiljøregler være fokus på, at der ikke findes ansamlinger af stoffer og

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

materialer i anlæggene, som kan udgøre en fare for medarbejderne i forbindelse

med nedrivningsaktiviteterne. Ansamlinger af aminer og ammoniakvand udgør

her en potentiel risiko. Det vurderes at disse ansamlinger ikke udgør en fare for

natur og miljø, forudsat at det vaskevand der anvendes til rengøring af udstyret,

håndteres forsvarligt.

Der er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld under afvikling af

CO₂-fangstanlæg,

i de

undersøgte referencer.

6.2

Miljø

6.2.1 Forundersøgelser

Der er ikke identificeret referencer der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved forun-

dersøgelser af CO₂-fangstanlæg.

De miljømæssige forhold ved forundersøgelser vurderes at være sammenligne-

ligt med hvad der findes i forbindelse med forundersøgelser ved andre industri-

elle anlæg.

Det skal i forbindelse med planlægning sikres, at den valgte placering sker under

hensyn til de risikomæssige og miljømæssige forhold. Det nødvendige plan-

grundlagt skal sikres, og de nødvendige tilladelser være indhentet.

6.2.2 Anlæg og etablering

Der er ikke identificeret referencer, der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved an-

læg og etablering af CO₂-fangstanlæg.

De miljømæssige forhold ved anlæg og etablering vurderes at være sammenlig-

neligt med, hvad der findes i forbindelse med forundersøgelser ved andre indu-

strielle anlæg.

Det omfatter typisk: Støv og øvrige emissioner til luft knyttet til anlægsarbejde,

brug af ressourcer, eventuel udledning af overfladevand eller vand fra grund-

vandssænkning, CO₂ aftryk i anlægsfase samt generering af støj.

6.2.3 Drift

Drift af CO₂-fangstanlæg

har en række miljømæssige forhold.

Emissioner til luft

Emission og deposition af aminer og specielt nedbrydningsprodukter af aminer

har været en af de primære bekymringer ved udvikling af fuldskala aminbase-

rede fangstanlæg [20].

De aminbaserede fangstmetoder (se også afsnit A.1) bruger forskellige aminer

eller blandinger af aminer. Der er i litteraturen blandt andet nævnt ethanolamin

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

(MEA), diethanolamin (DEA), metyldietanolamin (MDEA), piperazin (PZ), 2-

Amino-2-metylpropanol (AMP), diglykolamin (DGA) og diisopropanolamin (DIPA)

[21] [22]. Redegørelse for de enkelte kemiske stoffer kan findes vha. ECHAs

hjemmeside [23].

Emissioner til luft og vand samt affald kan indeholde varierende mængder af

aminer samt nedbrydningsprodukter af aminer, herunder nitrosaminer og nitra-

miner, afhængig af hvilken aminblanding der benyttes [24] [22] [25].

Det anføres som en af de væsentligste konklusioner fra Longship projektet, at

det er vigtigt have metoder og data på plads for at kunne vurdere emissioner og

immissioner af farlige stoffer fra fangstprocessen inklusiv aminer samt eventu-

elle nedbrydningsprodukter heraf [26].

I Norge har man på CO₂ Technology Center Mongstad (TCM) siden 2012 haft fa-

ciliteter til at teste forskellige aminbaserede og chilled ammonia fangst teknolo-

gier, og der har været en række leverandører som her har testet, optimeret,

modnet og eftervist deres fangst teknologi og valg af solvent. Arbejdet på TCM

har også inkluderet udvikling af metoder til bestemmelse og vurdering af emis-

sion og deposition fra de aminbaserede fangstmetoder, udover at det har givet

bedre forståelse af de toksikologiske effekter af aminer og deres nedbrydnings

produkter til luft, vand og via affald [24] [27].

Der rapporteres om stor variation i emission af aminer, nitrosaminer og andre

stoffer fra forskellige anlæg og afhængig af den specifikke proces og hvilke ami-

ner der anvendes. Emission af aminer i røggassen er målt i afkast på forskellige

pilotanlæg i koncentrationer op til 4 mg/Nm³. Nitrosaminer og nitraminer er ble-

vet målt i røggassen i koncentrationer op til 5

μg/m³.

Der er en tendens til at

nyere anlæg har en mindre emission [28].

Reaktion af aminer med specielt NO

er i søgelyset i forhold til dannelse af ned-

brydningsprodukter i form af nitrosamin og nitraminer [28].

Aker, der leverer CO₂-fangstanlæg,

beskriver at spredningsberegninger udført

for Norcem Brevik viser at koncentrationer af nitrosaminer med deres løsning

med et specifikt amin og med brug af anti misting teknologi ligger væsentlig un-

der gældende norske grænseværdier [29].

Forsøg fra amin baseret CO₂-fangst

på testanlæg i Japan med blandt andet to

forskellig aminer viser at en stor del af amin emissionen foreligger som aeroso-

ler (mist) [30]. Også en anden kilde referer til, at aerosoler har en effekt på

emissionen af amin [28].

Der har være udført test på Fortum Oslo Varme med et pilotanlæg med Shell

capture technology og brug af DC-103 solvent. Resultaterne herfra viser at For-

tum Oslo Varme med den teknologi kan leve op til de norske krav for udledning

til luft [26].

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Det konkluderes i rapport fra det norske

Olje- og energidepartement fra 2016

der er sket en stor udvikling og opnået meget viden og erfaring om de forskel-

lige

CO₂-fangstteknologier

og de HSE relaterede risici, samt at der er leverandø-

rer der er i stand til at levere fuldskalaanlæg [31].

I Norge har Folkhelseinstituttet sat grænseværdier for nitrosaminer og nitrami-

ner i luft (immission) og vand, hvilke har været anvendt i godkendelser af amin-

baserede fangstanlæg [32].

I Storbritannien er der Environmental Assessment Levels (EAL's) for nogle ami-

ner men ikke for alle,

der anvendes til CO₂-fangst.

Arbejdsmiljøgrænseværdier

(OEL) findes for aminen "MEA," og det anføres, at den vil kunne bruges til at ud-

vikle en EAL for "MEA" mellem 5

μg/m³

(long-term) and 15,2

μg/m³

(15 minute

short-term). Foreslåede sundhedsbaserede grænseværdier for Nitrosaminer lig-

ger mellem 0,07 ng/m³-10 ng/m³.

Det er også på tale at bruge et reference amin (NDMA) på linje med f.eks. hvor-

dan benzo(a)pyrene anvendes som reference i forbindelse med polyaromatiske

hydrocaboner (PAH'er).

Det nævnes i samme rapport at den norske EAL på 0,3 ng/m³ (maks værdi) for

nitrosaminer og nitraminer (NDMA) ikke kan bruges direkte, da Storbritannien

har en anden måde at vurderer kræftfremkaldende stoffer [28].

Der er endvidere i Storbritannien i 2021 udarbejdet et review af Best Available

technolgy (BAT) af aminbaserede fangst teknologier til anvendelse på gas og

biomassefyrede energianlæg [21] som har resulteret i en BAT-vejledning til brug

for anlægsoperatører og myndigheder [33]. I samme forbindelse er der også

fastsat EALs for mono-ethanolamine (MEA) og N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

›

MEA EAL for luft: 24 h gennemsnit: 0,1 mg/m³, 1h gennemsnit 0,4 mg/m³

NDMA EAL for luft: Årligt gennemsnit: 0,2 ng/m³

For chilled ammonia processen er det primært udledning af ammoniak, der skal

undgås og kontrolleres. Det anføres, at der findes tilgængelige renseteknologier

i tilfælde af eventuelle høje udledningskoncentrationer [25].

Oxyfuel processen vil typisk have en reduceret NO

emission sammenlignet med

forbrændingsprocesser med atmosfærisk luft [34].

I rapport fra anlæg i Lacq anføres ingen væsentlige miljøpåvirkninger fra oxyfuel

fangstanlægget [35].

Ved et

retrofit af CO₂-fangst

på et eksisterende anlæg skal man være opmærk-

som på, at der vil ske en ændring af røggastemperatur, flow og vandmætning,

der influerer emissionskoncentrationer og spredning af røggassen.

I rapport fra International Energy Agency IEA fra 2011 er konklusionen at af-

hængig af valg af capture teknologi og synergier kan være tradeoffs, hvad angår

emission af NOx, NH₃, SO₂ and PM

[20]. Det påpeges at der fra anlæg med

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

CO₂-fangst

ved brug af aminer kan opstå en øget direkte udledning af NO

PM, idet effektiviteten af anlægget vil falde. SO₂ emissionen fra anlæg med CO₂-

fangst vurderes at falde, idet der er høje krav til SO₂ indhold i røggassen forud

for fangstprocessen. NH₃

emission kan forventes at stige for de amin baserede

fangst teknologier. For de øvrige fangstteknologier forventes ligeledes tradeoffs.

Udledning af procesvand

Der kan også ske emission af amin og nedbrydningsprodukter via spildevand

specielt amintab via spildevand fra scrubbersystemet vurderes at være et op-

mærksomhedspunkt. Der refereres til målte værdier af nitrosaminer i spildevand

i koncentrationer op til 6,79 g/l. Nedbrydelighed af nitrosaminer i vand varierer

betydeligt [28].

I Storbritannien foreligger der ikke en grænseværdi for nitrosaminer i vand, idet

der ikke foreligger tilstrækkelig data for de økotoksikologiske effekter [28].

For oxyfuel udkondenseres større mængder vand fra røggassen, hvilket dog er

tilsvarende ved normal forbrænding. Dette vand skal renses som typisk røggas-

kondensat.

Støj

Støjkilder på fangstanlæg vil være kompressor, booster sugetræksblæser samt

cirkulationspumper på anlægget. CO₂-kompressoren

vil skulle placeres i en lyd-

isoleret og ventileret bygning. Der er ikke fundet kilder som nævner støj som en

væsentlig miljøpåvirkning fra CO₂-fangstanlæg.

Arker, der leverer CO₂-fangstanlæg, beskriver at der i forbindelse med CO₂-

fangstanlæg skal laves passende støjreducerende tiltag [29].

Affaldsprodukter

Reclaimer processen for både aminbaserede og chillede ammonia anlæg vil re-

sultere i affald der skal bortskaffes. Affaldets sammensætning og indhold af far-

lige stoffer og form vil afhænge af specielt reclaimer processen [36].

Aminaffald er nævnt som en væsentlig miljømæssig påvirkning. Der estimeres 1

kg amin affald per 1 ton CO₂.

Energiforbrug til processen

Amin

baseret CO₂-fangst

nævnes som en meget energikrævende proces specielt

til regenereringsprocessen [29] og tilstedeværelse og brug af "overskudsenergi"

fra øvrige processer er vigtig for at holde det samlede energiforbrug nede.

En energianalyse udført på forskellige scenarier for CO₂-fangst

på affaldsfor-

brændingsanlæg i DK nævner ligeledes, at CO₂-fangst

kræver en betydelig

mængde varme i form af damp til stripperen og det er vigtigt for at få en høj

samlet effektivitet at så meget af varme

fra CO₂-fangstprocessen

genvindes til

fjernvarmeproduktion. Ved introduktion af varmepumper kan fjernvarmeproduk-

tionen øges med op til 20 % i forhold til et anlæg uden

CO₂-fangst,

men til gen-

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

gæld falder elproduktionen fra ca. 15 MW til ca. 6,5 MW for et anlæg med en af-

faldsbehandlingskapacitet på 30 ton/h. Det konkluderes, at der er et behov for

en afvejning mellem reduktion i produceret elektricitet og en øget varmegenvin-

ding og fjernvarmeproduktion i det konkrete projekt [37].

I rapport fra Det Europæiske Miljøagentur nævnes, at der for det enkelte projekt

er behov for at se på hele CCS kæden i et livscyklus perspektiv for at vurdere

CO₂ fodaftryk og øvrige emissioner

[38].

Det er i samme rapport nævnt at CO₂-fangst

på energianlæg samlet set vil be-

tyde et øget energiforbrug på 15-25% til energiproduktion, transport, konditio-

nering og mellemlagring.

Det norske Longship CCS projekt har vurderet, at der skal anvendes ca. 1,2–1,5

MWh/ton CO₂. Omkring 2/3 af energiforbruget er til varme, det øvrige er til

og til brændstof til skibe. Den største andel af energiforbruget bruges til CO₂-

fangst og liquefaction.

En livscyklus analyse (LCA) af samme projekt viser at for "worst case" scenariet

er CO₂ footprint 0,099 ton CO₂ udledt / ton CO₂ til lager.

I rapport fra IASS [25] nævnes et højt energiforbrug som en miljøpåvirkning for

både oxy-fuel og chilled ammonia teknologierne. Herudover nævnes indirekte

energiforbrug til NH₃ produktion anvendt i chilled ammonia fangst processen.

I Bref dokumentet (Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document) for

store fyringsanlæg er det estimeret, at energiforbruget til CCS vil give anledning

til at netto el-effektiviteten reduceres med 8-12% [39].

Øvrige påvirkninger

Aker, der leverer CO₂-fangstanlæg, beskriver at der i forbindelse med CO₂-

fangstanlæg skal laves passende tiltag i forhold til reduktion af udledning af

varmt vand til recipient [29].

6.2.4 Afvikling

Der er ikke identificeret referencer der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved afvik-

ling af CO₂-fangstanlæg.

De miljømæssige forhold ved afvikling vurderes at være sammenlignelige med,

hvad der findes i forbindelse med afvikling af andre industrielle anlæg.

Det omfatter typisk: Støv og øvrige emissioner til luft knyttet til afviklingen, af-

faldsgenerering, eventuel udledning af overfladevand, CO₂-aftryk

under afvikling

samt generering af støj.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

6.3

Natur

6.3.1 Forundersøgelser

Der er ikke identificeret referencer, hvor der fremgår en naturpåvirkning som

følge

af de undersøgelser, som er nødvendige forud for etablering af CO₂-

fangstanlæg.

De naturmæssige forhold ved forundersøgelser vurderes herudover at være

sammenligneligt med hvad der findes i forbindelse med andre tilsvarende indu-

strielle anlæg.

6.3.2 Anlæg og etablering

For Lacq fangstanlæg, er der tale om CO₂-fangst

fra en eksisterende naturgas-

produktion. Det er derfor vurderet i forbindelse med miljøvurdering af projektet,

at der ikke er en påvirkning på omgivende flora, fauna og jordbund, da installa-

tionerne til CO₂-fangst

etableres inden for det eksisterende anlæg [35].

De naturmæssige forhold ved anlæg og etablering vurderes herudover at være

sammenligneligt med hvad der findes i forbindelse med andre tilsvarende indu-

strielle anlæg.

6.3.3 Drift

For Lacq fangstanlæg, er det vurderet i forbindelse med miljøvurdering af pro-

jektet, at der ikke sker en yderligere påvirkning på omgivende flora, fauna og

jordbund eller emissioner, støj og trafik. Overvågning af flora og fauna over en

5-årig periode har ikke vist ændringer i området [35].

Der er ikke identificeret referencer, hvor der fremgår en naturpåvirkning som

følge af eventuelt

udslip af aminer fra et CO₂-fangstanlæg.

6.3.4 Afvikling

Der er ikke identificeret referencer, som omhandler naturpåvirkningen ved afvik-

ling af et CO₂-fangstanlæg.

Det forventes dog, at naturpåvirkningen ved afvik-

ling af fangstanlæg generelt vil svare til påvirkningerne i anlægsfasen og sam-

menligneligt med tilsvarende industrielle anlæg.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Mellemlager faciliteter - Vurdering af

sikkerhed, natur og miljø

Sikkerhed

7.1

7.1.1 Forundersøgelser

Der er ikke identificeret relevante referencer med omtale af sikkerhedsforhold

specifikt relateret til forundersøgelser til etablering af CO₂-mellemlagre.

7.1.2 Anlæg og etablering

Der er ikke identificeret relevante referencer med omtale af sikkerhedsforhold

specifikt relateret til anlæg og etablering af CO₂-mellemlagre.

7.1.3 Drift

Almindelige farer ved drift af trykbærende udstyr i form af operationelle forhold

der kan føre til farlige trykstigninger, er også gældende for CO₂-mellemlager.

Det antages at mellemlagre etableres på land. Der skal her være opmærksom-

hed på etablering af sikkerhedszoner omkring faciliteterne som følge af risikoen

ved udslip af CO₂.

I afsnit 5.1.1 er det vurderet, at der kan være afstande til en

dødelighed på 1

–

5% på op til 300 meter for et stort momentant udslip og op til

200 meter for et kontinuert udslip fra en stor lækage. I Northern Lights projek-

tet er der for mellemlageret udarbejdet konturer for stedbunden risiko, som indi-

kerer at de gældende danske acceptkriterier kan overholdes, hvis der i en af-

stand på ca. 500 meter ikke placeres institutioner, der indgår i det offentlige be-

redskab eller findes institutioner med svært evakuerbare personer og i en af-

stand på ca. 200 meter ikke placeres boliger eller anden følsom anvendelse. Det

vil være nødvendigt med lignende analyser for konkrete projekter.

I afsnit 5 er der en beskrivelse af de mulige farer og konsekvenser ved håndte-

ring og udslip af CO₂.

Der er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld med CO₂-mellemlagre

i de undersøgte

referencer.

7.1.4 Afvikling

Ved afvikling

(nedrivning) af CO₂-mellemlagre

skal der udover de almindelige

arbejdsmiljøregler være fokus på, at der ikke findes ansamlinger af stoffer og

materialer i anlæggene, som kan udgøre en fare for medarbejderne i forbindelse

med nedrivningsaktiviteterne. Umiddelbart er der ikke identificeret hjælpestof-

fer, som kan udgøre en fare ved nedrivning af mellemlagre. Undtagelse kan

være ammoniak i køleanlæg.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Der er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld med CO₂-mellemlagre

i de undersøgte

referencer.

For mellemlagre vurderes der ikke at være fare for forurening af faciliteterne

med farlige stoffer, som der skal tages hensyn til i forbindelse med nedrivnin-

gen.

7.2

Miljø

7.2.1 Forundersøgelser

Der er ikke fundet referencer der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved forundersø-

gelser

for mellemlagre for CO₂.

De miljømæssige forhold ved forundersøgelser af mellemlagre vurderes at være

sammenlignelige med hvad der findes i forbindelse med forundersøgelser for an-

dre industrielle oplag af gas.

Det skal i forbindelse med planlægning sikres, at den valgte placering sker under

hensyn til de risikomæssige og miljømæssige forhold. Det nødvendige plan-

grundlagt skal sikres og de nødvendige tilladelser være indhentet.

7.2.2 Anlæg og etablering

Der er kun fundet få referencer der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved anlæg og

etablering af mellemlager for CO₂.

De miljømæssige påvirkninger under anlæg og etablering af mellemlager for

CO₂ vurderes at være tilsvarende dem som identificeres for typiske øvrige indu-

strielle lagre af gas og kemikalier.

Dette dækker følgende væsentligste påvirkninger der skal overvejes i de kon-

krete tilfælde: Støv og øvrige emissioner til luft knyttet til anlægsarbejde, brug

af ressourcer, eventuel udledning af overfladevand eller vand fra grundvands-

sænkning, CO₂ aftryk i anlægsfase samt generering af støj.

I miljøkonsekvensrapporten for Northern Lights projektet nævnes at et tankan-

læg med 12 tanke, hvor toppen af tankene vil nå op i ca. kote +45 har en stor

visuel betydning i det åbne landskab og vil ændre landskabets karakter [40].

7.2.3 Drift

Der er kun identificeret få referencer der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved drift

af mellemlager for CO₂.

De miljømæssige påvirkninger under drift af mellemlager for CO₂ vurderes at

være meget tilsvarende dem som identificeres for typiske øvrige industrielle

lagre af gas, olie og kemikalier.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Dette dækker følgende væsentligste påvirkninger der skal overvejes i de kon-

krete tilfælde: Støj fra pumper, kompressorer og andet industrielt udstyr, even-

tuelle diffuse emissioner af CO₂, brug af kemikalier

til konditionering, korrosi-

onsbeskyttelse mv. eventuelle udledninger via overfladevand og risiko for spild.

Herudover eventuelle planlagte udledning af CO₂ og evt. N2 i forbindelse med

vedligehold.

I miljøkonsekvensrapporten for Northern Lights projektet nævnes, at anlægget

vil kunne efterleve støjkrav.

Endvidere nævnes at der ikke er planlagt udledning

af CO₂ under normale drifts-

forhold. Kun i den unormale driftssituation, hvor anlægget ikke kan injicere gas i

en længere periode, og der sker en trykforøgelse i anlægget, vil der kunne være

behov for trykaflastning og udledning af CO₂

[17].

Herudover nævnes, at der ikke er risiko for forurening af overfladevand fra mel-

lemlageret, idet der ikke vurderes at være kilder til en sådan forurening. Alt ud-

styr, som indeholder olie til køling, smøring, hydraulik mv. vil blive etableret så-

ledes at eventuelle spild opsamles [17].

7.2.4 Afvikling

Der er ikke fundet referencer der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved afvikling af

mellemlager for CO₂.

De miljømæssige forhold ved afvikling vurderes at være sammenlignelige med,

hvad der findes i forbindelse med afvikling af andre industrielle anlæg.

Dette dækker følgende væsentligste påvirkninger der skal overvejes i de kon-

krete tilfælde: Affald i form af ikke genanvendelige anlægsdele, støj fra demon-

tering og nedtagning, energiforbrug og emissioner fra transport og maskineri,

eventuel udledning

af CO₂ fra tømning af anlæg, eventuel brug af kemikalier til

rensning af anlægsdele forud for nedtagning.

7.3

Natur

Naturpåvirkningen ved etablering af mellemlagerfaciliteter vil primært afhænge

af anlæggets placering i forhold til den eksisterende natur. Arealbehov og an-

lægsfase vil medføre de samme naturpåvirkninger som ved etablering af andre

anlæg, f.eks. inddragelse af beskyttede eller sårbare naturtyper og forstyrrelse

af beskyttede arter som følge af fysiske indgreb, trafik og støj.

7.3.1 Forundersøgelser

Forud for etablering af mellemlagerfaciliteter vil der typisk blive foretaget feltun-

dersøgelser (som for Northern Lights [41]) , som ikke i sig selv har en påvirk-

ning på flora og fauna.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

7.3.2 Anlæg og etablering

Øget trafik og støj fra anlægsarbejdet kan forstyrre fugle og pattedyr især i yng-

leperioden om foråret, hvor særligt større rovfuglearter er følsomme for forstyr-

relse [41].

For Northern Lights CO₂-lager

er det vurderet, at skibstrafikken i anlægsfasen til

og fra selve anlægget ved Ljøsøyna vil forårsage mest støj for fisk, da anlægsar-

bejdet vil foregå over et par år. De fleste studier viser, at skader på fisk fra støj-

eksponering ikke fører til negative effekter på fiskebestande. [40]

7.3.3 Drift

For mellemlager facilitet for Northern Lights, placeret ved kysten ca. 30 km

nordvest for Bergen, er det potentielle influensområde for naturpåvirkninger af-

grænset til op til 500 meter fra anlægget [41].

For det konkrete projekt, er det vurderet, at arealbehovet har den største på-

virkning i form af forringelse af naturområder med lokal landskabsøkologisk

funktion [41] [40].

På grund af den konkrete placering, er der ikke en øget støjpåvirkning eller en

væsentlig påvirkning af vigtige naturtyper eller rekreative aktiviteter i form af

trekking- og vandreruter [41].

Uheld på mellemlagerfaciliteter er beskrevet i afsnit 7.1.3 og konsekvensen ved

indånding af CO₂ er beskrevet i afsnit

5.1.1.

Påvirkningen på natur ved et uheld/udslip af CO₂,

herunder kuldepåvirkning, er

ikke vurderet i forbindelse med Northern Lights.

7.3.4 Afvikling

Naturpåvirkningen ved afvikling af mellemlagerfaciliteter er ikke vurderet speci-

fikt for Northern Lights projektet. Det forventes dog, at naturpåvirkningen ved

afvikling af mellemlagerfaciliteter generelt vil svare til påvirkningerne i anlægs-

fasen og er endvidere sammenligneligt med, hvad der findes for andre industri-

elle oplag af gas.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Geologisk lagring af CO₂ på land

og til

havs - Vurdering af sikkerhed, natur og

miljø

Sikkerhed

8.1

8.1.1 Forundersøgelser

Ved forundersøgelser er der mulighed for, at man under boringer offshore ram-

mer lommer af kulbrinter i form af olie eller gas, som kan resultere i et blowout.

Blowouts af kulbrinter medfører risiko for brand og eksplosion, samt forurening

af havmiljøet i tilfælde af udslip af olie. Sandsynligheden vurderes som lav, da

der forud for boringerne er udført seismiske undersøgelser, som vil kunne give

information om eventuel forekomst af olie og gas i undergrunden.

Der er rapporteret om blowouts fra boringer i naturlige

forekomster af CO₂,

f.eks. ved geotermi og ved udvinding af CO₂ fra naturlige kilder

[15], se også

afsnit 5.1.1. Mest prominent i Sheep Mountain, CO, USA i 1982, hvor det tog en

uge at stoppe udslippet. Der er fra de nævnte uheld ikke blevet rapporteret om

alvorlig skade på mennesker eller miljø.

CO₂ i undergrunden findes typisk i områder med vulkansk aktivitet

og der er

ikke kendskab til naturlige forekomster af CO₂ i den danske undergrund.

Det

vurderes med den danske geologi, således meget lidt at sandsynligt at ramme

naturlige forekomster af CO₂ ved boringer i forbindelse med forundersøgelser.

Der er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld med større udslip i forbindelse med for-

undersøgelser for

geologisk CO₂ lagring.

8.1.2

Anlæg og etablering

Som for forundersøgelser gælder det, at der er mulighed for blowouts ved borin-

ger i forbindelse med etableringen, med de samme farer som nævnt for forun-

dersøgelser.

Der er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld med større udslip i forbindelse med an-

læg og etablering af

geologisk CO₂ lagring.

8.1.3 Drift

Ved driften af et geologisk lager injiceres der CO₂ i et reservoir i undergrunden.

Dette sker under tryk og hvis man mister kontrollen med processen eller får en

stor lækage på udstyret, er der risiko for et stort udslip til omgivelserne.

Hvis den oplagrede CO₂ af en eller anden grund migrerer mod overfladen kan

der ske forholdsvis store udslip af CO₂.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Der er i flere tilfælde rapporteret om dødsfald og skader på vegetationen ved

udsivning fra naturlige forekomster af CO₂

[15]. I referencen nævnes f.eks.:

Uheld ved Mammoth Mountain, CA, USA: én person er død, uheld ved Solfatara i

Italien: skader på vegetation i et areal af 0,5 km², uheld i Albani Hills i Italien:

død af husdyr, uheld ved Clear Lake, CA, USA: 4 personer døde, uheld ved La-

tera caldera, Italien: skader på vegetation og uheld i Dieng, Indonesien: 145

personer døde.

Der er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld specifikke for drift af geologiske CO₂

lagre i de undersøgte referencer, herunder store udsivninger på grund af migre-

ring af den oplagrede CO₂.

De mulige konsekvenser af et stort momentant

udslip af CO₂ er beskrevet i af-

snit 5.

8.1.4 Afvikling

For lagre der er er velanalyserede, hvor der sker løbende monitorering og er pla-

ceret i områder, hvor den tektoniske aktivitet er lav, vurderes risikoen for store

momentane udslip af CO₂

for værende meget lille.

Som nævnt i det forrige afsnit er der kendte eksempler på udsivning fra natur-

lige forekomster af CO₂ i undergrunden.

Der er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld specifikke for geologiske CO₂ lagre, hvor

der ikke længere injiceres CO₂, i de undersøgte referencer,

herunder store ud-

sivninger på grund af migrering af den oplagrede CO₂.

De mulige konsekvenser af et stort momentant udslip af CO₂ er beskrevet i af-

snit 5.

8.2

Miljø

8.2.1 Forundersøgelser

Offshore og kystnære geologiske lagre

Der er kun fundet én referencer der decideret forholder sig til den miljømæssige

påvirkning ved forundersøgelser i forbindelse med

geologisk lagring af CO₂.

Specifikke CCS projekt referencer angiver primært, hvilke tekniske metoder der

har været anvendt i forundersøgelserne. Metoder som er tilsvarende dem som er

beskrevet under 10A.3.1.

Metoderne vurderes endvidere at være meget tilsvarende dem som bruges i for-

bindelse med kortlægning og undersøgelse af lagre til olie og gas, hvorfor der

kan hentes erfaring fra f.eks. miljøvurderingsrapporter for oliegas projekter.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

I miljøkonsekvensrapport for Northern Lights projektet [40] er nævnt følgende

miljømæssige påvirkninger fra forundersøgelserne:

›

Udledninger til vand af kemikalier, boremudder, borespåner og cement mv.

i forbindelse med boring og etablering af brønd.

Støj og emissioner fra undersøgelsesskibe og borerig i forbindelse med hhv.

undersøgelser, boring, transport og energiforbrug

I Northern Lights projektet forventes primært brug og udledning af kemikalier

klassificeret jf. OSPAR klassificeringen

som "grønne" og kun enkelte gule i for-

bindelse med brøndboring og etablering.

Herudover nævnes et gennemsnitlig dieselforbrug for en borerig (West Hercules)

til 44 ton per døgn, og at boringen har en estimeret varighed på 75 døgn inklu-

sive brøndtest.

Tilsvarende miljømæssige påvirkninger ses i forbindelse med boring og seismi-

ske undersøgelser udført i forbindelse med oliegasproduktion som f.eks. beskre-

vet i Redegørelse for miljømæssige og sociale virkninger ESIS-Tyra, september

2017 [42].

Energistyrelsen har udarbejdet en række standardvilkår for forundersøgelser til

havs samt en vejledning vedrørende boring, som også må forventes at dække

forundersøgelser og boringer i forbindelse med geologisk lagring [43] [44].

Onshore geologiske lagre

Typen af forundersøgelser på land vurderes ikke at være meget anderledes end

dem som er beskrevet for offshore. Den store forskel vil være at forundersøgel-

serne sker med maskiner og udstyr på land. Det betyder, at de miljømæssige

påvirkninger vil ske på land i mindre afstand til mennesker, beboelse og natur-

arealer på land. Affald og spild vurderes at udgøre en mindre miljømæssig på-

virkning idet der på land kan ske en kontrolleret opsamling og håndtering.

8.2.2 Anlæg og etablering

Offshore og kystnære geologiske lagre

Der er kun identificeret få referencer der decideret forholder sig til den miljø-

mæssige påvirkning ved

anlæg og etablering af et geologisk lager af CO₂.

Kemikalier klassificeres jf. OSPAR i grupperne: PLONOR (grønne), Ranking

(gule), Substitution (røde). Typisk gives tilladelse til anvendelse af grønne og

gule kemikalier hvorimod røde kun kan avendes efter en særskilt tilladelse fra

Miljøstyrelsen. Sorte kemikalier er de mest skadelige for havmiljøet, og en ud-

skiftning har højt prioriteret. De er optaget på en særlig liste over miljøskadelige

stoffer.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

I anlægs-

og etableringsfasen skal der bores en brønd til injektion af CO₂ og de

permanente installationer til injektion på land hhv. på offshore installation skal

etableres.

I miljøkonsekvensrapport for Northern Lights projektet [40] er nævnt følgende

miljømæssige påvirkninger fra anlæg og etablering:

›

Udledninger til vand af kemikalier, boremudder, borespåner og cement mv.

i forbindelse med boring og etablering af brønd. Herudover nævnes anven-

delse af mindre mængde radioaktiv materiale samt udledning af formations-

vand i forbindelse med brøndtest.

›

Støj og emissioner fra supportskibe og borerig i forbindelse med hhv. trans-

port og energiforbrug

Tilsvarende miljømæssige påvirkninger ses i forbindelse med boring og seismi-

ske undersøgelser udført i forbindelse med oliegasproduktion beskrevet i f.eks.:

Redegørelse for miljømæssige og sociale virkninger ESIS-Tyra, september 2017

[42].

Onshore geologiske lagre

Anlæg og etablering af geologisk lager på land vurderes ikke at være meget an-

derledes end som er beskrevet for et offshore lager. Den store forskel er at an-

læg og etablering sker på land med landgående maskiner og transportmetoder.

Det betyder, at der i langt højere grad vil være risiko for påvirkning af menne-

sker i umiddelbar nærhed af site. Samtidig vurderes f.eks. affald og spild at ud-

gøre en mindre miljømæssig påvirkning idet der på land kan ske en kontrolleret

opsamling og håndtering.

8.2.3 Drift

Drift af geologisk

lager indbefatter injektion af CO₂ i lageret, vedligehold af

brønd samt monitorering af lageret.

Offshore og kystnære geologiske lagre

De miljømæssige påvirkninger nævnt for Northern Lights projektet inkluderer

[40]:

›

Anvendelse og udledning af nitrogen til spuling og test af anlægget.

Risiko for ventilering af et overskudsvolumen af CO₂ ved opstart og ventile-

ring.

Udledning af hydraulikvæske fra åbning af fjernstyrede ventiler på subsea-

installationer. Der estimeres en udledning på ca. 2.000 liter pr brønd pr år.

Udledningen forventes at være højere i starten på grund af hyppigere test.

›

Mulig udledning af kemikalier i forbindelse med brøndtest

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

›

Mindre diffuse

udledninger af CO₂ fra tryksatte koblinger, flanger og venti-

ler

Øget energiforbrug inkl. tilhørende emissioner til drift af ventiler mv. ved

brønden

Det estimeres at drift af modtageanlæg og permanent geologisk

CO₂ lager vil

medføre en CO₂ udledning på 0,1 % af modtage kapaciteten for lageret

[40].

Monitorering udført fra 1996 og frem til 2017 af CO₂ udledning fra Sleipner vi-

ser, at der ikke sker udledning af CO₂

[45]. Konklusionen fra den løbende moni-

torering af dette projekt er blandt andet at CO₂ forbliver

sikkert i lageret og at

seismiske undersøgelser er vigtige i monitorering af lageret både i forhold til ud-

slip og i forhold til CO₂'ens opførsel i lageret

[45].

Onshore geologiske lagre

Drift af et onshore lager for CO₂ vurderes ikke at have væsentlige anderledes

miljømæssig påvirkning end et offshore lager for CO₂. Herudover kan et onshore

lager for CO₂ sammenlignes med onshore lager for naturgas f.eks. Stenlille.

I miljøvurdering hhv. miljøgodkendelse for Stenlille gaslager [46] [47] nævnes

følgende miljømæssige påvirkninger:

›

Røggasemissioner fra kedler og nødgeneratorer ved test og eventuelle

strømudfald.

Risiko for udslip af gas ved trykaflastning af udstyr

Støj fra ventiler, kompressorer og andet udstyr

Risiko for lækage af gas til grundvandsmagasin eller øvre jordlag

Risiko for lækage af forurenende stoffer fra f.eks. olietank og fra lager og

håndtering af formationsvand

Det anføres at drift og indretningen af lageret skal tilrettelægges på en sådan

måde, at muligheden for grundvandsforurening i praksis kan udelukkes. Det er

endvidere vurderet at mulighederne for at monitere et eventuelt gasudslip, før-

end det kan medføre nogen skade i området, er særdeles gunstige ved Stenlille.

I dokumentationen fra pilotanlægget i Lacq, Frankrig anføres det, at der ikke er

detekteret tilfælde af CO₂ lækage og at der ikke har være påvirkning af økosy-

stemet [48]. Miljøvurdering fra samme projekt konkluderer endvidere, at der

ikke er påvist væsentlige miljøpåvirkninger [35] af projektet.

Også data fra Illinois Basin, Decatur projektet

viser at CO₂ bliver i

det geologi-

ske lager. Det anføres at der ikke

er identificeret CO₂ lækager eller andre væ-

sentlige påvirkninger [49].

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Ovenstående

erfaringer fra de enkelte CO₂ lagre

underbygges af en opsumme-

rende artikel fra The Electricity Journal. Her anfører at de seneste 50 års erfa-

ring med

geologisk lagring af CO₂ viser

at sandsynligheden for større udsivning

CO₂ er meget

lav [50].

8.2.4 Afvikling og monitorering

Afvikling af en geologisk lagring for CO₂ vil bestå af brøndlukning –

eventuel de-

comissionering af installationer og rør. Herudover vil fortsat ske monitorering af

lageret.

I Northern Lights projektet anføres det, at ved afslutning af injektion og lukning

af lageret vil brønde lukkes og anlæg på havet vil blive fjernet jf. OSPAR-

beslutning 98/3. Rørledninger og kabler vil blive håndteret jf. gældende ret-

ningslinjer på lukningstidspunkt. Det anføres, at det forventes at rør og kabler

efterlades såfremt de ikke udgør en risiko for bundfiskeri [40].

Det er endvidere for det projekt aftalt, at der forud for lukning skal udarbejdes

en afviklingsplan, som i detalje beskriver lukning og nedtagning af anlægsdele,

samt hvordan overvågning af lageret tænkes udført efter afslutning af injektion.

Miljøforhold ved monitorering af det geologiske lager efter lukning vil svarer til

dem som er beskrevet under forundersøgelser.

Miljøforhold ved lukning og afvikling af permanente installationer inkl. rørlednin-

ger vurderes endvidere at være de samme, som ses ved tilsvarende anlæg an-

vendt til udvinding af olie og gas. Dog med den væsentlige fordel at anlæg og

anlægsdele ikke er forurenet med kulbrinter, og at der efter afvikling/lukning

skal fortsættes med løbende monitorering af det geologiske lager.

8.3

Natur

8.3.1 Forundersøgelser

Som en del af de indledende forundersøgelser gennemføres seismiske undersø-

gelser, som kan påvirke natur og levende organismer både på land og på vand.

Seismiske undersøgelser på land

Ved seismiske undersøgelser på land i Danmark, afhænger påvirkningen på na-

turen af, hvilket materiel og køretøjer, som anvendes og om undersøgelsen fo-

retages fra veje eller ubebyggede arealer. Vilkårene for undersøgelsen reguleres

gennem tilladelser til de enkelte forundersøgelser.

For seismiske undersøgelser på land i Grønland, er det i en rapport fra 2020 vur-

deret, at påvirkninger på naturen afhænger af, hvilke metoder der anvendes og

hvornår på året undersøgelserne udføres. Der anvendes meget store og tunge

køretøjer, der sætter store aftryk i landskabet ved at beskadige vegetation og

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

det organiske lag, hvorved permafrost og vandafstrømningsforhold ændres. Der

er også ofte tale om kraftige forstyrrelser af fugle- og dyrevildt. [51]

Af afværgeforanstaltninger, som kan være relevante for andre områder end de

arktiske, nævnes i undersøgelsen:

›

Forhindre nedsivning af brændstof og andre skadelige stoffer, f.eks. ved

placering af spildbakker, som vil kunne opsamle miljøfarlige væsker.

Planlægge hvornår og hvor, der køres med tunge køretøjer, for at forhindre

skade på vegetation og sårbare områder.

Mindske forstyrrelse af fugle- og dyrevildt, ved at undgå sårbare perioder

og områder som er udpeget som vigtige habitater for dyrevildt. [51]

I Danmark vil de samme typer af afværgeforanstaltninger være relevante at

overveje, især inden for arealer med naturbeskyttelse eller i områder, hvor der

findes beskyttede arter, som er sårbare overfor fysisk påvirkning og forstyrrel-

ser.

Marine seismiske undersøgelser

Ved seismiske undersøgelser til søs inden for dansk territorium, afhænger på-

virkningen på naturen af, hvilke fartøjer og metoder, som anvendes og i hvilket

konkret område undersøgelsen foretages. Vilkårene for undersøgelsen reguleres

gennem tilladelser til de enkelte forundersøgelser.

Seismiske undersøgelser på havet kan påvirke fisk og marine pattedyr [52]

[53] [40] [42]. Niveauet af påvirkningen fra undervandsstøj kan overordnet op-

deles i:

›

Hørbart niveau, som afhænger af arter

Maskering af øvrige lyde, f.eks. kommunikation

Påvirkning af adfærd, f.eks. fødesøgning

Fysiske skader på høreorganerne, i form af hørenedsættelse eller høretab.

Den konkrete påvirkningen vil afhænge af, hvilke arter der udsættes for under-

vandsstøj. Der er potentielt en direkte påvirkning af det enkelte individ i form af

høreskader eller -tab og en indirekte påvirkning af bestande, hvis fødesøgning

og navigation forstyrres. I miljøvurdering af Tyra, henvises der til et studie af

marsvin under en 2D-seismisk undersøgelse i Moray Firth, hvor det blev konsta-

teret, at dyr udviste kortvarig undvigeadfærd inden for 5-10 km omkring områ-

det for seismisk dataindsamling. Samlet set kan risikoen for virkninger på hav-

pattedyr være lokal (hørenedsættelse) eller regional (adfærdsmæssig). [42]

I forbindelse med Northern Lights, er der gennemført grundige miljøvurderinger

af påvirkningen ved at gennemføre marine seismiske undersøgelser. Northern

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Lights CO₂-lager

er placeret i den norske del af Nordsøen og forholdene er der-

for sammenlignelige med danske forhold, selvom der er specifikke arter og na-

turtyper, som ikke findes inden for den danske del af Nordsøen.

Dyrelivet i havet vurderes at påvirkes kraftigere af støj og på større afstande

end arter på land ved f.eks. seismiske undersøgelser, da lyd propagerer hurti-

gere og længere i vand end i atmosfærisk luft [3].

Seismiske luftkanoner kan påvirke fisks adfærd i området tæt på det seismiske

fartøj. I redegørelse for miljømæssige virkninger af opgradering af eksisterende

anlæg på Tyra-feltet, forventes det dog, at seismiske undersøgelser generelt

ikke vil føre til langvarige ændringer i fiskebestandenes størrelser og at virknin-

gen vurderes at være af lille intensitet, af lokalt omfang og af kort varighed

[42].

For hørenedsættelse og adfærdsmæssige virkninger på marine pattedyr vurde-

res påvirkningen at være af lille intensitet, da sandsynligheden for, at undersø-

gelsesfartøjer støder på havpattedyr og andre havarter i et område med risiko

for virkning, er lille. Det vurderes, at populationerne af havpattedyr i Nordsøen

ikke vil blive påvirket af seismiske aktiviteter ved TYRA-projektet. Virkningen

vurderes at være af lille intensitet, af lokalt eller regionalt omfang og mellem-

langvarige eller langvarige. Den overordnede virkning på havpattedyr af under-

vandsstøj fra seismiske undersøgelser vurderes at være af moderat negativ

overordnet betydning. [42]

For Northern Lights CO₂

lager, vil der før opstart af injektion blive gennemført

en baseline seismisk undersøgelse, som danner et sammenligningsgrundlag for

den senere overvågning af

CO₂.

Området som dækkes vil være i størrelsesorden

550 km², og undersøgelsen varer ca. to måneder og kan påvirke yngel og larver

af fisk, hvis undersøgelsen gennemføres i gydeperioden og umiddelbart efter

[40].

I Northern Lights projektet er det anført, at der gennem driftsperioden vil gen-

nemføres seismiske undersøgelser af det geologiske lager i en størrelsesorden

200 km². Her er det ligeledes anført at de seismiske undersøgelser kan give

skade på fisk og pattedyr. Det anføres, at påvirkningen er afhængig af metoden

der anvendes. En "soft start" angives som mulig afværgeforanstaltning således

at lydfølsomme fisk og pattedyr skræmmes bort. Det anføres at seismiske un-

dersøgelser med års mellemrum vil have midlertidige effekter på fiskebestande i

det berørte områder. [40]

For Northern Lights CO₂ lager er det

vurderet, at omfanget af direkte skade på

dyrenes hørelse er begrænset til nærområdet nogle hundrede meter fra kilden,

og at der ikke vil være en påvirkning på populationsniveau. Marsvin, spækhug-

ger og vågehval undviger ved lavere støjniveauer end mange andre arter, og det

I VVM-redegørelse for Tyra, henvises til følgende kilde:

Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF). 2003. Seismic surveys impact on fish

and fisheries by Ingebret Gausland.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

kan derfor ikke udelukkes, at seismiske undersøgelser kan påvirke de marine

pattedyr i området, hvor de seismiske undersøgelser gennemføres. Påvirkningen

er vurderet til noget forringet

[40].

Undervandsstøj er en form for energi, der i ekstreme tilfælde kan påvirke plank-

ton, f.eks. på grund af nedbrydning af celler (cellelyse). Undervandsstøj som be-

skrevet for Tyra-projektet, som omfatter olie-/gasindvinding i Nordsøen, kan ge-

nereres fra seismiske aktiviteter (luftkanoner, multibeam-ekkolod og sidesø-

gende sonar), spunsramning under konstruktion af nye platforme, ramning af

konduktorer, boring, afvikling og forskellige fartøjer. På grundlag af planktonpo-

pulationernes meget tætte bestandtæthed og deres høje reproduktion forventes

plankton at genoprette sig selv efter forstyrrelsen [42].

Skadelige påvirkninger af fisk og pattedyr som følge af seismiske undersøgelser

og overvågning, medfører en lokal, midlertidig påvirkning, hvor det er muligt at

undgå skadelige påvirkninger med afværgeforanstaltninger [52], f.eks. afværge-

tiltag som "soft-start" og brug af fiskerikyndigt mandskab ombord [40].

Af miljøvurderingen af Tyra-projektet, fremgår det, at risikoen for, at under-

vandsstøj påvirker havpattedyr i forbindelse med geofysiske aktiviteter og an-

lægsprojekter, generelt afværges ved hjælp af følgende tiltag:

›

På steder, hvor det må forventes, at der vil ske en påvirkning af havpatte-

dyr, vurderes den bedste tilgængelige teknologi.

Planlægning og effektiv udførelse af geofysisk dataindsamling og anlægs-

projekter, så den samlede varighed af arbejdet forkortes, og følsomme ar-

ters eksponering for støj minimeres.

›

Overvågning af havpattedyrenes tilstedeværelse inden iværksættelse af

støjende aktiviteter og i forbindelse med geofysisk dataindsamling eller an-

lægsarbejde.

›

Der etableres en eksklusionszone, hvor arbejdet bliver udsat, hvis der viser

sig at være havpattedyr til stede inden arbejdets påbegyndelse.

Procedurer til "soft" opstart, også kaldet ramp-up, skal benyttes i de områ-

der, hvor der er påvist aktivitet af havpattedyr. Det betyder, at lydsignalni-

veauet gradvist forøges til fuldt operationelt niveau, så dyret har mulighed

for at fjerne sig fra de generende lyde. Derved reduceres risikoen for even-

tuelle påvirkninger fra den genererede undervandsstøj. [42]

I Danmark vil de samme typer af afværgeforanstaltninger være relevante at

overveje, især inden for arealer med naturbeskyttelse eller i områder, hvor der

findes beskyttede arter, som er sårbare over for støj og forstyrrelser. Afværge-

Efter vurderingsmetode i miljøvurdering af Northern Lights.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

foranstaltninger vil blive fastlagt efter en konkret vurdering af et projekts på-

virkning og vil typisk omfatte foranstaltninger, som reducerer eller undgår væ-

sentlige, negative påvirkninger.

Visse foranstaltninger for at mindske eller undgå en påvirkning af marine patte-

dyr og fisk er allerede standardprocedure i Danmark og/eller en del af de tilla-

delser, som gives [43]. Der kan være identificerede påvirkninger, som forstyr-

relse af marine pattedyr i et større område, som ikke afværges med de foran-

staltninger, som typisk anvendes.

8.3.2 Anlæg og etablering til havs

Under anlæg og etablering kan der være behov for seismiske undersøgelser

–

påvirkning på natur under forundersøgelser i afsnit 8.3.1.

I anlægsfasen til havs kan marine pattedyr og fisk potentielt påvirkes af anlæg

af installationer [53], herunder støj fra skibstrafik, øget turbiditet

og risiko for

spredning af sedimenter, næringssalte og miljøgifte/kemikaliesammensætning

[40] [42].

Arealbehov

Afhængigt af det konkrete projekts placering og arealbehov, kan der være en

permanent påvirkning af natur- og miljøbeskyttelsesområder [3], herunder Na-

tura 2000-områder [54] [53], vigtige marine naturtyper samt gydeområder

[40].

I forbindelse med arealbehovet, kan der være et tab af områder for fisk der gy-

der på bunden (tobis) og reduceret fiskeri omkring anlæg og ikke nedgravede

rørledninger pga. fiskerifri zoner og sikkerhedszoner [53].

Havbund

Ved etablering og placering af anlæg, brønde og rørledninger, vil der være en

påvirkning af havbunden [3] [42], herunder permanent ødelæggelse af hav-

bund/habitater og midlertidig påvirkning som følge af sedimentspredning [52]

samt ændring af havbunden ved akkumulering af bore-mudder [53]. Boring af

brønde medfører ophobning af materiale med kemikalier bundet til sedimentet.

Sedimentet spredes hurtigt af vandstrømmen, men der er observeret lokale ef-

fekter i overvågningsprogrammer [52].

Fysisk forstyrrelse på havbunden kan forekomme under "site undersøgelser",

4D-seismiske undersøgelser, boring, installation af platforme og rørledninger

samt afvikling. De fysiske forstyrrelser fra disse aktiviteter forventes ikke at fo-

rekomme samtidig. [42]

Turbiditet anvendes om vandets klarhed/renhed og er et mål for suspenderet

stof i vandet, f.eks. fine partikler som mineraler, organiske stoffer og bakterier.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

For

Northern Lights CO₂ lager

forventes en lille spredning af partikler og dermed

miljøgifte i forbindelse med etablering af rørledningen og kun begrænset op-

hvirvling som følge af udlæg af sten langs rørledningen. Der forventes ingen på-

virkning på bundfaunaen som følge af sedimentspredning [40]. For projektet er

det desuden vurderet, at der vil ske en ændring af habitater, hvor der udlægges

sten langs rørledningen. Da det konkrete område ikke rummer sjældne arter el-

ler unik bundfauna og der samtidig er tale om et begrænset areal, er den sam-

lede påvirkning af bundfauna vurderet til ubetydelig [40].

I miljøvurdering af Tyra, er det vurderet, at den mest intense virkning på hav-

bunden forårsages af tracering, hvor nye rørledninger nedgraves til en dybde på

ca. 1.5-2 m under havbundsoverfladen. Tracering af rørledningen i havbunden

foregår ved hjælp af pløjning, nedspuling eller mekanisk skæring. Under denne

proces suspenderes havbundssediment ind i vandsøjlen. Baseret på erfaringer

fra andre rørledningsprojekter

vurderes det, at det suspenderede sediment

bundfældes inden for nogle få hundrede meter fra det forstyrrede område [42].

Støj og lys

Støjpåvirkning i forbindelse med seismiske undersøgelser/monitorering er be-

handlet i afsnit 8.3.1.

For Northern Lights CO₂ lager vil

installation af rørledning og kabler, samt etab-

lering af stenfyld i rørledningstracéet medføre støj. Det er vurderet, at der ikke

er nogen negativ påvirkning af marine pattedyr fordi arbejdet vil flytte sig og fo-

regå over en begrænset periode, hvor dyrene vil have mulighed for at trække

væk fra området under anlægsarbejdet. For den konkrete lokalitet, er der alle-

rede en høj grad af skibstrafik i området, og det forventes derfor ikke at skibs-

trafik i anlægsfasen vil påvirke marine pattedyr i nævneværdig grad. [40]

I det omfang, der anvendes belysning på fartøjer og faste installationer over

vandet, kan det have en påvirkning på arter over og under vandet [52]. Fugles

navigation kan blive forstyrret og de tiltrækkes især af lys på offshore olie-gas-

platforme, hvor belysningen har en effekt på store afstande [55]. I forbindelse

med Tyra, er det vurderet, at den potentielle forstyrrelse af fisk fra lys på rigge,

I VVM-redegørelsen for Tyra henvises til følgende kilder:

Neff, J.M., Anderson, J.W. 1981. Response of marine animals to petroleum and specific pe-

troleum hydrocarbons. Halsted Press. New York.

Nord Stream. 2009. Environmental Impact Assessment: Documentation for Consultation

under the Espoo Convention Nord Stream Espoo Report: Key Issue Paper Seabed Inter-

vention: Works and Anchor Handling.

Todd VLG, Todd IB, Gardiner JC, Morris ECN, MacPherson NA, DiMarzio NA, Thomsen F,

2015. Review of impacts of marine dredging activities on marine mammals. ICES Journal

of Marine Science 72, 328–340.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

platforme og fartøjer forventes at være lokal og sprede sig 90-100 m fra kilden

[42].

Vandkvalitet

Boring af brønd vil medføre støj og øget turbiditet i vandmasserne, som kan føre

til at marine pattedyr undviger området.

For Northern Lights CO₂ lager

forventes

det ikke at marine pattedyr bliver påvirket af boringen i nævneværdig grad [40].

Fisk påvirkes under anlægsarbejdet af øget turbiditet i vandsøjlen, som vil

kunne medføre dårligere sigt under fødesøgning og potentiel undvigelse af om-

rådet [40]. Havfugle kan ligeledes påvirkes af øget turbiditet, som kan gøre fø-

desøgningen mere udfordrende for fuglene, hvis anlægsarbejdet gennemføres i

sårbare perioder som yngleperioden [40].

Fisk er følsomme over for lydtryk og partikelbevægelse. Voksne fisk er meget

mobile og kan svømme væk fra områder, som er forstyrrende, i modsætning til

larver og yngel som er mindre mobile. Rørlægningsarbejdet flytter sig langs tra-

céet med ca. 4 km i døgnet, dvs. at støj og forstyrrelser i forbindelse med arbej-

det dermed vil foregå i en meget begrænset periode i det enkelte område [40].

I miljøvurdering af Tyra, er det vurderet, at virkningen på vandkvalitet, som

følge af suspenderet materiale ved anlæg af rørledningen, vurderes at være af

lille intensitet, af lokalt omfang og af kort varighed. [42]

Udledning af vandbaseret boremudder og vandbaserede borespåner under de

planlagte boreaktiviteter kan påvirke vand- og sedimentkvaliteten omkring bore-

riggen.

Når vandbaseret mudder og vandbaserede spåner, der er slam af partikler af

forskellige størrelser og tætheder i vand, der indeholder opløste salte og organi-

ske kemikalier, udledes til havet, dannes der en fane, som hurtigt fortyndes, da

den driver væk fra udledningsstedet med de dominerende vandstrømme. Feltun-

dersøgelser af koncentrationen af suspenderede stoffer i faner af boremudder og

-spåner i forskellige afstande fra boreaktiviteten har bekræftet dette mønster,

og det kan konkluderes, at koncentrationen af suspenderede borespåner og -

mudder falder meget hurtigt på grund af materialets sedimentation og fortyn-

ding [56] [57].

Kemikalier og næringsstoffer

Udslip af kemikaliebehandlet vand ved brønden fra klargøringen af rørledningen

før drift, er for Northern Lights planlagt gennemført i juli og august måned. Ma-

krel gyder i perioden maj-juli, mens nordsøsild gyder i perioden august–februar.

Begge arter har gydeområder langt fra brøndområdet, og det vurderes at udslip

af kemikalieholdigt vand hurtigt vil fortyndes og vil medføre ubetydelig påvirk-

ning på drivende æg og yngel. [40]

For Northern Lights CO₂-lager

er det vurderet, at rørlægning og udlægning af

sten kan give en lokal spredning af mindre mængder partikler og næringsstoffer

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

nær havbunden, samt eventuelle miljøgifte i sedimenterne i Hjeltefjorden. Dette

vil relativt hurtigt sedimentere igen. [40]

Udledningerne af vand, olie og kemikalier indeholder stoffer, der kan fungere

som næringsstoffer for fytoplankton og bakterier i vandet [42].

Plankton

For Northern Lights CO₂ lager

forventes ingen påvirkning på plankton ved etab-

lering af rørledning, da arbejdet medfører meget begrænset resuspension

sediment og kun på dybt vand. Der kan være miljøfarlige stoffer i det sendi-

ment, som ophvirvles fra havbunden, men det forventes ikke, at det vil være i

så høje koncentrationer, at det har en negativ påvirkning af det marine miljø.

Det vurderes, at der er en ubetydelig påvirkning, som er kortvarig, hurtigt re-

versibelt og kun påvirker et meget begrænset område. [40]

Forskellige aktiviteter ved Tyra-projektet forventes at medføre sedimentresu-

spension, og det kan føre til øget vandturbiditet og tilførsel af næringsstoffer

(primært ammonium og fosfat), der kan stimulere bakterie- og fytoplankton-

vækst i vandet [42].

8.3.3 Drift

Under drift og injektion kan der være behov for seismiske undersøgelser/moni-

torering

–

se påvirkning på natur under forundersøgelser i afsnit 8.3.1.

Offshore og kystnære geologiske lagre

Et EU-forskningsprojekt fra 2011-2015, ECO2, opsummerede påvirkninger på

marin natur ved CO₂-lagring

ved de aktive lagre, Sleipner og Snøhvit, samt et

kommende lager i Polen. Studiet undersøgte konsekvenser af CO₂-udslip

ved la-

boratorieforsøg, et kontrolleret forsøgsudslip ved Sleipner og undersøgelse af lo-

kaliteter med naturlig CO₂-udsivning. Forskningsprojektet konkluderer, at CO₂

gasbobler opløses inden for et par meter, og at forsuring/fald i pH-værdi forsvin-

der inden for 1 km. Studiet refererer til forsøg, som har vist, at fisk og skaldyr

kan blive påvirket ved konstante udledninger og lav pH-værdi, som over tid kan

opløse kalkskaller og muslinger. De miljømæssige påvirkninger af udslip vurde-

res samlet set som små, også ved potentielle

udslip fra flere CO₂-lagre.

[58]

I forbindelse med fysiske anlæg på havbunden, som ikke-nedgravede rørlednin-

ger, kan der opstå revlignende effekter [53]. Ved udlægning af sten langs rør-

ledningen og ved krydsninger, vil habitater i området ændres. For Northern

Lights er der tale om et område på 5.500 m², hvor det dog vurderes, at bund-

faunaen i området ikke er unik for området og at arterne findes flere steder

langs kysten. Områderne som dækkes til af sten er begrænsede. Der forventes

Opblanding af partikler/sediment i vandet, som f.eks. ophvirvles ved forstyr-

relse af havbunden under anlægsarbejde.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

ingen påvirkning på ansvarsarterne eller at biodiversiteten i området vil reduce-

res. Påvirkningen vurderes derfor som ubetydelig, med

ingen konsekvenser

for

bundfauna. [40]

Rørledninger kan få vandet til at strømme hurtigere foran rørledningen og der-

med erodere havbunden og/eller skabe aflejringer bag den. Vandbevægelsen

kan også bevirke, at bunden under rørledningen eroderer. Rørledninger med til-

knytning til Tyra-projektet nedgraves ved tracering eller dækkes med sten, hvil-

ket minimerer erosionsvirkningerne. [42]

Med hensyn til svampeorganismer, der lever på faste undervandskonstruktioner,

vil disse fungere som filtre for den plankton, der findes i de gennemstrømmende

vandmasser. Dette vil ændre den lokale fødekæde og dermed den lokale biologi-

ske produktion og nedbrydning af organisk stof i området. Selv om dette vil på-

virke økologien i et område, der er flere gange større end det område, der opta-

ges af felterne, er det stadig en mindre påvirkning af det regionale økosystem.

[42]

I miljøvurdering af Danmarks havplan, er det vurderet for de to udlagte områder

til CO₂-lagring

i Nordsøen, at der vil der være en forstyrrelse af kyst- og hav-

fugle på grund af skibstrafik i løbet af driftsfasen [53].

I forbindelse med EU's CO₂-lagringsdirektiv,

er det vurderet, at der i tilfælde af

meget usandsynlige mindre CO₂-lækager,

kun vil være lille lokal marin påvirk-

ning. Dette skyldes, at de marine økosystemer er robuste over for mindre ud-

sving i CO₂ koncentration. Selv ekstremt usandsynlige større lækager vil have

en begrænset og midlertidig effekt på marine økosystemer [59].

Den lille risiko for lokale marine økosystemer, som følge af CO₂-lagring,

skal op-

vejes med de omfattende påvirkninger, som klimaforandringer og relateret for-

suring af havene medfører i dag [59].

I forbindelse med eventuel

lækage fra Northern Lights CO₂ lager, er det vurde-

ret, at der vil være en ubetydelig påvirkning af det marine miljø. Dette er be-

grundet i typen af uheld, hvor der er tale om et akut udslip med begrænset

spredningsområde og at CO₂ forventes at blive fortyndet

hurtigt i vandmasserne

[40].

Onshore geologiske lagre

I driftsfasen for geologisk lagring på land, vil der være behov for at overvåge la-

geret og de eventuelle påvirkninger på jord, luft, flora og fauna samt grundvand

og overfladevand. Overvågningen kan have samme påvirkninger på naturen,

som for de indledende forundersøgelser i form af seismiske undersøgelser, be-

sigtigelser og opsætning af måleudstyr.

Jf. vurderingsmetode i miljøvurdering af Northern Lights projektet.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

For lagringsområdet ved Lacq har der været gennemført et overvågningspro-

gram gennem 5 år, baseret på et baseline studie i 2009. Overvågningen bestod

blandt andet af forskellige målestationer og regelmæssige registreringer. For på-

virkningen på flora og fauna er der påvist mindre fluktuationer over årene, som

kan tilskrives øvrige

påvirkninger end CO₂-lageret.

Det er dog samtidig vurde-

ret, at de 5 år er for kort en overvågningsperiode til at afskrive påvirkninger fra

CO₂-lageret

[35].

CO₂ anses ikke i sig selv som forurenende i vand, men ved opløsning

danner

CO₂ en svag syre, kulsure, som kan medføre udvaskning af andre forurenende

metaller eller mineraler, som arsenik, bly og organiske forbindelser, som kan

forurene grundvand og drikkevand. [60]

8.3.4 Afvikling

Under afvikling kan der være behov for seismiske undersøgelser/monitorering

–

se påvirkning på natur under forundersøgelser i afsnit 8.3.1.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Transport af CO₂ på land

og til havs -

Vurdering af sikkerhed, natur og miljø

Sikkerhed

9.1

9.1.1 Forundersøgelser

Der er ikke identificeret relevante referencer med omtale af sikkerhedsforhold

specifikt relateret til forundersøgelser for etablering af transport infrastruktur for

CO₂.

9.1.2 Anlæg og etablering

Hvad angår transport med lastvogn, tog eller skib antages det, at der vælges

eksisterende standardmateriel, som er indrettet i henhold til de internationale

transportregler for CO₂

(ADR, RID og IMDG). Derfor ingen specifikke forhold for

transport af CO₂.

Ved lægning af rørledninger er der en række fysiske farer (håndtering af tungt

udstyr, klemfare, druknefare og lign.), både til havs og på land, som ikke er re-

lateret specifikt til anlæg af

CO₂-rørledninger. I anlægsfasen er der ikke CO₂ i

rørledningerne

og derfor ingen fare for udslip af CO₂.

9.1.3 Drift

Ved transport med lastvogn, tog eller skib gælder de internationale transport-

regler

for CO₂

i henhold til ADR, RID og IMDG.

I estimaterne nævnt i afsnit 5.1.1 er der udregnet konsekvensafstande på ca. 30

meter til 1

–

5% dødelighed, for momentane udslip

på 50 tons CO₂, hvilket an-

tages at repræsentere et udslip fra en lastvogn eller en togvogn. For skibstanke,

som må formodes at være større, kan konsekvensafstanden være op til 300 me-

ter.

Almindelige forholdsregler for drift af trykbærende rørledninger er også gæl-

dende for

drift af rørledninger med CO₂.

I estimaterne nævnt i afsnit 5.1.1 er der udregnet konsekvensafstande

på ca.

200 meter, for et stort kontinuert udslip, som antages at repræsentere et stort

udslip fra en rørledning. Et fuldstændigt rørbrud vil give større konsekvensaf-

stande, men vi har ikke kendskab til modellering af sådanne udslip. Det må an-

tages at konsekvensafstanden i sådan et tilfælde er mindst 300 meter, svarende

til et momentant udslip på 2.000 tons. De nævnte konsekvensafstande gælder

Konsekvensafstanden er defineret som den afstand, inden for hvilken, der er

en risiko for død på 1-5%

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

for udslip til

atmosfæren. Ved udslip til havs vil den undslupne CO₂

fortyn-

des/optages i vandsøjlen, når den stiger op til overfladen, så den ikke udgør en

fare for mennesker.

I afsnit 5 er der en beskrivelse af de mulige farer og konsekvenser ved håndte-

ring og udslip af CO₂.

Der er fundet forskellige artikler i aviser og tidsskrifter om et uheld med udslip

fra en rørledning i USA i februar 2020. Der foreligger endnu ikke resultater af of-

ficielle undersøgelser af uheldet. Ud fra hvad der kan udledes af artiklerne, er

der tale om et totalt rørbrud på en nedgravet rørledning som følge af forskydnin-

ger i jorden efter heftige regnskyl. Gasskyen var angiveligt grønlig og stærkt

stinkende,

hvilket indikerer at der ikke var tale om ren CO₂. Angiveligt var der

også H₂S i rørledningen. Ingen mennesker

kom alvorligt til skade [61].

Der er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld med CO₂-transport

i de undersøgte refe-

rencer.

9.1.4 Afvikling

Ved demontering af rørledninger skal der udover de almindelige arbejdsmiljøreg-

ler være fokus på, at der ikke findes ansamlinger af stoffer og materialer i rør-

ledningerne, som kan udgøre en fare for medarbejderne i forbindelse med de-

monteringen. Umiddelbart er der ikke identificeret hjælpestoffer, som kan ud-

gøre en fare ved nedrivning af rørstrækninger.

Skrotning

af lastvogne, togvogne og skibe til transport af CO₂ vurderes ikke at

være relevant i denne sammenhæng.

Der er ikke fundet eksempler på uheld ved demontering af rørledninger i de un-

dersøgte referencer.

9.2

Miljø

9.2.1 Forundersøgelser

Rørledninger, Lastbil, godstog, skib

Der er ikke fundet referencer, der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved forunder-

søgelser for infrastruktur til transport af CO₂.

De miljø- og naturmæssige forhold ved forundersøgelser for infrastruktur til

transport af CO₂ vurderes at være sammenlignelige med hvad der findes i for-

bindelse med forundersøgelser for infrastruktur til transport af naturgas, LPG,

LNG og andre industrielle gasser.

Det skal i forbindelse med planlægning sikres, at det valgte tracé hhv. transport-

ruter sker under hensyn til de risikomæssige og natur- og miljømæssige forhold.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Det nødvendige plangrundlag skal sikres for rørledninger, og de nødvendige til-

ladelser være indhentet.

9.2.2 Anlæg og etablering

Rørledning

Der er kun identificeret få referencer der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved an-

læg og etablering af rør til transport af CO₂.

De miljømæssige påvirkninger under anlæg og etablering af ny rørledning for

CO₂ vurderes at være tilsvarende dem,

som identificeres for typiske øvrige rør-

ledninger anvendt til f.eks. transmission og distribution af naturgas.

Dette dækker følgende væsentligste miljøpåvirkninger der skal overvejes i de

konkrete tilfælde: Støv og øvrige emissioner til luft knyttet til anlægsarbejdet,

brug af ressourcer, eventuel udledning af overfladevand eller vand fra grund-

vandssænkning (kun på land), brug og udledning af kemikalier ved klargøring,

CO₂ aftryk i anlægsfase

samt generering af støj.

I miljøkonsekvensvurderingen for Northern Lights projektet er det er nævnt at

transportsystemet skal rengøres,

tryktestes og fyldes med flydende CO₂ forud

for drift og injektion af CO₂ i brønden. Tryktestning sker med kvælstof.

Der for-

ventes brug af "grønne" (inkl. MEG) og "gule" kemikalier under klargøring af rør-

ledning. Både kvælstof og kemikalier vil udledes til havet ved injektionsbrønden

[40].

Lastbil, godstog, skib

Ej relevant.

9.2.3 Drift

Rørledning

Der er kun identificeret få referencer der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved drift

af rørledning til transport af CO₂.

De miljømæssige påvirkninger under drift af ny rørledning for CO₂ vurderes at

være tilsvarende dem som identificeres for typiske øvrige rørledninger anvendt

til f.eks. transmission og distribution naturgas.

Der kan ved vedligeholdelses- eller reparationsarbejde skulle foretages en kon-

trolleret nedblæsning af sektioner

med udledning af CO₂.

For rørledningen til Northern Lights gennem Hjeltefjorden, er det vurderet, at

der ikke er nogen landskabelig påvirkning, da rørledningstracéet ikke er synligt

[40].

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

I USA har der været transporteret CO₂ i over 35 år og det estimeres at over 50

millioner ton CO₂ transporteres

hvert år i knap 6.000 km rørledning. Transport

via rørledning ses som den mest "cost" effektive løsning, og der vurderes ikke at

være barriere, hverken i forhold til design eller sikkerhed som vil kunne stå i ve-

jen for yderligere etablering i forbindelse med udvikling af CCS [60].

Skib

Der er ikke identificeret referencer der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved skibs-

transport af CO₂.

Miljøpåvirkningen fra skibstransport i driftsfasen vil være relateret til støj samt

energiforbrug og tilhørende forbrændingsemissioner og CO₂ aftryk. Herudover

kan være mindre diffus udledning af CO₂ fra tanke og koblinger.

Der sker allerede i dag transport af flydende naturgas (LNG) samt af flydende

petroleum gas (LPG).

Lastbil, godstog

Der er ikke identificeret referencer der specifikt beskriver miljøforhold ved last-

bilstransport af CO. Miljøpåvirkningen fra lastbilstransport i driftsfasen vil være

relateret til støj samt energiforbrug og tilhørende forbrændingsemissioner og

CO₂ aftryk. Herudover kan være mindre diffus udledning af CO₂ fra tanke og

koblinger.

Transport af CO₂ via lastbil foregår allerede i dag, og CO₂ sættevogne

er derfor

sikkerhedsmæssigt godkendt til vejtransport.

9.2.4 Afvikling

Rørledning

Se afsnit 8.2.4

Lastbil, godstog, skib

Ikke relevant.

9.3

Natur

9.3.1 Forundersøgelser

Se afsnit 9.2.1.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

9.3.2 Anlæg og etablering

Ved etablering

af CO₂-rørledninger

til havs, vil der være en fysisk påvirkning af

havbunden samt forstyrrelser i anlægsperioden. Se marine påvirkninger i afsnit

8.3.2.

Ved etablering af rørledninger på land, vil der være fysiske påvirkninger ved an-

lægsarbejde, nedgravning, trafik og øvrige påvirkninger, som kendes fra etable-

ring af f.eks. ledninger og gasrør.

Ved Lacq pilot projekt anvendes en ca. 30 meter rørledning på land mellem

fangstanlæg og onshore lagring. Rørledningen er en eksisterende gasledning, og

der har derfor ikke været anlægsarbejde [48].

9.3.3 Drift

For Northern Lights projektet,

er det vurderet, at CO₂-rørledningen

har en rela-

tivt lille dimension og derfor ikke medfører hindringer eller påvirker fiskebe-

stande i området. Under driftsperioden vil der årligt forekomme udslip af ca. 2

m³ hydraulikvæske (klassificeret som "gult" kemikalie) fra ventilanlægget pr.

brønd. Injektionsbrønden ligger ikke i nærheden af registrerede gydeområder,

og mindre udslip af brugt vandbaseret ikke-toksisk hydraulikvæske ved test og

operation af ventiler medfører ubetydelig negativ påvirkning og konsekvens for

fiskeæg og yngel. [40]

Som et høringssvar til Northern Lights projektet, er det påpeget at væske i rør

vil medføre støj, som bør overvåges. Operatøren henviser til, at der er et bety-

delig antal og længde af væsketransporterende rørledninger af varierende di-

mension på norsk sokkel, og at der ikke er planer om at starte støjmålinger fra

CO₂-væskestrømmen

i rørledningen. [62]

Ved nedgravede rørledninger på land, kan der være servitutregulerede begræns-

ninger af arealanvendelsen over og omkring rørledningen, som kan påvirke na-

tur og biodiversitet.

9.3.4 Afvikling

Se afsnit 9.2.4.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

[1]

Referencer

KEFM, »Principaftale mellem regeringen (Socialdemokratiet), Venstre, Dansk Folkeparti,

Radikale Venstre, Socialistisk Folkeparti, Enhedslisten, Det Konservative Folkeparti, Libe-

ral Alliance og Alternativet om En køreplan for lagring af CO2,« Juni 2021 2021. [Online].

Available:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKE-

wiQ3-Pky_HyAhWIz4sKHWjmD5sQFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fkefm.dk%2FMe-

dia%2F637606718216961589%2FPrincipaftale%2520om%2520CO2-

lagring.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1y6rm60I85JFg7tfo1qR0P. [Senest hentet eller vist den Sep-

tember 2021].

[2]

Global CCS Institute, »Global status of CCS 2020,« 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-report/. [Senest hentet eller

vist den August 2021].

[3]

[4]

[5]

Energistyrelsen, »Leverance 5.1: Miljø- og sikkerhedsaspekter i CCS-kæden,« København

V, 2021.

Global CCS Institute, »Global CCS Institute facilities database,« 2021. [Online]. Available:

https://co2re.co/ClimateChange.

C. Bofeng og e. al, »China Status of CO2 Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) 2019,«

Center for Climate Change and Environmental Policy,Chinese Academy of Environmental

Planning. 2020, 2019.

[6]

[7]

K. M. Novak, N. Gaurina- Medimurec og L. Herncevic, »Significance of enhanced oil reco-

very in CO2 emission reduction,« Sustainability, årg. 13, 2021.

A. Hosa, M. Esentia, J. Stewart og S. Haszeldine, »Benchmarking worldwide CO2 saline

aquifer injections,« March 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.sccs.org.uk/images/ex-

pertise/reports/working-papers/wp-2010-03.pdf.

[8]

[9]

Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage (SCCS), »Global CCS Map,« [Online]. Available:

https://www.sccs.org.uk/expertise/global-ccs-map.

ArkerSolutions, »Arker Solutions starts CCS test program at Preem Refinery in Sweden,«

may 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.akersolutions.com/news/news-ar-

chive/2020/aker-solutions-starts-ccs-test-program-at-preem-refinery-in-sweden/. [Se-

nest hentet eller vist den August 2021].

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

Det Norske Veritas, »Design and operation of CO2 pipelines,« 2010.

F. H. Hedlund, »The extreme carbon dioxide outburst at the Menzengraben potash mine 7

July 1953,« Elsevier, 2011.

P. Harper, »Assessment of the major hazard potential of carbon dioxide (CO2),« Health

and Safety Executive, 2011.

S. Gant, M. Pursell, A. McGillivray, J. Wilday, M. Wardman og A. Newton, »Overview of

carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects at HSE’s Buxton Laboratory,« Health and Sa-

fety Executive, 2017.

[14]

[15]

A. McGillivray og J. Wilday, »Comparison of risks from carbon dioxide and natural gas

pipelines,« Health and Safety Laboratory , 2009.

J. L. Lewicky, J. Birkholzer og C.-f. Tsang, »Natural and industrial analogues for leakage

of CO₂ from storage reservoirs: identification of features, events, and processes and les-

sons learned,« Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory , 2006.

[16]

C. Oldenbrug og L. Pan, »Major CO2 blowouts from offshore wells are strongly attenuated

in water deeper than 50 m,« Energy Geosciences Division - Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory, 2019.

[17]

Equinor, »Northern Lights FEED Report,« Equinor, 2020.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

[18]

F. H. Hedlund, »Past explosive outbursts of entrapped carbon dioxide in salt mines pro-

vide a new perspective on the hazards of carbon dioxide,« Intelligent Systems and Deci-

sion Making for Risk Analysis and Crisis Response, 2013.

[19]

[20]

P. J. Rew, P. Gallagher og D. M. Deaves, »Dispersion of subsea releases, review of predic-

tion methodologies,« HSE BOOKS, HSE Executive- offshore technology report, 1995.

IEAGHG, »Environmental impacts of amine emissions during post combustion capture -

Workshop 2010/11,« International Energy Agency Environmental Projects Ltd., Chelten-

ham, UK, 2010.

[21]

J. L. M. Gibbins, »BAT Review for New-Build and Retrofit Post-Combustion Carbon Dioxide

Capture Using Amine-Based Technologies for Power and CHP Plants Fuelled by Gas and

Biomass as an Emerging Technology under the IED for the UK,,« 2021. [Online]. Availa-

ble: https://ukccsrc.ac.uk/best-available-technology-bat-information-for-ccs/. [Senest

hentet eller vist den august 2021].

[22]

M. Bui, C. S. Adjiman, A. Bardow, E. J. Anthony, A. Boston, S. Brown, P. S. Fenell, S.

Fuss, A. Galindo, L. A. Hackett, J. P. Hallett, H. J. Herzog, G. Jackson, J. Kemper, S.

Krevor, G. C. Maitland, M. Matuszewski, I. S. Metcalfe, C. Petit, G. Puxty, J. Reimer, D. M.

Reiner, E. S. Rubin, S. A. Scott, N. Shah, B. Smit, J. P. M. Trusler, P. Webley, J. Wilcox og

N. M. Dowell, »Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward,« Energy and En-

vironmental Science, årg. 11, pp. 1062-1176, 2018.

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

ECHA (europa.eu), »Information om kemikalier - ECHA (europa.eu).,« 2021. [Online].

Available: https://echa.europa.eu/da/information-on-chemicals.

E. Gjernes, L. I. Helgesen og Y. Maree, »Health and environmental impact of amine based

post combustion CO₂ capture,« Energy Procedia, årg. 37, pp. 735-742, 2013.

G. Dautzenberg og T. Bruhn, »Environmental impacts from CCS technologies,« Institute

for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam, 2013.

Gassnova, »Developing longship - Key lessons learned,« 2020.

L. I. Helgesen og E. Gjernes, »A way of qualifying Amine Based Capture Technologies

with respect to Health and Environmental Properties,« Elsevier, Energy Procedia, p. 13,

2016.

[28]

[29]

Scottish Environment Protection Agency, »Review of amine emissions from carbon cap-

ture (version 2.01),« Natural Scotland - Scottish Government, 2015.

Aker Carbon Capture, »Experience-based approaches to lower carbon cement production

- How the Brevik CCS project opens up new possibilities for other cement producers,«

Aker Carbon Capture Norway AS, Lysaker, 2021.

[30]

K. Fujita, Y. Kato, S. Saito, H. Kitamura, D. Muraoka, M. Udatsu, Y. Handa og K. Suzuki,

»The effect of aerosol characteristics in coal- and biomass-fired flue gas on amine emissi-

ons,« 14th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-14,

pp. 1-10, 2018.

[31]

[32]

Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, »Feasibility study for full-scale CCS in Norway,«

Gassnova & Gassco, 2016.

NIPH, »Health effects of amines and derivatives associated with CO₂ capture: Nitrosami-

nes and nitramines,« 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.fhi.no/publ/2011/health-ef-

fects-of-amines-and-deriva/.

[33]

UK Environmental Agency, »Guidance, Post-combustion carbon dioxide capture: best ava-

ilable techniques (BAT),« july 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/gui-

dance/post-combustion-carbon-dioxide-capture-best-available-techniques-bat#who-this-

guidance-is-for. [Senest hentet eller vist den August 2021].

[34]

[35]

M. N. Toftegaard, »OxyFuel combustion of coal and biomass,« 2011.

Total, »Carbon capture and storage, the Lacq pilot, project and injection period 2006-

2013,« 2014.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

IEAGHG, »Evaluation of reclaimer sludge disposal from post combustion CO2 capture,«

2014.

Rambøll, »CO2 fangst på danske affaldsenergianlæg,« København, 2020.

European Environment Agency, »Air pollution impacts from carbon capture and storage

(CCS),« 2011.

T. Lecomte, J. F. F. d. l. Fuente, F. Neuwahl, M. Canova, A. Pinasseau, I. Jankov, T.

Brinkmann, S. Roudier og L. D. Sancho, »Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Do-

cument for Large Combustion Plants,« 2017.

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

Equinor, »EL001 Northern Lights - Mottak og permanent lagring af CO2. Plan for utbygg-

ning, anlegg og drift. Del II - Konsekvensutredning.,« Oktober 2019.

L. Eilertsen, »Northern Lights. Konsekvensvurdering med hensyn på naturmiljø og biolo-

gisk mangfold på land,« Rådgivende Biologer AS, 2018.

MAERSK OIL DBU, »Redegørelse for miljømæssige og sociale virkninger - ESIS-Tyra,«

Rambøll, 2017.

Energistyrelsen, »Standard vilkår for forundersøgelser til havs,« 2017.

Energistyrelsen, »Guidelines for drilling, esploration,« 1988,2009.

A.-K. Furre, O. Eiken, H. Alnes, J. N. Vevatne og A. F. Kier, »20 years of monitoring CO2-

injection at Sleipner,« Elsevier, p. 3916

–

3926, 2017.

Erhvervsministeriet, »Cirkulære om naturgaslager ved Stenlille,« Erhvervsministeriet ,

1991.

M. Roskilde, »Revurdering af miljøgodkendelser Stenlille gaslager,« Miljøministeriet,

2009.

Total, »Carbon capture and storage, The Lacq pilot - results and outlook,« 2013.

S. E. Greenberg, »Illinois Basin Decatur Project,« 2015.

M. Batres, F. M. Wang, H. Buck, R. Kapila, U. Kosar, R. Licker, D. Nagabhushan, E. Rekhl-

man og V. Suarez, »Environmental and climate justice and technological carbon re-

moval,« The Electricity Journal, nr. 34, 2021.

[51]

L. A. Kyhn, S. Wegeberg, D. Boertmann, P. Aastrup, J. Nymand og A. Mosbech, »Onshore

Seismic Surveys in Greenland,« Aarhus University, DCE

–

Danish Centre for Environment

and Energy, 2020.

[52]

M. Hjorth, L. D. Kristensen, C. J. Murray, J. H. Andersen, S. Brooks og K. Sørensen, »Ef-

fects of oil and gas production on marine ecosystems and fish stocks in the Danish North

Sea,« WSP Denmark, NIVA, Teknologisk Institut, 2021.

[53]

[54]

[55]

Søfartsstyrelsen, »Miljøvurdering af Danmarks Havplan,« COWI, 2021.

A. D. Nielsen, N. P. Christensen, P. Jørgensen og E. L. Lundsteen, »Catalogue of geologi-

cal storage of CO2 in Denmark, Danish Energy Agency,« Rambøll, Copenhagen, 2021.

P. Deda, M. Elbertzhagen og M. Klussmann, »Light Pollution and the Impacts on Biodiver-

sity, Species and their Habitats,« Everglades, nr. Secretariat of the Convention on the

Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (UNEP-CMS), pp. 133-138, 2007.

[56]

J. M. Neff, »Fate and effects of water based drilling muds and cuttings in cold water en-

vironments.,« Review prepared for Shelle exploration an Production Company Houston

Texas, 2010.

[57]

T. Bakke, J. Klungsøyr og S. Sanni, »Environmental impacts of produced water and dril-

ling waste discharges from the Norwegian offshore petroleum industry,« Marine Environ-

mental Research, årg. 92, pp. 154-169, 2013.

[58]

K. Wallmann, M. Haeckel, P. Linke, L. Haffert og M. Schmidt, »Best Practice Guidance for

Environmental Risk Assessment for offshore CO2 geological storage,« EU: ECO2 - Sub-

seabed CO2 Storage: Impact on Marine Ecosystems, 2015.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

[59]

ZEP, »CO2 Storage Safety in the North Sea: Implications of the CO2 Storage Directive -

TWG Collaboration across the CCS Chain,« European Zero Emission Technology and Inno-

vation Platform, 2019.

[60]

[61]

US Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, »Report of the Interagency task

force on Carbon Capture and Storage,« 2010.

EcoWatch, »How the World's First CO2 Pipeline Explosion Turned a Mississippi Town Into

'a Zombie Movie',« August 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.ecowatch.com/co2-

pipeline-explosion-mississippi-2654814127.html.

[62]

Equinor , »EL001 Northern Lights: Plan for utbygging, anlegg og drift - Del II: Konse-

kvensutredning - Oppsummering av høringsuttalelser og tilsvar til disse,« Equinor ASA,

Stavanger, 2020.

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

Energistyrelsen og Energinet, »Technology Data - Industrial process heat,« 2020.

Energistyrelsen og Energinet, »Technology data - Energy transport,« 2017.

EIGA, »MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOOD GAS APPLICATIONS, Doc 126/20,«

EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL GASES ASSOCIATION, 2020.

H. J. Herzog, Carbon Capture, 2018.

S. Flude. [Online]. Available: https://theconversation.com/carbon-capture-and-storage-

has-stalled-needlessly-three-reasons-why-fears-of-co-leakage-are-overblown-130747.

The Danish Hydrocarbon Research and Technology Centre, »CO2 storage in Danish Oil &

Gas fields,« DTU, Kongens Lyngby, 2020.

Project Greensand, »Project Greensand,« [Online]. Available: https://statics.te-

ams.cdn.office.net/evergreen-assets/safelinks/1/atp-safelinks.html.

Søfartsstyrelsen, »Danmarks havplan,« 2021. [Online]. Available: https://hav-

plan.dk/da/page/info. [Senest hentet eller vist den 23 august 2021].

Maersk Drilling, »MaerskDrilling,« [Online]. Available: https://www.maerskdrilling.com.

EU, »Directive 2009/31/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, of 23

April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive

85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC,

2004/35/EC, 2006,« 2009. [Online].

[73]

T. Dahl-Jensen, R. Jakobsen, T. B. Bech, C. M. Nielsen, C. N. Albers, P. H. Voss og T. B.

Larsen, »Monitoring for seismological and geochemical groundwater effects of high-vo-

lume pumping of natural gas at the Stenlille underground gas storage facility, Denmark,«

GEUS Bulletin, p. 8, 2021.

[74]

Energistyrelsen, »Technology Data - Energy transport,« 2020.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Bilag A

Teknisk beskrivelse af CCS anlæg

Afsnittet indeholder en teknisk beskrivelse af de forskellige anlæg, der indgår i

CCS

omfattende 1) geologisk lagring, 2) CO₂-fangst,

3) mellemlagring samt 4)

transport infrastruktur. For hvert anlæg indgår en teknisk beskrivelse af faserne

a) forundersøgelser, b) anlæg og etablering, c) drift og d) afvikling.

A.1

CO₂-fangstanlæg

CO₂-fangstteknologier

afgrænses specifikt til følgende typer anlæg med høj tek-

nologisk modenhed, som allerede er eller er tæt på at være kommercielt tilgæn-

gelige:

›

Rensning af røggas (post combustion) ved hhv. aminvask og nedkølet am-

moniak (oftest benævnt chilled ammonia)

Dannelse af røggas med høj CO₂ koncentration ved forbrænding ved iltrige

betingelser (oxyfuel).

Det forudsættes desuden, at der etableres liquefaction-anlæg samt mellemlager-

faciliteter ved efterfølgende transport med lastbil, tog eller skib, alternativt kom-

pressortrin og dehydrering ved transport via rørledning.

Følgende tekniske beskrivelse af disse anlæg og transportkæder dækker forun-

dersøgelser, anlæg, drift og afvikling. Der henvises desuden til Energistyrelsens

teknologikataloger for hhv. procesvarme og carbon capture samt transport af

energi og CO₂

[63], [64].

A.1.1 Forundersøgelser

Specifikt for selve fangstanlægget vil der for alle de beskrevne procestyper

skulle foregå forundersøgelser som for typiske industri-/procesanlæg. Desuden

skal der pga. det høje energiforbrug til selve CO₂-fangsten

foretages undersø-

gelse af udnyttelse af evt. eksisterende spildvarme fra hovedprocessen, samt in-

tegration med damp- og fjernvarmesystemer for at sikre høj energieffektivitet.

Herunder skal behovet for køleeffekt afdækkes, idet processen vil kræve en del

kølevand og/eller -luft. Da røggassen indeholder en række stoffer, som er uhen-

sigtsmæssige i CO₂-fangstprocessen,

skal der afhængigt af koncentrationsni-

veauer muligvis etableres yderligere rensetrin såsom røggaskondensering med

lud og / eller deNOx.

Ved et retrofit af CO₂-fangst

på et eksisterende anlæg vil der desuden ske æn-

dring af røggastemperatur, flow og vandmætning, der influerer på spredning af

røggassen.

A.1.2 Anlæg og etablering

Anlæg og etablering vil for alle de beskrevne procestyper skulle foregå som for

typiske industri-/procesanlæg.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Konstruktion af kemikalietanke mv. skal sikre at der ikke kan se forurening af

jord, grundvand og overfladevand ved eventuelt spild. Specielt for aminvask be-

mærkes, at de typisk anvendte aminer er skadelige for vandmiljøet.

Konstruktion af lagertanke mv. for CO₂ skal sikres mod eventuelle lavpunkter og

lukkede miljøer, hvor CO₂ kan opkoncentreres ved eventuel

lækage

Der skal desuden

sikres tilstrækkelig rumventilation samt CO₂-

detektorer/alarmer i bygninger og lavpunkter i terrænet, hvor der er risiko for

ophobning.

A.1.3 Drift

Beskrivelse af teknologier

– CO₂-fangst

Aminvask

Aminvask hører under post combustion typen, hvor

CO₂ adskilles fra

en gas-

strøm.

Metoden benyttes f.eks. ved produktion af CO₂ til fødevarer samt til op-

gradering af biogas og naturgas, og vil være relevant til fangst af CO₂

fra røg-

gassen efter forbrænding i kedler/ovne. Et procesdiagram ses i Figur 3 nedenfor.

Røggassen fra forbrændingsprocessen eller anden CO₂-holdig

gas renses, køles

og ledes til en absorber, hvor den skrubbes med en vandig amin-opløsning.

CO₂

i røggassen optages af aminen under frigivelse af varme, hvorefter den CO₂-

fattige røggas passerer en vaskesektion og et dråbefang for at fjerne amin samt

nedbrydningsprodukter fra aminen, inden røggassen udledes via skorstenen. Der

opnås typisk

en gennemsnitlig effektivitet på 90 %, dvs. 90 % af CO₂-indholdet

i den indgående røggas opfanges.

Den CO₂-rige

amin ledes herefter til en desorber, hvor den opvarmes vha.

damp, og CO₂ frigives i koncentreret form. Den CO₂-fattige,

varme amin veksles

med

den køligere CO₂-rige

amin, køles yderligere og returneres til absorberen til

fornyet optagelse af

CO₂. Selve den koncentrerede CO₂-strøm

køles, herved

dannes kondensat som ledes tilbage til processen.

Dampkilden findes på hovedanlægget ved udnyttelse af evt. overskudsvarme,

samt udtag fra turbine eller hoveddampsystem. Alternativt etableres en hjælpe-

kedel, hvis der ikke er tilstrækkelig til rådighed. Varme fra produceret i

CO₂-

fangstprocessen vil i nogen grad kunne anvendes i fjernvarmenettet.

Aminen vil over tid ophobe en række affaldsprodukter. Disse kan i nogen ud-

strækning fjernes ved destillation eller ionbytning i en reclaimer. Der vil herun-

der dannes hhv. en slamfraktion eller spildevand. Den termisk destillation dan-

ner en slamfraktion, der må forventes at blive klassificeret som farligt affald

[36]. Tilsvarende giver ionbytteren anledning til spildevand, når resinerne rege-

nereres med opløsninger af lud (NaOH) og svovlsyre (H

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Figur 3: Processkitse af aminvask. Reclaimeren er ikke vist.

Ved retrofit af CO₂-fangst

på en eksisterende punktkilde muliggør en post com-

bustion løsning kortere driftsstop af det eksisterende anlæg i anlægsfasen, da

der primært er behov for ændringer af røggaskanaler samt damp- og varmeinte-

gration. Udfordringer for aminvask er primært følsomheden over for forurenende

stoffer

i røggassen såsom svovldioxid (SO₂), nitrogendioxid (NO₂), saltsyre

(HCl) og partikler, samt det høje energibehov. Teknologien er moden og kom-

mercielt tilgængelig

–

dog primært for kapaciteter på 1-15

ton/h CO₂ indfanget.

Enkelte større anlæg er bygget i hhv. USA og Canada:

›

Kulfyret anlæg, Petra Nova, USA, 1.600.000 ton pr år. 200 ton/h (MHI)

SaskPower Boundary Dam, Canada (Shell CanSOLV), 400.000 ton/år (50

ton/h)

De enkelte leverandører af aminbaserede CO₂-fangstanlæg

benytter i stor ud-

strækning egne, hemmeligholdte aminblandinger med forskellige forbedrede

egenskaber såsom lavere degradering og energiforbrug. Den kommercielt til-

gængelige amin monoetanolamin (MEA) er kendetegnet ved et højt energifor-

brug, der ligger 50% over, hvad flere leverandører har angivet at kunne opnå

med deres egne blandinger. Andre typisk anvendte aminer er bl.a. dietanolamin

(DEA), metyldietanolamin (MDEA), piperazin (PZ), 2-Amino-2-metylpropanol

(AMP), diglykolamin (DGA) og diisopropanolamin (DIPA).

Chilled ammonia

Chilled ammonia processen er også af post combustion typen og ligner aminvask

i udformningen. Processen er demonstreret i relativt stor skala, 110.000 ton pr.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

år, på Mountaineer demoanlægget i USA. Den er dermed tæt på kommerciel lan-

cering.

Der benyttes en vandig ammoniakopløsning i stedet for amin typisk i en opløs-

ning under 25%. Da reaktionsoptimum er mellem 5 °C og 15 °C, skal røggassen

køles til dette temperaturinterval. Fordele er angiveligt reduceret energiforbrug,

CO₂-produkt

ved relativt høje tryk (5-25 bar) samt fravær af amin og nedbryd-

ningsprodukter i røggassen. Imidlertid har varmebehovet vist sig at være højere

end forventet, og problemstillinger såsom langsom absorptionskinetik, øget pro-

ceskompleksitet samt udfordringer med håndtering af udfældninger af salte er

også identificeret, hvilket giver ustabil drift og korrosion. Desuden skal der udfø-

res yderligere afkøling af røggassen sammenlignet med en aminproces.

Oxyfuel

Oxyfuel er en væsentligt anderledes teknologi, idet der foretages forbrænding i

ilt fortyndet med recirkuleret røggas. Dette giver en røggas bestående hovedsa-

geligt af CO₂ og vand.

Efter kedlen renses røggassen for vanddamp og andre

urenheder, og den resulterende gas med

høj CO₂-koncentration

kan herefter

komprimeres. På grund af luftindtrængning i systemet, behov for iltoverskud,

kvælstof

i brændslet mv. vil den resulterende, tørre CO₂-koncentration

ligge på

70 - 90%.

Ilt til forbrænding produceres ved adskillelse fra atmosfærisk luft med en luftse-

parationsenhed, hvilket er kendt teknologi. For at sikre ilt til opstart og løbende

forbrænding vil der være behov for en buffertank med flydende ren ilt.

Ved retrofit med oxyfuel kræves væsentlige ændringer af det eksisterende an-

læg, herunder ombygning af ovn/kedel og tætning af røggassystemet. Dette er

nødvendigt, da gassens egenskaber og de termodynamiske betingelser ændres,

hvilket blandt andet påvirker forbrændingszonen og varmeoverføringen. Den

største udfordring ved retrofit er dog at reducere luftlækager ind i systemet

mest muligt.

Der eksisterer ikke egentlige anlæg på kommerciel skala, men en række demo-

anlæg på kul (Schwarze Pumpe, 30 MW

og Callide i Australien, 120 MW

) har

tidligere været i drift. Der er desuden en række eksperimentelle fluid bed kedler

(CFB'er) på typisk få MW

- dog et enkelt på 30 MW

i Spanien.

Beskrivelse af teknologier

– CO₂-konditionering

Efter fangst og dannelsen af en koncentreret CO₂-strøm

skal der alt efter den

valgte transportmetode ske komprimering og evt. kondensering/liquefaction, se

Figur 4.

Komprimering

Ved transport via rørledning skal CO₂ komprimeres vha. en flertrinskompressor

med intercooling, hvor den genererede varme kan udnyttes andre steder i pro-

cessen.

Typiske CO₂-rørledningstryk

på længere strækninger er 80-150 bar for

at undgå tofase-regionen af fasediagrammet, samt opnå en tilfredsstillende den-

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

sitet. Ved transport på kortere strækninger (såsom 10-20 km) kan lavere trykni-

veauer være fordelagtige. Over

jord vil det være ca. 10 bar for at undgå CO₂-

kondensation ved lave omgivelsestemperaturer. For nedgravede rør, hvor der er

frostfrit, kan der gås op til 30 bar.

CO₂ er korrosiv ved tilstedeværelse af fugt, da der dannes kulsyre, og i kombi-

nation med høje tryk kan der desuden ske udfældning af gashydrater. Derfor er

dehydrering af gassen til et fugtindhold under 50-400 ppmv nødvendigt. Dehy-

drering sker typisk som en kombination af to forskellige kølesystemer

–

vandkø-

ling og en flydende glykolproces. Et mekanisk filter er monteret efter absorpti-

onskolonnen for at fjerne eventuelle partikler, der rives med i CO₂-strømmen.

Tørring installeres ved et mellemliggende trin i kompressoren.

Transport

via

rørledning

Transport via

skib, godstog

og lastbil

Figur 4:

Fasediagram for CO₂. Områder for transport med skib, godstog og lastbil i fly-

dende form, samt transport via rørledning i komprimeret tilstand er angivet med

skraverede områder. 1 MPa = 10 bar. 250 K = -23

Kondensering / liquefaction

Ved kondensering (også kaldt liquefaction) komprimeres og afkøles CO₂-

strømmen til ca. 15-18 bar og -21 til -27 ° C.

CO₂-produktstrømmen

ledes først gennem en køler og separator for at fjerne

vand, før gassen komprimeres i kompressoren.

CO₂-gassen

afkøles derefter

yderligere og vaskes i en skrubbersektion for at fjerne vandopløselige urenheder

og tilbageværende amin. Vasketrinet kræver vand som efterfølgende skal hånd-

teres ved f.eks. recirkulering til fangstanlægget, internt procesvand eller be-

handling i renseanlæg. Yderligere tørring sker vha. en absorptionskolonne til

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

meget lavt niveau (<50 ppm) for at undgå korrosionsproblemer i rør og lager-

tanke, samt dannelse af iskrystaller. Afhængig af kravene til renheden af CO₂-

produktet, kan forskellige adsorbere og filtre installeres nedstrøms, f.eks. et ak-

tivt kulfilter. Den tørre CO₂-gas

køles derefter, inden den kommer ind i destilla-

tionskolonnen, hvor inerte / ikke-kondenserbare gasser, såsom kvælstof, ilt og

argon fjernes, mens CO₂

kondenseres med en ekstern køler (typisk ammoniak).

Flydende CO₂ sendes til opbevaring i

isolerede tryktanke.

Et standard kondenseringsanlæg er normalt designet til at producere CO₂ i føde-

varekvalitet, hvilket betyder, at forskellige rensetrin er inkluderet, såsom aktivt

kulfilter, NO

-fælde osv., for at fjerne sporkomponenter fra aminvask eller lig-

nende. Den producerede CO₂ har typisk en renhed over 99,9 vol%.

Overordnet drift af fangst og konditionering

Under drift overholdes de gængse sikkerhedsregler for de øvrige anlæg. Ved

kondenseringsanlægget er der desuden risiko for forfrysninger ved direkte kon-

takt. Ved arbejde hvor der kan ske

kontakt med CO₂, anvendes sikkerhedsbriller

og kuldeisolerende handsker.

For aminvask skal der under påfyldning af aminer samt håndtering af kemiske

restprodukter fra aminvask-processen anvendes personlige værnemidler samt

sørges for tiltag til at undgå spild og udledning til omgivelserne. Affaldet fra re-

claimer-processen vil skulle bortskaffes som farligt affald eller afbrændes på ho-

vedanlægget, såfremt der er tale om den termiske type. Ionbyttertypen vil

kræve spildevandsbehandling.

For chilled ammonia skal der tilsvarende være foranstaltninger ved påfyldning af

ammoniak (NH₃), der er giftig. Mht.

oxyfuel skal der sikres mod lækager af ilt,

da gassen er stærkt brandnærende.

Aminvasken medfører emissioner til luft. De specifikke emissioner vil være af-

hængig af den valgte metode, hvilke aminer som anvendes og af røggassen fra

den specifikke punktkilde.

I røggassen kan der forekomme emissioner af amin samt nedbrydningsproduk-

ter som ammoniak (NH₃) og flygtige organiske stoffer (VOC).

Nogle aminer kan desuden danne toksiske nitrosaminer ved reaktion med NO

Ved tilstedeværelse af høje koncentrationer af f.eks. svovlsyre og submikrone

partikler i røggassen kan der desuden dannes aminholdige aerosoler. Vasketrin

og dråbefang efter absorberen mindsker disse emissioner, men evt. aerosoler

fjernes dog ikke effektivt.

Tilsvarende er det for chilled ammonia processen primært udledning af ammo-

niak, der skal undgås.

Mht. spildevand dannes det ved post combustion typerne ved vandoverskud i

systemet. Ligeledes haves vaskevand fra absorberens røgvasketrin og rensning

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

af CO₂-strømmen.

Vandet vil skulle behandles i et renseanlæg før udledning el-

ler anvendes som internt procesvand. For oxyfuel udkondenseres større mæng-

der vand fra røggassen, hvilket dog er tilsvarende ved normal forbrænding.

Dette vand skal renses som typisk røggaskondensat.

Specielt for kondenseringen af CO₂, kan

køleenheden indeholde ammoniak

(NH₃), hvilket kræver sikkerhedsudstyr og potentielt andre sikkerhedsmæssige

forholdsregler.

Beskrivelse af teknologier -

CO₂-kvalitet

Den følgende specifikation

for CO₂ i forbindelse med lagring i undergrunden, er

blevet defineret for Northern Lights projektet [17]. I kilden anføres, at såfremt

CO₂ kvaliteten afviger fra det angivne, skal der udføres en risikovurdering for in-

stallationerne.

Tabel 4: Specifikation

for CO₂ i forbindelse

med lagring i undergrunden på Nothern Lights

projektet [17]

Komponent

Max. koncen-

tration vppm

Årsag

Vand, H₂O

Undgå dannelse af hydrater og udfældning af frit

vand i anlægsdele til transport og mellemlagring.

Minimere risikoen for blokering og korrosion.

Sat for at opfylde kravene til renhed ved slutlag-

ring. O₂ kan forårsage korrosion, når det reage-

rer med klorider (Cl).

SOx accelerer korrosion i nærvær af vand.

accelerer korrosion i nærvær af vand.

Giftig ved indånding. Niveau indstillet til at redu-

cere risikoen for mulig lækage.

Giftig ved indånding. Niveau indstillet til at redu-

cere risikoen for mulig lækage.

Har potentiale til at reagere med og nedbryde

ikke-metalliske materialer

kan forårsage korrosion i form af brintskør-

hed.

Kan reagere med ilt til myresyre.

Kan reagere med ilt til eddikesyre.

Giftig for personalet. Kan forårsage skørhed i

metalliske materialer.

Giftig for personalet. Kan forårsage skørhed i

metalliske materialer.

Oxygen, O₂

Svovl oxider, SOx

Nitrogen oxider, NO

Hydrogen sulfid, H₂S

Carbon monoxid, CO

100

Amin

Ammoniak, NH₃

Hydrogen, H

Formaldehyd, HCHO

Acetaldehyd

Kviksølv, Hg

0,03

Cadmium, Cd + Thallium, Tl

0,03 (sum)

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Til sammenligning kan f.eks. nævnes fødevarekvalitet standard for CO₂

(E290)

ifølge EU og EIGA [65].

Tabel 5 Fødevarekvalitet standard for CO₂

(E290) er ifølge EU og EIGA

[65]

Komponent

Analyse CO₂ (v/v)

Vand

Totale hydrocarboner

Olie-indhold

Surhed og reducerende stoffer

CO₂ (E290)

>99 v%

<52 vppm

<10 vppm

<50 vppm

<5 mg/kg

Bestå test

A.1.4 Afvikling

Afvikling vil skulle forberedes og effektueres som for andre typiske industri-/pro-

cesanlæg. Anlæggene skal tømmes og demonteres, eventuelle bygninger skal

nedrives og området eventuelt genetableres. Der er tale om velkendte operatio-

ner og anlægsdele som i nogen udstrækning kan afsættes kommercielt.

A.2

Mellemlager-faciliteter

etableres typisk i nærheden af CO₂ punktkilderne og på

eller i umiddelbar nærhed af havne- og/eller industriområder, hvor transport

med skib eller lastbil er mulig. Mellemlager-faciliteter vil formentlig omfatte kon-

densering / liquefaction-faciliteter (beskrevet tidligere) og lagring i tanke.

A.2.1 Forundersøgelser

Der forudses ikke særlige tekniske forundersøgelser i forbindelse med et mel-

lemlager. Sikkerhedsforanstaltninger for at forhindre læk, samt minimering af

udslip ved uheld skal vurderes.

A.2.2 Anlæg og etablering

Anlæg og etablering skal foregå som typisk for industrilagre. Dog skal der for

CO₂ lagertanke ikke opstilles spildbarrierer som for andre kemikalietanke.Der

her behov for at undgå lavpunkter og lukkede miljøer.

A.2.3 Drift

Mellemlageret er nødvendig som buffer mellem den kontinuerte produktion af

CO₂ og den diskontinuerte lastbils-

og skibstransport. Der kan være behov for

mellemlagre både ved

CO₂-fangstanlægget

og ved eventuelt udskibningssted.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Lagerkapaciteten vil afhænge af lastbilernes eller skibenes cyklustid sat i forhold

til produktionen. Den maksimale størrelse af tankene vil være begrænset af,

hvad der er praktisk at transportere fra tankleverandør til installationsstedet. For

mindre kapaciteter under 100 m³ fås isolerede standardtanke. Kugletanke kan

fremstilles med en enhedsstørrelse på 1.000 m³ eller mere, men disse er for

store til vejtransport og kræver derfor adgang til en havn eller konstruktion af

de store tanke på selve sitet. Ved CO₂-terminaler

med lagerkapacitet på flere

1.000 m³ vil mellemlageret bestå af flere tanke. Det vil dog primært afhænge af

det enkelte projekt, hvad der er hensigtsmæssigt.

Lagertanke til flydende CO₂

vil være udstyret med et import- / eksportrør samt

et gasreturrør. Det vil dog være muligt at isolere hver enkelt tank fra systemet

ifm. vedligehold, men der skal dog ske overvejelse omkring forringelse af tanke-

nes levetid ved store temperaturgradienter. Typisk tages kryogene lagertanke

ikke ud af drift. For at holde lagertankene afkølede, fordampes en lille del af den

flydende CO₂ kontinuerligt. Gassen returneres derefter til kondenseringsanlæg-

get, eller udledes til omgivelserne såfremt liquefaction-anlægget er ude af drift

eller der ikke er tilknyttet kondensering til det pågældende mellemlager.

En CO₂

udluftningsventil installeres for at muliggøre kontrolleret udluftning fra lagertan-

kene og dermed fastholde trykket, når kondenseringsanlægget ikke er i drift.

Eksportsystemet består af en hovedrørledning til et antal pumper. Rørledningen

føres til en lastestation til enten skib, tog eller lastbil. Parallelt med påfyldnings-

systemet kan der installeres et retursystem til at føre fortrængte CO₂-gas

fra

skibene tilbage til lagertankene. Derudover ledes rørledningen tilbage til kon-

denseringsanlægget, hvilket muliggør rekondensering af den fortrængte CO₂-

gas. Systemet skal udstyres med sikkerhedsventiler. Der vil skulle være fokus

på vedligehold og korrosionsovervågning for at sikre mod utilsigtede udslip af

CO₂ fra mellemlageret.

A.2.4 Afvikling

Afvikling vil skulle forberedes og effektueres som for andre typiske industrilagre.

Anlæg og tanke skal tømmes og demonteres, eventuelle bygninger skal nedrives

og området eventuelt genetableres. Der er tale om velkendte operationer og an-

lægsdele som i nogen udstrækning kan afsættes kommercielt.

A.3

Geologisk lagring af CO₂ på land

og til havs.

Geologisk

CO₂

lager - grundlæggende forudsætninger

Et geologisk lager består af en række elementer; et reservoir dvs. et geologisk

lag/ bjergart med en vis porøsitet f.eks. en sandsten, en "cap rock"/forsegling

dvs. en impermeabel bjergart som f.eks. lersten og så en lukning dvs. en af-

grænsning af reservoiret i geologiske strukturer som f.eks. antiklinaler/ domer,

forkastnings blokke (forskudte jordlag) eller stratigrafiske afgrænsede lag. Olie,

gas og saltvand findes i undergrunden i sådanne afgrænsede strukturer så som

på dansk sokkel i Nordsøen, men i strukturer med potentiale for CO₂-lagring

på

land i Danmark er porevæsken oftest saltvand (også kaldet saline akviferer). La-

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

geret kan være mere eller mindre effektivt afhængig af graden af porøsitet, per-

meabilitet og tryk som har betydning for flow i reservoiret. Lignende parametre

er gældende for styrken af forseglingsbjergarten.

For at sikre at CO₂ forbliver i væskefase må det opbevares ved tryk større end

dets kritiske tryk som er 73,9 bar. Det gennemsnitlige tryk i 800 m dybde er 80

bar så lagre dybere end det opfylder kriteriet. Typisk er lagre på 2-3 km dybde

med et tryk på 200-300 bar og en temperatur på 60-100 grader Celsius. Dette

giver en densitet af CO₂ på 0,5-0,8

g/cm

. Sammenlignet med CO₂ gas, der har

en densitet på 0,001 g/cm

, er CO₂ på væske form altså tungere og fylder me-

get mindre

hvilke betyder, at meget mere CO₂ kan opbevares i porerummet.

Sammenlignet med vand med en densitet på 1 g/cm

er CO₂ lettere, hvilket be-

tyder at det vil stige opad i reservoiret. Derfor er en impermeabel "cap

rock"/forseglingsbjergarten vigtig.

Når

CO₂ injiceres i et reservoir vil det presse formationsvandet væk og bevæge

sig ind i porerummet på bjergarten og forme en "plume". I formationen/reser-

voiret vil ske en trykstigning, hvilket kan forårsage meget små forskydninger i

undergrunden (mikrojordskælv). Hvis trykket er meget stort og ikke håndteret

korrekt, kan det forårsage sprækker i forsegling og mulig lækage af CO₂.

I reservoiret er der 4 mekanismer der sammen bidrager til at "fange" og fast-

holde

CO₂

i reservoiret (se Figur 5). En strukturel fælde, f.eks. en dome som

tidligere diskuteret, men også kapillær fangst dvs. CO₂ bliver immobiliseret i po-

rerummet, opløsning af

CO₂ i formationsvandet samt reaktion mellem opløst

CO₂ og bjergartsmineralerne, hvorved nye mineraler dannes

[66].

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Figur 5

Forskellige fangst mekanismer der immobiliserer CO₂ i jorden (Stephanie Flude,

BY [67])

Udenlandske erfaringer danner et rimeligt fundament og sammenligningsgrund-

lag for danske lagringsforhold når der er tale om samme reservoirtype (sand-

sten, kalksten etc.), forseglingstype og struktur. Sammenligningen er skal dog

altid laves med forbehold idet forhold såsom lithologi, dybde, kvalitet mv. kan

have en indflydelse lokalt.

Mulige danske lagringsforhold findes diverse steder på land og vand, i diverse

størrelser, dybder og lithologier. CO₂-lagrene

Sleipner Vest og Snøhvit i Norge

er eksempler på offshore CO₂ sandstenslagre som er sammenlignelige med

nogle potentielle danske lagre. På Sleipner Vest foregår injektionen i et salint

sandstensreservoir på 1.000m dybde, i Utsira fomationen der er 200-250m tyk.

Snøhvit er et salint sandstensreservoir i Tubasan formation på 2.550m dybde,

reservoiret er 45-75m tyk. I Danmark er der erfaring med lagring af naturgas i

underjordiske anlæg på land bl.a. i et akviferreservoir i Stenlille på Sjælland.

Stenlille er en antiklinal struktur med et reservoir bestående af Triassisk Gassum

Formation på 1.500 m dybde og en caprock af den Nedre Jurassiske Fjerritslev

Formation.

CCS pilot projektet i Lacq bassinet i Frankrig er et eksempel på et kalkstensre-

servoir. Lagringen foregik i det udtømte Mano resevoir i Rousse feltet. Reservoi-

ret er på 4.500m dybde, strukturen er Jurassisk.

I Danmark består en stor del af de kendte olie- og gasreservoirer af kalksten.

Forståelsen af CO₂ lagring i kalksten i Danmark er ikke fuldt belyst. Kalkstens

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

bjergarter er kendt for lav permeabilitet og det kan være vanskeligt at forudsige

kvaliteten af reservoiret.

Flere Europæiske CCS studier [68] indikerer, at der er større volumen kapacitet i

de danske sandstensreservoirer end i kalksten.

De potentielle danske CO₂ lagre

omfatter sandstensreservoirer, som f.eks. INE-

OS's opererede offshore Nini og Siri felter (Projekt Greensand,1.500-2.000m

dybde, 150-500 MT) [69], de store saline strukturer med triassisk Gassum for-

mation reservoir Hanstholm (near-shore, antiklinal, ca. 1.000m dybde, kapacitet

2.753 MT) og reservoir Havnsø (onshore-near-shore, antiklinal, 1.500m dybde,

kapacitet 926 MT) [70]).

GEUS gennemfører i 2021 en screeening af forskellige potentielt velegnede lag-

ringsstrukturer. Undersøgelserne vil tjene som grundlag for at vælge en eller

flere formationer, der skal undersøges nærmere.

I forslag til Danmarks Havplan, er Hanstholm og et større område ved den vest-

lige grænse i Nordsøen udpeget som udviklingszoner for CO₂-lagring

[70].

Fordelen ved udtømte olie- og gas felter er, at det allerede er bevist at forseglin-

gen virker over geologisk tid, og at der eksisterer en stor mængde data og viden

om reservoiret. Yderligere er der et potentiale for brug af eksisterende infra-

struktur. Saline reservoirer har historisk ikke haft den samme fokus, og her vil

der skulle indsamles en større mængde nye data.

Særlig er lagerpotentialet typisk ikke er eftervist med en boring, hvilket er nød-

vendigt for at kunne bekræfte om lageret er velegnet og sikkert.

Forundersøgelser, etablering, drift og afvikling af

CO₂

lagre

Herunder følger en gennemgang af erfaringer for de forskellige stadier for CO₂

lagre, herunder forskelle og ligheder for henholdsvis lagring på land, offshore el-

ler nearshore. En scenarieoversigt med beskrivelse af de væsentligste aktiviteter

under faserne forundersøgelser, anlæg og etablering, drift og afvikling fremgår

af Tabel 6.

Tabel 6 Scenarieoversigt med beskrivelse af væsentligste aktiviteter

Scenarier

Forundersøgelser

Anlæg og

etablering

Drift

Afvikling

På land

Nyt lager

Lager ikke bevist.

Behov for seismik

og brønddata

Injektionsbo-

ringer etable-

res med

brøndhoved,

pumpe , ca-

sing, filtre.

Reservoir

overvågning,

regelmæssig

seismik

Plug & aban-

don brønd,

forsat perio-

disk seismisk

overvågning

Tidligere

gaslager

Lager bevist og

godt kendskab til

Injektionsbo-

ringer og

Reservoir

overvågning,

Plug & aban-

don brønd,

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

reservoir egenska-

ber. Begrænset

behov for ny data

indsamling

etablering af

permanente

installationer

regelmæssig

seismik

forsat perio-

disk seismisk

overvågning

Offshore

Nyt lager

Lager ikke bevist.

Behov for seismik

og brønddata

Injektionsbo-

ringer og

etablering af

permanente

installationer

Reservoir

overvågning,

regelmæssig

seismik

Plug & aban-

don brønd,

forsat perio-

disk seismik

overvågning

Tidligere

O&G

Lager bevist og

godt kendskab til

reservoir egenska-

ber. Begrænset

behov for ny data-

indsamling.

Injektionsbo-

ringer

Reservoir

overvågning,

regelmæssig

seismik

Plug & aban-

don brønd,

forsat perio-

disk seismik

overvågning

Nearshore

Nyt lager

Lager ikke bevist.

Behov for seismik

og brønddata

Injektionsbo-

ringer og

etablering af

permanente

installationer

Reservoir

overvågning,

regelmæssig

seismik

Plug & aban-

don brønd,

forsat perio-

disk seismik

overvågning

A.3.1 Forundersøgelser

Seismik

Indsamling af seismiske data og boringer er en fundamental del af forundersø-

gelserne for at forstå tilstedeværelsen, udbredelsen og kvaliteten af geologiske

lagre. Den seismiske metode svarer til en stor-skala ultralydsskanning af under-

grunden, hvormed det er muligt at identificere laggrænser og strukturer/for-

skydninger af sedimentære lag i undergrunden samt under visse forhold litho-

logi/ bjergarts type og tilstedeværelsen af gas, olie og vand. Seismiske undersø-

gelser kan udføres som 2D- eller 3D kortlægning. 2D kortlægningen består af en

række udvalgte linjer, typisk planlagt i et grovmasket net, med afstande på 1-

5+ km mellem de seismiske profiler. Dette giver en grundlæggende forståelse af

undergrunden, men med større usikkerheder især for tynde lag, i forhold til dyb-

den til toppen af lagene og for forkastninger. For med rimelig sikkerhed at

kunne kortlægge laggrænser, strukturer, udbredelse af reservoiret, evt. interne

forkastninger og sprækkesystemer, anvendes 3D seismik.

3D seismik er grundlæggende en 2D seismisk undersøgelse med større linjetæt-

hed og større antal linjer, samt væsentligt forøget opløselighed vertikalt og hori-

sontalt. En sådant datagrundlag kan muliggøre en detaljeret kortlægning af

strukturen. Den forbedrede kortlægning gælder både en bedre opløselighed af

tynde lag og til dybden til de enkelte lag samt en meget forbedret mulighed for

kortlægning af forkastninger. For eftervisning af lithologien (typen af aflejring,

f.eks. ler eller sand) og til undersøgelse af reservoir- og seglbjergarternes fysi-

ske egenskaber kræves boring af en brønd.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Der kræves forskelligt udstyr på land og på vand og det er særligt vanskeligt at

dække kystområdet, hvor der er lavvandet og skal bruge en kombination af ud-

styr. Typisk indsamles og analyses 2D som et første skridt for at afdække om

fundamentale elementer, en struktur, er til stede og derefter følges op med 3D

data samt en brønd for detalje kortlægning. Her er det "cost" effektivt at tænke

langsigtet med hensyn til at sikre at 3D kortlægningen kan fungere som et base-

line for senere monitering af reservoiret.

Offshore foregår seismisk dataindsamling med specialbyggede seismiske skibe.

Lydbølger sendes ned i jorden fra såkaldte "airguns"/luftkanoner som trækkes

efter skibet. Disse signaler rammer jordens forskellige lag og reflekteres tilbage

til havoverfladen, hvor de registres af trykfølsomme hydrofoner på et kabel som

trækkes efter luftkanonerne. Dette er kendt som "streamer" seismik (Figur 6).

Til lands benyttes typisk vibratorlastbiler eller sprængladninger til at udsende

lydbølger, som opsamles af geofoner på overfladen. Det er ofte mere besværligt

at indsamle seismik på land end til havs pga. af flere obstruktioner. Landdata er

ofte også mere påvirkelige af støj fra omgivelserne, hvilket kan betyde reduceret

kvalitet af data.

Figur 6 Marin seismik data indsamling (Kilde GEUS efter Niels Ter-Borch, DONG Energy)

Figur 7 Land seismik dataindsamling (Kilde GEUS efter Niels Ter-Borch, DONG Energy)

Boringer

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

For at påvise type af bjergart og undersøge egenskaberne af reservoir og for-

segling kræves boring af en brønd. Brønddata bestående af geofysiske logs,

kerne data og tryk data er vigtige at indsamle. Geofysiske logs er vigtige for

tolkning af geologi og kalibrering til seismik. Kernedata er vigtige for forståelsen

af bl.a. bjergarts styrke og mekanik i forsegling samt for reservoir porøsitet og

permeabilitet. Tryk data indsamles gennem brøndtest for at vurdere forseglings-

styrken i forhold til trykket i reservoiret samt permeabilitet/flow i reservoiret.

Offshore bores brønde fra borerigs specificeret efter vanddybde samt dybde og

tryk i reservoiret (Figur 8). Disse er typisk flytbare og med beboelse for mand-

skabet. Nogle permanente produktionsplatforme er også udstyret til at bore

brønde. På land er borerigge typisk noget mindre og kan flyttes med/på lastbi-

ler.

Det er ikke en ufarlig proces at bore brønde, idet man har med tungt maskineri

at gøre og under visse forhold brændbare hydrocarboner, kombineret med mu-

lige overraskelser som f.eks. tryk, geologiske og vejrmæssige forhold. Det er

dog en industri med stor erfaring og med et højt fokus på sikkerhed og på at

processerne er optimeret og udføres sikkert.

Figur 8 Offshore Jack-up borerig (Kilde Maersk [71])

A.3.2 Anlæg og etablering

Injektion af CO

i undergrunden kræver som minimum én boring, hvor der bores

igennem det valgte reservoir. En ny injektionsbrønd bores eller en eksisterende

boring konverteres til CO₂-injektion.

På reservoirniveau udføres brønden med nødvendige filtre og det kan være nød-

vendigt at udføre injektionsforberedende test og oprensning f.eks. med kalium-

klorid. Filtret giver adgang til reservoiret og sikrer, at uønskede partikler ikke in-

jiceres og at reservoirets partikler ikke mobiliseres. Brønden fores (cases) for at

sikre at CO₂ ikke kan undslippe ind til andre formationer.

Der etableres et

brøndhoved hhv. på jordoverfladen eller på havbunden. Det skal sikres at CO₂

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

injektionen udføres med et tryk og en temperatur der passer til forholdende i re-

servoiret og der placeres typisk anlæg enten i brønden eller ved brøndhovedet til

tryksætning og opvarmning. Idet lækage kan ske direkte gennem brønden, bør

den udstyres med instrumenter, der kan måle tryk- og temperaturændringer og

derved overvåge evt. lækage. Det er også et krav i henhold til EU Direktiv

2009/31/EC [72].

CO₂ er korrosiv og studier konkluderer, at den vigtigste grund til at injektions-

brønde fejler skyldes, at der er brugt konstruktionsmaterialer som ikke er tilpas-

set CO₂, hvilket har ledt til korrosion af casing

[68]. Ved brug af gamle brønde

ved et eksisterende olie- og gasfelt, er det nødvendigt at renovere boringers op-

bygning så korrosion undgås. Det skal derfor dokumenteres og verificeres at

brøndenes opbygning ikke udgør en risiko inden lageret tages i brug. Bekymrin-

gerne er typisk rettet mod cementen og eventuel reaktion med CO₂

[68].

På Sleipner

Vest CO₂ projektet offshore Norge, sendes CO₂ ned i reservoiret via

en dedikeret injektionsbrønd fra Sleipner A platformen. I Northern Lights projek-

tet planlægges en undersøisk satellit, der forbindes med en rørledning til land

mens monitorerings- og kontrolfunktioner planlægges udført fra Oseberg platfor-

men (offshore [17]. Det planlægges endvidere at benytte forundersøgelsesbrøn-

den til injektion efter re-design (Figur 9). På havbunden planlægges etablering

af en undersøisk satellitfacilitet af størrelse 20,5x12,4x16 m.

Figur 9 Illustration af den planlagte udvikling af Northern Lights injektionsbrønden [17].

Venstre: Boring af forundersøgelses brønd i 2019/2020. Midt: Genåbning,

re-design og færdiggørelse til injektion planlagt i 2022. Højre: Færdig in-

jektionsbrønd i 2023/2024.

A.3.3 Drift

Driften af selve CO₂

lageret består af injektion af CO₂ og monitering af reservoi-

ret. Et omfattende moniteringsprogram er nødvendigt for at demonstrere og do-

kumentere at den lagrede CO₂ forbliver i reservoiret. De fleste metoder er an-

vendelige både offshore og på land.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Undersøgelser, der udføres som en del af monitering skal kunne holdes op mod

undersøgelser foretaget inden CO₂ injektion er påbegyndt. Dette refereres til

som basisundersøgelser.

For selve reservoiret og forseglingsbjergarten udgør det 3D seismiske undersø-

gelser, der udføres for at kortlægge strukturen, den vigtigste baseline. Den kan

benyttes til fremtidige, såkaldte 4D undersøgelser. 4D er ganske enkelt udfø-

relse af to identiske 3D seismiske undersøgelser, forskudt i tid. Da udskiftningen

af vand med CO

ændrer trykforholdene i reservoiret og dermed den seismiske

respons, kan udbredelsen af CO₂ i reservoiret moniteres ved hjælp af forskellen

i det seismiske signal med f.eks. 5-10 års mellemrum. Også andre metoder be-

nyttes f.eks. mikro-gravimetriske undersøgelser, hvor ændringer af tyngdefor-

holdene måles, idet CO₂ er lettere end det saline vand.

Over 20 års erfaringer fra Sleipner CO₂ injektionsprojekt, verdens første indu-

strielle offshore CCS projekt har netop vist, at gentagne seismiske undersøgelser

(4D/ Timelapse)

har været essentielle for at kunne overvåge CO₂ plumens inde-

slutning i reservoiret (Figur 10). Kombineret med gravimetriske data har det

været muligt at kombinere

CO₂ masseændringer og geometridata for derved at

kunne estimere opløsning af CO₂ i vandet, hvilket er vigtigt for langtidsberegnin-

ger. Det er også vist, at tryk- og temperatursensorer ved brøndhoved og i reser-

voir er nødvendige for god kontrol af betingelser før og under injektion. Ved

brug af disse overvågningsmetoder er det vist at CO₂ er forblevet sikkert nede i

undergrunden [45]. Overvågningen følger krav jf. EU direktiv [72].

Mikro jordskælv (mikro-seismisitet) kan udløses ved injektion. Den geologiske

risiko for betydende jordskælv er meget lille.

I Danmark er der erfaring med pumpning og lagring af naturgas i underjordiske

anlæg på land bl.a. i et akviferreservoir i Stenlille på Sjælland. Der er 20 dybe

brønde på Stenlille sitet, 14 injektions og produktions brønde og 6 overvåg-

ningsbrønde. Stenlille blev overvåget for seismiske events i perioden 2018-2020

og er ikke observeret seismiske events i den periode [73].

Monitering af CO₂'s

mulige indtrængning i grundvandet er også nødvendigt. Mo-

nitoreringen består typisk af et antal overvågningsboringer, hvorfra der kan ind-

samles flowdata og tages jævnlige vandprøver. Da CO₂ kan påvirke den kemiske

sammensætning af grundvandet, bør der sammensættes et relevant laboratorie-

program. Data samles i en grundvandsmodel, der viser flowretning. I Stenlille

gaslageret på Sjælland er grundvandet blevet overvåget via boringer siden an-

lægget blev anlagt i 1989. Kun et læk er blevet observeret, i 1995, relateret til

et teknisk problem under injektion i St14 borigen [73].

Lækket blev hurtigt stoppet. Estimatet er at 5.000 m³ gas blev tabt til lavere lig-

gende geologiske formationer. En uge efter lækket blev der observeret forhøjede

gaskoncentrationer i K1 vandboring, 250m fra St14 boringen. Der var ingen fri

gas i vandprøven, og det blev konkluderet at alt gassen var opløst på det tids-

punkt. Efterfølgende er koncentrationen af opløst gas faldet og i 2012 til under

1mg/l. Der blev også målt en stigning i metan i oktober 2009 i vandboring 558

sydvest for Nyrup. På den baggrund blev det konkluderet af traces af gas fra

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

lækken i 1995 havde migreret ind og gennem et Paleocen sand lag til brønd

558. En begravet dal ved Nyrup har muligvis tilladt gassen at migrere til lavere

dybder, hvor den blev gradvist opløst i grundvandet. Undersøgelserne viste

også, at der var en meget lav pumpe rate i brønden som muliggjorde at detek-

tere gas i vandet. Efter normal pumpe rate var etableret, kunne gas ikke læn-

gere måles [73].

Erfaringerne fra overvågningen af lageret ved Sleipner har givet input til fremti-

dige projekter. Læringen er at valget af overvågningsteknikker, hvornår og va-

righeden af overvågningsundersøgelser bør være projektspecifikke og risk base-

ret, samtidig med at den langvarige tidshorisont for CCS projekter også bør ta-

ges med i overvejelserne.

Figur 10

Sleipner seismisk CO₂ overvågning

[45].

A.3.4 Afvikling

I afviklingsfasen forsegles brøndene med en cement plug og overflade installati-

oner fjernes ligesom for olie- og gasinstallationer. Energistyrelsens boreretnings-

linjer [44] angiver, hvordan brønde bør tilproppes, før de efterlades i henhold til

godkendte procedurer. Brøndstedet skal genetableres i overensstemmelse med

den oprindelige tilstand, og brøndstedet skal verificeres inden det efterlades.

Reservoiret overvåges dog forsat i afviklingsfasen vha. seismik. Når injektionen

stoppes, falder trykket i reservoiret og derfor anses risikoen for brud på forseg-

lingen og induceret seismisitet mindre i denne fase end i driftsfasen.

A.4

Transport af CO₂ på land og til havs

Transport af CO₂ kan ske som en komprimeret gas eller på væskeform. CO

transporteres som gas under højt tryk i rørledninger, samt ved mellemtryk og

nedkølet som væske i f.eks. tanke. Rørledningstransport af CO

og andre gasser

under tryk er en moden kommercielt tilgængelig teknologi.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Der transporteres globalt gas med tankskibe i LPG- og LNG-skibe (Liquified Pe-

troleum/Natural Gas), hvor gassen ligesom CO₂ er hhv. under tryk eller nedkølet

til væskeform. I Northern Lights projektet bygges i første fase to skibe til trans-

port af flydende CO₂. Her er der specifikt tale om et

tilpasset LPG skibsdesign

med tilføjelse af et transportsystem til flydende

CO₂

samt isolering. Hermed be-

nyttes designs, som skibsværfter allerede kender.

Der findes mere end 3.000 km CO

-rørledninger i Nordamerika, ca. 135 km fler-

fase rørledning til Snøhvit feltet i Norge og ca. 80-100 km CO

-rørledning på

land mellem Rotterdam og Amsterdam. Transport af gas i rørledninger eksisterer

bl.a. som transportform af f.eks. naturgas i Danmark, mens CO₂ til fødevarein-

dustrien i dag typisk transporteres til søs og på lastbil. Transporten til søs fore-

går med relativt små gastankskibe.

Transport af CO₂ som væske vil kræve etablering af et mellemlager

samt op-

varmning og komprimering forud for endelig lagring i undergrunden. Termina-

lerne vil typisk være designet med lastepumper, overførselsrørledninger, marine

lastearme, måle- og genfordampningsanlæg til håndtering af

CO₂ gas

fra lager-

tanke osv. Ved

destinationen til endelig lagring overføres CO₂ fra skib til injekti-

onsfacilitet, hvor CO₂ opvarmes, komprimeres og injiceres.

Der er i det følgende anvendt informationer fra Energistyrelsens teknologikata-

log for transport af energi og CO₂

[74].

Figur 11:

Øverst: Transport af komprimeret CO₂ gas samt kondenseret CO₂.

Nederst:

Transport af CO₂ til injektion near-shore

og offshore. En tredje mulighed er on-

shore og near-shore injicering fra en landbaseret facilitet, hvor kondensering ikke

er nødvendig.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

A.4.1 Forundersøgelser

Rørledning, lastbil, godstog og skib

Der skal udføres forundersøgelser af tracé og transportmidler i forhold til teknisk

egnethed.

Forundersøgelserne forventes ikke at afvige fra forundersøgelser i forbindelse

med transport af f.eks. naturgas og LNG.

A.4.2 Anlæg og etablering

Rørledning

Metoder for anlæg og etablering af rørledninger vil være tilsvarende, hvad der

ses for rørledninger til transport af f.eks. naturgas og LNG.

Lastbil, godstog, skib

Ikke relevant

A.4.3 Drift

Transport i rørledninger

Rørledninger vil være relevant ifm. transport af store mængder CO₂, f.eks. fra

store punktkilder til eksportterminaler samt videre til lagring i undergrunden.

Standarden p.t. for transport over længere strækninger (fx. over 30 km) er tryk

på 80 - 150 bar, hvilket sikrer en margin til trykfald samtidig med, at tykkelsen

af røret kan holdes på et rimeligt niveau ift. materialeomkostninger. For kortere

strækninger kan der anvendes tryk på 10 eller 30 bar alt efter om rørene er

nedgravede. Der findes flere designstandarder for CO₂-rørledninger,

se herunder

DNV-RP-J202 og ISO 27913:2016. Der kan være mulighed for at benytte eksi-

sterende naturgasrørledninger til CO₂-transport.

Dette vil afhænge af, hvorvidt

røret er i en dimension der passer og i det hele taget lever

op til kravene CO₂

transport. Det vil skulle undersøges i de konkrete tilfælde.

Som tidligere nævnt sker der komprimering af CO₂ op til 150 bar samt tørring

inden transport. CO₂-kompressoren

styrer trykket ved indløbssiden af rørlednin-

gen, og ved afbrydelser af kompressoren benyttes ventiler for at afspærre mod

rørledningen, så trykket fastholdes der. På land vil der også blive indsat ventiler

langs rørledningen, så rørsegmenter kan isoleres ved lækage. Længden af hvert

segment vil afhænge af en risikovurdering. F.eks. må der i tætbefolkede områ-

der forventes kortere segmenter end i landdistrikter. Offshore vil der typisk ikke

være afspærringsventiler mellem land og selve brøndhovedet.

Målestationer vil placeres ved kompressionsanlægget i indløbet eller i slutningen

af røret. Er der tale om et egentligt netværk, kan det dog være relevant at etab-

lere flere målestationer. Pumpestationer kan være relevante langs ruten for at

overvinde tryktab, hvis trykket falder til under det minimale rørledningsdriftstryk

(80 bar). Typisk kan dette være for hver 70-140 km. Pumperne placeres i dedi-

kerede stationer / huse langs ruten. For offshore-rørledninger er dette ikke en

mulighed og dimensionen skal derfor vælges, så det resulterende trykfald kan

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

tolereres. I praksis betyder det, at diameteren øges med rørledningens længde

ved fastholdt kapacitet.

Allerede eksisterende CO₂-rørledninger

spænder vidt i kapacitet fra 0,06 til 27

mio. ton pr. år. I Danmark forventes behov for transport af 5-10 mio. ton pr. år,

da dette vil dække mange af de største punktkilder. Det vil kræve en nærmere

afdækning af de specifikke forhold i det enkelte projekt for at afgøre, om det er

relevant med etablering af en rørledning ift. f.eks. lastbilstransport. Forventnin-

gen er, at kapaciteter under ca. 50-100

kton CO₂ pr. år vil blive kørt med lastbil.

Der forventes ikke nogen større miljøpåvirkning under almindelig drift, da der

ikke vil være afgivelse af

CO₂

fra rørledningen. Der kan ved vedligeholdelses- el-

ler reparationsarbejde skulle foretages en kontrolleret nedblæsning af sektioner,

hvorved en kort rørstrækning tømmes med udledning af en mindre mængde

CO₂

til følge.

Under den daglige drift skal flow og tryk langs rørledningen overvåges kontinu-

erligt, herunder overføres aflæsningerne fra instrumenterne til et bemandet kon-

trolrum. Nedgravede rørledninger vil desuden normalt også være udstyret med

katodisk beskyttelse ift. ekstern korrosion.

Rørledningen kan også være udstyret med interne inspektions- og rensefacilite-

ter i form af luger til en såkaldt "gris", der anvendes til overvågning af intern

korrosion og tilsmudsning. Sammenholdt med naturgasrørledningerne forventes

mindre intern rensning, da det er ren, tør CO₂-gas,

der transporteres.

Hvor der er risiko for at CO₂ kan ophobes i farlige koncentrationer ved en læk

(herunder CO₂-komprimerings-

/ pumpehuse, doseringshus, ventilhuller mv.),

skal der være CO₂-detektorer

og alarmer.

Flowet ind og ud af rørledningerne bestemmes ved måling som del af afregnin-

gen, når der er overføres mellem forskellige parter. Overvågning af CO₂-

kvaliteten f.eks. fugtindhold, O₂-indhold

og andre urenheder forventes at være

et krav ved indløbet.

Hermed sikres at CO₂-kvaliteten

er tilstrækkelig ift. rørled-

ningsmaterialer og produktspecifikationer.

For en CO₂-rørledning vil der være operationelle risici relateret til CO₂'s

fasead-

færd og belastningsudsving, f.eks. dannelse af væskefase eller tøris under plud-

selige trykfald, frysning af sikkerhedsventiler osv. Vedligeholdelsesstop med fuld

trykaflastning skal udføres i et langsomt tempo for at forhindre frysning.

Sikkerheden ved naturgasrørledninger og relaterede installationer vurderes af

Arbejdstilsynet og Sikkerhedsstyrelsen. Endnu vides ikke, hvilken myndighed

der vil evaluere fremtidige CO₂-rørledninger,

og hvilke sikkerhedskrav der i så

fald vil være.

Skibstransport

Skibe vil være relevant for transport af større

CO₂ over længere afstande. Dette

kan f.eks. være transport fra store punktkilder til offshore lagringsfaciliteter eller

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

havneterminaler. Skibene kan desuden sejle i rutefart mellem flere destinatio-

ner, hvor der indfanges mindre mængder CO₂. P.t. har de eksisterende skibe til

CO₂ transport

en forholdsvis lille lagerkapacitet på 1.000-2.000 m³, hvilket må

forventes at stige på sigt. Ved behov for etablering af ny infrastruktur til skibs-

transport, såsom kajpladser ved industrianlæg og ved udvidelse af eksisterende

havnefaciliteter, kan der forventes en betydelig projektomkostning.

CO₂ transporteres i flydende form, og dette vil typisk ske ved mellemtryksbetin-

gelser (15-18 bar og -27°C til -21°C). Der kan dog også anvendes lavtryksfor-

hold (f.eks. 5-7 bar og ca. -50 ° C) eller højtryksforhold (40-50 bar og +5°C til

+15°C). Forskellen ligger i CO₂ densiteten samt krav til trykbeholdere samt be-

hovet for isolering af systemet.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Lastbilstransport

Transport af CO₂ på lastbil sker i flydende form svarende til skibstransportfor-

holdene. Vejtransport

af CO₂ vil være relevant for små til mellemstore mæng-

der, f.eks. fra små punktkilder til CO₂-anvendelsesfaciliteter

eller eksporttermi-

naler. Typisk kapacitet for en lastbil er 25

– 30 ton CO₂.

CO₂-lastbiler

fyldes fra mellemlagertankene. Terminalerne vil have dedikerede

lastepladser med tankningsudstyr og gasreturledninger til stede. En lastbil med

en kapacitet på 30 ton CO₂ kan fyldes med flydende CO₂ på ca. 45 min, hvilket

også forventes som aflæsningstid på destinationen. Tankene på lastbilen er ikke

udstyret med køling, men er i stedet isoleret. Derfor vil temperaturen og trykket

stige en smule under transport.

Flydende CO₂ er en kølevare og transporten bør

derfor minimeres for at undgå for stort varmeoptag. Står tankbilen for længe,

slippes CO₂ ud i en

sikkerhedsventil på tanken. Transporten skal derfor planlæg-

ges.

Miljøpåvirkningen pga. lastbiltransport vil som for skibe hovedsageligt være i

driftsfasen pga. det høje energibehov (brændstof) samt emissioner fra lastbilen.

Transport af CO₂ via lastbil foregår allerede i dag, og CO₂ sættevogne

er derfor

sikkerhedsmæssigt godkendt til vejtransport. Da kapaciteten af lastbilen er be-

grænset, vil en ulykke

med resulterende læk af CO₂

have ret lokal effekt. Så-

fremt ruten involverer veje med områder, hvor luftudskiftningen er mindre,

f.eks. tunneler, vil der dog være større risiko for at nå

farlige niveauer af CO₂

ved en lækage.

Godstog

CO₂-transport

via jernbanen er teknisk muligt, og kryogene godsvogne benyttes

nogle steder i verden til at distribuere

flydende CO₂ til industrielle brugere.

P.t.

er der i Danmark ganske få punktkilder med forbindelse til jernbanenettet, hvor-

for det primært vil være relevant ifm. transport fra f.eks. en havnefacilitet til in-

dustri med

anvendelse af CO₂. Det vil her være et springende punkt, at infra-

strukturen allerede er på plads. Desuden er planlægningen af transporten ander-

ledes end f.eks. benzin, da vognene ikke kan henstilles i længere tid pga. for-

dampning af flydende CO₂.

A.4.4 Afvikling

Rørledning

Afvikling af en CO₂ rørledning stiller ingen specifikke krav eller udfordringer ift.

andre typiske rørledninger til gastransport.

Lastbil, godstog, skib

Afvikling vil være som for andre tilsvarende transporter.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Bilag B

Opsummering af CCS erfaringer

med sikkerhed, miljø og natur

CO₂ fangstanlæg

inkl. konditionering

Forundersøgelser

Sikkerhed/uheldsscenarier

Miljø

Natur

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

Ingen særlige miljømæssige forhold

identificeret

Energiforbrug, ressourceforbrug, CO₂

footprint, støj, affald, emissioner til luft

og vand – kan sammenlignes med

andre industrianlæg

Energiforbrug, CO₂ footprint, kemika-

lieforbrug, eventuelle spild, og emis-

sion af aminer og nedbrydningspro-

dukter via luft, vand og affald

Støj, kølevand (varmt)

Chilled ammonia: Udledning af am-

moniak

Oxy fuel – mindre Nox udledning fra

forbrænding

Tilsvarende andre industrianlæg

Ingen særlige naturmæssige for-

hold identificeret

Arealinddragelse samt afledte ef-

fekter af udledninger og emissio-

ner. Tilsvarende andre industrian-

læg

Afledte effekter af udledning og

emissioner. Herudover tilsvarende

andre industrianlæg

Anlæg og etablering

Drift

Udslip/større lækage af CO₂, O₂,

NH₃ eller aminer samt risiko relate-

ret hertil

Afvikling

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

Sikkerhed/uheldscenarier

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

Tilsvarende andre industrianlæg

Mellemlager

Forundersøgelser

Miljø

Ingen særlige miljømæssige forhold

identificeret

Energiforbrug, CO₂ footprint, ressour-

ceforbrug, eventuelle spild, støj - Til-

svarende andre industrielle lagerfaci-

liteter

Energiforbrug, CO₂ footprint, kemika-

lieforbrug, eventuel spild, støj, diffuse

udledninger af CO₂ - Tilsvarende an-

dre industrielle lagerfaciliteter

Tilsvarende andre industrielle lagerfa-

ciliteter

Miljø

Natur

Ingen særlige naturmæssige for-

hold identificeret

Arealinddragelse samt afledte ef-

fekter af udledninger og emissio-

ner.

Anlæg og etablering

Drift

Udslip af CO₂, samt risiko relateret

hertil

Arealinddragelse og eventuelle af-

ledte effekter af udledning og emis-

sioner

Afvikling

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

Sikkerhed/uheldsscenarier

Tilsvarende andre industrielle la-

gerfaciliteter

Natur

Geologisk lagring

Forundersøgelser

Risiko for ved boring at ramme

lagre af kulbrinter, CO₂ og tilhø-

rende risiko for blowout ved boring

Støj, emissioner, energiforbrug, ud-

ledning af kemikalier

Påvirkning af fisk og marine patte-

dyr af offshore seismiske undersø-

gelser

Påvirkning af arealer og forstyrrelse

af dyr ved onshore seismiske un-

dersøgelser

Fysisk forstyrrelse af havbund

Tab af områder

Ophobning af forurenende stoffer

Forringet vandkvalitet

Forstyrrelse af kyst- og havfugle på

grund af skibstrafik

Mindre CO₂ lækage fra offshore la-

ger har kun lokal påvirkning

Risiko for CO₂ lækage til grund-

vand fra onshore lager

Tilsvarende anlæg og etablering

samt forundersøgelser

Anlæg og etablering

Se forundersøgelser

Støj, emissioner, energiforbrug, res-

sourceforbrug, udledning af kemika-

lier

Drift

Risiko for udslip af CO₂ i havmiljø

eller på land via revner mv.

Energiforbrug, udledning af kemika-

lier, diffus emission af CO₂

Afvikling inkl. monito-

rering

Risiko for udslip af CO₂ i havmiljø

eller på land via revner mv

Støj, energiforbrug, udledning af ke-

mikalier, affald

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

CO₂ infrastruktur rør

Forundersøgelser

Sikkerhed/uheldsscenarier

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

Miljø

Ingen særlige miljømæssige forhold

identificeret

Støj, emissioner, energiforbrug, res-

sourceforbrug, eventuelle spild, emis-

sion under opstart af N2, CO₂, MEG -

Tilsvarende påvirkning som ved etab-

lering af f.eks. gasrør

Energiforbrug, CO₂ footprint, kemika-

lieforbrug, eventuel spild, støj fra

kompressorer, nedblæsning af CO₂.

Tilsvarende drift af f.eks. Gasrør mi-

nus kulbrinter

Tilsvarende anlæg inkl. affald

Natur

Ingen særlige naturmæssige for-

hold identificeret

Fysisk forstyrrelse af hav-

bund/areal

Tab /ændring af områder

Forringet vandkvalitet / sediment

Anlæg og etablering

Drift

Udslip af CO₂, samt risiko relateret

hertil

Eventuelle afledte effekter af emis-

sioner og udledning

Afvikling

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

Sikkerhed/uheldsscenarier

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

Udslip af CO₂, samt risiko relateret

hertil

Tilsvarende anlæg og etablering

Skib, lastbil, godstog

Forundersøgelser

Miljø

Ingen særlige miljømæssige forhold

identificeret

Ingen særlige miljømæssige forhold

identificeret

Energiforbrug, CO₂ footprint, emissio-

ner, støj

Natur

Ingen særlige naturmæssige for-

hold identificeret

Ingen særlige naturmæssige for-

hold identificeret

Tilsvarende anden mobil transport

inkl. eventuelle afledte effekter af

udledninger

Anlæg og etablering

Drift

Afvikling

Ingen særlige sikkerhedsmæssige

forhold identificeret

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Bilag C

Longlist over litteratur

gennemgået

A. C. Rohr, J. D. McDonald, D. Kracko, M. Doyle-Eisele, S. L. Shaw og E. M. Knipping, »Po-

tential toxicological effects of amines used for CCS and their degradation processes,«

Energy Procedia, årg. 37, pp. 759-768, 2013.

A. D. Nielsen, N. P. Christensen, P. Jørgensen og E. L. Lundsteen, »Catalogue of geologi-

cal storage of CO2 in Denmark, Danish Energy Agency,« Rambøll, Copenhagen, 2021.

A. Hosa, M. Esentia, J. Stewart og S. Haszeldine, »Benchmarking worldwide CO2 sa-

line aquifer injections,« March 2010. [Online]. Availa-

ble:

https://www.sccs.org.uk/images/expertise/reports/working-papers/wp-2010-03.pdf

A. M. Omar, M. I. García-Ibáñez, A. Schaap, A. Oleynik, M. Esposito, E. Jeansson,

S. Loucaides, H. Thomas og G. Alendal, »Detection and quantification of

CO2 seepage in seawater using the stoichiometric Cseep method: Results from a re-

cent subsea CO2 release experiment in the North Sea,« International Journal of Green-

house Gas Control, årg. 108, nr. 103310, pp. 1-17, 2021.

A. McGillivray og J. Wilday, »Comparison of risks from carbon dioxide and natural gas

pipelines,« Health and Safety Laboratory , 2009.

A.-K. Furre, O. Eiken, H. Alnes, J. N. Vevatne og A. F. Kier, »20 years of monitoring CO2-

injection at Sleipner,« Elsevier, p. 3916

–

3926, 2017.

Aker Carbon Capture, »Experience-based approaches to lower carbon cement production -

How the Brevik CCS project opens up new possibilities for other cement produ-

cers,« Aker Carbon Capture Norway AS, Lysaker, 2021.

ArkerSolutions, »Arker Solutions starts CCS test program at Preem Refinery in Swe-

den,« may 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.akersolutions.com/news/news-ar-

chive/2020/aker-solutions-starts-ccs-test-program-at-preem-refinery-in-sweden/. [Senest

hentet eller vist den August 2021].

Batres, Maya; Wang, Frances; Buck, Holly et al.; Environmental and cli-

mate justice and technological carbon removal, The Electricity Journal 34 (2021)

C. Bofeng og e. al, »China Status of CO2 Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) 2019,«

Center for Climate Change and Environmental Policy,Chinese Academy of Environmen-

tal Planning. 2020, 2019.

C. Oldenbrug og L. Pan, »Major CO2 blowouts from offshore wells are strongly attenua-

ted in water deeper than 50 m,« Energy Geosciences Division - Lawrence Berkeley Natio-

nal Laboratory, 2019.

COWI, »Carbon Capture Technology Catalogue,« Kongens Lyngby, 2020.

Department of Energy & Climate Change, »Government Response to the House of Com-

mons Environmental Audit Committee Report: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS),« Crown

Det Norske Veritas, »Design and operation of CO2 pipelines,« 2010.

E. Gjernes, L. I. Helgesen og Y. Maree, »Health and environmental impact of amine ba-

sed post combustion

CO₂

capture,« Energy Procedia, årg. 37, pp. 735-742, 2013.

ECHA (europa.eu), »Information om kemikalier - ECHA (europa.eu).,« 2021. [On-

line]. Available: https://echa.europa.eu/da/information-on-chemicals.

EIGA, »MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOOD GAS APPLICATIONS, Doc 126/20,«

EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL GASES ASSOCIATION, 2020.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Energistyrelsen og Energinet, »Technology data - Energy transport,« 2017.

Energistyrelsen og Energinet, »Technology Data - Industrial process heat,« 2020.

Energistyrelsen, »Guidelines for drilling, esploration,« 1988,2009.

Energistyrelsen, »Leverance 5.1: Miljø- og sikkerhedsaspekter i CCS-kæden,« København

V, 2021.

Energistyrelsen, »Standard vilkår for forundersøgelser til havs,« 2017.

Energistyrelsen, »Technology Data - Energy transport,« 2020.

Equinor , »EL001 Northern Lights: Plan for utbygging, anlegg og drift - Del

II: Konsekvensutredning - Oppsummering av høringsuttalelser og tilsvar til

disse,« Equinor ASA, Stavanger, 2020.

Equinor, »EL001 Northern Lights - Mottak og permanent lagring af CO2. Plan for utbygg-

ning, anlegg og drift. Del II - Konsekvensutredning.,« Oktober 2019.

Equinor, »Miljørisiko for EL001, Northern Lights, mottak og permanent lagring av CO2,«

DNV GL AS Region Norway, 2019.

Equinor, »Northern Lights FEED Report,« Equinor, 2020.

Erhvervsministeriet, »Cirkulære om naturgaslager ved Stenlille,« Erhvervsministeriet

, 1991.

Erhvervsministeriet, Cirkulære om naturgaslager ved Stenlille (Til Vestsjællands Amtskom-

mune og Stenlille Kommune), 1991.

EU, »Directive 2009/31/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, of

23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive

85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC,

2004/35/EC, 2006,« 2009. [Online].

Europakommissionen og Det Europæiske Råd, »BILAG: Statusrapport om klimaindsatsen,

herunder rapporten vedrørende situationen på kvotemarkedet og rapporten vedrørende

ændring af direktiv 2009/31/EF om geologisk lagring af kuldioxid,« Den Europæiske Uni-

ons Tidende, Årg. %1 af %2COM(2015) 576 final - Annex 2, pp. 1-8, 18 November 2015.

European Environment Agency, »Air pollution impacts from carbon cap-

ture and storage (CCS),« 2011.

F. H. Hedlund, »Past explosive outbursts of entrapped carbon dioxide in salt mines provide

a new perspective on the hazards of carbon dioxide,« Intelligent Systems and Deci-

sion Making for Risk Analysis and Crisis Response, 2013.

F. H. Hedlund, »The extreme carbon dioxide outburst at the Menzengraben potash mine

7 July 1953,« Elsevier, 2011.

F. Harding, »D14 Outline Environmental Impact Assessment,« Pale Blue Dot, 2018.

F. Schilling, G. Borm, H. Würdemann, F. Möller, M. Kühn og C. GROUP, »Status Report on

the First European on-shore CO2 Storage Site at Ketzin (Germany),« Elsevier, Energy Pro-

cedia, p. 7, 2009.

G. Dautzenberg og T. Bruhn, »Environmental impacts from CCS technologies,« Institute

for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam, 2013.

G. Peridas, »Permitting Carbon Capture and Storage Projects in California,« Lawrence Li-

vermore National Laboratory, 2021.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Gassnova, »Developing longship - Key lessons learned,« 2020.

GESAMP, »High level review of a wide range of proposed marine geoengineering tech-

niques,« INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION, London, 2019.

Global CCS Institute, »CCS Targeting Climate Change - Brief for Policymakers,« Glo-

bal Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd, 2019.

Global CCS Institute, »Global CCS Institute facilities database,« 2021. [Online]. Available:

https://co2re.co/ClimateChange.

Global CCS Institute, »Global status of CCS 2020,« 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-report/. [Senest hentet eller

vist den August 2021].

Global CCS Institute, »Unlocking private finance to support CCS investments,« Global Car-

bon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd, 2021.

Gov, CA., »California Air Resources Abroad - CSS,« 2021. [Online]. Available:

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/carbon-capture-sequestration.

IEA, »20 Years of Carbon Capture and Storage - Accelerating Future Deployment,« Inter-

national Energy Agency & OECD, Paris, 2020.

IEAGHG, »Environmental impacts of amine emissions during post combustion capture -

Workshop 2010/11,« International Energy Agency Environmental Projects Ltd., Chelten-

ham, UK, 2010.

IEAGHG, »Evaluation of reclaimer sludge disposal from post combustion CO2 capture,«

2014.

IEAGHG, »The Process of Developing a Test Injection: Experience to Date and Best Prac-

tice,« International Energy Agency Environmental Projects Ltd., Cheltenham, UK, 2013.

IPCC, »IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,« Cambridge Univer-

sity Press, 2005.

J. C. S. Long, »California's Energy Future: The View to 2050,« California Council on Sci-

ence and Technology, Sacramento, California, 2021.

J. L. Lewicky, J. Birkholzer og C.-f. Tsang, »Natural and industrial analogues for leakage of

CO₂ from

storage reservoirs: identification of features, events, and processes and les-

sons learned,« Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory , 2006.

J. L. M. Gibbins, »BAT Review for New-Build and Retrofit Post-Combustion Carbon Dio-

xide Capture Using Amine-Based Technologies for Power and CHP Plants Fuelled by Gas

and Biomass as an Emerging Technology under the IED for the UK,,« 2021. [Online]. Avai-

lable: https://ukccsrc.ac.uk/best-available-technology-bat-information-for-ccs/. [Senest

hentet eller vist den august 2021].

J. M. Neff, »Fate and effects of water based drilling muds and cuttings in cold water en-

vironments.,« Review prepared for Shelle exploration an Production Company Houston Te-

xas, 2010.

K. Fujita, Y. Kato, S. Saito, H. Kitamura, D. Muraoka, M. Udatsu, Y. Handa og K. Suzuki,

»The effect of aerosol characteristics in coal- and biomass-fired flue gas on amine emissi-

ons,« 14th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-14,

pp. 1-10, 2018.

K. M. Novak, N. Gaurina- Medimurec og L. Hrncevic, »Significance of enhanced oil reco-

very in CO2 emission reduction,« Sustainability, årg. 13, 2021.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

100

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

K. Wallmann, M. Haeckel, P. Linke, L. Haffert og M. Schmidt, »Best Practice Guidance

for Environmental Risk Assessment for offshore CO2 geological storage,« EU: ECO2 - Sub-

seabed CO2 Storage: Impact on Marine Ecosystems, 2015.

KEFM, »Principaftale mellem regeringen (Socialdemokratiet), Venstre, Dansk Folkeparti,

Radikale Venstre, Socialistisk Folkeparti, Enhedslisten, Det Konservative Folkeparti, Liberal

Alliance og Alternativet om En køreplan for lagring af CO2,« Juni 2021 2021. [On-

line]. Availa-

ble:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKE

wiQ3-Pky_HyAhWIz4sKHWjmD5sQFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fkefm.dk%2FMe-

dia%2F637606718216961589%2FPrincipaftale%2520om%2520CO2-

lagring.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1y6rm60I85JFg7tfo1qR0P

. [Senest hentet eller vist den Septem-

ber 2021].

Klima-, Energi- og Forsyningsministeriet, »Bilag 4 - Udenlandske erfaringer,« København,

2020.

L. A. Kyhn, S. Wegeberg, D. Boertmann, P. Aastrup, J. Nymand og A. Mosbech, »On-

shore Seismic Surveys in Greenland,« Aarhus University, DCE

–

Danish Centre for Environ-

ment and Energy, 2020.

L. Eilertsen, »Northern Lights. Konsekvensvurdering med hensyn på naturmiljø og biolo-

gisk mangfold på land,« Rådgivende Biologer AS, 2018.

L. I. Helgesen og E. Gjernes, »A way of qualifying Amine Based Capture Technologies

with respect to Health and Environmental Properties,« Elsevier, Energy Procedia, p. 13,

2016.

Loria, Patricia and Bright, Matthew B.H, Lessons Captured from 50 years of CCS projects,

The Electricity Journal 34 (2021)

M. Bui, C. S. Adjiman, A. Bardow, E. J. Anthony, A. Boston, S. Brown, P. S. Fenell, S. Fuss,

A. Galindo, L. A. Hackett, J. P. Hallett, H. J. Herzog, G. Jackson, J. Kemper, S. Krevor, G.

C. Maitland, M. Matuszewski, I. S. Metcalfe, C. Petit, G. Puxty, J. Reimer, D. M. Reiner, E.

S. Rubin, S. A. Scott, N. Shah, B. Smit, J. P. M. Trusler, P. Webley, J. Wilcox og N. M. Do-

well, »Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward,« Energy and Environmen-

tal Science, årg. 11, pp. 1062-1176, 2018.

M. Hjorth, L. D. Kristensen, C. J. Murray, J. H. Andersen, S. Brooks og K. Sørensen, »Ef-

fects of oil and gas production on marine ecosystems and fish stocks in the Danish North

Sea,« WSP Denmark, NIVA, Teknologisk Institut, 2021.

M. Myersa, C. White, B. Pejcic, A. Feitz, J. Roberts, Y.-Y. Oh, L. Xu, L. Ricard, K. Michael,

A. Avijegon, P. K. Rachakonda, M. Woltering, A. Larcher, L. Stalker og A. Hortle, »CSIRO

In-Situ Lab: A multi-pronged approach to surface gas and groundwater monitoring at geo-

logical CO2 storage sites,« Elseiver, Chemical Geology, p. 18, 2020.

M. N. Toftegaard, »OxyFuel combustion of coal and biomass,« 2011.

M. Roskilde, »Revurdering af miljøgodkendelser Stenlille gaslager,« Miljøministeriet, 2009.

Maersk Drilling, »MaerskDrilling,« [Online]. Available: https://www.maerskdrilling.com.

MAERSK OIL DBU, »Redegørelse for miljømæssige og sociale virkninger - ESIS-Tyra,«

Rambøll, 2017.

Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, »Feasibility study for full-scale CCS in Nor-

way,« Gassnova & Gassco, 2016.

NIPH, »Health effects of amines and derivatives associated with

CO₂

capture: Nitrosamines and nitramines,« 2011. [Online]. Available:

https://www.fhi.no/publ/2011/health-effects-of-amines-and-deriva/.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

101

P. Deda, M. Elbertzhagen og M. Klussmann, »Light Pollution and the Impacts on Biodiver-

sity, Species and their Habitats,« Everglades, nr. Secretariat of the Convention on

the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (UNEP-CMS), pp. 133-138, 2007.

P. Harper, »Assessment of the major hazard potential of carbon dioxide (CO2),« Health

and Safety Executive, 2011.

P. J. Rew, P. Gallagher og D. M. Deaves, »Dispersion of subsea releases, review of predic-

tion methodologies,« HSE BOOKS, HSE Executive- offshore technology report, 1995.

Project Greensand, »Project Greensand,« [Online]. Availa-

ble:

https://statics.teams.cdn.office.net/evergreen-assets/safelinks/1/atp-safelinks.html

PTRC, »Aquistore: Leading the World in Deep Saline CO2 Geological Storage,« 2021. [On-

line]. Available:

https://ptrc.ca/projects/co2-eor-and-storage/aquistore

Rambøll, »CO2 fangst på danske affaldsenergianlæg,« København, 2020.

Rambøll, »LL. Torup Gaslager - Vedligeholdelsesprojekt,« 2016.

S. Benson og P. Cook, »Underground geological storage,« i Special Report on Carbon dio-

xide Capture and Storage, 2018, pp. 195-276.

S. E. Greenberg, »Illinois Basin Decatur Project,« 2015.

S. Flude. [Online]. Available: https://theconversation.com/carbon-capture-and-storage-

has-stalled-needlessly-three-reasons-why-fears-of-co-leakage-are-overblown-130747.

S. Gant, M. Pursell, A. McGillivray, J. Wilday, M. Wardman og A. Newton, »Overview

of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects at

HSE’s

Buxton Laboratory,« Health and Sa-

fety Executive, 2017.

Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage (SCCS), »Global CCS Map,« [Online]. Available:

https://www.sccs.org.uk/expertise/global-ccs-map.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency, »Review of amine emissions from carbon cap-

ture (version 2.01),« Natural Scotland - Scottish Government, 2015.

Søfartsstyrelsen, »Danmarks havplan,« 2021. [Online]. Availa-

ble:

https://havplan.dk/da/page/info

. [Senest hentet eller vist den 23 august 2021].

Søfartsstyrelsen, »Miljøvurdering af Danmarks Havplan,« COWI, 2021.

T. Bakke, J. Klungsøyr og S. Sanni, »Environmental impacts of produced water and dril-

ling waste discharges from the Norwegian offshore petroleum industry,« Marine Environ-

mental Research, årg. 92, pp. 154-169, 2013.

T. Dahl-Jensen, R. Jakobsen, T. B. Bech, C. M. Nielsen, C. N. Albers, P. H. Voss og T. B.

Larsen, »Monitoring for seismological and geochemical groundwater effects of high-vo-

lume pumping of natural gas at the Stenlille underground gas storage facility, Denmark,«

GEUS Bulletin, p. 8, 2021.

T. Lecomte, J. F. F. d. l. Fuente, F. Neuwahl, M. Canova, A. Pinasseau, I. Jankov, T. Brink-

mann, S. Roudier og L. D. Sancho, »Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document

for Large Combustion Plants,« 2017.

T. Nguyen, M. Hilliard og G. Rochelle, »Volatility of aqueous amines

in CO₂

capture,«

Energy Procedia, årg. 4, pp. 1624-1630, 2011.

The Danish Hydrocarbon Research and Technology Centre, »CO2 storage in Danish Oil &

Gas fields,« DTU, Kongens Lyngby, 2020.

Total, »Carbon capture and storage, The Lacq pilot - results and outlook,« 2013.

https://cowi.sharepoint.com/sites/A231499-project/Shared Documents/60-WorkInProgress/10-Documents/Rapport om CCS Erfaringer med sikkerhed natur og miljø final01.docx

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

102

CCS ERFARINGER - SIKKERHED, NATUR OG MILJØ

Total, »Carbon capture and storage, the Lacq pilot, project and injection period 2006-

2013,« 2014.

UK Environmental Agency, »Guidance, Post-combustion carbon dioxide capture: best avai-

lable techniques (BAT),« july 2021. [Online]. Availa-

ble:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/post-combustion-carbon-dioxide-capture-best-

available-techniques-bat#who-this-guidance-is-for

. [Senest hentet eller vist den August

2021].

US National Energy Technology Laboratory; Overview of potential failure modes and ef-

fects associated

with CO₂

injection and storage operations in saline formations; december

2020, DOE/NETL-2020/2634

US National Energy Technology Laboratory; Best practices manu-

als;

https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/strategic-program-support/best-

practices-manuals

US Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, »Report of the Interagency task force

on Carbon Capture and Storage,« 2010.

W. Leiss og D. Krewski, »Environmental scan and issue awareness: risk management chal-

lenges for CCS,« Int. J. Risk Assessment and Management, pp. 234-253, 2019.

ZEP, »CO2 Storage Safety in the North Sea: Implications of the CO2 Storage Directive -

TWG Collaboration across the CCS Chain,« European Zero Emission Technology and Inno-

vation Platform, 2019.

ZEP, »Future CCS Technologies,« European Zero Emission Technology and Innovation

Platform, 2017.

CCS-Erfaringer sikkerhed, natur og miljø

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Kontor/afdeling

Center for Systemanalyse

Punktkilder til CO

– potentialer for CCS og CCU

Dato

15-06-2021

Hovedkonklusioner



I 2040 vurderes potentialet for CO

-fangst fra punktkilder, under stor

usikkerhed, at udgøre ca. 4,5-9 mio. ton CO

, hvoraf ca. 3,5-6 mio. ton

stammer fra biogene kilder. Dertil kommer et potentielt meget stort

potentiale for CO

-fangst fra atmosfæren (DAC).

Hovedparten af potentialet (op mod ca. 6,5 mio. ton CO

) i 2040 stammer

fra punktkilder koncentreret i 5 klynger omkring København, Aarhus,

Aalborg og i Sydjylland.

Der kan forventes at være et betydeligt potentiale for fangst af CO

fra

punktkilder i Danmark frem mod 2030 og 2040. Potentialet er følsomt over

for en række faktorer, herunder særligt størrelsen på den enkelte

punktkilde og fremtiden for de biomassefyrede anlæg i el- og

fjernvarmesektoren.

Teknologi til opsamling af CO

fra mindre punktkilder under 100.000 ton

per år kan blive afgørende for realisering af potentialet.

Størstedelen af potentialet (ca. 6-8 mio. ton) vurderes at være forbundet

med omkostninger til fangst (heri ikke indregnet omkostninger til transport,

mellemlagring og lagring) under 800-1.000 kr./ton.



Behov for yderligere viden og teknologiudvikling



Potentialet er følsomt over for størrelsen af de medregnede punktkilder,

herunder økonomien i opsamling af CO

fra kilder under 100.000 ton per

år. Disse kilder vurderes at ville kunne anvende standardiseret

fangstteknologi, som er under anvendelse på biogasopgraderingsanlæg i

dag. Der kan med fordel iværksættes undersøgelser i mulighederne for

opsamling fra anlæg i denne størrelsesorden.



Potentialet for punktkilder er af begrænset størrelse, sammenlignet med

størrelsen af udledninger i andre sektorer. Der kan være behov for at øge

Energistyrelsen

Carsten Niebuhrs Gade 43

1577 København V

T: +45 3392 6700

E: [email protected]

www.ens.dk

Side 1/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

mængden af biogens kulstof fx gennem fremme af udviklingen af teknologi

til opsamling af CO

fra atmosfæren.

Side 2/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Analysen

INDHOLD

Leverance 1.1 Punktkilder til CO

– potentialer for CCS og CCU ............................. 1

Hovedkonklusioner .................................................................................................... 1

Analysen .................................................................................................................... 3

INDHOLD ................................................................................................................... 3

Indledning .................................................................................................................. 4

Formål med analysen ............................................................................................ 5

Opsamling af CO

fra punktkilder .......................................................................... 5

Metode ....................................................................................................................... 6

Afgrænsning af potentialet ..................................................................................... 7

Relevante størrelser af punktkilder for opsamling ..................................................... 7

Opgørelse af punktkilder i Danmark ........................................................................ 10

Perspektivering til andre punktkildeopgørelser .................................................... 12

Sektorspecifikke overvejelser .................................................................................. 15

Industri ................................................................................................................. 15

Affaldsforbrænding ............................................................................................... 18

El- og fjernvarmeproduktion ................................................................................. 20

Anlæg til opgradering af biogas ........................................................................... 25

Opgørelse af potentialet efter omkostninger ........................................................... 27

Geografisk fordeling af punktkilder .......................................................................... 28

Bilag 1 – Metode ...................................................................................................... 40

Afgrænsning af potentialet ................................................................................... 41

Omkostninger til CO

-fangst ................................................................................ 41

Side 3/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Indledning

Teknologierne CCS (fangst og lagring af CO

) og CCU (fangst og anvendelse af

) afhænger begge af, at CO

opsamles, hvorefter det enten kan lagres

geologisk eller anvendes til produktion af brændstoffer eller kemikalier. I det

perspektiv kan CO

opfattes som en ressource, der er nødvendig, for at de givne

teknologier (CCU og CCS) kan levere de nødvendige ”klimatjenester”. I tilfælde af

CCU er tjenesten

fossilfrigørelse

gennem produktion af grønne ækvivalenter til

nuværende fossile forbrug af brændstoffer eller kemikalier. I tilfælde af CCS lagres

’en geologisk i undergrunden. Hvis kulstoffet stammer fra fossile brændsler

eller lign., er CCS-tjenesten

nulemission.

Er der derimod tale om klimaneutral,

biogen CO

, eller CO

der stammer fra luften, er tjenesten

negative emissioner.

Dette illustreres i Figur 1 nedenfor. I denne sammenhæng er udledninger fra

kemiske processer i industrien (altså ikke fra anvendelsen af brændsler) at regne

for fossile, såfremt de kommer fra raffinaderiproduktion, mineralogiske processer

eller lign. som fx cementproduktion, hvorimod udledninger fra biologiske processer i

industrien som fx gæring er at regne for biogene.

Figur 1 - Principper for CO

-udledninger i forskellige anvendelser

1 ton

Fossile brændsler:

Ved anvendelse af fossile

brændsler udledes CO

til atmosfæren.

Klimaneutral biomasse:

Ved anvendelse af klimaneutral

biomasse, udledes i princippet samme mængde CO

, som

biomassen har opsamlet

1 ton

CCS:

Ved deponering af fossile udledninger udledes

næsten ingen CO

. Udledningerne reduceres.

1 ton

BECCS:

Ved deponering af CO

fra klimaneutral biomasse

trækkes CO

i princippet ud af atmosfæren.

1 ton

CCU:

Ved anvendelse af CO

fra fossile brændsler

til produktion af brændstof, som erstatter fossilt

brændstof, udledes stadig CO

. Dog mindre end

ved anvendelse af fossilt brændstof – brændstoffet

er ikke CO

-neutralt.

BECCU:

Ved anvendelse af CO

fra klimaneutral biomasse

til produktion af brændstof, som erstatter fossilt brændstof,

udledes i princippet kun den mængde CO

, biomassen har

opsamlet. – brændstoffet er CO

-neutralt.

Potentialet for anvendelse af teknologierne afhænger derfor bl.a. af den mængde

, der er til rådighed, og som det er teknisk muligt og økonomisk

hensigtsmæssigt at opsamle.

Side 4/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Formål med analysen

Formålet med nærværende analyse er at opgøre de forventede udledninger fra

punktkilder samt hvilken andel af dette potentiale, der vurderes at være tilgængeligt

for opsamling og efterfølgende lagring eller anvendelse i 2025, 2030 og 2040.

Frem mod 2030 og 2040, forventes der at være CO

til rådighed for fangst fra

anlæg, som allerede eksisterer i dag og fra nyetableringer, som endnu ikke er

kendte. Denne analyse beskæftiger sig med kendte anlæg samt reinvesteringer og

nyetablerede anlæg i affaldsforbrændingssektoren, el- og fjernvarmesektoren og

for biogasopgraderingsanlæg. Der er således ikke taget stilling til muligheden for

etablering af nye store industrianlæg, kraftvarmeværker eller lign.

Opsamling af CO

fra punktkilder

Den bedst kendte teknologi til CO

-fangst er aminbaseret røggasrensning, som

ifølge Energistyrelsens teknologikatalog kan opsamle op mod 90-95 pct. af CO

røggassen

. Med denne teknologi ledes røggassen fra fx et kraftvarmeværk

gennem en reaktor hvor CO

”vaskes” ud af røggassen med en vandig amin-

opløsning. Den nu CO

-holdige væskestrøm varmes op i en anden reaktor, hvorved

frigives og kan renses og komprimeres, før den transporteres til deponering

eller anvendelse. Denne type anlæg er komplicerede proceskemiske anlæg, som

vurderes typisk at være underlagt skalaøkonomi (enhedsomkostningerne falder, jo

større anlæg der kan etableres), ligesom den efterfølgende transport og lagring er.

Dette giver et naturligt fokus på store punktkilder til CO

. Det vurderes fx ikke at

være rentabelt, at etablere CO

-opsamling på fx gasfyr, lastbiler eller tilsvarende

meget små, spredte kilder.

Store CO

-punktkilder kan fx være fossile eller biomassefyrede kraftvarmeværker,

affaldsforbrænding eller industrianlæg, der enten anvender brændsler til deres

processer, eller hvor processen i sig selv udleder CO

(eksempelvis

cementindustri). Der kan også være tale om mindre kilder som fjernvarmeværker,

mindre industrianlæg, off-shore anlæg eller anlæg til opgradering af biogas, hvor

’en allerede i dag separeres fra biogassen og udledes til atmosfæren, inden

biogassen kan fødes ind i naturgasnettet. De ovennævnte typer af anlæg fordeler

sig på fem sektorer, som det fremgår nedenfor.

Ifølge Energistyrelsens seneste

Klimastatus og -fremskrivning 2021

(KF21)

forventes der i 2025 at være i alt ca. 21,5 mio. ton CO

-udledninger pr. år fra de

pågældende sektorer, faldende til ca. 17,5 mio. ton i 2030. Herefter vurderes

udledningerne af falde yderligere til ca. 16 mio. ton i 2040.

Disse tal inkluderer

biogene udledninger, som ikke tælles med i det nationale CO

-regnskab ift.

opfyldelse af 70-pct. målsætningen. Biogene kilder er dog relevante i forbindelse

Energistyrelsens teknologikatalog for procesvarme og carbon capture,

https://ens.dk/service/fremskrivninger-analyser-modeller/teknologikataloger/teknologikatalog-

procesvarme-og-carbon

Fremskrivningsmetoden beskrives nærmere i afsnittet ”Metode” og i Bilag 1.

Side 5/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

med både deponering og anvendelse af CO

som beskrevet ovenfor, og de

opgøres derfor også i dette notat. Den langsigtede udvikling for alle punktkildernes

-udledninger er dog behæftet med betydelig usikkerhed.

Samlede udledninger fra punktkilder

Årlige CO

-udledninger, mio. ton per år

2025

Affaldsforbrænding

Industri

Off-shore

Biogen

2030

El og fjernvarme

Biogasopgradering

Fossil

2040

Figur 2 CO

-udledninger inkl. fossile udledninger, biogene udledninger og procesudledninger

fra sektorer med punktkilder i Danmark. Affaldsforbrænding, el- og fjernvarmeproduktion

samt industri indeholder både fossile og biogene udledninger. Industrisektoren indeholder

tillige procesudledninger. Tallene kan ikke sammenlignes med opgørelser af udledninger i

KF21, jf. Bilag 1, eller opgørelser af de nationale udledninger eller mankoen ift.

målopfyldelse i 2030, da biogene udledninger ikke indgår i opgørelsen ift. 70 pct.-målet.

Kilde: Energistyrelsen

Metode

Opgørelserne i dette notat tager udgangspunkt i Energistyrelsens Klimastatus og –

Fremskrivning 2021 (herefter KF21), som indeholder en

frozen policy-fremskrivning

af udviklingen i det danske energisystem frem til 2030 – det som tidligere var kendt

som Energistyrelsens basisfremskrivning. Sektorerne affaldsforbrænding, el- og

fjernvarmeproduktion samt off-shore fremskrives direkte i KF21, mens industri og

biogasopgradering er fremskrevet på baggrund af aggregerede forløb fra KF21.

Perioden mellem 2030 og 2040 indgår ikke i KF, men er i stedet vurderet ud fra

tendenserne i KF21 og fremskrevet frem til 2040. Dette beskrives nærmere i

Bilag

1 – Metode.

Opgørelsen tager udgangspunkt i udledninger fra alle kendte punktkilder i de

pågældende sektorer, og er aggregeret efter sektorer på en anden måde end i

KF21. Hertil kommer, at rene kondensværker (elproduktion uden samtidig

Side 6/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

varmeproduktion) ikke er medtaget i denne opgørelse, da disse anlæg kun har få

årlige driftstimer og derfor ikke er relevante for CO

-fangst.

Afgrænsning af potentialet

Fra fremskrivningen beskrevet ovenfor opnås de samlede udledninger for de

forskellige sektorer i 2025, 2030 og 2040. Ikke alle disse udledninger vil kunne

opsamles i praksis. Derfor afgrænses potentialet på følgende måde:

Først og fremmest kan typiske aminanlæg til CO

-fangst i dag maksimalt opsamle

omkring 90 pct. af CO

-indholdet i røggas. Derfor nedskrives potentialerne for alle

sektorer på nær biogasopgradering

med 10 pct. Herefter baseres det øvre skøn

for fangstpotentialet ift. punktkildernes størrelse for hver sektor, og det nedre skøn

beror på en følsomhedsvurdering for de enkelte sektorer. Dette beskrives løbende i

resten af notatet.

Off-shore medregnes ikke

Offshore-sektoren dækker over olie- og gasudvinding i Nordsøen, og sektoren

tegner sig samlet set for godt 1 mio. ton i 2025. Emissionerne stammer fra en

række mindre kilder, som umiddelbart vurderes vanskelige og omkostningstunge at

indsamle, samt anvende/deponere. Det kan dog ikke afvises, at udledningerne fra

sektoren vil kunne opsamles og deponeres i undergrunden under Nordsøen.

Omvendt, vurderes hovedparten af udledningerne at stamme fra energiproduktion,

som har et vist elektrificeringspotentiale. Dette analyseres i den igangværende

elektrificeringsanalyse jf. Nordsøaftalen fra december 2020. Endelig vurderes olie-

og gasaktiviteterne at blive udfaset frem mod 2050. Det er derfor uafklaret hvorvidt

udledninger fra offshore-sektoren vil være egnede til indfangning af CO

, og

sektorens udledninger er derfor ikke behandlet nærmere i denne analyse.

Relevante størrelser af punktkilder for opsamling

Energistyrelsens teknologikatalog viser, at der må forventes at være en vis

storskalafordel forbundet med CCS-anlæg

. Dette gælder både selve anlægget til

fangst og efterbehandling af CO

men også for transport og mellemlagring. Dermed

må det – alt andet lige – forventes at være billigere at opsamle, transportere og

lagre et ton CO

fra én stor punktkilde placeret tæt på andre punktkilder og tæt på

lageret end fra mange små kilder placeret langt fra hinanden.

Dette giver et naturligt fokus på store punktkilder og punktkilder i klynger tæt på

havne som oplagte kandidater til tidlige indsatser. Samtidig vurderes det for

Udledningerne fra biogasanlæg er allerede separeret fra røggassen og kan anvendes efter rensning

og tryksætning. De opgjorte udledninger skal derfor ikke gennem et nyt aminanlæg først og mister derfor

ikke de 10 pct.

Kilde: Energistyrelsens teknologikatalog for procesvarme og carbon capture,

https://ens.dk/service/fremskrivninger-analyser-modeller/teknologikataloger/teknologikatalog-

procesvarme-og-carbon.

Side 7/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

nuværende, at der er CO

-kilder, som er for små til, at det kan betale sig at

opsamle CO

fra dem.

Boks 1 Opgradering af biogas – eksisterende CO

-fangst

Der eksisterer i dag mere end 50 anlæg, der fanger CO

i forbindelse med opgradering af

biogas i Danmark. I disse processer separeres CO

-indholdet (ca. 30-40 pct.) i den rå

biogas og udledes til atmosfæren, inden den opgraderede (CO

-fri) biogas indfødes i

naturgasnettet. Disse anlæg findes i drift i størrelser mellem 1.000 og 50.000 ton CO

per

år. Disse anlæg vil kunne blive opfattet som værende for små til, at det kan betale sig at

etablere fangstanlæg til at opsamle CO

’en. Punktkildeopgørelsen i regeringens

Klimaprogram 2020

arbejder med en minimumsstørrelse for punktkilder i affaldssektoren,

fjernvarmesektoren og industrien på 50.000 ton per år. Da CO

’en allerede separeres fra

biogassen, vurderes disse anlæg alligevel at være relevante som punktkilder til CO

. Da

’en fra biogasanlæg ikke er behæftet med bæredygtighedsproblematikker i samme

omfang som andre biogene kilder, vurderes CO

’en fra biogasanlæg desuden at kunne

have en merværdi ift. CCU.

Separering af CO

i forbindelse med opgradering af biogas, jf. boks 1 foregår i mindre

modulære anlæg i modsætning til de store specialbyggede anlæg, der kan anvendes på

fx centrale kraftvarmeværker. Det vurderes, at masseproduktion og standardisering af

denne type mindre CO

-separeringsanlæg potentielt muliggør, at anlægsomkostningerne

for denne type anlæg kan være lavere end for store anlæg. Der er indikationer på, at

dette kan medføre lavere fangstomkostninger for små anlæg, og der er eksempler på bl.a.

affaldsforbrændingsanlæg, der er i gang med at etablere CO

-fangst svarende til ca.

50.000 ton per år baseret på teknologien fra biogasopgradering.

De ovenstående overvejelser kunne tale for at anvende en lavere grænse for

punktkilder i forbindelse med potentialeopgørelsen. I tillæg til størrelsen (CO

udledning per år), spiller en række andre faktorer dog ind på økonomien i fangst af



Størrelse af punktkilden (ton per år)



Transportafstand til mellemlager og udskibning/lagring/anvendelse



Afstand til andre punktkilder/placering i klynger



Etableringsomkostninger (CAPEX) og dermed også den forventede

forrentning (WACC)



Årlig driftstid for anlægget (antal fuldlasttimer), som definerer CAPEX andel

af omkostningen per opsamlet ton CO



Placering ift. et fjernvarmenet af en vis størrelse, der muliggør udnyttelse af

overskudsvarme fra fangstprocessen, hvilket kan give et bidrag til

økonomien.

Side 8/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Der er ikke udarbejdet en konkret analyse af samspillet af disse faktorer for de

hundredevis af mindre punktkilder i Danmark, da dette i en vis udstrækning vil

kræve individuelle konkrete vurderinger. I Figur 3 vises dog en opgørelse af

potentialet i 2040 baseret på forskellige afskæringer i størrelse.

Udledninger i 2040 efter størrelse af kilden

Årlige CO

-udledninger, mio. ton per år

alle

min. 25.000

min. 50.000

ton CO

per år

El og fjernvarme

Industri

min. 100.000

Affaldsforbrænding

Biogasopgradering

Figur 3 Opgørelse af udledninger i 2040 afhængig af størrelsen på kilderne, der indgår.

Fremtidige biogasopgraderingsanlæg er antaget at have størrelser over 50.000 ton per år.

Figuren viser, at det samlede potentiale i vid udstrækning afhænger af, hvor små

punktkilder, der medregnes. Opgørelsen viser yderligere en række karakteristika

ved store og små punktkilder og afhængighed af forskellige sektorer.

De største punktkilder ligger generelt i byer ved vandet

De største punktkilder i landet findes i affaldssektoren, industrien og de store

kraftvarmeværker. Heraf ligger stort set alle de største punktkilder i eller tæt ved de

fem største byer i landet, som alle er havnebyer. Undtagelser herfor er tre af de ti

største affaldsforbrændingsanlæg i 2025 (Maabjergværket i Holstebro,

Vestforbrænding i Glostrup og ARGO i Roskilde) og to af de ti største udledere i el-

og fjernvarmesektoren (Herningværket og Randers Kraftvarmeværk). Dermed

ligger hovedparten af de store udledere og dermed hovedparten af potentialet i

klynger omkring de store byer, hvor koncentrationen af store kilder forventes at

kunne bidrage positivt til økonomien i transport, mellemlagring samt

deponi/anvendelse. Dette taler for at basere opgørelsen primært på de største

punktkilder. Små og mellemstore udledere kan dog blive særligt interessante, hvis

de ligger tæt på større klynger eller kan organiseres i egne klynger, eller hvis de

ligger i nærheden af anden industri eller lign., som kan tænkes at anvende

opsamlet CO

. Den geografiske fordeling af punktkilderne behandles nærmere i

slutningen af dette notat.

Side 9/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Store punktkilder ligger i store fjernvarmenet

Placering i store fjernvarmenet muliggør potentielt udnyttelse af overskudsvarme

fra fangstprocessen. Der er behov for fjernvarmenet af en vis størrelse, for at sikre,

at disse fleksibelt kan aftage de relativt store mængder overskudsvarme, der

potentielt kan være til rådighed fra fangstanlæggene. Dette vil være størst til fordel

for store punktkilder nær store byer sammenlignet med mindre punktkilder, da de

store kilder alt andet lige vurderes at ville have nemmere ved at afsætte

overskudsvarmen og herved opnår et positivt bidrag til økonomien i projektet.

Industrien har typisk højere forrentningskrav end forsyningssektoren

-fangst er forbundet med store initialomkostninger til ombygning og etablering

af nye anlæg, og de aktører, der skal etablere anlæggene, må forventes at have

visse forrentningskrav til investeringerne. Disse krav kan forventes at være højere

end de relevante sektorers normale forrentningskrav (WACC), da der i nogen grad

er tale om ny teknologi og nye markeder, hvilket øger investeringernes risici. De

fleste industrivirksomheder arbejder desuden med interne forrentningskrav, som er

markant højere end de kendes fra fx forsyningssektorerne. Dette kan potentielt

betyde, at særligt industrisektoren kan finde investeringer i CO

-opsamling

uinteressante, også set i relation til, at energi og miljø sjældent er en del af

virksomhedens hovedforretning. Dette taler for, at anlægge en højere

minimumsgrænse for industrisektoren i forbindelse med opgørelsen.

Opsamling

Baseret på ovenstående, vurderes punktkilder over 50.000 ton CO

/år i industrien,

affaldsforbrænding samt el- og fjernvarmesektoren relevante for opsamling i tillæg

til alle biogasopgraderingsanlæg, at være relevante for opsamling og efterfølgende

anvendelse eller deponering. Dette uddybes yderligere i beskrivelserne for de

enkelte sektorer nedenfor.

Opgørelse af punktkilder i Danmark

I det følgende redegøres for CO

punktkilder i Danmark, herunder mængden af

-udledning frem mod 2025, 2030 og 2040, typer af punktkilder mv. for de fire

sektorer affaldsforbrænding, industri, el og fjernvarme samt biogasopgradering.

Der er forskel på punktkilderne i de fire sektorer, både i forhold til CO

koncentration i røggassen, antallet af årlige driftstimer, økonomiske forhold og

regulering omkring de pågældende aktører, placering og i forhold til usikkerheden

om, hvorvidt kilderne er tilgængelige og velegnede til indfangning af CO

fremtiden. Baseret herpå vurderes det, at indfangningspotentialet fra punktkilder i

2040 er ca. 4,5-9 mio. ton pr. år. Dette kunne fordele sig på sektorerne som angivet

nedenfor. Heraf forventes op til ca. 3 mio. ton at stamme fra fossile brændsler og

procesudledninger i industrien og en mindre mængde fossilt forbrændingsaffald,

mens op mod ca. 6 mio. ton forventes at stamme fra biogene kilder.

Side 10/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Det estimeres, at nedenstående udledninger vil være teknisk tilgængelige til

indfangning i 2040 for de forskellige sektorer. Vurderingerne, der ligger til grund for

de enkelte potentialeskøn gennemgås efterfølgende.



Affaldsforbrænding:

Ca. 1,5-2,5 mio. ton CO

pr. år fra anlæg over

50.000 ton per år. Heraf vurderes knap 1 mio. tons at kunne komme fra de

tre største affaldsværker i Storkøbenhavn.

El- og fjernvarmeproduktion:

Ca. 1-2 mio. tons CO

pr. år fra anlæg over

50.000 tons per år med driftstider over 2.500 fuldlasttimer per år, hvoraf det

største centrale biomassekraftvarmeværk, Amagerværkets Blok 4

forventes at udlede op mod 1 mio. tons alene.

Industri:

Ca. 1-3 mio. tons CO

pr. år, som for det høje skøn svarer til

udledningerne fra Aalborg Portland, såfremt de erstatter deres forbrug af

petrokoks med ledningsgas og fra raffinaderierne i Kalundborg og

Fredericia samt øvrige industrielle udledere over 50.000 ton per år.

Biogasopgradering:

ca. 0,7-1,3 mio. tons CO

pr. år, spredt over mange

(>50) mindre punktkilder. Biogasanlæggende medtages, da CO

allerede

separeres i processen til biogasopgradering.



Skønnede fangstpotentialer fordelt på sektorer

Årlige CO

-udledninger, mio. ton per år

Højt skøn Lavt skøn

2025

Affaldsforbrænding

2030

El og fjernvarme

Industri

2040

Biogasopgradering

Figur 4 Øvre og nedre skøn over opsamlingspotentialer fordelt på sektorer frem til 2040. Det

er behæftet med usikkerhed, hvorvidt punktkilderne vil være til stede i 2030 og 2040, samt

hvor meget driftstid – og dermed udledninger – de enkelte anlæg har på sigt.

Kilde: Energistyrelsen

Side 11/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Perspektivering til andre punktkildeopgørelser

Figur 4 viser Energistyrelsens skøn for fangstpotentialerne i denne opgørelse.

Spændene i de enkelte år udgør samlet set ca. 4,5-10 mio. ton CO

per år i 2030

og ca. 4,5-9 mio. ton CO

per år i 2040. Tabel 1 viser en sammenligning med skøn

fra andre opgørelser.

Som det fremgår udgør nærværende opgørelse en mindre nedjustering ift.

potentialeopgørelsen i Klimaprogram 2020. Årsagen til dette skal findes i flere

modsatrettede udviklinger: Den mere indgående behandling af mindre punktkilder

samt den opjusterede prognose for biogasopgradering trækker opad, mens

sænkningen i forventede udledninger fra særligt affaldsforbrænding som følge af

Klimaplan for en grøn affaldssektor og cirkulær økonomi

og en mere indgående

behandling af biomassekraftvarme trækker nedad.

Tabel 1 Sammenligning af opgørelser af fangstpotentiale.

Opgørelse

Denne analyse

Klimaprogram 2020

Dansk Energi, 2021

DØRS, 2021

Potentialeskøn, mio. ton CO

per år

2030

2040

Total

Heraf

Total

Heraf

fossil

4,5 - 10

1–3

4,5 – 9

0,5 – 3

5 - 10

6,9

3,5 - 6,5

1,8

0,5 - 1

5 - 10

6,3

1,8

Klimarådet, 2020

4,5

7,5

Noter:

: Klimarådets opgørelse indeholder ikke et potentiale for 2040, men et samlet

langsigtet potentiale, her anført i kolonnen for 2040.

Potentialet ligger endvidere lidt højere end potentialeopgørelserne fra Dansk Energi

(DE), 2021

, De Økonomiske Råd (DØRS), 2021

og Klimarådet, 2020

jf. tabellen.

Opgørelserne fra DE og DØRS udgør økonomiske potentialer, der på baggrund af

en række antagelser identificerer en andel af de samlede udledninger som egnede

til opsamling, givet en bestemt betalingsvillighed. Begge opgørelser medregner kun

i begrænset omfang mulighederne for billig opsamling fra små punktkilder baseret

på modulær teknologi fra biogasopgradering, og opgørelsen fra DØRS medregner

ikke potentialerne for opsamling fra biogas. Opgørelsen fra Klimarådet er en

teknisk opgørelse baseret på økonomiske overvejelser, som kun medregner én

punktudleder fra el- og fjernvarmesektoren. Klimarådet angiver i øvrigt ikke et

Potentialet for CO2-fangst i Danmark til den grønne omstilling, Dansk Energi, 2021,

https://www.danskenergi.dk/udgivelser/potentialet-co2-fangst-danmark-til-groenne-omstilling

Økonomi og Miljø 2020, Kapitel I: Dansk klimapolitik frem mod 2030, Det Økonomiske Råds

Sekretariat,

https://dors.dk/vismandsrapporter/oekonomi-miljoe-2020

Kendte veje og nye spor til 70 procents reduktion, Klimarådet, 2020,

https://klimaraadet.dk/da/rapporter/kendte-veje-og-nye-spor-til-70-procents-reduktion

Side 12/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

potentiale i 2040, men opererer med et samlet potentiale (angivet i kolonnen for

2040 i tabellen), hvoraf en andel vurderes at kunne realiseres i 2030. Nærværende

opgørelse forholder sig ikke til, hvad der vil kunne realiseres inden 2030 eller 2040.

Sammenligningen peger også på de centrale usikkerheder i nærværende

opgørelse:



Særligt i el- og fjernvarmesektoren består en stor del af det opgjorte

potentiale af mindre og mellemstore kilder. De økonomiske perspektiver i

opsamling af CO

fra disse kilder vurderes at afhænge af, at teknologien fra

biogasanlæg kan udbredes til fjernvarmesektoren med lavere

omkostninger til følge.

En væsentlig udfordring ved de små punktkilder – givet at

opsamlingsteknologien er billig nok – er transportafstande. Her henledes

opmærksomheden på det samlede potentiale opgjort for de fem klynger i

slutningen af dette notat, som i 2040 vurderes at udgøre op mod 7 mio. ton

per år. Omkring 75 pct. af det i denne analyse opgjorte potentiale

vurderes altså at have relativt korte transportafstande i områder med andre

store udledere, hvilket vurderes at kunne fremme økonomien i nedstrøms

dele af værdikæden.

Fremtiden for anvendelse af biomasse til energiformål, herunder særligt

kraftvarme- og varmeproduktion, har afgørende indflydelse på størrelsen af

fangstpotentialet. I denne opgørelse medtages anlæg med flere end 2.500

fuldlasttimer i det øvre skøn, hvilket giver et potentiale fra sektoren på knap

2 mio. ton. Hæves grænsen derimod til 3.500 fuldlasttimer, falder

potentialet til ca. 0,5 mio. ton, bl.a. i kraft af, at de ca. 1 mio. ton fra

Amagerværkets Blok 4 så ikke medregnes. Det øvre spænd for punktkilde-

opgørelsen er således særligt sårbar for udviklingen i el- og varmesektoren

i perioden 2030-2040, som ikke indgår i KF21.



Ovenstående taler dels for, at de nedre skøn for særligt el- og fjernvarmesektoren

og i nogen grad affaldssektoren tillægges størst vægt. Anvendelse af potentialer

over det nedre skøn kan således medføre risici for, at der bevares CO

-udledninger

fra punktkilder, med afsætning til CCUS, som alternativt ville være lukket eller

reduceret af sig selv.

Hertil peger overvejelserne på, at der er behov for en yderligere kvalificering af

omkostningerne ved opsamling af CO

fra de forskellige punktudledere, og særligt

på et behov for øget viden om opsamling af CO

fra mindre anlæg med anvendelse

af standardkomponenter kendt fra biogasopgradering.

Side 13/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Fossil eller biogen CO

Som det fremgår af indledningen, indtager biogen CO

en særlig rolle, idet disse

kilder kan anvendes til produktion af CO

-neutrale brændstoffer (CCU) eller

negative emissioner til kompensation for udledninger i andre sektorer (BECCS).

Figur 5 viser fangstpotentialet i denne opgørelse fordelt på fossile, biogene og

procesudledninger, hvoraf de biogene vurderes at udgøre ca. 3,5-6 mio. ton i 2040.

Som nævnt i indledningen bør procesudledninger fra fx cementindustri og

raffinaderier medregnes som fossile udledninger. Til sammenligning vurderer

Dansk Energi, at potentialet for opsamling af biogen CO

i 2040 beløber sig til ca.

4,5 mio. ton. Forskellen mellem DE’s opgørelse og det høje skøn i nærværende

analyse stammer hovedsageligt fra affaldssektoren og fra industrien. Fsva.

affaldssektoren vurderes forskellen at stamme fra overvejelserne om størrelser af

punktkilderne, som beskrevet ovenfor, mens forskellen i industrien vurderes at

afvige pga. forskellige forudsætninger vedrørende omstilling til VE-gas (biogas og

andre grønne gasser som brint) i industrien.

Skønnede fangstpotentialer fordelt efter type af CO

Årlige CO

-udledninger, mio. ton per år

Højt skøn Lavt skøn

2025

Fossil

2030

Proces

Biogen

2040

Figur 5 Øvre skøn over opsamlingspotentialer fordelt på biogene, fossile og

procesudledninger frem mod 2040. Kilde: Energistyrelsen.

Der må forventes en betydelig efterspørgsel efter biogen CO

i fremtiden. Med en

simpel omregning af PtX-potentialet i Klimaprogram 2020, anslås et CO

-behov på

op mod ca. 1,5 mio. ton om året i 2030, mens Dansk Energi har opgjort

efterspørgslen alene til produktion af PtX-brændstoffer i transportsektoren til 1,8

mio. ton i 2030 og 4,4 mio. ton i 2040. Hertil kommer potentielle behov for grøn CO

til negative emissioner.

Det falder uden for formålet med dette notat at opgøre det samlede behov for grøn

til negative emissioner og PtX-brændstoffer – særligt frem mod klimaneutralitet

Side 14/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

i 2050. Dansk Energi peger dog på, at der allerede i 2040 vil opstå mangel på grøn

til dækning af disse behov, hvilket ikke umiddelbart afkræftes af nærværende

potentialeopgørelse. En mulig tilgang til denne ubalance kan være øget import af

biomasse. En anden kan være udvikling af teknologier til direkte opsamling af CO

fra atmosfæren, kaldet DAC (direct air capture), hvilket Klimarådet også peger på

Sektorspecifikke overvejelser

Forskellige karakteristika præger de fire sektorer mht. både CO

-koncentration i

røggassen, antallet af årlige driftstimer, økonomiske forhold og regulering omkring

de pågældende aktører, placering og i forhold til usikkerheden om, hvorvidt kilderne

er tilgængelige og velegnede til indfangning af CO

i 2040.

De forskellige sektorer og deres særlige karakteristika ift. CO

-fangst gennemgås

nedenfor, hvoraf det fremgår hvilken tilgang, der er valgt til afskæring ifht. størrelse

og vurdering af egnethed til CO

-opsamling.

Industri

Opgørelsen er baseret på de 30 største industrielle CO

-udledere i Danmark, som

forventes at have samlede udledninger på knap 4,5 mio. tons i 2025, heraf godt 3,5

mio. tons fra fossile udledninger og procesudledninger. Dette skønnes herefter at

være stort set uændret frem mod 2040.

Den danske industrisektor er præget af tre meget store udledere, og en lang række

mindre og meget små udledere, særligt inden for tegl, fødevarebranchen mv. Dette

illustreres i Figur 6, der viser de 30 største industrielle udledere. Efter de tre største

udledere, er der kun syv udledere med mere end 50.000 ton CO

om året og

herefter yderligere syv udledere med mere end 25.000 ton om året.

Kendte veje og nye spor til 70 procents reduktion, Klimarådet, 2020,

https://klimaraadet.dk/da/rapporter/kendte-veje-og-nye-spor-til-70-procents-reduktion

Side 15/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Udledninger fra de 30 største industrielle udledere

Årlige CO

-udledninger, mio. ton per

år

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

2025

Figur 6 Størrelser for de 30 største industrielle CO

-udledere baseret på kvoteregisteret og

fremskrevet på baggrund af KF21.

For nogle af de industrielle punktudledere er elektrificering ikke muligt, da de

industrielle processer foregår ved høje temperaturer og anvendelse af brændsel

direkte i produktionsprocessen, eksempelvis i forbindelse med produktion af

cement, kalk, glasuld osv. Disse udledere må forventes fortsat at have et

brændselsforbrug – og dermed CO

-udledninger – fremover. Dog ikke

nødvendigvis fossile. Punktudledere med et lavere temperaturbehov, og som pt.

anvender gas- eller oliekedler, vil på sigt have et potentiale for at omstille til

procesvarmepumper eller andre vedvarende energikilder. Generelt vurderes der at

eksistere et betydeligt potentiale for omstilling til VE, elektrificering og

energieffektiviseringer i industrien, som i KF21 ikke forventes realiseret uden

yderligere tiltag. Det vurderes, at realisering af væsentlige dele af dette potentiale

vil være billigere end CCS, og vil kunne forekomme gennem eksempelvis

stigninger i ETS kvoteprisen eller nye nationale virkemidler. Dette taler for, at det

langsigtede potentiale for CO

-fangst i industrien er lavere end de fremskrevne

udledninger i KF21. Hertil kommer, at der må forventes en vis omlægning fra

fossile til biogene udledninger, særligt fra skift fra naturgas til biogas som følge af

den stigende VE-andel i gasnettet. Dette afspejles i et sænket ”lavt skøn” for

industrisektoren.

Der antages en minimumsstørrelse på 50.000 ton CO

per år for industrielle

punktudledere i opgørelsen af det fangstpotentialet. Det samlede fangstpotentiale i

industrien bliver dermed omkring 1-3 mio. ton CO

per år, jf. Figur 7.

Side 16/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Årlige CO

-udledninger, mio. ton per år

Udledninger og fangstpotentialer fra industri

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

2025

2030

Fossil Proces

2040

Biogen

Figur 7 Samlede udledninger og fangstpotentialer for CO

-opsamling i industrien. De

samlede udledninger er baseret på oplysninger fra kvoteregisteret, som er fremskrevet på

baggrund af KF21 og herefter forlænget frem til 2040. Forlængelsen frem mod 2040 er ikke

en del af den konsoliderede fremskrivning, og er derfor forbundet med væsentlig usikkerhed

Fangstpotentialer er begrænset til udledere over 50.000 ton per år, og heri indgår endvidere

nedenstående eksempelberegning for Aalborg Portlands annoncerede omstilling til

ledningsgas.

Aalborg Portland

Cementfabrikken Aalborg Portland er landets største industrielle udleder af CO

, og

forventes i KF21 at udlede godt 2,2 mio. ton CO

i 2030. Produktionen og dermed

udledningen af CO

vurderes at være relativt konstant året rundt. CO

koncentrationen i røggassen anslås til ca. 16 pct. for cementfabrikker generelt.

Aalborg Portland indgik i september 2020 en aftale med regeringen om at sikre

-reduktioner på samlet set 660.000 tons per år og til at samarbejde om

yderligere reduktioner

. Dele af denne aftale indgår i vurderingen af udledningerne

fra Aalborg Portland i KF21’s grundforløb

I foråret 2021 indgik virksomheden endvidere en aftale med Evida

om forsyning

med ledningsgas fra 2022. Det danske gasnet indeholder omkring 20 pct.

opgraderet biogas iblandet den fossile naturgas og forventes i Energistyrelsens

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/coal/010820-us-45q-tax-credit-key-to-

developing-carbon-capture-facility-in-colorado

Klima-, energi og forsyningsministeriet, 2020,

https://kefm.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/2020/sep/aalborg-

portland

KF21 forudsætningsnotat om cementproduktion, Energistyrelsen, 2021,

https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Basisfremskrivning/7d_kf21_forudsaetningsnotat_-

_cementproduktion.pdf

Evida, 2021,

https://evida.dk/nyheder/evida-kobler-aalborg-portland-pa-gasnettet/

Side 17/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Analyseforudsætninger til Energinet 2020

(AF20) at stige til op mod 100 pct. i 2040.

Dette kan bidrage til at sænke udledningerne fra Aalborg Portland, da naturgas

udleder mindre CO

per GJ energiindhold end den petrokoks, som Aalborg

Portland bl.a. anvender i dag. Gasnettets stigende andel af biogas vil desuden give

anledning til et delvist skift fra fossile til biogene CO

-udledninger. Den præcise

udformning af de tekniske løsninger og de resulterende udledninger fra Aalborg

Portland i fremtiden er ikke kendt. I denne opgørelse er det derfor antaget, at det i

KF21 forventede energiforbrug af kul og petrokoks erstattes 1:1 med ledningsgas,

hvor der er forsøgt at tage højde for den lavere energitæthed i gas ift. kul og

petrokoks, hvilket giver anledning til lavere samlede udledninger og let stigende

biogene udledninger.

En omlægning af Aalborg Portlands produktion til gas skaber en væsentligt øget

efterspørgsel efter ledningsgas, uden der nødvendigvis skabes et større udbud af

opgraderet biogas. Denne effekt vurderes – alt andet lige – at ville sænke andelen

af opgraderet biogas i nettet for øvrige aftagere af ledningsgas i opgørelsen.

Raffinaderierne

Equinor og Shell raffinaderierne i hhv. Kalundborg og Fredericia forventes i KF21 at

udlede knap 1 mio. ton CO

tilsammen i 2030 og er dermed de næststørste

udledere af CO

i den industrielle sektor. Raffinaderiernes rolle i det fremtidige

energisystem er uvis, og de fremtidige udledninger herfra er derfor behæftet med

betydelig usikkerhed. Frem mod 2040 forventes der dog stadig at være et forbrug

af olieprodukter. På linje med øvrige industrivirksomheder vurderes

fangstpotentialet fra raffinaderierne at ligge lavere end de samlede udledninger

opgjort i KF21.

Affaldsforbrænding

Udledningerne fra affaldsforbrænding forventes at være knap 4 mio. tons i 2025, og

forventes i KF21 at falde til ca. 3 mio. tons i 2030, bl.a. som følge af aftalen om

Klimaplan for en grøn affaldssektor og cirkulær økonomi

fra juni 2020. Herefter

vurderes kun et mindre fald frem mod 2040. Heraf forventes fossile udledninger at

udgøre ca. 0,5 mio. ton i 2040. De tre største punktkilder forventes under betydelig

usikkerhed at udgøre knap 1,5 mio. tons i 2040. Den største udleder af CO

blandt

affaldsværkerne er Amager Ressourcecenter (ARC).

Affaldsforbrændingsanlæg er generelt kendetegnet ved at køre i fuld drift det meste

af året, da driften defineres af behovet for behandling af affald og ikke af et

svingende forbrug af el og fjernvarme. Dette er illustreret i Figur 8 nedenfor, hvor

brændselsforbruget til afbrænding af affald er vist for 2019. Her fremgår det, at

variationen over året er begrænset. Det betyder, at udledningen af CO

hen over

året ligeledes forventes at være stabil. I fremskrivningen, der ligger til grund for

denne opgørelse, vurderes alle affaldsforbrændinger at have høje antal

fuldlasttimer – typisk mellem 6.000 og 8.000 fuldlasttimer.

Side 18/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Figur 8 Brændselsforbrug på affaldsforbrændingsanlæg hen over året i 2019.

Kilde: Hovedbrændselsopgørelsen.

Den stabile drift medvirker til at sænke omkostningerne til afskrivning af

fangstanlægget. I tillæg hertil kommer, at affaldsforbrænding frem mod 2040

vurderes fortsat at indeholde en fossil fraktion, som de fortrinsvist kommunalt ejede

affaldsforbrændingsanlæg må forventes at have ønsker om at håndtere som end el

af lokale målsætninger. Affaldsforbrændingsanlæg må derfor forventes at have

relativt lave interne forrentningskrav.

Baseret på ovenstående medtages CO

-udledninger fra affaldsforbrændingsanlæg

med flere end 50.000 ton CO

om året i opgørelsen af fangstpotentialet, som

vurderes at være knap 1,5-2,5 mio. ton per år i 2040, jf. Figur 9. Det lave skøn

repræsenterer en situation, hvor kun de største anlæg i de største byer etablerer

-fangst.

Side 19/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Årlige CO

-udledninger, mio. ton per år

Udledninger og fangstpotentialer fra affaldsforbrænding

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

2025

2030

Fossil Biogen

2040

Figur 9 Samlede udledninger og fangstpotentiale for affaldsforbrænding. Fangstpotentialet er

begrænset til udledere over 25.000 ton per år for det høje skøn og til udledere over 100.000

ton per år i de største byer for det lave skøn. Kilde: Energistyrelsen.

El- og fjernvarmeproduktion

-udledningerne fra el- og fjernvarmeproduktion kommer i dag primært fra de

store centrale kul-, og biomassefyrede kraftvarmeværker. Kraftvarmeværkerne og

en lang række rene varmeværker forventes samlet set at stå for en udledning på

ca. 7,5 mio. ton CO

i 2030, som primært kommer fra de centrale, biomassefyrede

værker. Ca. 3,5 mio. tons kommer fra de ti største centrale værker og omkring 2,0

mio. ton fra sektorens tre største udledere. I perioden efter 2030 forventes flere

store kraftværksblokke at lukke, jf. bl.a. Energistyrelsens

Analyseforudsætninger til

Energinet 2020

(AF20)

. Herefter vurderes omkring halvdelen af sektorens

resterende punktkildeudledninger på i alt ca. 6,5 mio. ton at stamme fra de 8

største punktkilder. Såfremt der indføres initiativer til reduktion af

biomasseforbruget i Danmark, jf. nedenfor, må CO

-udledningerne herfra forventes

reduceret tilsvarende.

Den største udleder for denne sektor forventes at være Amagerværkets Blok 4. Det

sidste kulfyrede værk forventes at blive udfaset i 2028, og det vil således kun være

udledninger fra biomasseværker, som potentielt kan indfanges. CO

koncentrationen i røggassen på biomasseværkerne anslås at være ca. 10-13 pct.

Opsamling af CO

fra biomassekraftvarmeværker

Produktionen på biomassekraftvarmeværkerne følger i høj grad

varmeefterspørgslen, og udledningen herfra er derfor begrænset i sommerhalvåret,

jf. Figur 10. Dette medfører, at fangstanlæg samt nedstrømsanlæg som CO

Energistyrelsens analyseforudsætninger til Energinet, 2020,

https://ens.dk/service/fremskrivninger-

analyser-modeller/analyseforudsaetninger-til-energinet

Side 20/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

rensning, komprimering, transport og mellemlagring har behov for stor kapacitet til

at dække det høje forbrug i vintermånederne, mens der vil være stor ledig kapacitet

i sommermånederne.

Figur 10 Biomasseforbrug på centrale kraftvarmeværker fordelt hen over året i 2019 og

foregående år. Enhed i TJ. Kilde: Energistyrelsens Energistatistik

Et mål for, i hvor høj grad kapaciteten i et anlæg udnyttes, er anlæggets antal af

såkaldte fuldlasttimer på et år. Hvis et anlæg har 8760 fuldlasttimer, er 100 pct. af

kapaciteten udnyttet i alle årets 8760 timer. Har et anlæg derimod 4380

fuldlasttimer (halvdelen af 8760), svarer det til, at anlægget kører med halv

kapacitetsudnyttelse i alle årets timer eller fuld kapacitetsudnyttelse i halvdelen af

årets timer. Eller en kombination af disse. Typiske grundlastanlæg som flisfyrede

kraftvarmeværker har i dag typisk mellem 4.500 og 5.000 fuldlasttimer om året.

De store udsving i produktionen betyder, at kapaciteten på både

varmeproduktionsanlægget og fangstanlægget udnyttes dårligere, da der i mange

timer vil være uudnyttet kapacitet. Dermed må afskrivningerne på investeringen i et

fangstanlæg fordeles på færre ton opsamlet CO

. Dette øger omkostningerne per

ton CO

til afskrivning af anlægget markant, som eksempelberegningerne i Figur 11

viser. Dette vurderes at gælde for alle kraftvarme- og fjernvarmeanlæg, selvom

udsvingene vurderes at være mere udtalte for de store anlæg i de store

fjernvarmeområder, hvor affaldsforbrænding og overskudsvarme typisk dækker det

meste af varmebehovet om sommeren.

Side 21/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

6.000

Fangstomkostninger, kr./ton CO

Estimerede fangstomkostninger afhængig af

fuldlasttimer

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Figur 11 Regneeksempel for fangstomkostninger ved et ”post-combustion” anlæg til CO2-

fangst afhængig af antallet af årlige fuldlasttimer på anlægget. Kilde: Energistyrelsens

teknologikatalog for ”Post combustion – large biomass”.

Ovenstående har også en markant indflydelse på det økonomiske potentiale for

opsamling af CO

fra el- og fjernvarmeproducerende anlæg. Dette illustreres i Figur

12, der viser det samlede potentialet for CO

-fangst fra alle anlæg over 50.000 ton

per år, afhængig af hvor mange fuldlasttimer der kræves for, at anlægget

tælles med. Den grønne kolonne til venstre for hvert år viser alle anlæg med mindst

1 fuldlasttime om året (alle anlæg i drift), mens fx den røde kolonne viser potentialet

fra alle anlæg med mindst 2.000 fuldlasttimer om året osv.

Side 22/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Fangstpotentiale efter minimum antal fuldlasttimer

Årlige CO

-udledninger, mio. ton per år

2025

2030

2040

Minimum antal årlige fuldlasttimer: 1

1000

2000

2500

3000

4000

Figur 12 Fangstpotentialer i 2025, 2030 og 2040 opgjort for anlæg over 50.000 ton CO

per

år med forskellige minimum antal af årlige fuldlasttimer. Enkelte fossile kraftvarmeværker

indgår i figuren, uden at det flytter på konklusionen. Kilde: Energistyrelsen.

-fangst fra el- og fjernvarmeanlæg er altså økonomisk udfordret pga. relativt

lave antal driftstimer. Dermed bliver kravene til placering af biomassefyrede anlæg

større, fordi der kræves kortere transportafstande og storskalafordele i forbindelse

med fx klynger af andre udledere, hvor transportinfrastruktur mv. kan deles med

andre anlæg.

Biomasseforbruget i fremtiden

Biomasseværkernes driftsmønster og fremtid særligt i et længere perspektiv er

usikkert pga. øget konkurrence fra andre kilder mv. På baggrund af

Klimaaftalen for

Energi og Industri 2020

er en analyse under udarbejdelse, der skal vurdere

konsekvenserne for biomasseforbruget, elforsyningssikkerhed, fjernvarmepriser

mv. forbundet med forskellige tilgange til at begrænse anvendelsen af biomasse til

energiformål. Analysen er ikke færdig. Men det vurderes indledningsvis, at en

begrænsning af biomasseforbruget kan medføre tre overordnede tendenser:

1. Begrænsning af forbrug medfører færre, mindre biomassebaserede

punktkilder og dermed færre CO

-udledninger.

2. Af hensyn til forsyningssikkerhed vedr. både el- og varmeforsyning, kan en

række biomassefyrede anlæg forventes fastholdt – dog evt. i ændrede

roller, hvor de i højere grad anvendes som spidslastanlæg for

fjernvarmenettet og spids- og reservelastanlæg i elsystemet. Der vurderes

dog også at være en vis sandsynlighed for at disse ydelser i stigende

omfanget bliver leveret af gasturbiner og gasmotorer baseret på biogas.

Dette vurderes at kunne medføre et sænket antal fuldlasttimer for de

pågældende anlæg.

Side 23/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

3. Der kan muligvis også forventes et lagsigtet skift væk fra biomassefyrede

kraftvarmeværker over mod biomassekedler til ren varmeproduktion i

vinterhalvåret som supplement til varmepumper og overskudsvarme.

Alle tre effekter må forventes at medføre forringede økonomiske vilkår for angst,

lagring og anvendelse af CO

fra de større punktkilder, mens mindre punktkilder,

under betydelig usikkerhed vurderes at levere hovedparten af udledningerne.

En mulig modsatrettet effekt kan opstå, såfremt der etableres et marked for

opsamlet CO

eller på anden måde gives økonomiske incitamenter til CO

-fangst.

Det kan ikke udelukkes, at sådanne økonomiske incitamenter kan forbedre

driftsøkonomien i biomassekraftvarmeværker og biomasse-varmeværker. Dette

kan give eksisterende anlæg flere driftstimer, eller give incitamenter til fastholdelse,

levetidsforlængelse eller etablering af nye biomasseforbrugende anlæg. Dette er

ikke nærmere analyseret i nærværende analyse.

De store biomassefyrede værker, som er etableret/konverteret for nyligt, må dog

forventes at producere en vis periode fremover, uanset hvilken tilgang, der vælges.

Baseret på ovenstående vurderes el- og fjernvarmeproducerende anlæg at være

relevante for CO

-opsaling i størrelser over 50.000 ton CO

per år. Samtidig

vurderes anlæg med mindre end 2.500 årlige fuldlasttimer at medføre for høje

omkostninger til at det er rentabelt at opsamle CO

’en, jf. Figur 11. Dermed

skønnes fangstpotentialet fra el- og fjernvarmeproduktion omkring 1-2 mio. ton per

år i 2040, jf. Figur 13. Det vurderes, at det mest sandsynlige udfald ligger i den

nedre del af spændet.

Side 24/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Årlige CO

-udledninger, mio. ton per år

Udledninger og fangstpotentialer fra el og fjernvarme

2025

2030

Fossil Biogen

2040

Figur 13 Samlede udledninger og fangstpotentiale for CO

-opsamling fra el- og

fjernvarmeproducerende anlæg. Det høje skøn er begrænset til udledere over 50.000 ton per

år. Kilde: Energistyrelsen.

Anlæg til opgradering af biogas

Biogas fra biogasanlæg indeholder generelt omkring 60-70 pct. metan og omkring

30-40 pct. CO

. Som et led i opgraderingen af biogassen forud for indfødning i

gasnettet, separeres og udledes CO

-fraktionen ved hjælp af aminbaseret CO

fangst på samme måde som røggas kan renses på kraftværker eller lign. Den

udledte CO

stammer fra biomasseinputtet i anlægget, og opfattes som

klimaneutral.

Der er i dag ca. 50 opgraderende biogasanlæg i Danmark. Der er store forskelle på

produktionen på de enkelte anlæg og dermed også på CO

-udledningerne, som

vurderes at ligge mellem ca. 1.000 og ca. 50.000 ton per år. Figuren viser den

årlige CO

-udledning fra de 54 eksisterende biogasopgraderingsanlæg i Danmark.

Side 25/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Udledninger fra eksisterende biogasopgraderingsanlæg

Årlige CO

-udledninger, kton per år

2025

2030

Figur 14 Årlige udledninger fra kendte biogasopgraderingsanlæg i Danmark baseret på KF21

for 2025 og 2030.

Kilde: Energistyrelsen.

Biogasprognosen og KF21 indeholder en fremskrivning af produktionen for de

eksisterende anlæg til 2030 samt en vurdering af den yderligere produktion, der vil

komme som følge af de seneste biogasudbud samt de udbud til biogas og andre

grønne gasser, der forventes iværksat fra 2022 eller 2023. De langsigtede

udledninger er fastholdt fra 2030 til 2040, dog med en mindre justering som følge af

ophør af støtteordninger i starten af 2030’erne.

Det forventes, at nye, kommende biogasanlæg vil være i samme størrelsesorden

som de større anlæg bygget i 2019 og 2020. Derfor medregnes de kommende

anlæg alle med størrelser over 50.000 ton per år.

Som beskrevet separeres CO

allerede i dag fra biogassen som led i

opgraderingsprocessen. CO

-udledningerne fra biogasanlæg er derfor i princippet

klar til anvendelse. Dermed får punktkildens størrelsen mindre betydning for

økonomien i opsamling. Der vurderes dog at være behov for yderligere rensning og

komprimering samt evt. et mellemlager, såfremt CO

-en skal klargøres til transport

eller anvendes, hvilket dog vil være forbundet med markant lavere omkostninger

end CO

-fangst fra røggas på større anlæg. Hertil kommer, at der kan være en

øget betalingsvillighed for CO

fra biogasanlæg, da den anvendte biomasse i

mindre grad er udfordret mht. bæredygtighed og klimaneutralitet end fx importeret

træbiomasse i centrale kraftværker. Derfor inkluderes alle

biogasopgraderingsanlæg i opgørelsen.

Det samlede CO

-fangstpotentiale for biogasopgradering skønnes dermed at være

omkring 0,5-1 mio. ton CO

i 2025 og forventes at stige til 0,7-1,3 mio. ton i 2040.

Side 26/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Årlige CO

-udledninger, mio. ton per år

Udledninger og fangstpotentialer fra biogasopgradering

1,6

1,4

1,2

1,0

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0

2025

2030

Fossil Biogen

2040

Figur 15 Samlede udledninger og fangstpotentiale for CO

-opsamling fra

biogasopgraderingsanlæg. Det samlede potentiale er baseret på KF21 frem til 2030,

hvorefter produktion og dermed udledninger er fastholdt med en mindre justering frem til

2040. Alle kendte og forventede biogasanlæg er medtaget i det økonomiske potentiale.

Opgørelse af potentialet efter omkostninger

Som beskrevet ovenfor, er der store forskelle på omkostningerne forbundet med

-fangst fra forskellige typer af anlæg baseret på størrelse, driftsmønster,

anlægstype mv. I det følgende anskueliggøres dette gennem en opdeling af det

vurderede fangstpotentiale efter omkostningerne til fangst af CO

’en.

Fangstomkostningerne er beregnet for hvert enkelt anlæg, der indgår i analysen på

baggrund af de fremskrevne udledninger samt fremskrevne eller antagne antal af

årlige fuldlasttimer. Der medregnes ikke omkostninger til transport eller

mellemlagring af CO

. Fordelingen afspejler derfor ikke variation i omkostninger ift.

anlæggenes placering. Metoden for beregningerne er beskrevet i

Bilag 1 – Metode.

Tabel 2 viser fordelingen af potentialet afhængig af, hvilken øvre grænse, der

lægges for fangstomkostningerne. Der tages udgangspunkt i det øvre

potentialeskøn jf. ovenfor.

Side 27/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Tabel 2 Fordeling af fangstpotentialet efter omkostninger til fangst

Enhed:

mio. ton CO

/år

Affaldsforbrænding

Fjernvarme

Industri

Biogasopgradering

Sum

Total

2040-udledninger

Fossil

0,4

0,1

3,4

0,0

3,9

14,9

Biogen

2,4

6,4

0,8

1,3

11,0

< 600 kr./ton

Fossil

0,2

0,0

0,2

3,0

Biogen

1,4

0,1

0,0

1,3

2,8

< 800 kr./ton

Fossil

0,3

0,0

0,1

0,0

0,4

4,3

Biogen

2,1

0,3

0,2

1,3

3,9

< 1.000 kr./ton

Fossil

0,4

0,0

2,4

0,0

2,8

8,9

Biogen

2,1

1,9

0,8

1,3

6,1

< 1.200 kr./ton

Fossil

0,4

0,0

2,4

0,0

2,8

8,9

Biogen

2,1

1,9

0,8

1,3

6,1

Fordelingen af fangstpotentialet i Tabel 2 opgøres efter en øvre grænse for

fangstomkostningerne. Til sammenligning vurderes omkostningerne til transport

mellemlagring og lagring i undergrunden at udgøre i omegnen af 200-600 kr./ton

afhængig af punktkildernes beliggenhed, transportformer, lagerets udnyttelse og en

række antagelser. I dette notat er potentialet indledningsvist opgjort for øvre

grænser på hhv. 600, 800, 1.000 og 1.200 kr./ton, jf. tabellen.

Geografisk fordeling af punktkilder

De forskellige punktkilder til CO

ligger spredt ud over landet efter forskellige

trends: Affaldsforbrændinger og fjernvarmeanlæg ligger fx omkring større byer,

mens biogasopgraderingsanlæg typisk ligger på landet. Figur 16 viser fordelingen

af punktkilder for de fire sektorer behandlet i dette notat.

Side 28/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Figur 16 CO

-punktkilder for de fire opgjorte sektorer i 2040. Kilde: Energistyrelsen

De store punktkilder i fremtiden er koncentreret omkring store og større byer. Dette

kommer særligt af, at affaldsforbrænding og de største fjernvarmeproducenter

udgør hovedparten af potentialet, og at disse anlæg normalt er placeret i eller i

nærheden af de byer, de servicerer.

På denne baggrund, er det høje skøn for fangstpotentialet opgjort for fem

forskellige geografiske områder centreret omkring København, Aalborg, Aarhus,

Esbjerg og Fredericia. Dette fremgår af Tabel 3 nedenfor. For hvert område er

udledningerne fra de største udledere (særligt affaldsforbrænding og store

kraftvarmeanlæg) opgjort. Udledningerne fra de enkelte virksomheder aggregeres

af hensyn til potentielt kommerciel følsomhed af oplysningerne. Opgørelserne er

særligt følsomme over for fremtiden for de biomassefyrede kraftvarmeværker, som

forventes delvist udfaset gennem perioden, men som potentielt kan opnå forbedret

Side 29/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

driftsøkonomi, hvis der gives økonomiske incitamenter til CCS. Herunder vises de

øvrige udledninger i potentialeopgørelsen i nærheden af de store punktkilder

aggregeret for hver sektor. Disse opgørelser er behæftet med betydelig usikkerhed,

og afhænger af de valgte transportafstande for punktkilder i oplandet. Figur 16 viser

en geografisk fremstilling af punktkilderne, som er indeholdt i de fem klynger i Tabel

Tabel 3 Fangstpotentialer for punktkilder fordelt i geografiske områder. Skønnene er

behæftet med stor usikkerhed, da de afhænger af de valgte transportafstande. Summen er

mindre end summen af de enkelte klynger, da der er overlap mellem oplandet til Esbjerg og

Fredericia.

Storkøbenhavn

Nordjylland

Århus

Esbjerg

Fredericia

Sum

Samlede udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

4,3

3,1

2,8

2,1

2,2

2,3

1,6

0,6

0,4

0,5

0,8

0,7

0,6

9,3

7,0

6,7

Biogene udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

3,7

2,8

2,6

0,6

0,8

0,9

1,5

0,6

0,4

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

6,6

4,9

4,7

Fossile udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

0,6

0,3

0,2

1,6

1,3

1,4

0,0

0,1

0,0

0,4

2,7

2,1

2,0

Side 30/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Figur 17 Geografisk fremstilling af de fem identificerede klynger fra Tabel 3. Størrelsen af

den grønne cirkel angiver den samlede udledning i klyngen i 2025, mens den grå cirkel viser

den andel, der stammer fra fossile brændsler og procesudledninger.

Tallene er udspecificeret for de enkelte geografiske områder i det følgende.

Storkøbenhavn

Samlingen af store CO

-udledere omkring København vurderes i 2040 at omfatte

Amager Ressourcecenter (ARC), Vestforbrænding, Amagerværkets Blok 4,

Avedøreværket og ARGO i Roskilde. Ud over disse store punktkilder indeholder

klyngen få mindre anlæg, afhængig af hvilken afstand der lægges til grund.

Udlederne er illustreret i Figur 17 og potentialet er vist i Tabel 4. Avedøreværket er

Side 31/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

medtaget, selvom værket i denne opgørelse vurderes at have for få årlige

fuldlasttimer i 2040 til, at CO

-opsamling vil være rentabel og anlægget ikke

forventes at være i drift efter 2040, jf. Energistyrelsens analyseforudsætninger til

Energinet. Denne vurdering er dog særdeles usikker, og værket er derfor medtaget

her. Det er derfor væsentligt at være opmærksom på, at eventuelle CCUS-anlæg

knyttet til Avedøreværket kan medføre, at der udledes og fanges CO

fra anlægget

som alternativt ville have væsentligt færre driftstimer eller være helt lukket. Det

samme gør sig principielt gældende for andre anlæg.

Figur 18 Overblik over punktkilder i Storkøbenhavn. Kilde: Energistyrelsen.

Side 32/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Tabel 4 Fangstpotentialer for store og små punktkilder omkring Storkøbenhavn. Der er

anvendt samme skæringspunkter vedr. størrelser og antal fuldlasttimer som for

sektoropgørelserne i øvrigt. Udledningerne fra de enkelte virksomheder er aggregeret af

hensyn til potentielt kommerciel følsomhed af oplysningerne.

Store udledere

- Amager

Ressourcecenter

- Vestforbrænding

- Amagerværket, Blok 4

- Avedøreværket

- ARGO

Øvrige mindre udledere

- Affaldsforbrænding

- El og fjernvarme

- Industri

- Biogasopgradering

Sum

Samlede udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

4,3

2,9

2,7

Biogene udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

3,7

2,6

2,5

Fossile udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

0,6

0,3

0,2

0,0

4,3

0,1

0,0

3,1

0,2

0,0

2,8

0,0

3,7

0,1

0,0

2,8

0,1

0,0

2,6

0,0

0,6

0,0

0,3

0,0

0,2

Noter.:

: Avedøreværket forventes at have for få driftstimer fremover til at være inkluderet i det samlede potentiale for CO -fangst i

Danmark. Anlægget er medtaget i denne klyngeangivelse, eftersom det også indgår i C4-samarbejdet i Hovedstadsområdet

Nordjylland

Landets største CO

-udleder er placeret i Aalborg nær ved Nordjyllandsværket og

affaldsforbrændingen Reno Nord. Hertil kommer en række mindre punktkilder i

oplandet til Aalborg. Dette giver grundlag for en klynge, som vist i tabellen

nedenfor. Udlederne er illustreret i Figur 18 og potentialet er vist i Tabel 5.

Nordjyllandsværket er ikke medtaget i opgørelsen, da det ikke vurderes rentabelt at

etablere CO

-fangst på anlægget. Årsagen er, at ejerne, Aalborg Forsyning har

meldt ud, at Nordjyllandsværkets drift udfases gradvist og ophører endeligt med

udgangen af 2028.

C4 er et samarbejde mellem store punktudledere og øvrige CCS-interessenter i Hovedstadsområdet:

https://a-r-c.dk/c4/.

Side 33/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Figur 19 Overblik over punktkilder i Nordjylland. Kilde: Energistyrelsen.

Tabel 5 Fangstpotentialer for store og små punktkilder i Nordjylland. Der er anvendt samme

skæringspunkter vedr. størrelser og antal fuldlasttimer som for sektoropgørelserne i øvrigt.

Udledningerne fra de enkelte virksomheder er aggregeret af hensyn til potentielt kommerciel

følsomhed af oplysningerne.

Store udledere

- Aalborg Portland

- Reno Nord

Øvrige mindre udledere

- Affaldsforbrænding

- El og fjernvarme

- Industri

- Biogasopgradering

Sum

Samlede udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

1,9

Biogene udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

0,4

0,5

0,6

Fossile udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

1,5

1,3

0,1

0,0

0,1

2,1

0,0

0,1

2,2

0,1

2,3

0,0

0,1

0,6

0,0

0,1

0,8

0,0

0,1

0,0

0,1

0,9

0,0

1,6

0,0

1,3

0,0

1,4

Side 34/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Århus og omegn

I Århus forventes Studstrupværket, Lisbjerg Kraftvarmeanlæg og Affaldscenter

Aarhus at være i drift frem mod 2040. Studstrupværket er medtaget, selvom værket

i denne opgørelse vurderes at have for få årlige fuldlasttimer i 2040 til, at CO

opsamling vil være rentabel og anlægget ikke forventes at være i drift efter 2040, jf.

Energistyrelsens analyseforudsætninger til Energinet. Denne vurdering er dog

særdeles usikker, og værket er derfor medtaget her. Det er derfor væsentligt at

være opmærksom på, at eventuelle CCUS-anlæg knyttet til Studstrupværket kan

medføre, at der udledes og fanges CO

fra anlægget som alternativt ville have

væsentligt færre driftstimer eller være helt lukket. Det samme gør sig principielt

gældende for andre anlæg.

Hertil kommer en række mindre anlæg i oplandet samt i Randers. Udlederne er

illustreret i Figur 19 og potentialet er vist i Tabel 6.

Figur 20 Overblik over punktkilder i Aarhus og omegn. Kilde: Energistyrelsen.

Side 35/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Tabel 6 Fangstpotentialer for store og små punktkilder omkring Aarhus og Randers. Der er

anvendt samme skæringspunkter vedr. størrelser og antal fuldlasttimer som for

sektoropgørelserne i øvrigt. Udledningerne fra de enkelte virksomheder er aggregeret af

hensyn til potentielt kommerciel følsomhed af oplysningerne.

Store udledere

- Studstrupværket

- Lisbjerg

Kraftvarmeværk

- Affaldscenter Aarhus

Øvrige mindre udledere

- Affaldsforbrænding

- El og fjernvarme

- Industri

- Biogasopgradering

Sum

Samlede udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

1,5

0,5

0,3

Biogene udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

1,4

0,5

0,3

Fossile udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

0,0

0,1

1,6

0,0

0,1

0,6

0,0

0,1

0,4

0,0

0,1

1,5

0,0

0,1

0,6

0,0

0,1

0,4

0,0

Noter:

: Studstrupværket forventes at have for få driftstimer fremover til at være inkluderet i det samlede potentiale for CO -fangst i

Danmark. Anlægget er dog medtaget i denne klyngeangivelse, da der ikke er konkrete udmeldinger om lukning.

: Der eksisterer en produktionsvirksomhed i området, der – som følge af de generelle fremskrivninger i KF21 - antages at elektrificere

sit brændselsforbrug. Der er dog ikke foretaget en virksomhedsspecifik vurdering, og dermed kan potentialet være undervurderet med

ca. 50.000 ton CO2 per år.

Esbjerg

Esbjerg havn kan potentielt udgøre udskibningssted for CO

til lagring i Nordsøen.

Samtidig ligger affaldsforbrændingen Energnist i Esbjerg, og Esbjergværket

forventes erstattet bl.a. af en større biomassefyret kedel. Hertil kommer en række

store biogasopgraderingsanlæg i Sydjylland mv. Udlederne er illustreret i Figur 20

og potentialet er vist i Tabel 7.

Side 36/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Figur 21 Overblik over punktkilder i Esbjerg og omegn. Kilde: Energistyrelsen.

Side 37/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Tabel 7 Fangstpotentialer for store og små punktkilder omkring Esbjerg. Der er anvendt

samme skæringspunkter vedr. størrelser og antal fuldlasttimer som for sektoropgørelserne i

øvrigt. Bemærk betydeligt overlap med opgørelsen for området omkring Fredericia.

Udledningerne fra de enkelte virksomheder er aggregeret af hensyn til potentielt kommerciel

følsomhed af oplysningerne.

Store udledere

- Energnist, Esbjerg

- Ny fliskedel, Esbjerg

Øvrige mindre udledere

- Affaldsforbrænding

- El og fjernvarme

- Industri

- Biogasopgradering

Sum

Samlede udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

0,3

0,2

Biogene udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

0,2

Fossile udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

0,1

0,0

0,1

0,0

0,2

0,5

0,0

0,1

0,0

0,2

0,5

0,0

0,1

0,0

0,2

0,5

0,0

0,1

0,0

0,2

0,5

0,0

0,1

0,0

0,2

0,5

0,0

0,1

0,0

0,2

0,5

0,0

0,1

0,0

Fredericia og Trekantsområdet

I Trekantsområdet findes Shells raffinaderi i Fredericia, Skærbækværket og

Energnists affaldsforbrænding i Kolding. Hertil kommer en række store

biogasopgraderingsanlæg i Sydjylland. Bemærk, at der er overlap mellem oplandet

til Esbjerg og Fredericia. Udlederne er illustreret i Figur 21 og potentialet er vist i

Tabel 8. Skærbækværket er medtaget, selvom værket i denne opgørelse vurderes

at have for få årlige fuldlasttimer i 2040 til, at CO

-opsamling vil være rentabel og

anlægget derfor ikke regnes med i det samlede nationale potentiale i denne

analyse. Det er derfor væsentligt at være opmærksom på, at eventuelle CCUS-

anlæg knyttet til Skærbækværket kan medføre, at der udledes og fanges CO

fra

anlægget som alternativt ville have væsentligt færre driftstimer. Det samme gør sig

principielt gældende for andre anlæg.

Side 38/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Figur 22 Overblik over punktkilder i Fredericia og omegn. Kilde: Energistyrelsen.

Tabel 8 Fangstpotentialer for store og små punktkilder omkring Fredericia og

trekantsområdet. Der er anvendt samme skæringspunkter vedr. størrelser og antal

fuldlasttimer som for sektoropgørelserne i øvrigt. Bemærk overlap med opgørelsen for

området omkring Esbjerg. Udledningerne fra de enkelte virksomheder er aggregeret af

hensyn til potentielt kommerciel følsomhed af oplysningerne.

Store udledere

- Shell Raffinaderiet

- Skærbækværket

- Energnist, Kolding

Øvrige mindre udledere

- Affaldsforbrænding

- El og fjernvarme

- Industri

- Biogasopgradering

Sum

Samlede udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

0,5

0,4

Biogene udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

0,4

0,2

Fossile udledninger,

mio. ton CO

/år

2025

2030

2040

0,4

0,0

0,5

0,0

0,5

0,0

0,4

0,0

0,4

0,0

0,3

0,0

0,2

0,0

0,4

0,0

0,4

0,0

0,4

Noter:

: Skærbækværket forventes at have for få driftstimer fremover til at være inkluderet i det samlede potentiale for CO -fangst i Danmark.

Anlægget er dog medtaget i denne klyngeangivelse, da der ikke er konkrete udmeldinger om lukning.

Side 39/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Bilag 1 – Metode

Opgørelserne i dette notat tager udgangspunkt i Energistyrelsens Klimastatus og –

Fremskrivning 2021 (herefter KF21). Dette produkt indeholder en såkaldt

frozen

policy

fremskrivning af hele energisystemet – det som tidligere var kendt som

Energistyrelsens basisfremskrivning. Fremskrivningen kortlægger, hvordan

energisystemet forventes at udvikle sig frem til 2030 i fravær af ny politik, og

anvendes således som baseline-forløb for effektvurderinger af politiske tiltag mv. Af

samme årsag rækker KF21 derfor også kun frem til 2030.

Opgørelserne i denne analyse rækker frem til 2040, hvilket er nødvendigt, da de

investeringer, der foretages i anlæg til CO

-opsamling må forventes at eksistere

minimum 20 år frem. Tilgangen til fremskrivningen varierer mellem de behandlede

sektorer, og er beskrevet herunder.

Udledninger fra affaldsforbrænding samt fra el- og fjernvarmeproduktion i dette

notat er aggregeret efter sektorer på en anden måde end i KF21. Derfor kan de

opgjorte udledninger fra disse sektorer ikke genfindes direkte i KF21. Hertil kommer

at rene kondensværker (elproduktion uden samtidig varmeproduktion) ikke er

medtaget i denne opgørelse, da disse anlæg kun har få årlige driftstimer og derfor

ikke er relevante for CO

-fangst.

Affaldsforbrænding

Kapaciteten og produktionen i affaldsforbrændingssektoren er fremskrevet i KF21

frem til 2030, på baggrund af dels et fald i den årlige miljøgodkendte kapacitet til

affaldsforbrænding på de 23 nuværende dedikerede og multifyrede

affaldsforbrændingsanlæg, og dels en forventet stigning i udsortering af særligt

plastaffald til genanvendelse. Udviklingen baseres derudover på forventede

løbende nedlukninger af en række ældre udslidte ovnliner, samt yderligere

nedlukning af kapacitet og implementering af virkemidler som følge af Klimaplan for

en grøn affaldssektor og cirkulær økonomi. Fra 2030 til 2040 er udviklingen

forlænget med tilsvarende frozen policy-antagelser.

El- og Fjernvarmeproduktion

Kapaciteten og produktionen i el- og fjernvarmesektoren er fremskrevet i KF21 frem

til 2030 ved hjælp af modellen DH-Invest på baggrund af brændselspriser,

teknologikataloger, samt gældende afgifter og regulering. Fra 2030 til 2040 er

udviklingen forlænget med tilsvarende frozen policy-antagelser samt en yderligere

vurdering af lukninger og erstatning af forældet kapacitet i perioden 2030 til 2040.

Industri

Industrivirksomheder repræsenteres med en enkelt undtagelse ikke separat i KF21.

Opgørelsen bygger derfor på oplysninger fra kvoteregisteret for CO

-udledninger

fra de 30 største kvoteomfattede industrielle punktudledere i Danmark. Disse er

fremskrevet med udviklingen i sammensætning af brændselsforbrug i delbrancher

Side 40/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

ifølge KF21, hvilket bl.a. omfatter udviklingen i aktivitetsniveau (vækstforløb) og

energieffektivisering/elektrificering. Dertil indgår virksomhedsspecifikke vurderinger,

som f.eks. Nordic Sugars og Rockwools omlægning til naturgas. Aalborg Portlands

omlægning til naurgas er ikke en del af KF21 grundforløbet. Fremskrivningen fra

2030 til 2040 er baseret på en forlængelse af udviklingen i KF21 frem til 2040.

Forlængelsen frem mod 2040 er ikke en del af den konsoliderede fremskrivning, og

er derfor forbundet med væsentlig usikkerhed.

Biogasopgradering

KF21 indeholder en fremskrivning af biogasproduktionen på eksisterende anlæg

med biogasopgradering frem til 2030. Disse anlæg vurderes at have en samlet

produktion på omkring 28,9 PJ i 2030. Hertil kommer en yderligere produktion på

ca. 11,7 PJ i 2030 fra overståede og kommende udbud, herunder udbuddene til

biogas og andre grønne gasser fra 2022/2023. CO

-udledningerne fra både

eksisterende og kommende produktion er beregnet på baggrund af

fangsteffektiviteter fra Energistyrelsens teknologikatalog. Frem mod 2040

fastholdes produktionen og udledningerne, dog med et mindre dyk i produktionen

som følge af ophør af støtte for de ældste anlæg tidligt i perioden.

Off-shore

Olie- og gasudvinding på Nordsøen beskrives i KF21 frem til 2030. Den videre

fremskrivning til 2040 udgør en forlængelse af tendensen frem mod 2030. Der er

ikke foretaget en opdeling på de enkelte punktkilder i sektoren.

Afgrænsning af potentialet

Fra fremskrivningen beskrevet ovenfor opnås de samlede udledninger for de

forskellige sektorer i 2025, 2030 og 2040. Ikke alle disse udledninger vil kunne

opsamles i praksis. Derfor afgrænses potentialet på følgende måde:

Først og fremmest kan typiske anlæg til CO

-fangst i dag kun opsamle omkring 90

pct. af CO

-indholdet i røggas. Derfor nedskrives potentialerne for alle sektorer på

nær biogasopgradering med 10 pct. Herefter baseres det øvre skøn for

fangstpotentialet ift. punktkildernes størrelse for hver sektor, og det nedre skøn

beror på en følsomhedsvurdering for de enkelte sektorer.

Omkostninger til CO

-fangst

Omkostningerne til opsamling er beregnet for de enkelte anlæg i analysen på

baggrund af den årlige CO

-udledning og et fremskrevet eller antaget antal

fuldlasttimer (for biogas antages 8.500 fuldlasttimer, for industrivirksomheder

antages 7.000 fuldlasttimer, jf. dog nedenfor. For el- og fjernvarmeproduktion samt

affaldsforbrænding er den årlige driftstid fremskrevet som i KF21.

Der tages udgangspunkt i Energistyrelsens teknologikatalog mht. fangstteknologier

samt en række antagelser, bl.a. mht. rente, el- og varmepriser mv. På den

baggrund beregnes omkostninger til etablering, drift og vedligehold (fast og

variabel) samt energitab på anlægget og anvendelse af inputenergi.

Side 41/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Energiinput og -tab

Fangst af CO

fra punktkilder anvender inputenergi i form af mellemtemperatur

varme. På kraftvarmeanlæg som biomasseanlæg og affaldsforbrænding forventes

dette input at komme fra lavtryksdampturbinen. Dette sænker elproduktionen på

anlægget markant, og der vurderes at være tale om tab af el- og varmeproduktion

på hhv. 15-50 pct. og 15-30 pct. afhængig af typen af anlæg mv. Der er indregnet

skøn for omkostningerne til dette. Ændringen i output fra anlægget vurderes dog

også at kunne få betydning for anlæggenes driftsmønster, hvilket potentielt kan

medføre yderligere tab. Disse er ikke medregnet i denne opgørelse, hvilket betyder,

at estimaterne skal læses konservativt – særligt mht. kraftvarmeanlæg og

affaldsforbrænding.

Det antages i øvrigt, at overskudsvarmen fra fangstanlægget ikke udnyttes til

fjernvarme, hvilket vurderes at ville være tilfældet nogle steder. Dette rykker dog

ikke markant ved resultatet.

Industrianlæg

Der er begrænset visen om driften af industrianlæg og meget stor usikkerhed om

fremskrivningen af denne type anlæg. Opgørelsen omfatter 10 virksomheder, som

alle udgøres af enten fødevarevirksomheder eller energiintensive virksomheder

(stål, cement, raffinaderi, tegl). Alle disse virksomheder vurderes at drifte i

skiftehold og dermed have høje antal af fuldlasttimer (7.000). Undtagelsen er en

indeholdt sukkerfabrik, som driftes i årlige kampagner. Her antages 2.500 årlige

fuldlasttimer. Hertil kommer, at industrivirksomheder vurderes, at have betydeligt

højere forrentningskrav end de fleste aktører i forsyningssektoren. Der er således

regnet med interne forrentningskrav (WACC) på 10 pct. for industrivirksomheder i

modsætning til de 3,5 pct. der antages for affaldsforbrænding, el- og

fjernvarmeproduktion og biogasopgradering.

Side 42/42

KEF, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 130: Materialepakke om CCS-lagringstilladelser

Oversigt over fuldskala CCS-anlæg

Center

Center for Klimaneutralt Dan-

mark

Team

Viden, forskning og omstilling

Dato

27. oktober 2021

J nr.

XXX

Baggrund

Der findes i dag ca. 27 fuldskala CCS projekter i kommerciel drift hvoraf ét er mid-

lertidigt lukket. Nedenfor fremgår 4 fuldskala-CCS-projekter uden Enhanced Oil Re-

covery (EOR). Derudover er der en lang række yderligere projekter i udviklings- og

demonstrationsfasen.

/ JASHA

Tabel 1 Oversigt over fuldskala-CCS projekter (ekskl. EOR projekter)

Navn

Land

Produktion/år

Beskrivelse

Separation af CO₂ fra naturgas. Fangstanlægget

er placeret på platform offshore. CO₂-fangst sker

vha. aminbaseret metode (MDEA) med en

kapacitet på 0,85 Mtpa. CO₂ injiceres i et off-

shore geologisk sandstenslager ved Sleipner, ud

for Norge I alt 17 Mt er injiceret til lageret siden

1996.

Lager: salin sandstens reservoir på 1.000m

dybde.

Separation af CO₂ fra naturgas. Fangstanlægget

er placeret på øen Melkøya, hvor der sker en

opgradering af gas fra offshore installation. CO₂-

fangst sker vha. aminbaseret metode med en

kapacitet på 0,7 Mtpa. CO₂ injiceres i et off-shore

geologisk lager ved Snøhvit feltet. Trans-port

sker i rør.

I alt 4 Mt er injiceret til lageret siden 2008.

Lager: salin sandstens reservoir, dybde 2.550m

Separation af CO₂ fra HMU (hydrogen manufac-

turing unit) til produktion af hydrogen. CO₂-

fangst sker via ADIP-X processen (amin absorp-

tion) med en kapacitet på 1 Mtpa. CO₂ trans-

porteres via rørledning til geologisk lagring on-

shore. I sommeren 2020 er 5 mill. ton injiceret.

Separation af CO₂ fra naturgas. CO₂-fangst med

en kapacitet på 3,4-4 Mtpa. CO₂ er lagret i et

onshore lager på Barrow Island. Transport til

lager sker i rør.

Lager: salin sandstens reservoir, dybde 2.300m

Lagring

Sleipner

Norge

Naturgas opgradering

1996

Geologisk lagring

Snøvit

Norge

Naturgas opgradering

2008

Geologisk lagring

Questt, Shell

Canada

Hydrogen produktion

2015

Geologisk lagring

Gorgon

Australien

Naturgas opgradering

2019

Geologisk lagring

Kilde: COWI, 2021. CCS – Internationale erfaringer – sikkerhed, natur og miljø: 2021. Danmark.

Kilde: Global CCS Institute, 2021. The Global Status of CCS: 2021. Australia

Side 1/1