A Least-Cost Optimisation Model of C02 Capture Applied to Major UK Power Plants Within The EU-ETS Framework

Abstract

Concerns about the cost of CO 2 capture and sequestration, and the effectiveness of carbon abatement policies loom large in discussions on climate change mitigation. Several writers address the issue from various perspectives. This paper attempts to add relative realism to discussions on CO 2 capture costs, and, the deployment of carbon capture technology in the UK by using publicly available company data on the long term capacity expansion and CO 2 capture investment programmes of selected power plants in the UK. With an estimated £8 billion plan to install a generation capacity of 11 GW and capture capability of 44 MtCO 2 /year, it is imperative to optimise this huge potential investment. A least-cost optimisation model was formulated and solved with the LP algorithm available in GAMS. The model was then applied to address a number of issues, including the choice of an optimal carbon abatement policy within the EU-ETS framework. The major findings of the study include (a) the long term total cost curve of CO 2 capture has three phases -rising, plateau, rising; (b) alternative capture technologies do not have permanent relative cost advantages or disadvantages; (c) Government incentives encourage carbon capture and the avoidance of emission penalty charges; and (d) the goals of EU-ETS are more effectively realised with deeper cuts in the EUA ratios than merely hiking the emission penalty, as proposed in EU-ETS Phase II.

Multistage expansion planning of generation and interconnections with sustainable energy development criteria: A multiobjective model

“…The inclusion of the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) in a power generation expansion problem was proposed in [35]. In that work, a power plant whose carbon emissions at a given output level exceeds its allowance has the option of incurring either the cost of: (a) reducing emissions to permissible levels through capture/abatement; (b) purchasing allowances or (c) paying the emission penalty associated to the excess emission.…”

“…The formulation presented in this paper is a modified version of [35]. In this paper the original linear formulation was modified to consider Life-Cycle GHG Emissions (LCGHG) and a mixed-integer formulation.…”

CCS in the North Sea region: A comparison on the cost-effectiveness of storing CO2 in the Utsira formation at regional and national scales

“…The development of such a network will be driven by the role of CCS in each country, costs and availability of local storage. Until now, most European energy (or just electricity) system studies dealing with the development of CCS as a part of the portfolio of mitigation measures either take a regional (e.g., Odenberger and Johnsson, 2010;Uyterlinde et al, 2006), or a national perspective (e.g., Kemp and Kasim, 2008;Martinsen et al, 2007). In the first case, most studies fail to include specific local technical, economic, political or physical constraints, making it difficult for local stakeholders and policy makers to interpret the significance of the results.…”

A futuristic least-cost optimisation model of CO2 transportation and storage in the UK/UK Continental Shelf

“…Several studies, including Kemp and Kasim (2008) have investigated the costs of undertaking different elements of the CCS value chain in the UK.…”