D7.2: Techno-economic modelling of selected local and regional CCUS scenarios for Vernasca, Kunda and Slantsy cement plants

Baltic transboundary onshore CCUS scenario includes CO2 emissions from the six largest CO2 producers from Estonia and Latvia, CO2 mineral carbonation of Estonian oil shale ash, pipeline transport of captured CO2 and its storage in the North-Blidene structure in Western Latvia. HeidelbergCement owned Kunda Nordic Cement plant, three Eesti Energia power plants (Eesti, Balti and Auvere PP), VKG Energia North Thermal PP and Latvenergo TEC-2 PP compose cluster of CO2 emitters. Techno-economic modelling of scenario includes mineral carbonation of 0.42 Mt CO2 directly captured from flue gas using 3.8 Mt of fresh OSA and producing precipitated CaCO3 (PCC), and pipeline transport of about 6.33 Mt CO2 captured annually by five Estonian and one Latvian plant for storage in Cambrian Deimena Formation reservoir sandstones at the depth of 1035-1150 m in the North-Blidene structure. Annually 6.8 Mt CO2 could be captured, transported and injected, including 6 Mt CO2 avoided using transport and storage and 0.42 Mt CO2 avoided using MC of Estonian OSA. During 30 years nearly 204 Mt CO2 will be captured, used and stored, while 193 Mt CO2 could be avoided. At the price of EEAP of 40 €/t CO2 and 50 €/t PCC, the CCUS scenario could be beneficial for three Eesti Energia and Latvenergo TEC-2 power plants. For the KNC and VKG Energia plants without CO2 use options, a higher EEAP of about 50 €/t CO2 is needed to cover all CCUS costs.
Among studied HCG cement plants involved in the Baltic scenario, no one is prospective for the business case. KNC has stopped producing clinker from 2020. Cesla plant in Russia could use the captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery in the depleted oil fields of Kaliningrad Region, but considering the long transport distance to these fields (about 800 km) and relatively small emissions (˂1 Mt), such scenario is not the cost-effective compared to the large power plants located closer to the oil fields. However, such a scenario could be applied for the piloting of CCUS technology for the cement industry in Russia. For this case, more detailed research and feasibility study should be recommended.
In all the studied regional and national CO2 transport, use and storage scenarios the most expensive costs are transport costs. Therefore, the most economic scenarios are onshore scenarios with CO2 storage site located close to emission sources. Such a cost-effective scenario estimated for Italcementi Calusco D'adda CP (4 €/tCO2 avoided), located close to the Malossa storage site (34 km) is recommended for the business case.
If Ca-looping capture cost of about 40 €/t CO2 avoided will be reached, and storage will be made at the nearest available Cortemaggiore field, then CCS scenario will be cost-effective starting from about 45 €/t CO2 in EU ETS, or even less if supported by CO2 use for enhanced gas and geothermal energy recovery from the depleted gas field. Such a scenario could be recommended for the business case.