PTQ Q1 2023 Issue

200

150

Post comb. CO capture

100

Green electricity

SMR pre combe. capture

Average cost = 30

Furnace eciency improvement

HVO (155 t/h)

-50

Ethylenecarbonate MPW ( 1 8 t/h)

-100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

CO, KTA

Figure 2 CO₂ abatement curve, based on 2019 West European prices

very attractive; however, the market for EC is limited. Assurances to ascertain that CO₂-derived polymers meet the required quality standards must also be developed.⁴ CO₂ abatement curves The various measures considered so far can now be com - bined to develop CO₂ abatement curves, as shown in Figure 2 . The curve only includes measures that cost less than post-combustion capture, the latter being the last recourse assuming there is no limit to the quantity of CO₂ that can be exported/stored. Other, more expensive techniques, such as green/blue hydrogen firing in furnaces, are therefore not included. The curve immediately shows which techniques break even against a given CO₂ tax, ignoring any free allowances. The curve takes into account knock-on effects such as

HVO processing requiring a new hydrogen plant (ATR with carbon capture), resulting in increased utilities consump- tion, and so on. CO₂ captured at the SMR is considered to be routed to greenhouses. CO₂ from ATR/post-combustion capture is considered to be routed to CO₂ utilisation units (ethyl carbonate manufacturing), with the excess routed to storage. The curve results in an average cost of CO₂ abate- ment of 30 €/t CO₂ but is heavily influenced by the ‘low’ abatement cost associated with HVO production, which in turn is set by the assumed price differential between feed- stock and product. While the aforementioned scheme effectively reduces refinery Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 94% – the shortfall of 100% just being due to CO₂ slippage from pre/post- combustion capture units – the overall Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions only reduce by 18% (from 34 to 28 MTA). CO₂ from burning fuel gas produced by HVO/MPW units is

200

E-fuels

Urea

150