Content uploaded by Simon Roussanaly
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Simon Roussanaly on Aug 24, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Simon Roussanaly
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Simon Roussanaly on Aug 24, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Is CCS really so expensive? An analysis of cascading costs and CO2
emissions reduction of industrial CCS implementation applied to a bridge
Authors:
Sai Gokul Subraveti, Elda Rodriguez, Andrea Ramirez, Simon Roussanaly
Date Submitted: 2022-07-19
Keywords: Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS, Cost-Benefit analysis, Technoeconomic Analysis, Life Cycle Analysis, Cement, Steel, Bridge
Abstract:
Carbon capture, transport, and storage (CCS) is an essential technology to mitigate global CO2 emissions from power and industry
sectors. Despite the increasing recognition and interest in both the scientific community and stakeholders, current CCS deployment is
far behind targeted ambitions. A key reason is that CCS is often perceived as too expensive to reduce CO2 emissions. The costs of
CCS have however traditionally been looked at from the industrial plant point of view which does not necessarily reflect the end-user’s
perspective. This paper addresses the incomplete view by investigating the impact of implementing CCS in industrial facilities on the
overall costs and CO2 emissions of end-user products and services. As an example, this work examines the extent to which an
increase in costs of raw materials (cement and steel) due to CCS impact the costs of building a bridge. Our results show that although
CCS significantly increases the cost of cement and steel, the subsequent increment in overall costs of constructing a bridge remains
marginal (~ 1%). This 1% cost increase, however, enables a deep reduction in CO2 emissions (~ 51%) associated with the bridge
construction. While more research is needed into the impact of CCS implementation on end-user products and services, this work is
the first step to a better understanding of the real cost and benefits of CCS.
Record Type: Preprint
Submitted To: LAPSE (Living Archive for Process Systems Engineering)
Citation (overall record, always the latest version): LAPSE:2022.0024
Citation (this specific file, latest version): LAPSE:2022.0024-1
Citation (this specific file, this version): LAPSE:2022.0024-1v1
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
This is an author generated pre-print
1
Is CCS really so expensive? An analysis of cascading costs and
CO2 emissions reduction of industrial CCS implementation applied
to a bridge
Sai Gokul Subravetia, Elda Rodríguezb, Andrea Ramírezb, Simon Roussanalya,*
a SINTEF Energy Research, 7019 Trondheim, Norway
b Delft University of Technology, 2628 Delft, The Nederlands
* Corresponding author: simon.roussanaly@sintef.no
Abstract
Carbon capture, transport, and storage (CCS) is an essential technology to mitigate global CO2
emissions from power and industry sectors. Despite the increasing recognition and interest in both
the scientific community and stakeholders, current CCS deployment is far behind targeted
ambitions. A key reason is that CCS is often perceived as too expensive to reduce CO2 emissions.
The costs of CCS have however traditionally been looked at from the industrial plant point of view
which does not necessarily reflect the end-user’s perspective. This paper addresses the incomplete
view by investigating the impact of implementing CCS in industrial facilities on the overall costs
and CO2 emissions of end-user products and services. As an example, this work examines the extent
to which an increase in costs of raw materials (cement and steel) due to CCS impact the costs of
building a bridge. Our results show that although CCS significantly increases the cost of cement
and steel, the subsequent increment in overall costs of constructing a bridge remains marginal (~
1%). This 1% cost increase, however, enables a deep reduction in CO2 emissions (~ 51%)
associated with the bridge construction. While more research is needed into the impact of CCS
implementation on end-user products and services, this work is the first step to a better
understanding of the real cost and benefits of CCS.
1. Introduction
Meeting the global net-zero target by mid-century to limit global warming to 1.5 °C is necessary to
reduce the impacts of climate change significantly [1]. The deployment of carbon capture and
storage (CCS) in the energy and industry sector has been highlighted as critical to cost-efficiently
reducing 14% of global CO2 emissions [2]. This is particularly the case in the industry sector (e.g.,
cement, steel, chemicals), which is responsible for 45% of global CO2 emissions when including
indirect emissions [3]. CCS is one of the few options, especially in the short term, that can
significantly reduce industrial CO2 emissions [4]. This is primarily because a quarter of industrial
emissions are inherent process emissions from chemical reactions and cannot be avoided by
switching to alternative energy sources [5]. Moreover, there are limited cost-efficient alternatives
to fossil fuels for producing high-temperature heat (i.e., a third of industrial energy demand)
required in industrial processes. Finally, since industrial facilities are long-term assets, CCS is also
attractive as an easily retrofittable solution to mitigate CO2 emissions from existing industrial
facilities.
Several techno-economic feasibility studies have been carried out to understand the role of CCS in
decarbonizing different industries such as cement [6, 7], iron and steel [8], refineries [9], chemicals
[10], pulp and paper [11], oil and natural gas processing [12, 13], and hydrogen [14]. Beyond these
studies, CCS deployment also gained momentum with 20 large-scale CCS projects deployed
globally at various industrial facilities currently in operation [15]. Although the successful
demonstration of large-scale CCS deployment is promising for building a carbon-neutral society,
This is an author generated pre-print
2
the key learnings from the feasibility studies and CCS deployment from industrial sources have
highlighted the substantial increase in costs of industrial plants and risks as major challenges. For
example, implementing CCS in a cement plant could avoid up to 90% of CO2 emissions, but would
increase the cost of cement production by 65% to 95%, depending on the CO2 capture technology
[16]. Since cement, steel, and other chemical industries typically operate at a low-profit margin,
the increase in production costs can lead to risks associated with economic repercussions, lower
product competitiveness, and producers’ reluctance to deploy CCS in industrial processes [17].
Although financial mechanisms in the form of fiscal incentives and regulations can initially support
CCS deployment in various industries to sustain competitive markets [17], the additional cost will
eventually be passed over to the end-users. Often, the costs evaluated for CCS implementation are
only reported on the price of the product(s) of the industrial plant (cement, iron and steel, plastics,
etc.), with no information on its impact on products and services consumed by end-users in the
overall value chain. To provide context, the overall value chain of a product or service is typically
made up of three elements: the producer of industrial products (e.g., cement, iron, and steel, etc.),
the industrial consumer (e.g., the construction sector consuming cement), and the end-user (e.g.,
people buying a house) [17]. The latter is the reason for the existence of the entire value chain. As
the end-user will eventually have to incur the additional costs of CCS implementation, it is also
essential to evaluate the impact of CCS implementation in industrial plants on end-users to fully
understand the actual costs of CCS and its true potential in avoiding emissions of products and
services.
While most studies in the literature have focused only on assessing the costs of CCS implementation
in the industrial processes, only a few studies have examined the cost impact of CCS
implementation on the end-user by considering an overall industrial value chain. Rootzén &
Johnsson, for instance, investigated value chains involving steel and cement production [18, 19]. In
one study, the authors examined how reducing CO2 emissions by CCS implementation in cement
production influenced the costs across the value chain from cement production to the construction
of a residential building [18]. It concluded that the increment in the residential building construction
costs is minimal (i.e., 1%) even when the cement production costs doubled with CCS
implementation in the cement plant. The authors reported similar observations in another study
using the supply of steel to a passenger car as a case study where the cost increment in a passenger
car was less than 0.5% even when the cost of producing steel with CCS increased by 35% [19].
Although earlier studies facilitated the understanding of cost impact on end-user products and
services, two significant shortcomings are identified. First, the focus was only on the costs, instead
of assessing the impacts of CCS implementation on both, cost and CO2 intensity. For instance, if
implementing CCS in the cement plant increases the cost of a building by about 10% but overall, it
decreases CO2 emissions by only 3%, then the question of the cost-benefit of CCS implementation
in reducing CO2 emissions arises. Therefore, both costs and CO2 intensity must be assessed to
fully understand the potential impact of CCS implementation on end-user products. Second,
previous research solely considered the impact of CCS implementation in a single industry on a
specific end-user product or service (i.e., cement on a house, steel on a car, etc.). However, most
end-user products and services rely on multiple products from multiple industries. For example, a
house requires a significant amount of cement, steel, and plastics which are the products of CO2-
intensive industries.
In this paper, we explore the true potential of CCS implementation in the industry by posing the
following question: to what extent does CCS implementation in primary industrial production
impact the costs and CO2 emission reductions across the overall value chain from industrial plant
to end-user products and services? We address this question by considering the construction of a
bridge as a relevant example. The bridge as a case study represents a transportation infrastructure
This is an author generated pre-print
3
commonly used by individuals (i.e., end-users) and involves multiple materials such as cement and
steel in the construction.
The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 describes the case study and the relevant value chains.
Section 3 provides methodology details on costs and life cycle assessment approaches. Section 4
presents the results obtained and discusses their implications. Finally, the key findings are
concluded along with some perspectives on how CCS should be perceived in Section 5.
2. Case Study
The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, a beam bridge, located in Louisiana (USA) is here considered
as a case study. It is currently the longest beam bridge over continuous water in operation. It is a
good representation of a case in which large amounts of primary construction materials are required.
To construct the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, about 225 000 m3 of concrete (i.e., 76 487 tonnes
of cement assuming 340 kg of cement makes 1 m3 of concrete) and 24 209 tonnes of steel (i.e.,
2700 tonnes as structural steel and 21509 tonnes as wire/rod) were required [20]. As concrete,
derived from cement, and steel are produced in different energy-intensive industries, this case study
is also representative of a common final product, i.e., beam bridge, produced from more than one
material relevant in the context of CCS.
Figure 1: System boundaries of the bridge value chain considered in this study.
Figure 1 represents how the cement and steel value chains are integrated into the construction of
the bridge. The cement plant in this case study produced 1.36 Mtonnes of cement per year through
a dry kiln process [6, 16]. In a concrete production facility, concrete is produced from cement and
This is an author generated pre-print
4
other raw materials (agglomerates, water). In this step, only electricity was required as energy input.
For this case, it was assumed that the electricity is imported from a power network. We also
assumed that cement and concrete were transported by truck. The main source of CO2 emissions in
the value chain is the primary production facility, i.e., the cement plant [6, 16]. Around half of the
onsite emissions in a cement plant are related to coal combustion, while the rest is linked to the
calcination reaction in the kiln. The implementation of CCS seeks to reduce these emissions
significantly. The other direct or indirect emissions associated with the upstream supply chain,
electricity consumption, and transport outside the cement plant are assumed to remain unchanged
by implementing CCS. Several technologies can be used to capture the CO2 emissions from the
cement plant. Here, oxy-fuel capture was considered based on the results from the H2020 CEMCAP
project [6, 16].
The steel-to-bridge value chain includes steel (i.e., wire, rods, and structural steel) as the primary
product and the bridge as the final product. The steel is produced in an iron and steel plant producing
4 Mtonnes of hot-rolled coil (HRC) per year through a blast furnace route [8], followed by
additional finishing tasks such as cutting to make different product categories (e.g., wire, rods, and
structural steel). In the HRC plant, coking coal and natural gas are used as both feedstock and fuel
while electricity and steam are produced on-site in a natural gas power plant and a boiler [8]. Steel
was assumed to be transported to the bridge construction site by trucks. Implementing CCS on the
oxyfuel blast furnace, using MDEA/PZ, would avoid 47% of the emission of the facility [8].
Although not considered in this study, further emission reduction could be achieved by using low-
carbon hydrogen instead of coking coal as a reducing agent [21].
Downstream emissions in the bridge value chain, such as those due to bridge usage, operation, and
decommissioning were excluded in this analysis.
3. Methodology
While more details on estimating the aggregated CO2 emissions and costs are provided in the ESI,
the following section provides an overview of the approach adopted in this study.
The potential impact of CCS implementation on end-user was assessed by carrying out a
comparative analysis of products derived from industrial processes with and without CCS
implementation. So, CO2 emissions and cost estimates along the value chain are presented for two
scenarios (with and without CCS). Data for the cement and steel plants with and without CCS
implementation were retrieved based on well-known studies [6, 8]. The cost structures related to
the concrete mixing and bridge construction were obtained from [18, 22].
CO2 emissions outside the cement and steel plants were estimated using emission factors from [23,
24, 25, 26]. The overall CO2 emissions of the bridge construction were calculated by aggregating
emissions from each stage of the value chain, starting from the upstream supply chain involving
raw materials extraction and transport to primary production facilities, primary production,
intermediate production, transport from primary to intermediate and from intermediate to final
production gates, and at the bridge construction site. The emissions in each of these steps were
calculated as follows:
• Upstream emissions from the raw material extraction and transport to the primary
production facilities in cement-to-bridge and steel-to-bridge chains were accounted for
based on emission factors from the literature [23, 24, 25]. The raw materials were assumed
to be transported by truck in the upstream supply chain.
• In primary production, the direct CO2 emissions were identified from fuel combustion,
process emissions (e.g., chemical reactions), and indirect emissions (associated with
electricity consumption) when relevant. For the scenario with CCS, most of the CO2
This is an author generated pre-print
5
produced in the primary production (i.e., steel and cement plants) was captured using post-
combustion capture (steel) or oxyfuel (cement), and only the remaining CO2 was
considered. The CCS implementation resulted in avoiding 90 and 47% CO2 emissions from
the cement and steel production facilities, respectively [6, 8]. It is worth noting that the
reference study used a CO2 emission factor of 262 kgCO2 per MWh consumed for the
electricity consumption in the cement plant based on the EU 2014 grid [16]. Since the
electricity is produced on-site in the steel plant, the CO2 emissions due to electricity
consumption are included in the overall emissions.
• Regarding the production of concrete, there are no on-site emissions as this process just
involves the mixing of raw materials, but there are indirect emissions associated with the
electricity consumption of the process [27], which was assumed to have a carbon emission
factor of 390 kgCO2 per MWh consumed based on EU 2018 grid [25]. The conversion of
HRC into steel involves tasks that generate CO2 such as cutting, rolling, and forming [19].
These additional emissions were included in the analysis using data from Rootzén &
Johnsson [19].
• Emissions associated with transport between facilities were estimated based on truck
transport emission factors [24].
• Finally, onsite emissions at the bridge construction site were calculated as 5% of the total
emissions related to the bridge construction without CCS implementation, based on [26].
The onsite emissions are primarily due to the energy consumed by skilled workers, the use
of construction machinery and equipment, generator set, and rebar processing equipment.
The cost of the bridge construction was calculated for the scenarios with and without CCS. This
cost, set to approximate the variation cost with CCS implementation, was obtained using a
cascading approach where costs were estimated at each stage of the value chain starting with
primary production costs, intermediate production costs, transport steps along the value chains, and
the construction of the bridge (final product). Here, costs are presented in euro 2018. In case, the
cost data in the literature was expressed in a different currency, it was first converted to euro and
then updated to 2018. The costs related to each of these steps were estimated as follows:
• The cost of primary products with and without CCS, along with their breakdowns, was
directly obtained from recent techno-economic studies on cement and steel production with
and without CCS [6, 8]. The investment and operating costs, excluding the raw material
and electricity costs, were updated to 2018 using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost
Index. The raw material and electricity costs were, calculated based on their annual
consumption and unit costs in 2018. Moreover, the CO2 transport and storage costs were
added to the operating costs for the cases with CCS implementation.
• In the intermediate production stage, the cost of concrete fabrication, including raw
materials, except cement, was estimated based on the cost structure reported in Rootzén
and Johnsson [18]. The costs of steel finishing tasks (converting steel into wire, rods,
structural steel, etc.) were calculated as a factor of the steel production cost without CCS
[19]. In other words, the cost of wire/rods was equal to the cost of HRC, and the cost of
structural steel was 1.23 times the cost of HRC [19].
• The transport costs were calculated based on unit truck transport prices [28]. We assume
that the raw materials, including cement and steel, are transported 100 km. The transport
distance for concrete was assumed 50 km to prevent the cold joint of the concrete [29].
• The cost of bridge construction was calculated based on four cost components: 1)
superstructure costs which include construction material and material manipulation; 2)
services and ancillaries; 3) site component costs; and 4) sub-structure costs [22]. The costs
of concrete and steel with and without CCS from previous steps were used to estimate
material costs for the bridge construction.
This is an author generated pre-print
6
4. Results and discussion
This section shows the results of comparative analysis to evaluate the CO2 emissions reduction and
cost increments for bridge construction with and without CCS scenarios. Note that the full results
related to the upstream supply chain, cement, concrete, and steel production facilities, along with
relevant data are reported in the ESI. Figure 2 illustrates the breakdown of the CO2 emissions along
the value chain with and without CCS implementation in cement and steel production (also see
Table 1). Without CCS implementation, the overall CO2 emissions for the bridge construction were
about130 ktonnes, of which upstream emissions (i.e., prior to the cement and steel plants) account
for 12%. The CO2 emitted in cement and steel plants contribute to 81% of the overall CO2
emissions of the bridge. The cement plant alone accounts for 37% of the total CO2 emissions (i.e.,
48 ktonnes CO2). This is primarily due to the emissions arising from the calciner and the rotary kiln
because of the combustion of fossil fuels and the limestone calcination process. Steel plant
emissions represent 44% of the total CO2 emissions (i.e., 58 ktonnes CO2) which are due to
emissions from the blast furnace, the power plant, coke ovens, lime kilns, the sinter plant, and
finishing tasks to produce steel products. Emissions from the concrete plant were negligible (i.e.,
0.4 ktonnes CO2). The transport emissions resulting from delivering cement, steel, and concrete
account for 2% of the overall CO2 emissions. The remaining emissions correspond to 4% of the
total CO2 emissions and are attributed to onsite emissions. CCS implementation in cement and steel
plants reduced the overall CO2 emissions of the bridge construction by 51% compared to the
scenario without CCS.
Figure 2: Breakdown of the total CO2 emissions for constructing Lake Pontchartrain Causeway
with and without CCS scenarios
The costs for the bridge construction with and without CCS implementation, along with individual
breakdowns, are presented in Table 1. The breakdown of total construction costs includes costs
related to superstructure, substructure, services and ancillaries, and site preparation. The
superstructure costs change due to the implementation of CCS in the raw material value chain, all
other cost components remain the same. The cost of steel, including the delivery from the steel plant
to the construction site, is estimated at 11 M€ and 12 M€ without and with CCS, respectively. This
This is an author generated pre-print
7
results in an increase in the cost of concrete, including transport to the construction site, from 28 to
30 M€ once CCS is included in the cement value chain. As a result of these small increments, the
bridge cost increased only from 379 to 382 M€ once CCS is included in both the cement and steel
value chains.
Although the marginal cost increase may appear surprising considering both the significant cost
increase that CCS implementation on cement and steel production costs, as well as the considerable
share of material in the cost of building a bridge. Figure 3 illustrates the cascading effect of the CCS
cost increases from primary production until the bridge. The production costs of cement and steel
(i.e., HRC) increased to 60% and 13% when CCS is implemented, respectively. However, as the
share of cement in the concrete formulation is only about 10%, other materials are also required to
produce concrete, and the increase in cement costs due to CCS implementation translates to only
about an 8% increase in concrete costs. Similarly, considering the additional finishing tasks to
convert HRC into different steel products further reduced the cost increment of CCS
implementation in steel production to 10%. Combining both material value chains, the costs of raw
materials, concrete and steel, for bridge construction are 9% higher with CCS implementation
compared to without the CCS scenario. Since the raw materials contribute to only 10% of bridge
construction costs, the impact of the increase in costs of raw materials due to CCS implementation
on the overall construction costs diminished significantly, as illustrated in Fig. 3, to about 1%.
Therefore, despite the significant impact on cement and steel costs, implementing CCS in cement
and steel production would have had a negligible impact on the construction costs of Lake
Pontchartrain Causeway, mainly because the primary drivers of the overall costs are linked to other
construction expenses. In terms of carbon footprint, however, 51% of the direct CO2 emissions
along the value chain are avoided with CCS implementation in cement and steel plants.
Table 1: Breakdown of costs and overall CO2 emissions associated with the construction of
Lake Pontchartrain Causeway
Without CCS
With CCS
Construction costs (M€)
Superstructure costs
Material costs
Steel
Concrete
Manufacturing beam
Concrete placing & deck finishing
Rebar fabrication/placing
Supporting post & form work
Slab waterproofing
Miscellaneous
Services & ancillaries
Site preparation
Substructure
379
160
38
11
28
80
3
14
18
6
1
43
19
156
382
164
42
12
30
80
3
14
18
6
1
43
19
156
Total CO
2
emissions (ktonnes)
Upstream
Cement production
Steel production
Concrete mixing
Transport
Onsite
130
15
48
58
0
3
6
64
15
5
34
0
3
6
This is an author generated pre-print
8
Figure 3: Percentage increase in costs for constructing Lake Pontchartrain Causeway after
implementing CCS.
So far, the impact of CCS implementation in both cement and steel plants on the overall costs and
CO2 emissions linked to the construction of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway has been
investigated. However, it is also important to understand the impact that CCS implementation in
each of these industries can have on the cost and CO2 emissions of the bridge, as shown in Fig. 4.
CCS implementation only in cement production yields about 33% emissions reduction while
increasing the bridge cost by about 0.6%. CCS implementation in only steel production is
responsible for an 18% emissions reduction for a bridge cost increase of 0.3%. Thus, in the case of
a bridge, CCS implementation in the cement sector is more impactful in terms of CO2 emission
reduction than CCS implementation in the steel sector. However, it is important to remember that
CCS implementation is required in both sectors to deeply reduce the CO2 emissions of the bridge
and that, in any case, the cost of implementing CCS in both industries has a marginal impact on the
cost of the bridge (less than 1%).
This is an author generated pre-print
9
Figure 4: Impact of CCS implementation in cement plant or steel plant or both on the percentage
increase in bridge construction costs and reduction in overall CO2 emissions.
In any case, a 1% increase in the bridge construction cost appears highly cost-effective for a 51%
reduction in carbon emissions. This positive cost-benefit trade-off emphasizes the strong value of
CCS implementation in the cement and steel sectors for this bridge case study. It is worth noting
that, even for demonstration projects, which tend to have much higher costs, the impact of CCS
implementation in steel and cement would still lead to a marginal cost increase. In addition, the
significance of a 51% carbon reduction cannot be ignored – particularly as the cement and steel
industry together account for 14% of the world’s CO2 emissions [7, 8]. Looking at the impact of
CCS in the final value chain can bring new insights to understanding the real costs of CCS in
society.
This marginal cost increase could be covered through a marginal increase in the toll fee paid by
road users to access the bridge or directly by municipalities or more generally the infrastructure
owner. Cities and governments have made strong commitments in terms of reduction in 2030 and
2050. Ensuring emissions reduction of such infrastructures through low-carbon materials public
procurement could support their 2030 ambitions under the Paris Agreement at a reasonable cost.
This could also enable enough demand for low-carbon cement and steel to trigger the
implementation of CCS in the cement and steel sectors.
5. Conclusions
Although there has been widespread interest in CCS, the current deployment in industrial plants
has been falling short compared to the required levels due to the lack of economic incentives. CCS
has been criticized as an expensive measure for reducing CO2 emissions. Several studies shown
that implementing CCS in industrial plants substantially increases the production costs, thereby
escalating the prices of primary products, such as cement and steel, to cover the additional
investment associated with CCS infrastructure. However, those studies did not provide insight into
This is an author generated pre-print
10
the cost impact of CCS on the final end-user. In contrast to previous research, this paper examined
the impact of CCS implementation in the cement and steel sector on the costs and CO2 emissions
of end-user products and services. Using the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway as a case study, we show
that the costs of constructing this bridge would increase by less than 1% if cement and steel
production include CCS. In comparison, the overall CO2 emissions of the bridge construction
would be reduced by 51%. This 1% cost increase could, for instance, be covered by a slight increase
in the tolls to be paid by the road user to access the bridge. The significance of a 51% carbon
reduction cannot be ignored, especially as the cement and steel industry alone accounts for 16% of
the world’s CO2 emissions. This case study also illustrates how cities and governments could use
public procurement of low-carbon materials to achieve their 2030 ambitions under the Paris
Agreement at a reasonable cost. While more research is needed into the impact of CCS
implementation on end-user products and services, this work is the first step to better understanding
the cost and benefits of CCS.
Acknowledgments
This publication has been produced with support from the NCCS Research Centre, performed under
the Norwegian research program Centres for Environment-friendly Energy Research (FME). The
authors acknowledge the following partners for their contributions: Aker Carbon Capture, Ansaldo
Energia, Baker Hughes, CoorsTek Membrane Sciences, Equinor, Fortum Oslo Varme, Gassco,
KROHNE, Larvik Shipping, Lundin Norway, Norcem, Norwegian Oil and Gas, Quad Geometrics,
Stratum Reservoir, Total, Vår Energi, Wintershall DEA and the Research Council of Norway
(257579). The authors would like to thank Samantha Eleanor Tanzer for her valuable input to the
life cycle analysis.
This is an author generated pre-print
11
References
1. IPCC (2021): Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y.
Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K.
Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press. In Press.
2. Global CCS Institute (2014). Global status of CCS 2014. Available online:
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/archive/hub/publications/180923/global-status-ccs-
2014.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2022).
3. Roussanaly, S., Berghout, N., Fout, T., Garcia, M., Gardarsdottir, S., Nazir, S. M., Ramirez,
A., & Rubin, E. S. (2021). Towards improved cost evaluation of Carbon Capture and Storage
from industry. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 106, 103263.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103263.
4. IEA (2019), Transforming Industry through CCUS, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/09689323-en (accessed on 10 June 2022).
5. Turgut, O., Bjerketvedt, V. S., Tomasgard, A., & Roussanaly, S. (2021). An integrated
analysis of carbon capture and storage strategies for power and industry in Europe. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 329, 129427. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.129427.
6. Gardarsdottir, S., de Lena, E., Romano, M., Roussanaly, S., Voldsund, M., Pérez-Calvo, J.-
F., Berstad, D., Fu, C., Anantharaman, R., Sutter, D., Gazzani, M., Mazzotti, M., & Cinti, G.
(2019). Comparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture from Cement Production—Part 2:
Cost Analysis. Energies, 12(3), 542. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030542.
7. IEAGHG (2013). Deployment of CCS in the Cement Industry; 2013/19. Available
online: https://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/2013-19.pdf (accessed on 10 June
2022).
8. IEAGHG (2013). Iron and steel CCS study (techno-economics integrated steel mill);
2013/04. Available online: https://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/2013-04.pdf
(accessed on 10 June 2022).
9. IEAGHG (2017). Evaluating the Costs of Retrofitting CO2 Captured in an Integrated Oil
Refinery: Technical Design Basis and Economic Assumptions; 2017-TR5.
10. IEAGHG (2017). Techno-economic evaluation of Hyco plant integrated to ammonia/urea or
methanol production with CCS; 2017/03. Available
online: https://ieaghg.org/exco_docs/2017-03.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2022).
11. IEAGHG (2016). Techno-Economic Evaluation of Retrofitting CCS in a Market Pulp Mill
and an Integrated Pulp and Board Mill; 2016/10.
12. IEAGHG (2017). CO2 capture in natural gas production by adsorption processes for CO2
storage, EOR and EGR; 2017/04.
13. Roussanaly, S., Aasen, A., Anantharaman, R., Danielsen, B., Jakobsen, J., Heme-De-Lacotte,
L., Neji, G., Sødal, A., Wahl, P. E., Vrana, T. K., & Dreux, R. (2019). Offshore power
generation with carbon capture and storage to decarbonise mainland electricity and offshore
oil and gas installations: A techno-economic analysis. Applied Energy, 233–234, 478–494.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2018.10.020.
14. IEAGHG (2017). Techno-economic evaluation of SMR based standalone (merchant)
hydrogen plant with CCS; 2017/02. Available online: https://ieaghg.org/exco_docs/2017-
02.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2022).
15. Global CCS Institute (2019). Global status of CCS 2019. Available online:
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/GCC_GLOBAL_STATUS_REPORT_2019.pdf (accessed on 10
June 2022).
16. Voldsund, M., Gardarsdottir, S., de Lena, E., Pérez-Calvo, J.-F., Jamali, A., Berstad, D., Fu,
C., Romano, M., Roussanaly, S., Anantharaman, R., Hoppe, H., Sutter, D., Mazzotti, M.,
This is an author generated pre-print
12
Gazzani, M., Cinti, G., & Jordal, K. (2019). Comparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture
from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluation. Energies, 12(3), 559.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030559.
17. IEA (2016), 20 years of carbon capture and storage, IEA, Paris
https://www.iea.org/reports/20-years-of-carbon-capture-and-storage (accessed on 10 June
2022).
18. Rootzén, J., & Johnsson, F. (2017). Managing the costs of CO2 abatement in the cement
industry. Climate Policy, 17(6), 781–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1191007.
19. Rootzén, J., & Johnsson, F. (2016). Paying the full price of steel – Perspectives on the cost
of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the steel industry. Energy Policy, 98, 459–469.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2016.09.021
20. Historic American Record Engineering. (2009). Lake Pontchartrain Causeway and Southern
Toll Plaza (Vol. 53, Issue 9).
21. Ueckerdt, F., Verpoort, P. C., Anantharaman, R., Bauer, C., Beck, F., Longden, T.,
Roussanaly, S. On the cost competitiveness of blue and green hydrogen, 30 March 2022,
PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-
1436022/v1
22. Kim, K. J., Kim, K., & Kang, C. S. (2009). Approximate cost estimating model for PSC
Beam bridge based on quantity of standard work. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 13(6),
377–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-009-0377-0.
23. Tanzer, S. E., Blok, K., & Ramírez, A. (2020). Can bioenergy with carbon capture and
storage result in carbon negative steel? International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
100, 103104. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJGGC.2020.103104
24. Tanzer, S. E., Blok, K., & Ramírez, A. (2021). Curing time: a temporally explicit life cycle
CO2 accounting of mineralization, bioenergy, and CCS in the concrete sector. Faraday
Discussions, 230(0), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0FD00139B
25. Tanzer, S. E. (2022). Negative Emissions in the Industrial Sector. Ph.D. thesis.
https://doi.org/10.4233/UUID:5CA5FEA0-3322-4B0B-948B-AF2D60DC168F
26. Zhou, Z. W., Alcalá, J., & Yepes, V. (2020). Bridge Carbon Emissions and Driving Factors
Based on a Life-Cycle Assessment Case Study: Cable-Stayed Bridge over Hun He River in
Liaoning, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020,
Vol. 17, Page 5953, 17(16), 5953. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH17165953
27. Colangelo, F., Forcina, A., Farina, I., & Petrillo, A. (2018). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of
Different Kinds of Concrete Containing Waste for Sustainable Construction. Buildings, 8(5),
70. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8050070.
28. Strunge, T., Renforth, P., & van der Spek, M. (2022). Towards a business case for CO2
mineralisation in the cement industry. Communications Earth & Environment 2022 3:1, 3(1),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00390-0
29. Al-Araidah, O., Momani, A., Albashabsheh, N., Mandahawi, N., & Fouad, R. H. (2012).
Costing of the Production and Delivery of Ready-Mix-Concrete. Jordan Journal of
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 6(2).
This is an author generated pre-print
1
Supporting Information for
Is CCS really so expensive? An analysis of cascading costs and
CO2 emissions reduction of industrial CCS implementation applied
to a bridge
Sai Gokul Subravetia, Elda Rodríguezb, Andrea Ramírezb, Simon Roussanalya,*
a SINTEF Energy Research, 7019 Trondheim, Norway
b Delft University of Technology, 2628 Delft, The Nederlands
* Corresponding author: simon.roussanaly@sintef.no
This is an author generated pre-print
2
S1. Methods
S1.1. Calculation of CO2 emissions associated with bridge construction
The cradle-to-gate CO2 emissions associated with bridge construction were aggregated from both
concrete and steel value chains as follows:
=,(,+,+ ,) + ,(, + , +,) + ,(,+ ,+ ,)
where,
corresponds to the cradle-to-gate CO2 emissions associated with bridge construction (tCO2);
, is the amount of cement (tcement);
, are upstream CO2 emissions related to the raw material extraction and their transport to the
cement plant (tCO2/tcement);
, are CO2 emissions of the cement plant (tCO2/tcement );
, are transport emissions of cement to concrete production facility (tCO2/tcement );
, is the amount of concrete (m3concrete);
, are upstream CO2 emissions related to the raw material extraction (excluding cement) and
their transport to the concrete plant (tCO2/m3concrete);
, are CO2 emissions of the concrete plant (tCO2/m3concrete);
, are transport emissions of concrete to bridge construction site (tCO2/m3concrete);
, is the amount of steel (tsteel);
, are upstream CO2 emissions related to the raw material extraction and their transport to steel
production facility (tCO2/tsteel);
, are CO2 emissions of steel production (tCO2/tsteel);
, are transport emissions of steel to bridge construction site (tCO2/tsteel).
It is worth noting that HRC is converted to several products and forms of steel (e.g., wire, rod, and
structural steel) utilizing some tasks that emit CO2 [1]. These emissions (,) were added to the
CO2 emitted by the steel production plant as follows:
,=, + ,
where,
, are CO2 emissions of the steel product (tCO2/tsteel);
, are CO2 emissions of the HRC-steel plant (tCO2/tsteel);
is the amount of steel obtained from one tonne of HRC (tHRC/tsteel).
It is assumed that one tonne of HRC is converted into one of any steel products, i.e., = 1.
This is an author generated pre-print
3
The upstream emissions () were aggregated by taking into account all the emissions related to
raw materials extraction and their transport to primary/intermediate production facilities as follows:
=(, + ,)
where,
, are CO2 emissions related to raw materials extraction in the upstream supply chain;
, are transport emissions related to raw materials in the upstream supply chain.
Table S1: Summary of input data for estimating CO2 emissions and variable operating costs
in cement value chain.
Parameter
Unit
Without CCS
With CCS
Data Source
Cement production
Clay
t/t
cement
0.241
0.241
[2]
Clinker
t/t
cement
0.737
0.737
[3, 4]
Coal
t/t
cement
0.086
0.086
[4]
Electricity
MWh/t
cement
0.097
0.207
[3]
Gypsum
t/t
cement
0.050
0.050
[5]
Limestone
t/t
cement
0.339
0.339
[4]
Concrete mixing
Admixtures
t/m3
concrete
0.002
0.002
[6]
Cement
t/m3
concrete
0.340
0.340
[6]
Crush aggregates
t/m3
concrete
0.950
0.950
[6]
Electricity
MWh/m3
concrete
0.005
0.005
[5]
Sand
t/m3
concrete
0.900
0.900
[6]
Water
t/m3
concrete
0.190
0.190
[6]
Transport
Transport, truck
km
100
100
assumed
Table S2: Summary of input data for estimating CO2 emissions and variable operating costs
in steel value chain.
Parameter
Unit
Without CCS
With CCS
Data Source
Coal
t/t
HRC
0.67
0.55
[7]
Iron ore
t/t
HRC
1.36
1.36
[7]
Limestone
t/t
HRC
0.289
0.249
[7]
Natural gas
GJ/t
HRC
0.849
5.045
[7]
Steel scrap
t/t
HRC
0.126
0.126
[7]
Transport, truck
km
100
100
assumed
This is an author generated pre-print
4
Table S3: CO2 emission factors of the upstream supply chain.
Parameter
Unit
Value
Data Source
Admixtures
kg
CO2
/t
admixtures
1620
[2, 5]
Clay
kg
CO2
/t
clay
9.6
[2]
Coal
kg
CO2
/t
coal
168
[2]
Crush aggregates
kg
CO2
/t
aggregates
5.1
[2]
Electricity, grid
kg
CO2
/MWh
390
[2]
Gypsum
kg
CO2
/t
gypsum
7.2
[2]
Iron ore
kg
CO2
/t
iron ore
47
[2]
Limestone
kg
CO2
/t
limestone
4.8
[2]
Natural gas
kg
CO2
/t
natural gas
285
[2]
Sand
kg
CO2
/t
sand
10.9
[2]
Steel scrap
kg
CO2
/t
steel scrap
121
[2, 8]
Transport, truck
kg
CO2
/tkm
0.084
[2]
Water
kg
CO2
/t
water
0.3
[2]
Table S4: CO2 emissions of the cement plant without and with CCS implementation.
CO
2
emissions
Without CCS
With CCS
Data Source
CO
2
generated (before capture) (kg
CO2
/t
cement
)
626
649
[3]
CO2 captured (kgCO2/tcement )
-
584
[3]
CO2 emitted (after capture) (kgCO2 /tcement)
-
65
[3]
CO2 avoided
-
90%
[3]
Table S5: CO2 emissions of the steel plant without and with CCS implementation.
CO
2
emissions
Without CCS
With CCS
Data Source
CO
2
generated (before capture) (kg
CO2
/t
HRC
)
2090
1976
[7]
CO2 captured (kgCO2/tHRC )
-
861
[7]
CO2 emitted (after capture) (kgCO2 /tHRC)
-
1115
[7]
CO2 avoided
-
47%
[7]
Conversion of HRC into steel (kgCO2/tsteel)
300
300
[1]
This is an author generated pre-print
5
Table S6: Summary of input data for estimating transport emissions and costs
Parameter
Unit
Value
Data Source
Truck transport
Distance
km
100
assumed
Distance, concrete
delivery
km
50
[9]
Truck emission factor
kg
CO2
/tkm
0.084
[2]
Unit transport price
€
2018
/tkm
0.04
[10]
S1.2. Cost estimation
The bridge construction cost estimates were obtained along the value chain with and without CCS
scenarios. The key performance indicator, bridge construction cost, comprises superstructure costs,
service and ancillaries, site preparation, and substructure costs [11]. The bridge construction cost
was first estimated for without CCS scenario as follows:
1. Superstructure costs include the cost of materials such as concrete and steel (24% of the
superstructure costs), costs of manufacturing beam (50%), concrete placing (1.7%), deck
finishing (0.2%), rebar fabrication/placing (8.5%), supporting post (6%), form work (5.3%),
slab waterproofing (3.5%) and other miscellaneous costs (0.8%) [11].
The cost of raw materials was estimated based on the amount of steel and concrete used as the
construction material along with their costs:
Cost of raw materials (€) = , + ,
where,
, is the amount of concrete used in the bridge construction (m3concrete);
is the cost of concrete together with delivery costs (€/m3concrete);
, is the amount of steel used in the bridge construction (tsteel);
is the cost of steel together with delivery costs (€/tsteel).
Based on the cost of raw materials, the other components of superstructure costs were estimated
using the percentage contribution of each component towards the total superstructure costs.
2. Based on Kim et al. [11], superstructure costs contribute to 42.28% of the total bridge
construction costs. The other cost components, services and ancillaries (11.39%), site
preparation (5.10%), and substructure (41.23%) were then calculated based on total bridge
construction costs.
For estimating bridge construction costs with CCS, the material costs (e.g., steel and concrete) with
CCS implementation were used to estimate the cost of raw materials. The cost of the other elements
remains unchanged compared to without scenario.
This is an author generated pre-print
6
Estimating and :
The concrete cost () was obtained by summing the concrete materials cost, delivery cost, fixed
cost, and plant cost as follows:
= + + +
where,
is the concrete material cost (€/m3);
is the delivery cost from the concrete plant to the construction site (€/m3);
is the fixed cost of concrete production (€/m3);
is the plant cost (€/m3).
It is worth noting that represents 50% of [6]. The raw materials for concrete include cement,
crushed aggregates, pit run sand, admixtures, etc. The raw material composition in the concrete mix
is provided in Table S1. The cost of cement with and without CCS was obtained from Gardarsdottir
et. al. [3] and other raw material costs were obtained from Rootzén & Johnsson [6]. Therefore, ,
was calculated directly based on . The delivery cost, , was obtained based on the transport
cost model. The fixed and plant costs are obtained using their remaining percentage of share in the
concrete cost. While estimating , the transport costs from the cement plant to concrete facility
were included in the cost of cement. Except for cement cost, all other cost components remain
unchanged without and with CCS implementation.
The steel cost () was obtained by summing the production cost of steel and delivery costs as
shown below,
= +
where,
is the production cost of HRC (€/tHRC);
is the relative cost factor represented as the ratio of the steel product price (€/tsteel) and the HRC
price (€/tHRC );
is the steel delivery cost from the steel plant to the construction site (€/tsteel).
The HRC produced in the steel mill plant is converted into several products of steel (e.g., wire, rod,
and structural steel) by utilizing some additional tasks. A relative cost factor () is used to represent
the differences in each steel product cost based on production costs without CCS [1]. Note that =
1 and = 1.23 was used for converting HRC into wire/rod forms of steel and structural steel,
respectively [1]. The production cost of HRC with and without was obtained from the literature [7].
The cost data for cement and steel plants without and with CCS implementation were retrieved
from the literature [3, 7] and are provided in Tables S7 and S8. The total production costs were
obtained based on annualised CAPEX and operating costs as follows:
This is an author generated pre-print
7
Production cost €
t
= annualised CAPEX €
t+fixed OPEX €
t
+variable OPEX €
t
The annualised CAPEX and fixed OPEX costs from previous studies were directly updated to €2018
using Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). The variable operating costs include raw
material costs, energy costs, and other miscellaneous costs. In the cement plant, the variable
operating costs are incurred due to the consumption of raw meal, coal, electricity, ammonia, and
other miscellaneous expenses. The variable operating costs in the steel plant are due to the
consumption of iron ore, coal, natural gas, scrap and ferroalloys, fluxes, and other consumables.
While some of these cost components were directly updated to €2018 based on CEPCI, other
components such as iron ore, coal, natural gas, and electricity typically have a wide range of price
fluctuations over years. To provide a more accurate estimate, the cost contributions from coal and
electricity consumption in the cement plant were calculated based on annual coal and electricity
consumption and their prices in 2018 (provided in Table S9). Similarly, iron ore, coal, and natural
gas costs in the steel plant were estimated based on their annual consumption and unit prices in
2018. The annual consumption of raw materials is provided in Tables S1 and S2. For CCS scenarios,
CO2 transport and storage costs (e.g., 10 €2018/tCO2) are also included in the variable operating costs.
Table S7: Cement production costs without and with CCS implementation.
Parameter
Unit
Without CCS
With CCS
CAPEX
€
2018
/t
cement
16
27
Fixed OPEX
€
2018
/t
cement
14
20
Raw meal
€
2018
/t
cement
3.9
3.9
Ammonia
€
2018
/t
cement
0.54
0.54
Miscellaneous
€
2018
/t
cement
0.85
0.85
CO
2
avoided cost
€
2018
/t
CO2
-
53
CO
2
capture cost
€
2018
/t
CO2
-
51
Table S8: Steel production costs without and with CCS implementation.
Parameter
Unit
Without CCS
With CCS
CAPEX
€
2018
/t
HRC
110
132
Fixed OPEX
€
2018
/t
HRC
102
108
Scrap & ferroalloy
€
2018
/t
HRC
43
44
Fluxes
€
2018
/t
HRC
9
8
Consumables & others
€
2018
/t
HRC
10
11
CO
2
avoided cost
€
2018
/t
CO2
-
55
This is an author generated pre-print
8
Table S9: Unit prices of raw materials and energy.
Parameter
Unit
Value
Data Source
Admixtures
€
2018
/kg
admixtures
1.6
[6]
CO
2
transport & storage
€
2018
/t
CO2
10.0
[12]
Coal
€
2018
/t
coal
90.8
[13]
Crush aggregates
€
2018
/kg
aggregates
0.02
[6]
Electricity
€
2018
/MWh
62
[3]
Iron ore
€
2018
/t
iron ore
59.1
[14]
Natural gas
€
2018
/GJ
6.5
[15]
Sand
€
2018
/kg
sand
0.02
[6]
This is an author generated pre-print
9
S2. Results
S2.1. Cement and subsequent concrete production
The CO2 emissions and cost estimation presented in Tables S11and S12 are expressed per tonne of
cement and per m3 concrete, respectively. Moreover, the calculations are based on 340 kg of cement
is required to produce 1 m3 of concrete [6].
Table S10: Key results obtained for cement production.
Parameter
Unit
Without CCS
With CCS
Upstream emissions
kg
CO2
/t
cement
26
26
CO
2
emitted in cement plant
kg
CO2
/t
cement
626
65
Cement delivery emissions
kg
CO2
/t
cement
8
8
Variable OPEX
€
2018
/t
cement
19
32
Fixed OPEX
€
2018
/t
cement
14
20
CAPEX
€
2018
/t
cement
16
27
Total production cost
€
2018
/t
cement
49
78
Delivery cost
€
2018
/t
cement
4
4
Table S11: Key results obtained for concrete production facility.
Parameter
Unit
Without CCS
With CCS
Upstream emissions (excluding
cement production) kgCO2/m3concrete 38 38
CO
2
emitted in concrete plant
kg
CO2
/m3
concrete
2
2
Concrete delivery emissions
kg
CO2
/m3
concrete
10
10
Cement cost
€
2018
/m3
concrete
18
28
Other raw materials cost
€
2018
/m3
concrete
44
44
Concrete delivery cost
€
2018
/m3
concrete
5
5
Fixed cost and plant cost
€
2018
/m3
concrete
57
57
Total production cost
€
2018
/ m3
concrete
124
134
S2.2. Steel and subsequent steel products production
The CO2 emissions and cost estimation presented in Table S13 are expressed per tonne of HRC or
steel.
This is an author generated pre-print
10
Table S12: Key results obtained for steel production (including finishing tasks).
Parameter
Unit
Without CCS
With CCS
Upstream emissions (excluding
cement production) kgCO2/tHRC 224 227
CO
2
emitted in HRC plant
kg
CO2
/t
HRC
2090
1115
Conversion of HRC into steel
kg
CO2
/t
steel
300
300
Steel delivery emissions
kg
CO2
/t
steel
8
8
Variable OPEX
€
2018
/t
HRC
209
236
Fixed OPEX
€
2018
/t
HRC
102
108
CAPEX
€
2018
/t
HRC
110
132
Total production cost - HRC
€
2018
/t
HRC
422
475
Total production cost – wire/rod
€
2018
/t
steel
422
475
Total production cost –
structural steel €2018/tsteel 519 572
Steel delivery cost
€
2018
/t
steel
4
4
This is an author generated pre-print
11
References
1. Rootzén, J., & Johnsson, F. (2016). Paying the full price of steel – Perspectives on the cost
of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the steel industry. Energy Policy, 98, 459–469.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2016.09.021
2. Tanzer, S. E. (2022). Negative Emissions in the Industrial Sector. Ph.D. thesis.
https://doi.org/10.4233/UUID:5CA5FEA0-3322-4B0B-948B-AF2D60DC168F
3. Gardarsdottir, S., de Lena, E., Romano, M., Roussanaly, S., Voldsund, M., Pérez-Calvo, J.-
F., Berstad, D., Fu, C., Anantharaman, R., Sutter, D., Gazzani, M., Mazzotti, M., & Cinti,
G. (2019). Comparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture from Cement Production—Part 2:
Cost Analysis. Energies, 12(3), 542. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030542.
4. IEAGHG (2013). Deployment of CCS in the Cement Industry; 2013/19. Available
online: https://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/2013-19.pdf (accessed on 10 June
2022).
5. Tanzer, S. E., Blok, K., & Ramírez, A. (2021). Curing time: a temporally explicit life cycle
CO2 accounting of mineralization, bioenergy, and CCS in the concrete sector. Faraday
Discussions, 230(0), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0FD00139B
6. Rootzén, J., & Johnsson, F. (2017). Managing the costs of CO2 abatement in the cement
industry. Climate Policy, 17(6), 781–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1191007.
7. IEAGHG (2013). Iron and steel CCS study (techno-economics integrated steel mill);
2013/04. Available online: https://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/2013-04.pdf
(accessed on 10 June 2022).
8. Tanzer, S. E., Blok, K., & Ramírez, A. (2020). Can bioenergy with carbon capture and
storage result in carbon negative steel? International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
100, 103104. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJGGC.2020.103104
9. Al-Araidah, O., Momani, A., Albashabsheh, N., Mandahawi, N., & Fouad, R. H.
(2012). Costing of the Production and Delivery of Ready-Mix-Concrete. Jordan
Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 6(2).
10. Strunge, T., Renforth, P., & van der Spek, M. (2022). Towards a business case for CO2
mineralisation in the cement industry. Communications Earth & Environment 2022 3:1,
3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00390-0
11. Kim, K. J., Kim, K., & Kang, C. S. (2009). Approximate cost estimating model for PSC
Beam bridge based on quantity of standard work. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering,
13(6), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-009-0377-0.
12. IEAGHG (2017). CO2 capture in natural gas production by adsorption processes for CO2
storage, EOR and EGR; 2017/04.
13. Coal, Australian thermal coal - Monthly Price (Euro per Metric Ton) - Commodity
Prices - Price Charts, Data, and News - IndexMundi. Retrieved 10 June 2022,
Available online: https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-
australian&months=60¤cy=eur
14. Iron Ore - Monthly Price (Euro per Dry Metric Ton) - Commodity Prices - Price
Charts, Data, and News - IndexMundi. Retrieved 10 June 2022, Available online:
https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=iron-
ore&months=60¤cy=eur
15. Natural gas price statistics, Eurostat (2018).
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
