and converted into building materials with surplus CO 2 . A third of overall steel
production related CO 2 emissions of today could potentially be diverted for reuse.
For the remaining CO 2 volumes, underground permanent storage becomes an
option once such infrastructure is being built.
Scale up of carbon reuse projects without a specific regulatory frame work is
unlikely as the cost of products from carbon reuse will be higher than for the fossil
equivalent.
Manuela
Ojan (HeidelbergCement)
introduced
an
installation
that
HeidelbergCement is piloting in Moroccan cement plant that produces micro algae
for fish feed. This application allows this stand-alone plant to capture 10% of its
total CO 2 emissions.
Tom Bradley (Narec Distributed Energy—UK) presented the InteSusAl project in
Portugal, which is producing algae for conversion into fuel. To enable comparisons
of different process set-ups, the LCA methodology for assessing the various algae
technologies were harmonized.
Colin Hills (UK Centre for Environment Research and Innovation) explained that
technologies are being implemented in 2 UK plants (5 by 2021) to mineralize CO 2
with reactive waste (APCr). However, other wastes (e.g. red mud, …) can also be
processed into aggregates for construction. From mapping EU available wastes, a
conservative potential of 6 Mt carbon abatement exists while producing 122 Mt of
aggregate, covering 6% of EU consumption.
Finally, Anders Hammer Strømman (Norwegian University of Science and
Technology) stated that methodologies assessing the abatement potential of CCU
technologies should consider their beneficial effect on anthropogenic perturbation
of global carbon cycle. Attention should be given to whether these are in the
domains of either the slow else the fast carbon cycle.
Some conclusions were drawn from discussion between panel and audience after
the Q&A session:
– Without a price on carbon, these new technologies cannot economically compete with their fossil-based alternatives.
– A regulatory support is required to enable them a market.
– To maximize their impact on carbon abatement, the technologies will require
renewable energy as input for operation.
– Assessment methodologies shall reflect an evolution to more renewable energy
to enable the initial viability of the new CCU technologies.
– Regulation framework has to reward synergies created by combined production
systems rather stimulate the market based on benchmarking of the individual
products as the latter will raise allocation issues.
308
J. Bollen
production related CO 2 emissions of today could potentially be diverted for reuse.
For the remaining CO 2 volumes, underground permanent storage becomes an
option once such infrastructure is being built.
Scale up of carbon reuse projects without a specific regulatory frame work is
unlikely as the cost of products from carbon reuse will be higher than for the fossil
equivalent.
Manuela
Ojan (HeidelbergCement)
introduced
an
installation
that
HeidelbergCement is piloting in Moroccan cement plant that produces micro algae
for fish feed. This application allows this stand-alone plant to capture 10% of its
total CO 2 emissions.
Tom Bradley (Narec Distributed Energy—UK) presented the InteSusAl project in
Portugal, which is producing algae for conversion into fuel. To enable comparisons
of different process set-ups, the LCA methodology for assessing the various algae
technologies were harmonized.
Colin Hills (UK Centre for Environment Research and Innovation) explained that
technologies are being implemented in 2 UK plants (5 by 2021) to mineralize CO 2
with reactive waste (APCr). However, other wastes (e.g. red mud, …) can also be
processed into aggregates for construction. From mapping EU available wastes, a
conservative potential of 6 Mt carbon abatement exists while producing 122 Mt of
aggregate, covering 6% of EU consumption.
Finally, Anders Hammer Strømman (Norwegian University of Science and
Technology) stated that methodologies assessing the abatement potential of CCU
technologies should consider their beneficial effect on anthropogenic perturbation
of global carbon cycle. Attention should be given to whether these are in the
domains of either the slow else the fast carbon cycle.
Some conclusions were drawn from discussion between panel and audience after
the Q&A session:
– Without a price on carbon, these new technologies cannot economically compete with their fossil-based alternatives.
– A regulatory support is required to enable them a market.
– To maximize their impact on carbon abatement, the technologies will require
renewable energy as input for operation.
– Assessment methodologies shall reflect an evolution to more renewable energy
to enable the initial viability of the new CCU technologies.
– Regulation framework has to reward synergies created by combined production
systems rather stimulate the market based on benchmarking of the individual
products as the latter will raise allocation issues.
308
J. Bollen