Northern Lights CCS: Who Signed, Who Didn’t, & The Real Cost Of Industrial Carbon Capture

Join every day information updates from CleanTechnica on e mail. Or observe us on Google Information!

When BASF quietly backed away from signing a transport and storage settlement with Northern Lights for its Kairos@C venture in Antwerp not too long ago, it signaled greater than only a missed buyer for the high-profile Norwegian CCS initiative. It revealed the fragile balancing act on the coronary heart of Europe’s carbon administration ambitions: technical readiness, coverage assist, and business viability should align.

Northern Lights, a three way partnership between Equinor, Shell, and TotalEnergies, has change into the flagship cross-border carbon storage venture in Europe. With Part 1 designed to deal with 1.5 million tons of CO2 yearly, the venture represents each infrastructure ambition and enterprise mannequin uncertainty. The roster of emitters who signed binding agreements—and those that didn’t—offers a window into how troublesome it nonetheless is to make industrial carbon seize and storage work at scale.

I’ll be exploring Northern Lights in a brief collection of articles masking first the purchasers who signed up for it and their prices, then the transportation and its prices, and eventually the ability itself and its prices. A abstract article will wrap up the whole price construction and assess classes realized. This was triggered by a European journalist reaching out to me final week to get my perspective on the delivery of the liquid CO2, as I’d printed a nerdy evaluation of 1 proposal for it a few years in the past. I’ve been assessing CCS schemes for years, they usually’ve by no means penciled out besides with very huge subsidies, and that is no completely different. It’s not very fairly or low cost, and these are among the many greatest case eventualities for CCS.

The primary two confirmed Northern Lights shoppers have been home, Norwegian sources backed by sturdy authorities monetary assist. Norcem’s cement plant in Brevik, operated by Heidelberg Supplies, is capturing roughly 400,000 tons per 12 months utilizing post-combustion amine seize offered by Aker Carbon Seize. The venture consists of full on-site liquefaction and a devoted jetty for loading Northern Lights CO2 ships. The estimated capital price of the seize set up is north of €350 million, translating to roughly €875 per annual ton of capability. Working prices stay excessive given the power calls for of solvent regeneration, solvent degradation, and upkeep wants for decent, dust-laden cement flue gasoline. Levelized seize prices are doubtless within the €120 to €150 per ton vary.

The second home supply, Hafslund Oslo Celsio’s waste-to-energy plant at Klemetsrud, additionally plans to seize round 400,000 tons per 12 months. It too makes use of amine seize, albeit utilized to a extra complicated flue gasoline matrix. Though this venture confronted vital delays and a redesign as a result of price range constraints, it finally moved ahead utilizing Aker’s modular Simply Catch 400 unit. Seize prices are estimated in the identical vary as Norcem, although they could edge greater as a result of variability of municipal stable waste feedstocks. Each tasks have on-site buffer storage and direct loading to CO2 carriers or brief pipeline connections to adjoining ports, eliminating overland trucking.

Yara’s Sluiskil ammonia plant within the Netherlands presents a really completely different profile. Capturing roughly 800,000 tons of CO2 yearly from a high-purity course of stream in ammonia synthesis, Yara’s venture avoids the complicated and dear flue gasoline cleanup required for cement and waste combustion. As a substitute, the principle capital expense is in liquefaction and intermediate storage. Yara is investing roughly €200 million to construct on-site liquefaction infrastructure. This equates to roughly €250 per annual ton of capability. Working prices are decrease as nicely, with the CO2 stream already clear and dry. Seize prices, together with compression and liquefaction, are doubtless underneath €50 per ton. Yara’s plant is situated immediately on the water, with its personal quay on the Ghent–Terneuzen Canal within the Netherlands. The positioning is totally industrial and has direct maritime entry, that means liquefied CO₂ might be loaded immediately onto Northern Lights’ ships from the plant with out the necessity for overland transport.

Ørsted’s contribution to Northern Lights comes from two biomass-fueled CHP vegetation in Denmark, collectively delivering round 430,000 tons of biogenic CO2 yearly. The corporate is deploying 5 modular Aker seize models throughout its Asnæs and Avedøre amenities, with a central CO2 hub at Asnæs serving because the liquefaction and export web site. Whereas flue gasoline from biomass combustion is mostly cleaner than waste, it nonetheless incorporates oxygen and hint contaminants that require cautious conditioning. Capital prices for these modular techniques, together with liquefaction and shared storage, are estimated within the €300–400 million vary. Given the dimensions and modular nature, seize and conditioning prices might common €80–100 per ton, particularly with Danish authorities assist by means of a long-term contract for unfavourable emissions. Ørsted’s Asnæs Energy Station sits immediately on the Kalundborg Fjord, with rapid port entry for loading liquefied CO₂ onto ships.

Avedøre, close to Copenhagen, lacks such entry. Initially, the captured CO₂ from Avedøre will likely be transported by truck to the Asnæs facility, a distance of roughly 100 kilometers (62 miles), for liquefaction and subsequent delivery. This overland transport will traverse each densely populated city areas of Larger Copenhagen and fewer populated areas because it approaches Kalundborg. There are plans to develop a shared pipeline infrastructure throughout Zealand sooner or later. 

In 2020, in Satartia, Mississippi, a single CO2 pipeline rupture turned an unusual night time right into a scene from a nightmare. A dense cloud of CO₂ rolled downhill into the city, displacing the air itself. Automobiles stalled as engines misplaced oxygen. Folks collapsed the place they stood, gasping. Forty-five have been hospitalized. And this occurred in a rural space, with open house and low inhabitants density. The city’s whole inhabitants is 46, and it was 1.6 km away from the pipeline.

Ørsted’s Avedøre facility plans to ship roughly 215,000 tonnes of captured CO₂ per 12 months to its Asnæs hub. This quantity interprets to about 590 tonnes per day of dense-phase CO₂ flowing by means of a devoted high-pressure pipeline anticipated to function between 100 and 150 bar.

A full-bore rupture may launch tons of of tonnes of CO₂ quickly, creating a chilly, dense gasoline cloud which will stay close to the bottom and displace oxygen. In nonetheless climate, harmful concentrations may unfold over a number of hundred meters, with essentially the most acute asphyxiation dangers occurring inside a 100–300 meter radius. The mat of CO2 can be 1-2 meters thick on stage floor and it could pool in lower-lying areas to 3-5 meters thick. Youngsters, pets, individuals sitting, and anybody within the decrease mendacity areas can be at critical threat of asphyxiation. Whereas rupture possibilities are low, such occasions require computerized shutoff valves, real-time monitoring, and emergency plans coordinated with native authorities.

Insurance coverage protection for this type of infrastructure should embody environmental legal responsibility, third-party damage, property harm, and loss-of-containment compensation. Allowing includes coordination with native municipalities, emergency companies, and nationwide businesses such because the Danish Vitality Company, Environmental Safety Company, and Security Know-how Authority. These our bodies will consider routing, security techniques, environmental impacts, and compliance with EU laws, together with the CCS Directive, the EIA Directive, and technical requirements like ISO 27913. Approvals aren’t assured, particularly for municipal councils.

That is for a single, small, brief distance, ~13 cm pipeline that solely transports 590 tons a day. I developed the graphic above from a mix of Europe’s proposals for CO2 pipelines masking as much as 19,000 kilometers overlaying inhabitants density maps of Europe, carrying tens of millions of tons a day. I stay amazed that anybody thinks that that is going to be remotely acceptable to the residents of Europe and takes this concept critically.

Frankly, I believe that the pipeline from Avedøre to Asnæs won’t ever see the sunshine of day, and the Avedøre CCS experiment will fail underneath the load of the price of trucking CO2, 20 tons at a time, will sink the venture. It’s underneath lively building proper now, so presumably they assume they’ll have the ability to persuade folks that the pipeline is secure and can have the ability to construct it, in any other case the prices wouldn’t have labored out.

The fifth shopper, Stockholm Exergi, will ship as much as 900,000 tons of biogenic CO2 yearly to Northern Lights beginning round 2028, underneath a 15-year contract. The CO2 will come from its biomass CHP facility in central Stockholm. Like Ørsted’s venture, the flue gasoline is biogenic however city. Stockholm’s plan consists of full-scale seize, liquefaction, and storage tanks at its Värtaverket plant. Given town location and huge quantity, capital prices are doubtless within the vary of €400–600 million. Stockholm Exergi has secured substantial nationwide and EU funding, and operational prices will profit from integration with current district heating infrastructure. However, the general seize and liquefaction price remains to be anticipated to fall between €90 and €120 per ton. It’s proper in a port too, so no issues of CO2 leaks besides for everybody on the facility, the ship crew, the port crew, and other people residing and dealing within the neighborhood.

These 5 shoppers collectively fill Northern Lights Part 1 capability. Extra importantly, they illustrate the present viable archetypes for early-stage CCS in Europe: both high-purity course of streams with modest seize price, or politically-backed decarbonization of sectors like cement and waste with greater prices however sturdy state assist. In each instances, they mainly should have a pipeline that runs straight into the water or have an enormous dock subsequent to the ability for the CO2.

On this context, BASF’s determination to not proceed with a storage settlement for its Kairos@C venture in Antwerp is informative. The Kairos@C venture is designed to seize 1.5 million tons per 12 months from a number of industrial amenities within the Port of Antwerp. Whereas technically mature and partially funded by the EU Innovation Fund, the consortium together with BASF, Air Liquide, and TotalEnergies is now exploring home storage choices. They cite the potential of depleted gasoline fields within the North Sea nearer to Belgium as an alternative choice to delivery CO2 to Norway, which I’ll discover in coming articles. This deferral or withdrawal removes a large-volume shopper from Northern Lights’ early portfolio.

Whereas Northern Lights Part 1 is totally subscribed with out BASF, the lack of such a serious emitter shifts the client profile and reinforces the significance of public-sector intervention. With out government-backed Norwegian tasks and beneficiant EU co-funding for Stockholm and Ørsted, it’s unclear whether or not Part 1 would have reached monetary shut. The economics of CCS stay finely balanced. Initiatives like Yara’s display that low-cost, process-derived CO2 might be captured economically, significantly when liquefaction and port entry are already in place. However for many emitters, particularly these coping with dilute or variable flue gasoline, per-ton prices stay above what EU ETS costs alone can justify.

From a threat administration perspective, every of the 5 confirmed tasks has internalized the necessity for CO2 purity, secure dealing with, and on-site buffer capability. Liquid CO2 is saved at round -26°C and 15 bar, requiring double-walled tanks, boil-off administration, and leak detection. The transport from seize web site to ship loading terminal is usually brief and managed; overland trucking of CO2 has largely been prevented in Part 1. This isn’t incidental. The protection dangers of dense-phase CO2 in populated areas—asphyxiation in low-lying zones, brittle fracture in pipelines—are nicely understood and designed towards. The place trucking is important, as in shifting Avedøre’s CO2 to Asnæs, cautious routing and car design mitigate public threat.

The implications for future phases are clear. If Part 2 scales to five million tons per 12 months, Northern Lights might want to appeal to extra emitters like Yara or safe longer-term state-backed contracts. The economics depend upon constant excessive utilization. The capital depth of CO2 conditioning and liquefaction at every emitter web site, mixed with the logistics of secure transport and port infrastructure, means underutilized capability can rapidly drive prices per ton upward. In that context, BASF’s selection to attend for nearer or cheaper choices is rational. However it additionally underscores that CCS, even when technically prepared, bodily permitted, closely sponsored and proper subsequent to water, is just not but an apparent resolution. Each participant should see a reputable path to recouping funding—and that path nonetheless relies upon closely on public coverage, subsidy, or carbon pricing.

For now, Northern Lights Part 1 is a uncommon case of full subscription and multinational cooperation. However it’s being carried, largely, by Norway’s state-funded demonstration tasks and European governments keen to bridge the hole between engineering feasibility and financial actuality. That it required Yara’s low cost CO2, two home Norwegian vegetation, and three EU-subsidized BECCS tasks to fill 1.5 million tons per 12 months ought to mood expectations for fast industrial-scale CCS rollout. The infrastructure is world-class, the technical dangers largely nicely managed, and the regulatory frameworks cooperative. However for many emitters, the lacking hyperlink stays: who pays to make carbon disappear when the value of emitting it’s nonetheless too low to matter?