Next Article in Journal
Preparation of Synthesis Gas from CO2 for Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis—Comparison of Alternative Process Configurations
Next Article in Special Issue
Towards Controlled Degradation of Poly(lactic) Acid in Technical Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Carbon Membranes Prepared from Poly (Furfuryl Alcohol–Furfural) Precursors: Effect of FeCl3 Additive
Previous Article in Special Issue
From Newspaper Substrate to Nanotubes—Analysis of Carbonized Soot Grown on Kaolin Sized Newsprint
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
C
Volume 6
Issue 3
10.3390/c6030054
carbon-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Achieving Climate Targets via the Circular Carbon Economy: The Case of Saudi Arabia

by
Yousef M. Alshammari
1,2
1
College of Engineering, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Khobar 34754, Saudi Arabia
2
Faculty of Business, Economics and Statistics, University of Vienna, Oskar Morgen Stern Platz 1, 1090 Vienna, Austria
C 2020, 6(3), 54; https://doi.org/10.3390/c6030054
Submission received: 11 June 2020 / Revised: 25 July 2020 / Accepted: 6 August 2020 / Published: 31 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Collection Carbon in the Circular Economy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Clean hydrocarbon technologies have a key role to play in achieving the circular carbon economy while meeting climate targets in many countries around the world. The aim of this work is to assess which technology, or combination of technologies, is the most cost-effective in achieving climate targets by 2030 leading to a quick and smooth transition to a low carbon energy system in Saudi Arabia and similar oil-based economies. We find that low carbon policy support by banning crude oil in power generation, leads to accelerated underground oil gasification, in the absence of carbon prices. We also find that setting a policy for carbon reduction targets leads to a more flexible energy system transition enabling more technologies in the mix with an increasing transition period. Our results also show that clean hydrocarbon technologies may be sufficient to achieve new climate targets, as shown by the stabilised emissions in scenario 3 by 2025, without the implementation of renewable sources of energy which most studies do not include. We propose that by investing in clean hydrocarbon technologies over the short term, the transition towards a low carbon economy will be accelerated while developing renewable sources of energy over the long term.

1. Introduction

Meeting climate targets has always been a global necessity. The IPCC emphasises that the Paris Agreement targets must be achieved by 2030 in order to maintain the Earth’s temperature rise at less than 1.5 °C. The circular carbon economy, achieved via clean hydrocarbons technologies (CHTs), has a key role to play in achieving this target. The term clean hydrocarbon technologies is a broad term which refers to any technology that converts the energy stored in hydrocarbons into electricity, fuel or useful mechanical work with a minimal carbon footprint. Over the past decade, new hydrocarbon conversion technologies underwent significant breakthroughs to make the future of hydrocarbons more sustainable in a carbon constrained world. New technologies may include not only carbon capture and storage, but also many other new technologies such as direct hydrocarbon fuel cells, conversion of CO2 into fuels, and underground gasification of hydrocarbons which may achieve the circular carbon economy. Cost-effective implementation of each of the aforementioned technologies will be governed by the economics and their development status. There is a growing need for understanding the role of hydrocarbon conversion technologies in enabling global energy access while realising energy transition that meets climate targets. The following review presents recent breakthroughs in hydrocarbon conversion technologies which could pave the way for their implementation in a circular carbon economy.

2. Literature Review

The concept of the so-called circular carbon economy involves a stepwise closure of the carbon cycle via utilisation or conversion of CO2 generated from the combustion of fossil fuels leading to significant reduction of carbon emissions [1]. To achieve the circular carbon economy, clean hydrocarbon technologies are needed many of which remain under development. The potential of clean hydrocarbon technologies, shown in Table 1, is demonstrated in a range of previous studies [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. For instance, carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), which fits within the second segment in Figure 1, is a relatively immature technology and existing research is geared towards improving its capture efficiency and reducing its costs and energy requirements [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. CCUS is a largely debated technology for clean fossil fuels that is expected to achieve a large reduction in CO2 emissions. Integration of CCUS into existing power plants was estimated to cost households around 10% of their electricity consumption, yet increasing the implementation of CCUS may potentially bring its costs down to $50/tonne in 2050 [2,3,4,5]. A significant reduction in CO2 capture costs was made by the Shidongkou No. 2 Power Plant near Shanghai, China, where CO2 capture was reported to cost between $30–$35/tonne with a capture efficiency improvement by 11–14% [5]. The commercial success of CCUS has been demonstrated in Norway since 1996 where a carbon tax of $50/tonne was set [5]. Other projects for injection 1 million tonne of CO2 into saline formation are in operation, two in Norway, and one in Algeria [8]. Despite government support, a few CCUS demonstration projects have existed so far worldwide due to multiple political economy factors that affect decision making processes by policy makers and investors [2,3,4].
CCUS projects can be carbon positive, carbon neutral, or carbon negative depending on the process of producing and capturing CO2 used. Numerous small scale CCUS projects have been successfully demonstrated from a technical perspective [6]. Carbon neutral and carbon negative CCUS are required for sustainable utilisation of hydrocarbons within a climate friendly framework. Two carbon neutral CCUS projects, in Kemper County, Mississippi, USA, and Boundary Dam, Canada, which is currently running, both of which obtained government funding of $700 million [7]. Negative CO2 capture includes capturing CO2 from biomass combustions or directly from air. The economic viability of CO2 capture can also be enhanced through its conversion into high value chemical products. For instance, the SK refining complex showed a novel initiative where captured CO2 is converted into polypropylene carbonate which is used to make accessories such as wallets. For example, the fashion trademark Donna Kanar New York (DKNY), using the Greenpol technology [9], made of polymers to make commercial wallets. Another example is the conversion of CO2 into methanol using solar thermal energy which was demonstrated by Kim et al. [10]. In their process, a solar reactor is used to convert CO2 into CO followed by the production of hydrogen, and subsequently methanol. The economic analysis of this process showed that the breakeven price for methanol needs to be $1.2/kg while the system efficiency of solar energy to fuel is 7.1%.
CO2 capture directly from air is technically possible using adsorbent technologies [11,12,13,14,15]. However, the economic viability of large scale capture of CO2 from air remains questionable, as no large-scale facility has been built yet [14]. The high cost is largely attributed to the low concentration of CO2 in air which could at least double the amounts of energy required for CO2 removal. The carbon pricing policies will play a key role in the economic viability of commercial scale CO2 capture from air especially at deep emissions targets. A CO2 price of $50–100/tonne was estimated to be required in order for CO2 air-capture to be cost-competitive with other mitigation technologies [10,11].
Another promising technology is the gasification of hydrocarbons which has been commercially demonstrated through different large-scale projects in Europe, Asia, and the United States [16]. Gasification enhances the conversion economics by turning heavy low value feedstock into high value gaseous products. One particular area of a special interest is the underground gasification of hydrocarbons which remains under development [17,18,19,20]. Furthermore, Underground Coal Gasification (UCG), which was successfully demonstrated in Australia and Uzbekistan [21,22] and many other sites, is being tested and planned around the world including China, India, Russia and the USA. The synthesis gas produced from gasification processes can be fed into fuel cells to generate power. One report showed that underground gasification can be integrated with a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) system generating electricity from syngas leading to a net efficiency of 34% which is 4.2% higher than the efficiency for UCG when coupled with steam turbines [22]. SOFCs are the most promising types of fuel cells for clean power generation, especially when coupled with carbon capture systems, and its theoretical efficiency can be as high as 90% [23,24,25]. Nonetheless, many technical and economic issues remain for its wide implementation including scaling-up, cost, safety, and reliability.
One fuel cell demonstration project is the world’s largest fuel cell plant which has been built in South Korea with a capacity of 59 MW, with a planned expansion to 230 MW, which will enable South Korea to diversify its energy mix [25]. Furthermore, GE demonstrated a novel manufacturing method for SOFC with 49% efficiency and an investment cost of $500–550/kW, and that compares well to the investment costs of conventional gas-fired power plants [26]. It should be noted that a SOFC investment below $1700/kW can be considered as optimistic according to the latest figures [23].
Another clean hydrocarbon technology is the thermal splitting of natural gas especially when coupled with carbon-free sources of energy [27,28,29,30]. This process competes with other production routes of hydrogen including electrochemical, photo-chemical, photo-biological routes due to the utilisation of solar energy to provide heat, and the higher bulk hydrogen that can be produced from hydrocarbons without CO2 emissions. Solar heat is provided through concentrated solar radiation which generates the necessary heat for the production process. While produced hydrogen is used to generate electricity through combustion or fuel cells, the produced carbon can be utilised in various industries including rubber and steel manufacturing. The price of carbon has a significant impact on improving the process economics especially when black carbon is sold at a higher price in speciality industries such as the graphite industry. A report on the economic evaluation of the process showed that the required selling prices for both hydrogen and carbon are $9.5/GJ and $0.77/kg, respectively, assuming a plant production capacity of 1 million kg/year hydrogen [30]. The required investments for this process would include solar towers and solar concentrators which generate heat for the thermochemical conversion of methane. With thermal splitting, it is also possible to modify existing conventional facilities without the need to construct new plants as in the case for nuclear, photo-biological or photo-chemical production of hydrogen.
Based on the literature review presented above, this work presents a new energy system model for the power generation and transport sectors in Saudi Arabia based on current and emerging hydrocarbon technologies. The aim of this work is to understand the role and economic benefits of clean hydrocarbon technologies in meeting climate targets, while analysing the interaction between carbon pricing mechanisms and technology policies in meeting climate targets.

3. Methodology

3.1. Model Development

The systems analysis modelling in this study was conducted using the MESSAGE software package. MESSAGE is a linear programming (LP) optimisation model, developed by the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria), and it was described in detail in previously published techno-economic analysis studies [32,33,34,35]. MESSAGE generates the optimum technology mix that meets the energy demand at the lowest cost under given environmental or economic constraints. MESSAGE can be used to determine the desired energy mix with optimum allocation of resources, enabling diversification of supplies, reduction of foreign imports, while preserving the environment. MESSAGE requires data on energy demand, environmental constraints, conversion efficiency, production costs, and resource capacity. MESSAGE generates the optimum solution to meet the projected energy demand at lowest cost, while meeting the set environmental and economic targets. The following sections describe the data and scenarios used as inputs to the MESSAGE optimization routine.

3.2. Model Data

In order for the model to solve for the lowest cost, it was fed with various data that include energy efficiency, levelised costs of energy production (LCOE), and CO2 emissions factor for each used technology, as shown in Table 2. Furthermore, the annual energy demand in Saudi Arabia was estimated for domestic electricity, and transport fuels, as shown in Table 3 along with the annual availability of national energy resources estimated as shown in Table 4. The energy demand in this work is based on our previously published work [31,32] which analyses energy transition in electricity and road transport sectors in Saudi Arabia. For the electricity sector, we assume that energy demand will rise in a business as a usual fashion, based on historical data, until 2050. This rise in demand is likely to be reduced by up to 60% in 2025 using newly adopted government energy efficiency measures including insulation, efficient air conditioners and efficient lighting, as discussed in our previously published work [31].
On the other hand, the road transport energy demand, in Table 3, assumes continued rise in gasoline and diesel demand from 811 thousand bbl/d in 2015 to 3.26 million bbl/d in 2050 due to increasing number cars from 12 million to 26 million cars, as per the government forecast, which is discussed in our previously published work [32].
Based on the energy system chart shown in Figure 1, a new model was developed which enables analysis of transition from conventional CO2-emitting technologies to advanced innovative clean hydrocarbon technologies, as discussed in Section 3.1. Initial simulation of the energy system was conducted which yielded reliable results. CO2 mitigation scenarios were then developed using carbon pricing and technology policy tools as shown in Table 5, and simulation results were obtained for different CO2 pricing and policy scenarios. This enabled analysing the energy technology mix for different scenarios while understanding the effect of CO2 pricing mechanisms on reducing CO2 emissions.
Various clean hydrocarbon technologies were considered in this work, as shown in Figure 1 and Table 2. Figure 1 shows innovative potential routes for the conversion of hydrocarbons into energy in the form of electricity, liquid or gaseous fuels. For instance, it is shown that crude oil can either be converted into various conventional fuels through refining processes which can be used to transport fuel demand. Alternatively, crude oil can be combusted directly to generate electricity while capturing CO2 which can be either sequestered for enhanced oil recovery, or converted into fuels and other chemical products. Another more innovative approach is the conversion of crude oil into hydrogen and syngas directly underground under downhole hydrothermal conditions which minimises the carbon footprint of above-surface processing while enabling combined generation of energy and synthesis gas [1]. The annual increase in CO2 price in Scenario 2 is shown in Figure A1 in the Appendix A.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Energy System

To analyse the technologies used in this work, the energy system in Figure 1 is divided into four segments; (1) resources, (2) conversion technologies, (3) distribution of energy carriers, and (4) the end use demand. This segmentation is crucial in understanding the effects of different parameters within the energy system. For instance, energy resources represent natural resources including crude oil, natural gas, solar light, uranium, wind, etc. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy contained in these resources cannot be fully consumed. The efficiency of conversion technologies is, hence, an important parameter to maximise the utilisation of the energy contained in natural resources by converting them to energy carriers for end user application in the form of fuel or electricity (Segment 3). The fourth segment, end use demand, contributes to a low carbon system by reducing inefficiencies associated with energy consumption from an end user standpoint. In this segment, energy is used through domestic technologies including cooking, lighting, air conditioning, heating, and cooling. Proper management of these segments is, thus, an essential aspect for ensuring optimal allocation and utilization of resources while mitigating negative environmental consequences. The technologies used in this energy system are explained in Section 2. Furthermore, the energy demand, in transport and power generation sectors, and energy resources for the system shown in Figure 1, are shown in Table 3 and Table 4 based on which the technology transition is analysed based on technology costs and policies in Saudi Arabia.

4.2. Impact of CO2 Pricing

Based on the energy system shown in Figure 1, the model generated energy mix data that meets energy demand while achieving carbon targets. Figure 2 shows the business as usual (BAU) scenario where energy consumption increases due to rising population and economic growth, while maintaining existing policies of dependence on conventional combustion of hydrocarbons and fuel subsidies. It shows that CO2 emissions increased almost exponentially to reach 643 million tonne in 2030 and 2156 million tonne in 2050.
Figure 3 shows the energy mix for Scenario 1, which assumes no CO2 price is imposed with ban on crude oil combustion in power generation to support low carbon policy. Under this scenario, it is found that all conventional power generation will be replaced by underground gasification of hydrocarbons followed by fuel cells, and coke gasification with fuel cells for the power generation sector. Furthermore, the transport sector continues to rely on conventional hydrocarbons, namely gasoline and diesel. Introducing a carbon price of $7.3/Tonne which rises by 5% annually, as shown in Scenario 2, will lead to a transformation in the power generation sector leading to thermal splitting of methane to generate hydrogen which can be used in fuel cells for power generations, as shown in Figure 4. The generated carbon from this splitting process can be gasified to generate syngas which may be combusted or used in fuel cells as shown in this scenario. The transport sector is also transformed to use synthetic fuels instead of conventional fuels as found in the previous scenario.
The impact of raising CO2 prices from $7.3/tonne to $40/tonne, Scenario 2, is shown in Figure 5, which compares the CO2 emissions levels with and without carbon pricing. We find that that carbon emissions decline by more than 50% when CO2 prices are introduced. For instance, the CO2 emissions decrease to 48 million tonne at a CO2 price of $40/tonne compared with 160 million tonne when no CO2 price is introduced. The reason for the decline in emissions can be explained by comparing the technology mix in Figure 3 and in Figure 4. When CO2 pricing is introduced, low carbon technologies are selected, Figure 3, to reduce the costs of high emission technologies in Figure 3. Scenario 2 assumes a CO2 price of $7.3/tonne that rises by 5% annually to reach around $40/Tonne in 2050, which is shown in Figure 4.

4.3. Impact of Capping CO2

Figure 6 shows Scenario 3 which shows the impact of capping emissions to achieve a 15% reduction of the emissions in Scenario 1 by 2030 which is maintained until 2050. This will lead to phasing out conventional diesel by 2030 and conventional gasoline by 2045 in the transport sector, which will be replaced by methanol and dimethyl-ether generated from gasification of heavy fuel oil in 2025 and 2030, respectively. The power generation sector shows that underground gasification of hydrocarbons is restored along with coke gasification, both of which are followed by fuel cell power generation starting from the current period until 2030 and 2050. Furthermore, thermal splitting combined with fuel cells emerges in the energy mix in 2040 which accounts for more than 50% of the power generation in 2050.
The carbon emissions profiles under different scenarios are shown in Figure 7. It is found that Scenario 2, where CO2 pricing is imposed, leads to the highest reduction in carbon emissions, followed by Scenario 3, and Scenario 1. However, Scenario 3 includes more technologies in the energy mix with more flexibility leading to a fixed emissions level until 2050, while Scenario 1 leads to more than 80% reduction in emissions compared with the BAU scenario.

4.4. Investments Requirements

Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 show estimation of the investments requirements for Scenarios 1, 2 & 3. It is found that Scenario 1 offers a cheaper alternative to conventional technologies, Figure 8, as energy demand increases from 2020 to 2050. In this scenario, electricity is assumed to be mainly generated via underground oil gasification combined with solid oxide fuel cell, while the road transport sector remains dependent on conventional gasoline and diesel. On the other hand, the investment requirements for Scenario 2 are significantly higher than the BAU case, Figure 9. It is found that total investments rise from around $20 billion, in 2020, to more than $60 billion, in 2050, in Scenario 2, while the BAU case rises from nearly $7 billion, in 2020, to $22 billion in 2050. This significant increase in the cost observed in Scenario 2 is due to the use of the thermal splitting and PEM fuel cell technology which accounts for at least 75% of total investment requirements. The investment requirements for Scenario 3, Figure 10, are only cheaper at the initial stage of transition between 2020–2030, below $7 billion, but they tend to become at a greater cost compared with conventional technologies as energy demand rises between 2035 and 2050, reaching nearly $30 billion. This is due to the supply of methanol, obtained from fuel oil gasification, in road transport, and the use of thermal splitting with PEM fuel cells in power generation.
It is also found that the total investments required in clean hydrocarbons will amount $121.23 billion, $37.76 billion higher than the investments needed under the BAU scenario.

4.5. Impact of Technology Policy

In this analysis, we find that the economics of technology may not be sufficient to drive its implementation. Supportive policies are necessary for accelerated implementation of new hydrocarbon technologies to drive their maturation at a higher pace. For instance, we also find that low carbon policy support by banning the use of crude oil in the power generation sector, Figure 3, leads to accelerated use of underground oil gasification for hydrogen generation followed by solid oxide fuel cell power generation, in the absence of a carbon price. However, the implementation of such policies will have a higher cost compared with conventional approaches. Imposing a carbon price in Figure 4, on the other hand, leads to accelerated use of thermal splitting for hydrogen generation, instead of UOG, which enables a shift from conventional power generation, using direct combustion of crude oil, to a more innovative approach for exploiting natural gas resources. We also find that setting a policy for a carbon reduction target, 15% reduction by 2030, in Figure 6 leads to a more flexible energy system transition where more technologies appear in the mix with an increasing transition period.
Our results may be compared with previous work [38] which showed that technology policies may lower socio-economic costs by compensating for sub-optimal carbon prices and driving technology development. It was further suggested that technology policies work better when coupled with carbon pricing mechanisms rather than cap-and-trade- mechanisms [38]. In comparison to additional previous studies [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51], our analysis shows that setting a carbon target policy enables more low carbon technologies to emerge in the energy mix compared with the pricing mechanism, and that leads to a faster transition with less technological options. Hence, we suggest that establishing new clean hydrocarbon technology policies combined with carbon pricing in order to accelerate energy transition based on the clean hydrocarbon technologies considered in our work. Our results also show that clean hydrocarbon technologies may be sufficient to achieve the climate targets, as shown by the stabilised emissions in Scenario 3, Figure 7, by 2025 without implementation of renewable sources of energy which most studies do not include [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].

5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendation

The results of this work show that the engineering of energy systems and recombination of clean hydrocarbon technologies is an important consideration for enhancing efficiency while minimising costs. We find that increasing CO2 prices leads to decreasing carbon emissions by more than 50%, yet having a low carbon policy combined with a carbon reduction target leads to stabilised emissions by 2025, showing that clean hydrocarbon technologies may be sufficient to achieve climate targets. This study shows that clean hydrocarbon technologies may have a major role in achieving climate targets over the next decades. This statement is supported by the facts that the transition to renewables is not fast enough to mitigate climate change, and hydrocarbons will be the cheapest source for hydrogen production until at least 2030, even when coupled with CCS.
Hence, it is imperative to develop the competitiveness and environmental sustainability of emerging clean hydrocarbon conversion technologies which are positioned at the heart of the transition challenge within the short and medium term. CCS is challenged by the CO2 transport which requires planning of CO2 network transporting CO2 from its sources to its storage sites. Investment in such infrastructure can be rewarding in the long term after large scale implementation of CCS has taken place. The significant reduction in CO2 capture costs in the Shidongkou plant in China shows that it is essential to continue developing the configuration of existing processes in a more cost-effective manner as the Shidongkou process is a conventional amine absorption process.
For hydrocarbons to be within the 1.5 °C scenario, continued R&D in the carbon neutral and carbon negative technologies is required. This is not only exclusive to CCS, but it will also include other clean hydrocarbon conversion technologies including SOFC, thermal splitting, CO2 conversions, and underground gasification technologies. Although many of these technologies are technically proven, and in fact at the demonstration stage, continued development in their economics, and efficiency is necessary to enable them to compete with conventional combustion of hydrocarbons. On the other hand, new policies and business models are required to fit into the low carbon hydrocarbon economy which will enable higher costs of clean conversion technologies to be cost-effective. Successful demonstration of UCG projects in coal rich countries will open the door for the transfer of technology into oil rich countries. Significant reduction in the costs of solar panels would open greater opportunities for demonstration of solar fuel projects.
Explicit new policies are required for energy transition and, in particular, those policies that would enhance the economic incentives for clean hydrocarbon technologies including CO2 tax, public funding, and financial incentives. Finally, the integration of the four energy system segments, shown in Figure 1, is necessary in devising new policies that would optimise the use of resources while managing demand and enhancing efficiency. A complete transition to renewables in order to meet the 1.5 °C target will be a global challenge. By investing in clean hydrocarbon technologies over the short term, transition towards a circular carbon economy will be accelerated while developing renewable sources of energy over the long term.
The essential results of this work are highlighted as follows:
  • Hydrocarbons can be a part of the national energy mix while meeting climate targets
  • Having a low carbon policy combined with a carbon reduction target may stabilise emissions by 2025
  • Clean hydrocarbons must be associated with significant measures in energy efficiency
  • Total investments required in clean hydrocarbons will amount $121.23 billion, $37.76 billion higher than the investments needed under the BAU scenario
The policy recommendations of this study and its practical applicability can be summarised as follows
  • Explicit new policies are needed for incentivising clean hydrocarbon technologies
  • Enhancing energy efficiency measures via reforms in fossil fuel subsidies
  • Continued R&D in the carbon neutral and carbon negative technologies is needed
  • New business models are needed for cost-effective implementation of clean hydrocarbons technologies
The next steps in this work will include development of different scenarios for CO2 pricing, emissions cap, and technology policies to determine their interaction with energy policies.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the funding awarded by King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies (KFCRIS), Saudi Arabia, which enabled undertaking this work at the University of Vienna. Furthermore, the author would like to thank Franz Wirl, and the University of Vienna, Austria, for their support, guidance and supervision of this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Carbon 06 00054 g0a1 550
Figure A1. Annual increase in CO2 price in Scenario 2.
Figure A1. Annual increase in CO2 price in Scenario 2.
Carbon 06 00054 g0a1

References

  1. Meyer, B.; Keller, F.; Wolfersdorf, C.; Lee, R.P. A concept for the circular carbon economy sector coupling of the energy, waste, and chemical industry. Chem. Ing. Tech. 2018, 90, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Koytsoumpa, E.I.; Bergins, C.; Kakaras, E. The CO2 economy: Review of CO2 capture and reuse technologies. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2018, 132, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tapia, J.F.D.; Lee, J.Y.; Ooi, R.E.; Foo, D.C.; Tan, R.R. A review of optimization and decision-making models for the planning of CO2 capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) systems. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Norhasyima, R.S.; Mahlia, T.M.I. Advances in CO2 utilization technology: A patent landscape review. J. Co2 Util. 2018, 26, 323–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Herzog, H.J. What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 148A–153A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Rahman, F.A.; Aziz, M.M.A.; Saidur, R.; Bakar, W.A.W.A.; Hainin, M.R.; Putrajaya, R.; Hassan, N.A. Pollution to solution: Capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) and its utilization as a renewable energy source for a sustainable future. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 71, 112–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tollefson, J. Low-cost carbon-capture project sparks interest. Nature 2011, 469, 276–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Scott, V.; Gilfillan, S.; Markusson, N.; Chalmers, H.; Haszeldine, R.S. Last chance for carbon capture and storage. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Ok, M.; Jeon, M. Properties of poly (propylene carbonate) produced via SK Energy’s Greenpol™ Technology. In ANTEC 2011 [Proceedings]; Society of Plastics Engineers: Richardson, TX, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kim, J.; Henao, C.A.; Johnson, T.A.; Dedrick, D.E.; Miller, J.E.; Stechel, E.B.; Maravelias, C.T. Methanol production from CO2 using solar-thermal energy: Process development and techno-economic analysis. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 3122–3132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pardakhti, M.; Jafari, T.; Tobin, Z.; Dutta, B.; Moharreri, E.; Shemshaki, N.S.; Srivastava, R. Trends in solid adsorbent materials development for CO2 capture. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 34533–34559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Abanades, J.C.; Arias, B.; Lyngfelt, A.; Mattisson, T.; Wiley, D.E.; Li, H.; Brandani, S. Emerging CO2 capture systems. Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Control. 2015, 40, 126–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Creamer, A.E.; Gao, B. Carbon-based adsorbents for post-combustion CO2 capture: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 7276–7289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Sanz-Perez, E.S.; Murdock, C.R.; Didas, S.A.; Jones, C.W. Direct capture of CO2 from ambient air. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116, 11840–11876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lackner, K.S.; Brennan, S.; Matter, J.M.; Park, A.H.A.; Wright, A.; Van Der Zwaan, B. The urgency of the development of CO2 capture from ambient air. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 13156–13162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Murthy, B.N.; Sawarkar, A.N.; Deshmukh, N.A.; Mathew, T.; Joshi, J.B. Petroleum coke gasification: A review. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2014, 92, 441–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Alshammari, Y.M.; Hellgardt, K. A new HYSYS model for underground gasification of hydrocarbons under hydrothermal conditions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 12648–12656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alshammari, Y.M.; Hellgardt, K. Partial oxidation of n-hexadecane through decomposition of hydrogen peroxide in supercritical water. Chem. Eng. Res. Design 2015, 93, 565–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Alshammari, Y.M.; Hellgardt, K. Sub and supercritical water reforming of n-hexadecane in a tubular flow reactor. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2016, 107, 723–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yousef, M.A.; Klaus, H. CFD analysis of hydrothermal conversion of heavy oil in continuous flow reactor. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2017, 117, 250–264. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bhutto, A.W.; Bazmi, A.A.; Zahedi, G. Underground coal gasification: From fundamentals to applications. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2013, 39, 189–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Prabu, V.; Jayanti, S. Underground coal-air gasification based solid oxide fuel cell system. Appl. Energy 2012, 94, 406–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, F.; Deng, S.; Zhang, H.; Wang, J.; Zhao, J.; Miao, H.; Yan, J. A comprehensive review on high-temperature fuel cells with carbon capture. Appl. Energy 2020, 275, 115342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Baldi, F.; Wang, L.; Pérez-Fortes, M.; Maréchal, F. A cogeneration system based on solid oxide and proton exchange membrane fuel cells with hybrid storage for off-grid applications. Front. Energy Res. 2019, 6, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, X. Current status of stationary fuel cells for coal power generation. Clean Energy 2018, 2, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Talbot, D. A Practical Fuel-Cell Power Plant. MIT Technology Review. Available online: https://www.technologyreview.com/2006/10/23/227781/a-practical-fuel-cell-power-plant/ (accessed on 11 June 2020).
  27. Rodat, S.; Abanades, S.; Sans, J.L.; Flamant, G. A pilot-scale solar reactor for the production of hydrogen and carbon black from methane splitting. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 7748–7758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pregger, T.; Graf, D.; Krewitt, W.; Sattler, C.; Roeb, M.; Moller, S. Prospects of solar thermal hydrogen production processes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 4256–4267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ozalp, N.; Kogan, A.; Epstein, M. Solar decomposition of fossil fuels as an option for sustainability. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 710–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Agrafiotis, C.; von Storch, H.; Roeb, M.; Sattler, C. Solar thermal reforming of methane feedstocks for hydrogen and syngas production—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 656–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Alshammari, Y.M.; Sarathy, S.M. Achieving 80% greenhouse gas reduction target in Saudi Arabia under low and medium oil prices. Energy Policy 2017, 101, 502–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Alshammari, Y.M. Energy transition in transport using alternative fuels: Can new technologies achieve policy targets? OPEC Energy Rev. 2019, 43, 301–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alshammari, Y.M.; Benmerabet, M. Global scenarios for fuel oil utilisation under new sulphur and carbon regulations. OPEC Energy Rev. 2017, 41, 261–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abanades, S.; Flamant, G. Production of hydrogen by thermal methane splitting in a nozzle-type laboratory-scale solar reactor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2005, 30, 843–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gillingham, K. Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles: A Prudent Intermediate Step or a Step in the Wrong Direction; Department of Management Science & Engineering Global Climate and Energy Project; Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency of Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  36. Abbas, H.F.; Daud, W.W. Hydrogen production by methane decomposition: A review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 1160–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Peng, X.D. Analysis of the thermal efficiency limit of the steam methane reforming process. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 16385–16392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bertram, C.; Luderer, G.; Pietzcker, R.C.; Schmid, E.; Kriegler, E.; Edenhofer, O. Complementing carbon prices with technology policies to keep climate targets within reach. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bauer, N.; Baumstark, L.; Leimbach, M. The REMIND-R model: The role of renewables in the low-carbon transformationfirst-best vs. second-best worlds. Clim. Chang. 2012, 114, 145168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fischer, C.; Greaker, M.; Rosendahl, K.E. Strategic technology policy as a supplement to renewable energy standards. Resour. Energy Econ. 2018, 51, 84–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Simoes, S.; Nijs, W.; Ruiz, P.; Sgobbi, A.; Thiel, C. Comparing policy routes for low-carbon power technology deployment in EU–An energy system analysis. Energy Policy 2017, 101, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sendstad, L.H.; Chronopoulos, M. Sequential investment in renewable energy technologies under policy uncertainty. Energy Policy 2020, 137, 111152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Das, P.; Mathuria, P.; Bhakar, R.; Mathur, J.; Kanudia, A.; Singh, A. Flexibility requirement for large-scale renewable energy integration in Indian power system: Technology, policy and modeling options. Energy Strategy Rev. 2020, 29, 100482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kim, J.E.; Tang, T. Preventing early lock-in with technology-specific policy designs: The Renewable Portfolio Standards and diversity in renewable energy technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 123, 109738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chapman, A.; Itaoka, K.; Farabi-Asl, H.; Fujii, Y.; Nakahara, M. Societal penetration of hydrogen into the future energy system: Impacts of policy, technology and carbon targets. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 3883–3898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ding, H.; Zhou, D.; Zhou, P. Optimal policy supports for renewable energy technology development: A dynamic programming model. Energy Econ. 2020, 104765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Perez, A.J.G.; Hansen, T. Technology characteristics and catching-up policies: Solar energy technologies in Mexico. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2020, 56, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pitelis, A.; Vasilakos, N.; Chalvatzis, K. Fostering innovation in renewable energy technologies: Choice of policy instruments and effectiveness. Renew. Energy 2020, 151, 1163–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hille, E.; Althammer, W.; Diederich, H. Environmental regulation and innovation in renewable energy technologies: Does the policy instrument matter? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 153, 119921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kalkuhl, M.; Edenhofer, O.; Lessmann, K. Renewable energy subsidies: Second-best policy or fatal aberration for mitigation? Resour. Energy Econ. 2013, 35, 217234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Goulder, L.H.; Schein, A. Carbon Taxes vs. Cap and Trade: A Critical Review; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Carbon 06 00054 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed energy system implemented in our study.
Figure 1. Proposed energy system implemented in our study.
Carbon 06 00054 g001
Carbon 06 00054 g002 550
Figure 2. Energy/technology Mix under (a) BAU case (b) BAU case with 60% energy efficiency targets.
Figure 2. Energy/technology Mix under (a) BAU case (b) BAU case with 60% energy efficiency targets.
Carbon 06 00054 g002
Carbon 06 00054 g003 550
Figure 3. Energy/technology mix for Scenario 1 (no price on CO2 with a ban on crude oil combustion for power generation in support for low carbon policy).
Figure 3. Energy/technology mix for Scenario 1 (no price on CO2 with a ban on crude oil combustion for power generation in support for low carbon policy).
Carbon 06 00054 g003
Carbon 06 00054 g004 550
Figure 4. Energy/technology mix for Scenario 2 (CO2 price $7.3/tonne in 2015 rising at 5% annually with a ban on oil in power generation).
Figure 4. Energy/technology mix for Scenario 2 (CO2 price $7.3/tonne in 2015 rising at 5% annually with a ban on oil in power generation).
Carbon 06 00054 g004
Carbon 06 00054 g005 550
Figure 5. Impact of CO2 price on carbon emissions.
Figure 5. Impact of CO2 price on carbon emissions.
Carbon 06 00054 g005
Carbon 06 00054 g006 550
Figure 6. Energy/technology mix for Scenario 3 (CO2 cap of 65704 (15% reductions of Scenario 1) by 2030 maintained till 2050 and ban on oil combustion for power generation).
Figure 6. Energy/technology mix for Scenario 3 (CO2 cap of 65704 (15% reductions of Scenario 1) by 2030 maintained till 2050 and ban on oil combustion for power generation).
Carbon 06 00054 g006
Carbon 06 00054 g007 550
Figure 7. Profiles of carbon emissions under BAU and carbon mitigation scenarios. (Scenario 1: Ban on oil use in power generation, Scenario 2: CO2 price $7.3/tonne that rises 5% annually, Scenario 3: CO2 cap by 15% of Scenario 1 by 2030 combined with a ban on oil in power generation).
Figure 7. Profiles of carbon emissions under BAU and carbon mitigation scenarios. (Scenario 1: Ban on oil use in power generation, Scenario 2: CO2 price $7.3/tonne that rises 5% annually, Scenario 3: CO2 cap by 15% of Scenario 1 by 2030 combined with a ban on oil in power generation).
Carbon 06 00054 g007
Carbon 06 00054 g008 550
Figure 8. Investment requirements for scenario 1.
Figure 8. Investment requirements for scenario 1.
Carbon 06 00054 g008
Carbon 06 00054 g009 550
Figure 9. Investment requirements for scenario 2.
Figure 9. Investment requirements for scenario 2.
Carbon 06 00054 g009
Carbon 06 00054 g010 550
Figure 10. Investment requirements for scenario 3.
Figure 10. Investment requirements for scenario 3.
Carbon 06 00054 g010
Table
Table 1. Summary of emerging clean hydrocarbon technologies.
Table 1. Summary of emerging clean hydrocarbon technologies.
TechnologyDescriptionChallengesProjectsReference
CCUSUsing amine absorption unit to remove CO2 from flue gas followed by CO2 separation and transportation to depleted reservoirsCO2 transport, capture costs, energy penaltySleipner Project Norway[2,3,4,5,6,7,8]
Solar CO2 ConversionPhoto reduction of CO2 into CO followed by its conversion to H2/syngas and later to methanolEfficiency and costs of productionSK Oil Refinery, Korea[9,10]
SOFCElectrochemical conversion of fuel which generates electronsCatalyst development, and cost of productionGE new SOFC prototype with 6 KW[22,23,24,25,26]
Underground GasificationConversion of heavy oil into hydrogenProcess relatively less understoodTested for Coal by Cougar Energy, Australia[16,17,18,19,20,21,22]
Solar SplittingThermal decomposition of natural gas, using solar energy, to generate hydrogen and carbonEnergy requirement, efficiency and solar intermittencyUnder development[27,28,29,30]
Table
Table 2. Techno-economic Data [17,31,34,35,36,37].
Table 2. Techno-economic Data [17,31,34,35,36,37].
Technology CombinationAcronymEfficiency %LCOE [$/GJ]CO2 Factor [kTonne/PJ]Notes
Natural Gas Power Plant + Carbon CaptureNGPP + CCS_Elec0.4914.4624Assuming 80% carbon captured
Natural Gas Power PlantNGPP_Elec0.567.51123Cost is based on current gas prices
Heavy Fuel Oil Power GenerationHFOPP_Elec0.457.62215Cost is based on current fuel oil prices
Heavy Fuel Oil Power Plant + Carbon CaptureHFOPP + CCS_Elec0.3716.1353.83-
Thermal Splitting + PEM Fuel CellTS + PEMFC_Elec0.4217.260Thermal splitting using energy supplied from solar thermal plant
Steam Reforming of Methane using Solar Thermal Plant + Hydrogen CombustionSMR + H2Comb_Elec0.5117.2624Assuming Solar Thermal for Reforming
Thermal Splitting + Hydrogen CombustionTS + H2Comb_Elec0.4214.0824.6Thermal splitting using energy supplied from solar thermal plant
Refinery Gasoline to CarsRef_Gaso_Transport0.271.3886.07Efficiency is based on WTW
Refinery Diesel to CarsRef_Diesel_Transport0.411.1586.64Efficiency is based on WTW
Refinery Coke + DCFCRef_Coke_DCFC_Elec0.544.320-
Refinery HFO + Gasification to MeOHRef_HFO_Gasi_MeOH_Transport0.2110.9042With CCS
Refinery HFO + Gasification to DMERef_HFO_Gasi_DME_Transport0.2312.6622With CCS
Underground gasification + SOFCUOG + SOFC_Elec0.426.1717.01Assuming UOG is near commercialisation
HFO Gasification + H2 combustionRef_HFO_Gasi + H2Com0.387.5017.01With CCS
Table
Table 3. Energy Demand Projection [PJ/year].
Table 3. Energy Demand Projection [PJ/year].
Sector 20152020202520302035204020452050
Domestic Electricity 10521441.651974.872705.313705.905076.586954.219526.32
Domestic Electricity (Assuming 60% efficiency)7688428647891082148220302781
Diesel–Transport 88.12126.12164.12202.11240.11278.11316.11354.11
Gasoline–Transport 242.0346.34450.68555.02659.35736.69868.03972.36
Table
Table 4. Energy Resource Data [PJ/year].
Table 4. Energy Resource Data [PJ/year].
Sector PJ/Year
Heavy Oil10,000
Shale Gas5000
Natural Gas4000
Crude Oil2000
Table
Table 5. Description of CO2 pricing and technology policy scenarios.
Table 5. Description of CO2 pricing and technology policy scenarios.
Scenario No.ScenariosDescription
RefBAUBusiness as usual scenario, i.e., carry on with existing policies with no price on carbon
Sc.1.Oil Phase-OutBan on crude oil in power generation with no price set on CO2
Sc.2Carbon TaxGlobally uniform carbon tax of $7.3/Tonne increasing at 5% annually
Sc.3Carbon CapCapping carbon emissions by 15% (65.7 million Tonne) by 2030 maintained till 2050

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alshammari, Y.M. Achieving Climate Targets via the Circular Carbon Economy: The Case of Saudi Arabia. C 2020, 6, 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/c6030054

AMA Style

Alshammari YM. Achieving Climate Targets via the Circular Carbon Economy: The Case of Saudi Arabia. C. 2020; 6(3):54. https://doi.org/10.3390/c6030054

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alshammari, Yousef M. 2020. "Achieving Climate Targets via the Circular Carbon Economy: The Case of Saudi Arabia" C 6, no. 3: 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/c6030054

APA Style

Alshammari, Y. M. (2020). Achieving Climate Targets via the Circular Carbon Economy: The Case of Saudi Arabia. C, 6(3), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/c6030054

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop