A Low-carbon roadmap for Belgium Study realised for the FPS Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment
Industry sector – chemicals document
This document is based on content development by the consultant team as well as an expert workshop that was held on the 27-08-2012
Content – Industry sector - chemicals
2
▪ Summary and references
▪ Context and historical trends
▪ Methodology
▪ Details of the ambition levels and costs per lever
▪ Resulting scenarios
▪ Most important barriers to decarbonisation
Executive summary for the chemicals sector
3
• In a high growth scenario overall chemical activities increase by 20% in 2050 compared to 2010, equivalent to an average growth rate of 0.49%, which could be considered as a fair compromise between high historical growth rates for Belgium and the stabilisation of the chemical sector at the European level.
• In a neutral scenario a zero growth is assumed, which expresses the view that Belgium remains an important producer of chemicals, but as the market for final products stabilises in Europe it is assumed that new activities will be mainly located outside Europe.
• In the low growth scenario, the activities decrease by 50% compared to 2010 levels and expresses a rather pessimistic view for the Belgian Chemical sector.
Construction of different future
production trajectories
• Development of green chemistry, i.e. chemical products produced from biomass or algae production might contribute by replacing fossil based plastics and by fixing carbon in materials for several years. Energy efficiency might improve by better process control and reducing heat losses and energy performance of new plants might significantly outweigh those of existing plants. In traditional chemistry, a significant penetration of biomass is unlikely due to the specific processes, but hydrogen production can be based on electrolysis. CCS is also considered as an option, starting with process CO2 emissions from hydrogen and ammonia production and later on for bigger installations emitting more than 1Mton/year
Estimate of potential and
cost for the GHG reduction
opportunities
NOTE Except explicit mention, the reduction potential figures are mentioned at constant production, as reduction percentage versus 2010. Actions are applied in sequential order and the biomass potential is not included in the total. Levers are of ambition 3 (except for CCS where level 2 is also detailed)
List of references
Association of petrochemical producers in Europe (APPE).
Belgium greenhouse gas inventory data 2010 (NIR CRF v1.4), submitted to the UNFCCC.
Belgium ETS registry.
Rapportering benchmarking convenant (Vl.)/Accord de branche (Wal.)
Essenscia website, http://www.essenscia.be.
Ecofys, JRC-IPTS (2009), Sectoral Emission Reduction Potentials and Economic Costs for Climate Change (SERPEC-CC) – Industry and refineries sector, October 2009.
ICEDD, Atlas énergétique de la Wallonie, http://www.icedd.be/atlasenergie/
VITO, Energiebalans Vlaanderen, http://www.emis.vito.be/cijferreeksen
PRIMES model documentation
4
Content – Industry sector - chemicals
5
▪ Summary and references
▪ Context and historical trends
▪ Methodology
▪ Details of the ambition levels and costs per lever
▪ Resulting scenarios
▪ Most important barriers to decarbonisation
Belgium has reduced its emissions by ~8% since 1990
GHG emissions in Belgium, MtCO2e
▪ Emissions have gone down by ~8%
▪ This is due to the Energy production industries (-12%) and the rest of the Industry
▪ At the same time, emissions in both Transport and Buildings have grown significantly by 18% since 1990
‘10
132
‘05
144
‘00
146
‘95
151
‘90
143
Energy
Industry combustion
Agriculture, Waste & others
Industrial processes
-8%
Transport
Buildings
Delta 90-10 %
-12%
-28%
+18%
-15%
+18%
-27%
-8%
Source: Belgium GHG emissions inventory, Climact 6
Industry emissions are decreasing, mainly because of the steel industry
NOTE: Cement & Lime assessed based on Wallonia low Carbon, Minerals deducted from total non metallic minerals from Regional data, Oils and Gas included in chemicals, Machines skipped and construction assessed from Regional data SOURCE : NIR CRF v1.4, Wallonia 2050 Low Carbon Growth 7
5,0
-23%
2010
37,2
2005
44,5
2000
48,9
1995
51,8
1990
48,5
13,4 14,5 15,0
13,9 11,2
Industry emissions (MtCO2e)
Other
Minerals Industry (glass)
Lime Industry
Cement Industry
Non-Ferrous metals
Construction (Bricks and ceramics)
Food, drinks and tobacco Industry
Pulp & Paper Industry
Chemicals Industry
Steel Industry
Refineries (in chemicals)
~85% covered by workshops
Wallonia data
Chemical industry represents 29 % of GHG emissions and 27% of the industrial energy consumption
8
13%11%
1%
1%
4%8%
2%
100%
Emissions
37
3% 6%
29
19% 26%
27
11%
7% 1%
5%
5%
119
Energy
2%
5% Non-Ferrous metals
Construction (Bricks and ceramics)
Food, drinks and tobacco Industry
Pulp & Paper Industry
Chemicals Industry
Steel Industry
Refineries (in chemicals)
Cement Industry
Minerals Industry (glass)
Lime Industry
Other
GHG emissions and energy consumption in Belgium 2010 (MtCO2e, TWh, %)
MtCO2e TWh
NOTE: (1) Excluding electricity emissions and consumption
(2) Amongst solid fuels, coke use in steel industry has two function (raw material and energy) Both are included in the analysis but only the 2nd creates emissions in the atmosphere
SOURCE: NIR CRF v1.4
• Food represents 6% of emissions for 8% of the energy
• Non metallic minerals (Cement, Lime and Glass) have high process emissions
• In steel, there would be less TWh if the coke used as reducing agent was not included in the analysis (cfr with the IEA data)
~85% covered by workshops
Wallonia datasets
Petrochemical industry seems to stabilize in Europe
9
European capacities and production statistics (kton)
SOURCE : Association of petrochemical producers in Europe (APPE) For propylene Appe reports higher production figures than capacities. This is related to the definition of ethylene and propylene production capacities. In fact ethylene and propylene may sort in different yields within boundaries from the same installations.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Cap ethylene
Cap propylene
Cap benzene
Prod ethylen
Prod propylene
Prod benzene
Outstanding decline in energy intensity at EU level But less progress for Belgium
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1990 1995 2000 2005 2009
Ind
ex
bas
e 1
99
0
EU-Production
BE-Production
EU-Energy consumption
BE-Energy consumption
EU-specific EC
BE-specific EC
Belgian and EU production and energy consumption index (index base 100 in 1990)
SOURCE : calculations based on CEFIC and Essencia
Energy intensity has dropped due to increased share of fine
chemicals
This visions seems not to be shared by Belgian chemical federation
11
Belgium has a high
concentration of bulk
chemicals
SOURCE : Essenscia
The chemical industry is important and complex...
Essenscia represents 245 sites in Flanders and 75 sites in Wallonia
In Flanders energy statistics for approx. 165 sites are available: 47 benchmark/ETS, 36 audit convenant and 82 SMS companies
Production of several hundreds of chemical products, involving (almost) as many different processes
The total energy consumption is of 178 PJ (1)
− Benchmark/ETS companies consume 95 %
− 24 sites have an energy consumption above 1PJ –representing 86 % of energy consumption
Within the benchmark sites energy consumption is composed of: − 44% recuperation fuels
− 19% electricity
− 9 % steam from CHP
− 28% classical fuels of which 2/3rd natural gas
There is a high penetration of CHP
12
Characteristics of chemical industry in Flanders
NOTE : (1) including electricity (35.4 PJ) and steam from CHP(16.7PJ), excluding non-energetic use (340 PJ)
13
Ethylene
Propylene
Benzene
MTBE
Caprolactam Fertilisers
Adipic acid
Nitric acid
Toluene
Hydrogen
Butadiene
Amines Aniline
Ethylene oxide
Acrilates
Styrene
Formaldehyde
Ammonia
Mono vinyl chloride
Sulfuric acid
......
Base chemicals Derived products
LDPE, HDPE,
Polystyrene
PVC
Rubber
.....
The chemical industry is involved in the production of many products and processes
Sector emissions increase because of higher activity
14 SOURCE: NIR CRF v1.4
• Significant increase in fuel and process-emissions (+19%).
• Fuel switch to gas
• Sharp reduction in process emissions Nitric acid production
• Other process emissions ???
Increase is sharpest in Flanders
Chemical sector GHG emissions ( Mt CO2eq)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Bill
ion
€
Process emissions ammonia production
Process emissions Nitric acid production
Process emissions Caprolactam production
Other process emissions (H2 ?)
Other fuels
Biomass
Gaseous Fuels
Solid fuels
Most of the CO2 emissions are in Flanders
15
Verified emissions of ETS companies in chemical sector (ktCO2e)
SOURCE: ETS registry CO2 process emissions of ammonia are not included CHP emissions are only included for autoproducers
Most of the CO2 emissions are in Flanders
16
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Kton
CO2
Verified emissions of ETS companies in chemical sector (kton CO2e)
SOURCE: ETS registry
Production sites located in Flanders Production sites located in Wallonia
In PRIMES models, energy intensive industries reduce CO2 emissions by 25 % in EU-low carbon scenarios
17
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
kto
e
Energy consumption of energy intensive industries in EU roadmap
Reference scenario
Energy efficiency scenario
Diversified supply technologies scenario
Energy consumption of energy intensive industries in the EU roadmap
(ktCO2e) Lack of
transparency in EU-Roadmap
Emissions chemical
industries? Activities? Application
CCS?
In PRIMES model chemical industries comprises the following activities
18
Subsectors Energy uses
Fertilizers Air compressors
Petrochemicals Low enthalpy heat
Inorganic chemicals Lighting
Low enthalpy chemicals Motor drives
Electryc processes
Steam and high enthalpy heat
Thermal processes
Energy use as raw materials
But this is the only information which is publicly available
Growth prospects Belgium Trends apparent at world, EU and Belgian level
19
World
• China biggest chemical producer worldwide
• Demand for chemical products increases sharply in fast-developing countries
• Likely strongest increase in bulk-chemical production outside Europe
EU(1)
• Shift from industry to services
• Stabilization of internal demand for chemicals
• Opportunities to increase exports to fast developing countries
• Capital intensive sector, suffering less from labor costs
• Biomass production
• Growing importance of pharmaceuticals
Belgium(2)
• Competitive, capital intensive industry
• Dependence of EU market (72 % of sales)
• Strong demand for insulation materials
Content – Industry sector - chemicals
20
▪ Summary and references
▪ Context and historical trends
▪ Methodology
▪ Details of the ambition levels and costs per lever
▪ Resulting scenarios
▪ Most important barriers to decarbonisation
Focus of the consultations
6 5 4
3 2 1 Adapt the DECC model to
Belgian data and improve it Test each sector with
external experts Bottom up study by sector of
feasible GHG reductions
Consultations by sector with external experts
Discussions with international experts
Review conclusions with the steering and high level
consultation committees
Federal administration
Industry
Civil organizations
Academics
Detail key implications for these scenarios
Define and model various scenarios
Industry is one of the various sectors studied in the process of constructing the low carbon scenarios
21
Part intermittente faible(~40%) – CSC inclus
Part intermittente faible(~60%) – CSC exclus
DEM
AN
DE
ENER
GET
IQU
E et
EMIS
SIO
NS
OFFRE ENERGETIQUE ET CAPTURE D’EMISSIONS
Demande et émissions élevées
Demande et émissions moyennes
Demande et émissions faibles
Scénario E
Scénario A Scénario B
Scénario D Scénario C
5 scénarios de décarbonisation de 80 à 95%
…
25%
18%
18%
8%
Agriculture and waste (incl. LULUCF)
Industry (combustion)
Power generation
20%
BuildingsIndustry (processes)
Transport
Others
1%
10%
100% = 131,4 MtCO2e
Cross-government engagement
Industry Workshops and Evidence
Energy and emissions Natural resources
Emissions Technology
The Open-source Prospective Energy and Emissions Roadmap Analysis tool (OPE²RA) developed in partnership with the DECC (UK) will be used to develop the scenarios
22
OPE²RA balances demand and supply based on fixed input parameters as well as modifiable levers
23
-80 to -95% GHG emissions vs. 1990
Industrial sectors modelled
24
Sector Consultation
Refineries Belgian Petroleum Federation
Iron & Steel Steel Federation
Chemicals Essenscia
Paper Cobelpa
Food Fevia
Bricks & Ceramics Bricks Federation
Non-ferrous metals Agoria
Cement Low Carbon Wallonia Roadmap
Lime Low Carbon Wallonia Roadmap
Glass Low Carbon Wallonia Roadmap
Understanding the industry Modelling demand trajectories
Modelling trajectories with intensity levels + CCS
Analyses Definition of the value chain Analyses of growth and competitiveness Potential of CO2 reduction incl. costs
Results Modelling the emissions tree Demand trajectories Trajectories with different intensity levels + CCS
A detailed analysis is performed for each industrial sector
25 SOURCE: Climact
Levers are applied in a sequential manner on an in-depth modeling Modeling logic for the chemical industry
Sub-industries
Fertilizers
Olefins
Electric processes
Other ETS
SMEs
Tons
2010-2050
TWh /tons
2010-2050
Production Intensity Fuels
% Electricity
% Solid fuels
% Liquid fuels
% Gaseous fuels
% Biomass
% Others
2010-2050
Process emissions
tCO2e /ton produced
2010-2050
tCO2e
2010-2050
Emissions
€
2010-2050
Fuel costs Capex costs
€
Chemical industry example
Action
Carbon intensity level 3
TWh /tons
Action CCS level 3
TWh /tons
tCO2e
€
€
€
€
Situation in 2050
26
…
Capacity
Tons
2010-2050
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
4 ambition levels are defined for each lever
27
Level 1
• Minimum effort (following current regulation)
• No additional decarbonisation efforts/policies
• What will become a « Reference scenario »
• Moderate effort easily reached according to most experts
• Equivalent to the development of recent programs for some sectors
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• Significant technology progress
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• Close to what’s considered reachable by the most optimistic observer
One of the key objectives of the consultation is to support the estimation of these levels based on existing expertise
Activity classification in Ope²ra model
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
TWh
NE-Solids
NE-Naphta
NE-gas
Biomass
Electricity
Other fuels
Heat
Solids
Liquids
Gas
Energy consumption in the different categories in the Ope²ra model NE: non energetic use - In Olefin production NE–naphta does result in CO2 emissions. In ammonia and hydrogen production NE-gas result in CO2 process emissions
Sources: Aggregated data from Flemish and Walloon energy balances. Split in sub-sectors calculated by VITO based on literature data
Content – Industry sector – chemicals
29
▪ Summary and references
▪ Context and historical trends
▪ Methodology
▪ Details of the ambition levels and costs per lever
▪ Olefin production ▪ Ammonia & Hydrogen production ▪ Chlorine production ▪ Other ETS activities ▪ Other non-ETS activities ▪ N20 emissions
▪ Resulting scenarios
▪ Most important barriers to decarbonisation
30
Reduction potential Reduction levers are additional and applied in the following order
Product mix
•Augmenting the proportion of product which require less CO2 for production
Energy efficiency
•Reduce mechanical and thermal losses
•Recuperate thermal energy (CHP)
Process improvements
•Modification of processes
Fuel switching
•Towards fuels which emit less CO2
End of pipe
•Carbon capture and storage
Methodology
Energy efficiency
CHP
BAT application
Fuel vs. gas CCS
Biomass versus fossil fuels
Electrification of process
(e.g. electrolysis)
Substitution by carbon free
products (e.g. algae)
31
Reduction potential 5 levers are being assessed in each chemical sub-sector
Levers assessed in the chemical sector and applicability across subsectors
Subsectors
Olefins Ammonia & Hydrogen
Chlorine Other ETS activities Other non-ETS activities
N2O emissions
Leve
rs
Product mix Green chemistry Modelled in demand Green chemistry /
Energy efficiency V V 100 % switch to membrane
V V
WKK
Process improvements
/ / /
SRC
(included in energy efficiency)
(included in energy efficiency)
(included in energy efficiency)
(included in energy efficiency)
Fuel switching Electrolysis ( level 4)
/ Natural gas or biomass /
CCS Yes On process emissions
N.R.
In function of installation size
None
N.R.
Content – Industry sector – chemicals
32
▪ Summary and references
▪ Context and historical trends
▪ Methodology
▪ Details of the ambition levels and costs per lever
▪ Olefins ▪ Ammonia & Hydrogen production ▪ Chlorine production ▪ Other ETS activities ▪ Other non-ETS activities ▪ N2O emissions
▪ Resulting scenarios
▪ Most important barriers to decarbonisation
33
Olefins 3 trajectories influencing energy demand will model growth prospects Belgium
Trajectory 1
Trajectory 2
Trajectory 3
Olefins
• High growth assumption • + 20% by 2050 • Increased demand by
construction sector
• Reference growth assumption • 0% growth
• -50 % by 2050 • Delocalisation (CO2 price) • Low growth assumption
Possible growth scenarios European population: 1% GNP: 1,6% (1)
SOURCE: (1) Federal Planning bureau
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
34
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of olefins
• 10 % green chemistry
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• 20% green chemistry
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• 50 % green chemistry
Olefins Changing the product mix
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
35
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of olefins
• 10 % improvement by moderate changes
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• 20 % improvement by using state of the art technology – partly retrofit and new built
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• 40 % reduction demolishing and rebuilt (by 2050) all installations – use of catalysts in crackers, recuperation of heat losses
•
Olefins Energy efficiency
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
36
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of olefins
• Included in energy efficiency measures
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• Included in energy efficiency measures
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• Included in energy efficiency measures
Olefins Process improvements (not included in previous)
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
37
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of fertilisers
• 0 % fuel switching
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• 0 % fuel switching
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• 0 % fuel switching
Olefins Fuel switching
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
38
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of olefins
• No capturing
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• No capturing
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• CCS applied on crackers
Olefins CCS
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
39
Olefins Reduction potential of the different levers, horizon 2050
NOTE: Assuming all regions of the world perform a similar effort
SOURCE: essenscia consultation
Lever Reduction potential (2050) in %
Cost Description 1 2 3 4
Product mix 10%
20%
40 %
Green chemistry replacing traditional plastics
Energy efficiency
10 % 20%
40%
Process improvements Included included included
Fuel switching N/A N/A N/A
CCS Applied
on 4 crackers
Reduction levers
Content – Industry sector – chemicals
40
▪ Summary and references
▪ Context and historical trends
▪ Methodology
▪ Details of the ambition levels and costs per lever
▪ Olefins ▪ Ammonia & Hydrogen production ▪ Chlorine production ▪ Other ETS activities ▪ Other non-ETS activities ▪ N2O emissions
▪ Resulting scenarios
▪ Most important barriers to decarbonisation
41
Ammonia 3 trajectories influencing energy demand model growth prospects Belgium
Trajectory 1
Trajectory 2
Trajectory 3
Ammonia (ton)
• High growth assumption • + 20% by 2050 (0.495% per year) • Increased needs for biomass
production
• Reference growth assumption • 0% growth
• -50 % by 2050 (-1,72% per year) • Substituting to natural fertilisers • Low growth assumption
Possible growth scenarios European population: 1% GNP: 1,6% (1)
The main use of ammonia is for fertilisers production. The price of fertilisers depends on the price of natural gas. A high price for natural gas might reduce demand for ammonia
SOURCE: (1) Federal Planning bureau
Ammonia production Technical solutions (Serpec study )
Ammonia
− Standard technology 39 GJ/t NH3 - new BAT technology 28 GJ /t NH3 (1)
− Retrofit options for improvements of reformer section and CO2 removal section
− Low pressure (improved catalysts) and improved process control
− Current situation : 2/3 at 28 GJ /t NH3 and 1/3 at 39 GJ/t NH3 (2)
− Stochiometric : 19,8 GJ/t NH3 BAT 2050 : 24 GJ/t NH3 (3)
42
(1) Source : SERPEC study (2)Source : essenscia consultation (3) Source: Own calculations and assumption
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
43
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of fertilisers
• 5 % ammonia/nitric acid substituted by carbon free alternative.
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• 20% substituted by carbon free alternative.
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• 50% substituted by carbon free alternative.
Ammonia Changing the composition of fertilisers
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
44
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of fertilisers
• Small improvements in oldest installations saving 2.6 GJ/t NH3
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• All installations at 28 GJ/t NH3
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• New built reformers: all installations at 24 GJ/t NH3
Ammonia Energy efficiency
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
45
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication
• 0 % fuel switching
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• 0 % fuel switching
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• Hydrogen production by electrolysis
Ammonia Fuel switching
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
46
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication
• CO2 captured form process emissions ammonia (1 Mton)
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• Idem level 2
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• Idem level 2
Ammonia CCS
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
47
Ammonia Reduction potential of the different levers, on a 2050 horizon
NOTE: Assuming all regions of the world perform a similar effort
SOURCE : consultation Essenscia
Lever Reduction potential (2050) in %
Cost Description 1 2 3 4
Product mix 5% 20% 50% Product mix in fertilisers
Energy efficiency 2.6 GJ/Ton NH3 in older plants
All installations at 28
GJ/t NH3
All installations
at 24 GJ/t NH3
Level 2 6€ ton/ Level 3
4.6 € ton
Level 2-3 – process improvements Level 4 is new plant
Fuel switch Electrolysis for H2 production
Fuel switching Electric H2 production
CCS Capturing
CO2 process
emissions
Capturing CO2
process emissions
Not compatible with fuel switching
Reduction levers
Content – Industry sector – chemicals
48
▪ Summary and references
▪ Context and historical trends
▪ Methodology
▪ Details of the ambition levels and costs per lever
▪ Olefins ▪ Ammonia ▪ Chlorine production ▪ Other ETS activities ▪ Other non-ETS activities ▪ N2O emissions
▪ Resulting scenarios
▪ Most important barriers to decarbonisation
49
Electric processes 3 trajectories influencing energy demand model growth prospects Belgium
Trajectory 1
Trajectory 2
Trajectory 3
Electric processes
• High growth assumption • + 20% by 2050 • Demand increase in various
sectors
• Reference growth assumption • 0% growth
• -50 % by 2050 • Low growth assumption
Possible growth scenarios European population: 1% GNP: 1,6% (1)
Chlorine has many different applications of which PVC is a major one. PVC is used in construction sector( windows), automobile , and many other sectors. Demand for PVC and hence chlorine is sensitive to fluctuations in construction and automotive sectors.
SOURCE: (1) Federal Planning bureau
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
50
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use
• All mercury cell production capacity replaced by membrane cell
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
Electrical processes energy efficiency
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
According to Serpec 20 % improvement for membrane process compared to amalgam process
51
Electric processes Reduction potential of the different levers, on a 2050 horizon
NOTE: Assuming all regions of the world perform a similar effort
SOURCE: consultation Essenscia
Lever Reduction potential (2050) in %
Cost Description 1 2 3 4
Product mix NA NA NA NA
Energy efficiency 200 kton mercury
cap replaced
All mercury replaced
Idem level
3
Membrane process replacing older technologies
Process improvements Included
Included
Included
Fuel switching NA NA NA
CCS In
electricity sector
In
electricity sector
In
electricity sector
Reduction levers
Content – Industry sector – chemicals
52
▪ Summary and references
▪ Context and historical trends
▪ Methodology
▪ Details of the ambition levels and costs per lever
▪ Olefins ▪ Ammonia and H2 ▪ Electric processes ▪ Other ETS activities ▪ Small and medium ▪ N2O emissions
▪ Resulting scenarios
▪ Most important barriers to decarbonisation
53
Other ETS activities 3 trajectories influencing energy demand model Growth prospects Belgium
Trajectory 1
Trajectory 2
Trajectory 3
Other ETS activities
• High growth assumption • + 20% by 2050 • Increased demand by
construction sector
• Reference growth assumption • 0% growth
• -50 % by 2050 • Low growth assumption
Possible growth scenarios European population: 1% GNP: 1,6% (1)
Trajectories have been chosen to be consistent with Olefins production ( bas materials)
SOURCE: (1) Federal Planning bureau
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
54
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of olefins
• 10 % green chemistry
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• 20% green chemistry
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• 40 % green chemistry
Other chemical activities under ETS Product mix change
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
55
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of olefins
• 10 % improvement by moderate changes
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• 20 % improvement by using state of the art technology
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• 30 % reduction by new plant design
Other chemical activities under ETS Energy efficiency
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
56
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of olefins
• Included in energy efficiency measures
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• Included in energy efficiency measures
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• Included in energy efficiency measures
Other chemical activities under ETS Process improvements (not included in previous)
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
57
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication
• 100% natural gas
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• 100% natural gas
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• 100 % natural gas
Other chemical activities under ETS Fuel switching
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
58
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of olefins
• No capturing
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• CCS on all sites emitting more than 1 Mton/year
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• CCS on all sites emitting more than 200 Kton/year
Other chemical activities under ETS CCS
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
59
Other chemical activities under ETS Reduction potential of the different levers, on a 2050 horizon
NOTE: Assuming all regions of the world perform a similar effort
SOURCE : consultation Essenscia
Lever Reduction potential (2050) in %
Cost Description 1 2 3 4
Product mix 10% 20% 40% Bio chemicals (Algae..)
Energy efficiency
10 % 20%
30%
Process improvements Included Included Included
Fuel switching 100%
natural gas
100%
natural gas
100 % natural
gas
CCS
No capt. Sites > 1
Mton CO2/year
Sites > 200 kton CO2 /year
Reduction levers
Content – Industry sector – chemicals
60
▪ Summary and references
▪ Context and historical trends
▪ Methodology
▪ Details of the ambition levels and costs per lever
▪ Olefins ▪ Ammonia & Hydrogen ▪ Electric processes ▪ Other ETS activities ▪ Other non-ETS activities ▪ N2O emissions
▪ Resulting scenarios
▪ Most important barriers to decarbonisation
61
Other non-ETS activities 3 trajectories influencing energy demand model growth prospects Belgium
Trajectory 1
Trajectory 2
Trajectory 3
Small and medium sized companies
• High growth assumption • + 40% by 2050 • Increased demand by
construction sector
• Reference growth assumption • + 20 % growth
• -20 % by 2050 • Low growth assumption
Possible growth scenarios European population: 1% GNP: 1,6% (1)
This sector comprises high added value and low energy intensive activities
SOURCE: (1) Federal Planning bureau
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
62
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implication for the use of olefins
• 10 % improvement by moderate changes
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• 20 % improvement by using state of the art technology
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• 30 % reduction by new plant design
Small and medium energy efficiency
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
63
Small and medium sized companies Reduction potential of the different levers, on a 2050 horizon
NOTE: Assuming all regions of the world perform a similar effort
SOURCE: consultation Essenscia
Lever Reduction potential (2050) in %
Cost Description 1 2 3 4
Product mix
Energy efficiency
10% 20%
30%
Process improvements
Fuel switching
CCS
Reduction levers
64
N2O emissions 3 trajectories influencing energy demand model growth prospects Belgium
Trajectory 1
Trajectory 2
Trajectory 3
Small and medium sized companies
• High growth assumption • + 20% by 2050 • Increased demand by
construction sector
• Reference growth assumption • + 0 % growth
• -50 % by 2050 • Low growth assumption
Possible growth scenarios European population: 1% GNP: 1,6% (1)
These activities are related to the production of Nitric acid, Adipic acid, Caprolactam. Activities scenarios are consistent with Olefins and Ammonia production
SOURCE: (1) Federal Planning bureau
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
65
Level 1
• Minimum effort Status quo
• Moderate effort Moderate changes that have no implications
• Additional Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) on all nitric acid, adipic acid and caprolactam production plants
• Global 80 % reduction in N2O
• Significant effort requiring cultural change and/or important financial investments
• Improved control on SCR
• Global 90 % reduction on N2O
• Maximum effort to reach results close to technical and physical constraints
• Improved catalysts on SCR : 95 % reduction of N2O emissions
N2O emissions process improvements
SOURCE: SERPECCC study
66
Reduction potential: CCS (1/2) Industrial costs
USD/tCO2e
SOURCE: IEA
Content – Industry sector - chemicals
67
▪ Summary and references
▪ Context and historical trends
▪ Methodology
▪ Details of the ambition levels and costs per lever
▪ Resulting scenarios
▪ Most important barriers to decarbonisation
68
Trajectory 1 (high growth) GHG emissions for different ambition levels (MtonCO2e)
0123456789
1011121314151617181920
2
4
3
1
2050 2045 2040 2035 2030 2025 2020 2015 2010
SOURCE: OPE²RA model
Reduction potential Emissions according to different trajectories
+21%
-26%
-43%
-76%
69
Trajectory 2 (medium growth) GHG emissions for different ambition levels (MtonCO2e)
0123456789
1011121314151617181920
2015 2010
4
3
2
1
2050 2045 2040 2035 2030 2025 2020
SOURCE: OPE²RA model
Reduction potential Emissions according to different trajectories
Delta 10-50,%
+0%
-39%
-54%
-81%
70
0123456789
1011121314151617181920
4 3 2
1
2050 2045 2040 2035 2030 2025 2020 2015 2010
Delta 10-50,%
-48%
-68% -75% -89%
Reduction potential Emissions according to different trajectories
Trajectory 3 (low growth), GHG emissions for different ambition levels (MtonCO2e)
SOURCE: OPE²RA model
Content – Industry sector - chemicals
71
▪ Summary and references
▪ Context and historical trends
▪ Methodology
▪ Details of the ambition levels and costs per lever
▪ Resulting scenarios
▪ Most important barriers to decarbonisation
Thank you.
Erik Laes – 014 335909 – [email protected]
Pieter Lodewijks – 014 335926 – [email protected]
Michel Cornet – 0486 92 06 37 – [email protected]