Research and Environmental Affairs, Technology Controls, Southern Company, 600 North 18th Street, Birmingham, Alabama 35291-8195, USA.
Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Jan 1;45(1):139-46. doi: 10.1021/es101441a. Epub 2010 Aug 19.
Even before technology matures and the regulatory framework for carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been developed, electrical utilities will need to consider the logistics of how widespread commercial-scale operations will be deployed. The framework of CCS will require utilities to adopt business models that ensure both safe and affordable CCS operations while maintaining reliable power generation. Physical models include an infrastructure with centralized CO(2) pipelines that focus geologic sequestration in pooled regional storage sites or supply CO(2) for beneficial use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and a dispersed plant model with sequestration operations which take place in close proximity to CO(2) capture. Several prototypical business models, including hybrids of these two poles, will be in play including a self-build option, a joint venture, and a pay at the gate model. In the self-build model operations are vertically integrated and utility owned and operated by an internal staff of engineers and geologists. A joint venture model stresses a partnership between the host site utility/owner's engineer and external operators and consultants. The pay to take model is turn-key external contracting to a third party owner/operator with cash positive fees paid out for sequestration and cash positive income for CO(2)-EOR. The selection of a business model for CCS will be based in part on the desire of utilities to be vertically integrated, source-sink economics, and demand for CO(2)-EOR. Another element in this decision will be how engaged a utility decides to be and the experience the utility has had with precommercial R&D activities. Through R&D, utilities would likely have already addressed or at least been exposed to the many technical, regulatory, and risk management issues related to successful CCS. This paper provides the framework for identifying the different physical and related prototypical business models that may play a role for electric utilities in commercial-scale CCS.
即使在技术成熟和碳捕集与封存（CCS）的监管框架得到发展之前，电力公司也需要考虑如何部署广泛的商业规模运营的物流问题。CCS 的框架将要求公用事业公司采用确保安全且经济实惠的 CCS 运营的商业模式，同时保持可靠的发电。物理模型包括一个基础设施，其中包含集中的 CO(2)管道，这些管道将地质封存集中在区域性的存储站点中，或供应 CO(2)用于提高石油采收率（EOR）的有益用途；以及一个分散的工厂模型，封存操作发生在 CO(2)捕获的近距离。几种原型商业模式，包括这两个极端的混合体，将发挥作用，包括自建选项、合资企业和门到门付费模式。在自建模式中，运营是垂直整合的，由内部工程师和地质学家组成的公用事业公司拥有和运营。合资企业模式强调了主机站点公用事业/所有者的工程师与外部运营商和顾问之间的合作伙伴关系。付费封存模式是将封存工作外包给第三方所有者/运营商的交钥匙模式，为封存和 CO(2)-EOR 的正现金收入支付正现金费用。CCS 商业模式的选择部分取决于公用事业公司垂直整合的意愿、源汇经济以及对 CO(2)-EOR 的需求。这一决策的另一个因素将是公用事业公司决定参与的程度以及其在预商业化研发活动方面的经验。通过研发，公用事业公司可能已经解决了或至少已经接触到了与成功的 CCS 相关的许多技术、监管和风险管理问题。本文提供了一个框架，用于确定可能在商业规模 CCS 中为电力公司发挥作用的不同物理和相关原型商业模式。
