中国石化新闻网讯 据能源网2月9日休斯敦报道，世界最大的碳捕获设施的所有者JX Nippon计划在这个耗资10亿美元的工厂关闭三年后恢复其运营，这为一个专家视为实现气候目标至关重要的新兴行业提供了一个测试案例。
JX Nippon在回复问题的电子邮件中表示，该公司计划在NRG能源公司(NRG Energy Inc.)完成对与其相连燃煤发电机组的维修后，重启得克萨斯州佩特拉诺瓦(Petra Nova)工厂。NRG表示，计划在6月完成这项工作。
该项目的恢复将标志着美国碳捕获工作向前迈出了重要一步，为一个被批评者视为该行业最引人注目的失败项目提供了新生机。美国的《通胀削减法案》提供了主要的税收激励措施，以促进减少化石燃料燃烧排放的技术的发展。一些环保主义者认为，即便奏效，碳捕获也能延长石油和天然气开采的寿命。支持者表示，对高污染行业进行脱碳没有其他可行的选择。
该项目建造成本耗资10亿美元，其中包括美国政府提供的1.95亿美元支持的Petra Nova工厂，将从燃烧煤炭中捕获的碳运至希尔科能源公司（Hilcorp Energy Co.）运营的一个油田，用于通过一种称为提高石油采收率的工艺提取原油。在这个过程中，二氧化碳就像肥皂一样挤出石油，然后储存在地下深处的储层中。
据NRG称，在其运营的三年中，它是世界上最大的化石燃料余烬碳捕获工厂（以每年捕获的吨数计）。
但NRG在一份声明中表示，在油价暴跌和原油产量“使项目经济面临挑战”后，该系统在2020年步履蹒跚。去年年底，NRG以360万美元的价格将其持有的Petra Nova 50%的股份出售给了JX Nippon，使这家日本公司成为其唯一所有者。
JX Nippon发言人Hoshina Tatsuro在电子邮件中表示，该公司的目标是进一步了解碳捕集过程，并帮助其位于东京的母公司Eneos Holdings股份有限公司到2040年实现碳中和。他称，Petra Nova的可行性主要取决于石油价格。
碳捕获被一些人视为将全球变暖限制在比工业化前水平高1.5摄氏度的重要工具，因为它可以使用化石燃料，同时消除它们的排放。然而，与风能、太阳能等其他低碳技术相比，由于成本高、技术难度大，尚处于起步阶段。
根据能源建模师预测，到2030年，美国的碳捕获量将增加十倍，达到2亿吨，因为IRA税收减免以及来自客户和监管机构的压力鼓励了排放企业进行碳捕获。但是，根据国际能源署（International Energy Agency）的说法，即使是这一崇高目标，也远未达到世界要实现巴黎气候协定所需的捕获62亿吨目标。
支持者声称Petra Nova工厂在技术上取得了成功。前所有者NRG在美国能源部赞助的一份报告中表示，位于大休斯敦的这家工厂从煤炭装置加工的天然气中捕获了92.4%的二氧化碳，并证明可以建设一个商业规模的项目。
然而，该报告还显示，由于各种系统部件的大量停机，运行头两年的碳捕获量“远低于预期”。
环境研究机构能源经济与金融分析研究所（Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis）主任大卫·施利塞尔（David Schlissel）表示，NRG决定以低于成本的优惠价格出售，这表明该工厂要么难以运营，要么不经济。在任何情况下，该设施的所谓气候效益都因其用于延长油田寿命而受到损害。
他称：“生产石油更多，燃烧这些石油会产生更多二氧化碳。最终结果是产生的二氧化碳抵消了部分(如果不是全部)捕获的二氧化碳。”
郝芬 译自 能源网
原文如下：
The World’s Largest Carbon Capture Plant Gets a Second Chance in Texas – Bloomberg
Owners of the world’s largest carbon capture facility plan to restore operations at the $1 billion plant three years after it shut down, providing a test case for a nascent industry that experts believe is essential in achieving climate goals.
JX Nippon aims to restart the Petra Nova facility in Texas after NRG Energy Inc. finishes repairs>The resumption would mark a significant step forward for US carbon capture, providing a new lease of life for a project that critics saw as>Petra Nova, which cost $1 billion to build including $195 million from the US government, shipped carbon it captured from burning coal to an oil field operated by Hilcorp Energy Co., where it was used to extract crude through a process called enhanced oil recovery. In that process, the carbon dioxide acts like soap to squeeze out oil and is then stored in reservoirs deep underground.
During its three years of operation it was the world’s largest post-combustion carbon capture plant by tonnes captured annually, according to NRG.
But the system faltered in 2020 after plunging oil prices and crude production “made the project economics challenging,” NRG said in a statement. NRG sold its 50% stake in Petra Nova to JX Nippon for $3.6 million at the end of last year, making the Japanese company its sole owner.
JX Nippon’s goal is to obtain further technical knowledge of the carbon capture process and help Eneos Holdings Inc., its Tokyo-based parent, become carbon neutral by 2040, spokesman Hoshina Tatsuro said by email. Petra Nova’s feasibility depends mainly>Carbon capture is seen by some as a vital tool to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels because it enables the use of fossil fuels while removing their emissions. However, compared to other low carbon technologies like wind and solar power, it’s still in its infancy due to high cost and technical difficulty.
Energy modelers forecast that US carbon capture will rise tenfold to to 200 million metric tons by 2030, as emitters are encouraged by IRA tax breaks as well as pressure from customers and regulators. But even that lofty target is far from the 6.2 billion metric tons required to be captured if the world is to meet the goals of the Paris climate accord, according to the International Energy Agency.
Advocates claim Petra Nova was a technical success. The plant, located in greater Houston, captured 92.4% of the carbon dioxide from gas processed from the coal unit and demonstrated that a commercial-scale project can be built, former owner NRG said in a report sponsored by the Department of Energy.
However, the report also revealed that the amount of carbon captured in the first two years of operation “fell well below expectations” due to extensive downtime of various system parts.
NRG’s decision to sell at a fraction of its cost suggests the plant was either difficult to run or uneconomic, said David Schlissel, a director at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, an environmental research group. In any case, the facility’s purported climate benefits are undermined by the fact that it was used to extend the life of an oil field.
“You’re producing more oil, and burning that oil which produces CO2,” he said. “The end result offsets some if not all of the CO2 you’re capturing.”