专业外语翻译

Although CCS technologies are currently not widely used as a way to avoid carbon emissions, we have already seen that it is technically feasible to capture CO2 from flue gases and store it in geologic formations. In the presence of a sufficiently high implicit or explicit price on carbon, there is evidence that CCS technologies can be economically sensible as well. In this paper, we examine opportunities for applying CCS technologies on a much larger scale, while considering issues of cost, timing, and ancillary environmental effects. We find that CCS technologies could play an important role in mitigating carbon emissions, conditional on policies that impose a sufficiently stringent constraint on such emissions. Prospects appear to be most promising for carbon capture from electric power generation and some industrial sources, with storage in geologic formations such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs and deep aquifers. Current cost estimates for these scenarios range from about $200/tC to $250/tC avoided. However, future costs are likely to decline, perhaps substantially, with technological advances and are particularly sensitive to assumptions regarding natural gas prices. CCS could constitute a substantial share of mitigation effort within several decades, significantly reducing the cost of mitigation. Although the potential for CCS technologies is large, a number of technical and political issues regarding the suitability of storage options need to be resolved before their wide spread application would be possible.

尽管CCS技术目前没有被广泛使用的一种方式，以避免碳

排放量，我们已经看到它在技术上是可行的，以捕捉烟气中CO2和

它存储在地质构造。在足够高的隐式或显式的价格上存在

碳，有证据表明，CCS技术可以在经济上合理的为好。在这

本文中，我们探讨的机会，运用CCS技术在更大的规模，而

考虑到成本，时间和附属环境影响的问题。我们发现，中国船级社

技术可以在减少二氧化碳排放方面发挥重要作用，有条件的策略

这会对此类排放足够严格的约束。前景看来是最

看好从发电碳捕获和一些工业源，与

储存在地质构造，如枯竭的油气藏和深层含水层。当前

这些方案的成本估计在200美元/ TC250美元/ TC避免。然而，未来的

成本可能会下降，也许是大幅度，随着技术的进步和特别

敏感的关于天然气价格的假设。CCS可能构成了相当大的份额

几十年内缓解努力，显著减少减缓成本。虽然

对CCS技术的潜力很大，一些技术和政治方面的问题

存储选项的适用性需要将其广泛应用之前得到解决会

是可能的。

1.3 Importance of the “energy penalty,” reference te chnology, and model assumptions for carbon capture and storage costs

1.3重要的―能量损失，‖参考技术和模型假设

碳捕获和存储成本

Before launching into the body of the paper, we pause here to clarify how several important considerations influence the variety of CCS cost measures that appear in the literature.First, because the capture process uses energy, it has a parasitic effect on electricity production.For a fixed output of electricity, carbon capture imposes a so-called energy penalty by increasing the fossil fuel energy needed to generate that fixed output. Hence, the quantity of carbon captured and stored will be greater than the quantity of carbon actually avoided. For electricity production, average capture costs in $/tC avoided are given by (c1 –c0)/(e0 –e1), where c is the cost of electricity production in kilowatt-hours ($/kWh),2 e is the rate of carbon emissions (tC/kWh), and the subscripts denote these variables with and without capture (1 and 0,respectively).3 These calculations often ignore CO2 transportation and storage costs, however,which are generally reported in $/tC stored. To add storage costs to capture costs in $/tC avoided, storage costs must be adjusted upward to reflect the fact that the ratio of carbon captured to carbon avoided is greater than 1.4 All cost estimates in this paper are given in average $/tC avoided, including transport and storage, unless otherwise noted.Second, when making judgments about the competitiveness of CCS, the choice of the comparison plant (i.e., the c0 and e0 above) is also an important consideration. As demonstrated in Table 1, assumptions about the reference plant can have a dramatic effect on CCS costs. One approach is to calculate the incremental cost of applying CCS to a particular generation technology (e.g., a pulverized-coal plant with CCS compared with the same plant without CCS),as given by the bold figures in Table 1. This type of cost estimate is a necessary ingredient to building up a portfolio of technology options from which one might choose in order to minimize the cost of attaining a given carbon reduction target. We present this type of incremental CCS cost estimate throughout Section 2, so that we can clearly distinguish the relative costs of applying CCS to different specific power generation technologies.

在开始使用纸张的身上，我们在这里停下来阐明如何几种

重要的考虑因素影响的品种出现在literature.First CCS成本的措施，因为拍摄过程中使用的能源，这对电力的寄生效应production.For电的固定输出，碳捕获通过征收所谓的能量损失越来越需要以产生固定的输出对化石燃料的能源。因此，碳的捕获和存储的数量将大于碳的量实际上可以避免的。/ - 对于电力生产，在$平均捕获成本/ TC避免被（C0 C1）给出（E0 - E1），其中c是电力生产千瓦时（$/ kWh）的费用，2个e是速度碳的排放量（TC/千瓦小时），和下标表示这些变量有和无捕获（1和0，分别）0.3这些计算往往忽略二氧化碳运输和储存成本，但是，它们一般报告的$ / TC存储。要添加存储成本捕捉$成本/ TC避免，存储成本必须向上调整，以反映一个事实，即碳捕获避免碳的比例在本文中大于1.4的所有费用估计平均$给出/ TC避免包括运输和储存，除非另有noted.Second，作出有关CCS的竞争力判断的时候，比较植物（即C0和E0以上）的选择也是一个重要的考虑因素。这表现在表1中，关于参照植物的假设可能对CCS的成本产生巨大影响。一种方法是计算应用CCS的一个特定代技术的增量成本（例如，煤粉厂，CCS与不CCS同一植株相比），通过大胆的数字，在表1中给出这种类型的成本估算是一个必要因素，以建立技术选择由哪一个可能，以最大限度地减少实现给定的碳减排目标的成本选择投资组合。我们提出这种类型的增量CCS的成本估计在整个第2节，这样我们就可以清楚地分辨CCS的应用到不同的具体发电技术的相对成本。