Relative to “normal” amine-based post-combustion capture carbon and sequestration (CCS), flexible CCS adds a flue gas bypass and/or solvent storage system. Here, we focus on flexible CCS equipped with a solvent storage system. A primary advantage of flexible over normal CCS is increased reserve provision. However, no studies have quantified system-level cost savings from those reserves, which could drive the public benefits and rationale for policy support of flexible over normal CCS. Here, we quantify total power system costs, including generation, reserve, and capital costs, as well as carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions of generator fleets with flexible versus normal CCS. We do so under a moderate and strong CO₂ emission limit. Relative to normal CCS, solvent storage-equipped flexible CCS reduces system-wide operational plus annualized CCS capital costs but increases system-wide CO₂ emissions under the moderate limit, whereas it reduces system-wide costs and emissions under the strong limit. Under both limits, we find that reductions in reserve costs constitute 40–80% of the reductions in total operational costs with flexible CCS rather than normal CCS. Thus, flexible versus normal CCS deployment decisions pose cost and emissions tradeoffs to policymakers under a moderate emission limit as well as tradeoffs between near- and long-term policy objectives.

相对于“常规”的基于胺的燃烧后捕集碳和隔离（CCS），灵活的CCS添加了烟气旁路和/或溶剂存储系统。在这里，我们重点介绍配备溶剂存储系统的灵活CCS。相对于普通CCS而言，灵活的主要优势是增加了准备金。但是，尚无研究量化这些储备中的系统级成本节省，这可能会带来公共利益，并为采用灵活的CCS而非常规CCS提供政策支持的理由。在这里，我们定量总功率系统的成本，包括生成，储备和资本成本，以及二氧化碳（CO ₂）发生器船队排放具有灵活与正常CCS。我们在中等强度的CO ₂下这样做排放限值。相对于普通CCS，配备溶剂存储的灵活CCS减少了系统范围内的运营成本和年度化CCS资本成本，但在中等限制范围内增加了系统范围内的CO ₂排放，而在严格限制范围内减少了系统范围内的成本和排放。在这两个限制下，我们发现储备成本的减少占使用灵活CCS而非常规CCS的总运营成本减少40-80％。因此，灵活的CCS部署决策与正常的CCS部署决策会在中等排放限制下为决策者带来成本和排放权衡，以及近期和长期政策目标之间的权衡。