← 論文一覧に戻る

CCS全工程技術と多産業応用の比較分析

Comparative Analysis of CCS Full-Process Technology and Multi-Industry Application (原題)

Xiangran Bu

Communications in Humanities Research📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-09-08#CCUSOrigin: CN経営インパクト: コスト削減対象セクター: cross_sector
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/2026.36619
原典: https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7064/2026.36619

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

本論文はCCSの全工程（回収・輸送・貯留）を対象に、火力発電・セメント・鉄鋼の3大エネルギー集約産業とBECCSを横断的に比較した。産業ごとに排出メカニズムが異なり、単一のCCS経路では全産業に対応できないことを示す。火力は大規模展開に最適、セメントは脱炭素の緊急性が高く、鉄鋼は分散排出源からの回収が適し、BECCSは負の排出で残余削減を補完する。産業別の差別化されたCCS発展経路を提示した。

English

This review compares the full CCS chain (capture, transport, storage) across thermal power, cement, and steel, plus BECCS as a negative-emission option. It finds that differing production processes and emission mechanisms mean no single CCS pathway fits all industries. Thermal power is best suited to large-scale deployment, cement faces urgent decarbonisation needs, steel benefits from capturing dispersed sources, and BECCS can offset residual industrial emissions. The paper offers a differentiated, industry-specific CCS development framework.

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters

日本のGX文脈において

日本は火力依存度が高く、セメント・鉄鋼は主要輸出産業であり、GXリーグやカーボンニュートラル政策におけるCCS実装戦略に直接示唆を与える。SSBJ開示でもScope1削減手段としてCCSの産業別適合性は重要論点となる。

In the global GX context

Globally, CCS is central to hard-to-abate sector transition finance and net-zero pathways under ISSB/CSRD disclosure. This cross-industry comparison helps investors and regulators assess which CCS pathways are credible per sector, informing transition plan credibility and residual-emission accounting.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:産業別CCS適合性の体系的比較枠組みを提供し、今後の実証研究の出発点となる。

🏢実務担当者:自社産業に適したCCS経路の選定と脱炭素ロードマップ策定に活用できる。

🏛政策担当者:産業別CCS支援策やインフラ整備の優先順位設計に示唆を与える。

📄 Abstract（原文）

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is widely regarded as one of the key technologies for helping energy-intensive industries overcome decarbonisation challenges and achieve carbon neutrality. The existing research has largely focused on individual aspects of CCS technology or a single industry, and there is a lack of systematic, end-to-end, cross-industry comparative analysis. This research focuses on three major energy-intensive industries—thermal power, cement, and steel—and also examines bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as a negative-emission technology. Based on a review of the relevant literature, this paper examines the complete CCS chain, including carbon capture, transport, and storage. It conducts a multidimensional comparison of the suitability, application characteristics, and developmental limitations of CCS technology across these industries. This research indicates that significant differences exist in the production processes and carbon emission mechanisms among these industries, and that no single CCS pathway is suitable for all industries.: Thermal power generation offers the most favourable conditions for large-scale deployment; the cement industry faces a pressing need for decarbonisation; the steel industry is better suited to capturing carbon from multiple dispersed emission sources; and BECCS can achieve negative emissions and make up for the gap in industrial residual emission reduction. The research has clarified the differentiated development pathways of CCS in various industries, providing a theoretical framework for the industrialisation of CCS and the low-carbon transition in energy-intensive industries.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。

gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。