Engineered Closed-Loop Mineral Storage (ECLMS): A Conceptual Korean CCS Model Bridging Ex-situ Mineralization and Geological Storage
エンジニアード・クローズドループ鉱物貯留（ECLMS）：韓国におけるCO2鉱物化と地中貯留を橋渡しする概念的なCCSモデル (AI 翻訳)
Song, BongKwan, Kim, SeoYeon
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、地質貯留層が不足する韓国や日本などの国々向けに、エンジニアード・クローズドループ鉱物貯留（ECLMS）という新たなCCSカテゴリを提案する。ECLMSは廃鉱山跡地や人工空洞を利用し、還鉱スラグなどのアルカリ性副産物を用いた水相鉱物炭酸塩化によりCO2を固定化する。容量試算では1バッチあたり2,250～6,900 tCO2、半回分運転で4,500～21,000 tCO2の貯留が可能で、コストは40～150 USD/tCO2と見積もられる。EU ETSやCRCF、パリ協定6.4条との整合性も評価されている。
English
This perspective proposes Engineered Closed-Loop Mineral Storage (ECLMS) as a new CCS category for storage-deficit regions like Korea and Japan. ECLMS uses sealed underground mines or engineered caverns for aqueous mineral carbonation with alkaline industrial byproducts. First-order capacity estimates show 2,250–6,900 tCO2 per batch and 4,500–21,000 tCO2 under semi-batch operation, with levelized costs of USD 40–150/tCO2. The paper maps ECLMS onto IPCC trapping mechanisms and assesses compatibility with EU ETS, CRCF, and Paris Agreement Article 6.4.
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
日本は地質貯留層の不足に直面しており、廃坑やアルカリ性副産物を活用するECLMSは新たな選択肢となり得る。また、EU ETSやCRCFとの整合性が示されているため、日本のCCS関連規制（例：CCS事業法）の検討にも示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
For countries lacking natural geological storage, ECLMS offers a promising alternative that bridges ex-situ mineralization and geological storage. Its compatibility with major carbon pricing and removal certification frameworks (EU ETS, CRCF, Article 6.4) positions it as a globally relevant taxonomic innovation that could unlock CCS deployment in storage-constrained jurisdictions.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:The conceptual ECLMS model and its capacity/cost estimates provide a foundation for further techno-economic and life-cycle analyses.
🏢実務担当者:Companies in storage-deficit regions can explore ECLMS as a potential CCS pathway using existing mine voids and industrial alkaline waste.
🏛政策担当者:The paper highlights the need for formal recognition of ECLMS as a CCS category in regulatory frameworks like EU ETS and Paris Agreement crediting.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The expansion of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the European Union's Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) has sharpened global expectations for permanence, traceability, and accounting integrity in carbon capture and storage (CCS). At the same time, several major industrial economies — including the Republic of Korea, Japan, and parts of Southeast Asia — face a structural deficit of natural geological storage reservoirs suitable for conventional CCS. Existing mineralization options, including ex-situ slurry reactors, in-situ basalt injection, and surficial mine tailings carbonation, occupy distinct niches but leave a regulatory grey zone for jurisdictions that lack large-scale saline aquifers yet possess abundant abandoned mine voids and alkaline industrial by-products. This perspective proposes Engineered Closed-Loop Mineral Storage (ECLMS) as a new conceptual CCS category. ECLMS combines (i) sealed underground containment in repurposed mine voids or engineered caverns, (ii) aqueous-phase mineral carbonation using slag, basalt, or olivine, and (iii) stabilization of CO₂ as dissolved bicarbonate (HCO₃⁻) and precipitated carbonates within a closed system. We map ECLMS onto the four IPCC trapping mechanisms, distinguish it from adjacent categories (Carbfix-style in-situ injection, Carbon8-style products, Calcarea-style ocean dispersal, and the Korean Dogye colliery pilot), and outline its compatibility with EU ETS Article 12(3b), Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2620, the EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), the Article 6.4 Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM), and the IPCC 2006 inventory guidelines. First-order capacity estimates for a 10,000 m³ reservoir suggest single-batch storage of approximately 2,250–6,900 tCO₂ (slag to olivine feedstock) and cumulative storage under semi-batch operation (Mode B) of approximately 4,500–21,000 tCO₂, with levelized costs in the range of USD 40–150 per ton of CO₂ stored. We argue that ECLMS is best understood not as a new technology but as a missing taxonomic category whose formal recognition would unlock CCS deployment in storage-deficit jurisdictions and complement, rather than compete with, existing pathways.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- EarthArXiv https://eartharxiv.org/repository/object/12978/download/23043/first seen 2026-05-14 21:16:52
🔔 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。