Conceptualization of CO2 Terminal for Offshore CCS Using System Engineering Process

Noh, Hyonjeong; Kang, Kyung‐Hwa; Huh, Cheol; Kang, Seong-Gil; Han, Seong Jong; Kim, Hyungwoo

doi:10.3390/en12224350

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Liquefaction was carried out using a propane-base refrigeration unit. The electricity demand for liquefaction was taken from (Decarre et al, 2010) and the sizing of the temporary storage tanks was carried out in accordance with the options presented in (Noh et al, 2019).…”

Section: Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Double Yields and Negative Emissions? Resource, Climate and Cost Efficiencies in Biofuels With Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As fossil-reliant industries turn to sustainable biomass for energy and material supply, the competition for biogenic carbon is expected to intensify. Using process level carbon and energy balance models, this paper shows how the capture of residual CO2 in conjunction with either permanent storage (CCS) or biofuel production (CCU) benefits fourteen largely residue-based biofuel production pathways. With a few noteworthy exceptions, most pathways have low carbon utilization efficiencies (30–40%) without CCS/U. CCS can double these numbers and deliver negative emission biofuels with GHG footprints below −50 g CO2 eq./MJ for several pathways. Compared to CCS with no revenue from CO2 sequestration, CCU can offer the same efficiency gains at roughly two-third the biofuel production cost (e.g., 99 EUR/MWh vs. 162 EUR/MWh) but the GHG reduction relative to fossil fuels is significantly smaller (18 g CO2 eq./MJ vs. −99 g CO2 eq./MJ). From a combined carbon, cost and climate perspective, although commercial pathways deliver the cheapest biofuels, it is the emerging pathways that provide large-scale carbon-efficient GHG reductions. There is thus some tension between alternatives that are societally best and those that are economically most interesting for investors. Biofuel pathways vent CO2 in both concentrated and dilute streams Capturing both provides the best environomic outcomes. Existing pathways that can deliver low-cost GHG reductions but generate relatively small quantities of CO2 are unlikely to be able to finance the transport infrastructure required for transformative bio-CCS deployment. CCS and CCU are accordingly important tools for simultaneously reducing biogenic carbon wastage and GHG emissions, but to unlock their full benefits in a cost-effective manner, emerging biofuel technology based on the gasification and hydrotreatment of forest residues need to be commercially deployed imminently.

show abstract

Section: Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…GHG footprints from a well-to-wheel perspective were compiled in accordance with the standards specified in RED II (Noh et al, 2019). Following the RED II procedure, value-chain emissions were allocated to process streams equally on an energy basis up until the point where they diverged from each other.…”

Section: Greenhouse Gas Footprint Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double Yields and Negative Emissions? Resource, Climate and Cost Efficiencies in Biofuels With Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The CCS chain consists of three main parts [6,7]: carbon capture, transportation, and storage or utilization. Figure 1 shows alternative options along the CCS chain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, "Full value chain CCS in one service" is offered by Aker Carbon Capture company (Norway) [10]. A very detailed study in the field of CCS chain is provided, for example, in [6,7,10]; however, the information about CO2 liquefaction processes is not provided. As the location of CO 2 storage is distributed, the transportation infrastructure should be developed to connect the capture and storage infrastructures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example "Full value chain CCS in one service" is offered by Aker Carbon Capture company (Nor way) [10]. A very detailed study in the field of CCS chain is provided, for example, in [6,7,10] however, the information about CO2 liquefaction processes is not provided. A very detailed study in the field of CCS chain is provided, for example, in [6,7,10]; however, the information about CO 2 liquefaction processes is not provided.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exergetic and Economic Evaluation of CO2 Liquefaction Processes

Chen

Morosuk

2021

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transport of CO2, as a part of the carbon capture and storage chain, has received increased attention in the last decade. This paper aims to evaluate the most promising CO2 liquefaction processes that can be used for port-to-port and port–offshore CO2 ship transportation. The energetic, exergetic, and economic analyses are applied. The liquefaction pressure has been set to 15 bar (liquefaction temperature −30 °C), which corresponds to the design of the existing CO2 carriers. The three-stage vapor-compression process has been selected among closed systems (with propane-R290, ammonia-R717, and R134a as the working fluid) and the precooled Linde–Hampson process—as the open system (with R717). The three-stage vapor-compression process R290 shows the lowest energy consumption, and the CO2 liquefaction cost 21.3 USD/tCO2. Although the power consumption of precooled Linde–Hampson process is 3.1% higher than the vapor-compression process with R209, the lowest total capital expenditures are notable. The CO2 liquefaction cost of precooled Linde–Hampson process is 21.13 USD/tCO2. The exergetic efficiency of the three-stage vapor-compression process with R290 is 66.6%, while the precooled Linde–Hampson process is 64.8%.

show abstract