Development of CO2 terminal and CO2 carrier for future commercialized CCS market

Comparison of CO 2 liquefaction pressures for ship-based carbon capture and storage (CCS) chain

“…Aspelund et al (2006) proposed 1.5 times the size of a CO 2 carrier for temporary storage, and ZEP (2011) suggested 1.0 for the multiplication factor. Yoo et al (2013) considered 1.2 times the carrier, which was safer than the capacity suggested by ZEP and more cost effective than that proposed by Aspelund. In this study, 1.0 is used as the multiplication factor.…”

“…Alabdulkarem et al (2012) found that an absorption chiller with a liquefaction pressure of 50 bar consumed the least power. Yoo et al (2013) evaluated the feasibility of shipping a CO 2 solution in transport with a liquefaction temperature of CO 2 at −50 • C, which is near the triple point. Decarre et al (2010) compared two liquefaction pressures, 7 bar (−50 • C) and 15 bar (−30 • C), in a CO 2 transport chain and found that the 15 bar case was the least expensive.…”

Estimation of CO2 Transport Costs in South Korea Using a Techno-Economic Model

“…This study considered two different transport methods: a pipeline and ships. Recent studies [10][11][12][13] have reported that pipeline transport is suitable for short distances, and ship transport is suitable for long distances. The distance where ship transport becomes more cost-effective is around 200-1000 km.…”

“…However, many previous studies on CO2 transport costs did not consider the compression and liquefaction costs. Recent studies [11][12][13][14] have considered the cost of the liquefaction process, but these studies assumed that the CO2 was already compressed to a pressure greater than 100 bar and only considered the additional liquefaction cost. To strictly compare the transport costs between pipeline transport and ship transport, the compression/liquefaction costs were considered in this study.…”

Cost-effective balance between CO 2 vessel and pipeline transport: Part II – Design of multimodal CO 2 transport: The case of the West Mediterranean region

“…However, the cost-effectiveness of vessel transport has mostly been analyzed for specific connections between CO 2 source(s) and CO 2 storage site(s) often in comparison to pipeline transport (e.g. Metz et al, 2005 (IPCC report); ZEP, 2011b; Barrio et al, 2005;Yoo et al, 2013;Ozaki et al, 2013;Mallon et al, 2013, Roussanaly et al, 2013a, 2014. The combination of both pipeline and shipping to transport CO 2 in simple transport networks is considered in ZEP (2011b); Vermeulen (2011); Coussy et al (2013) and Roussanaly et al (2013b).…”