Optimised deployment of a European CO2 transport network

Abstract

a b s t r a c tIf CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) is to become a viable option for low-carbon power generation, its deployment will require the construction of dedicated CO 2 transport infrastructure. This paper describes the InfraCCS model, which can determine the likely extent and cost of the optimal least-cost CO 2 transport network at European scale for the period 2015-2050, with 2015 the earliest foreseeable starting date of the CCS projects co-funded by the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR), and 2050 the EU's target date for 80-95% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The computation is made possible by a number of methodological innovations compared to previous research, in particular: the use of k-means clustering to reduce the number of nodes in the network; the application of the Delaunay triangulation algorithm for pipeline pre-selection; and the introduction of a mathematically convenient yet realistic new pipeline costing model. The InfraCCS tool is applied to determine the optimal network corresponding to a CCS scenario that ensures near-complete decarbonisation of the European power sector. It is shown that the size of the CO 2 network could range from 11,000 to 17,000 km by 2050, requiring 16-36 billion euros investment, with the higher numbers corresponding to the case when onshore aquifers are excluded as potential CO 2 storage sites. Since the model shows that by 2030 more than half of the EU Member States could be involved in cross-border CO 2 transport, international coordination seems crucial for the development of an optimised trans-European CO 2 transport network.

International Transport of Captured $$\hbox {CO}_2$$ CO 2 : Who Can Gain and How Much?

“…Third, within each country, the amount of CCS is distributed between various industrial 'clusters'. Further details about the clustering approach can be found in Morbee et al (2012). Size and location of potential CO 2 storage sites (depleted hydrocarbon fields and saline aquifers) is obtained from the EU GeoCapacity project (Vangkilde-Pedersen et al 2009).…”

“…Due to technical uncertainty and public acceptance issues, onshore saline aquifers are excluded as potential CO 2 storage sites. 3 Details about the assumptions can be found in Morbee et al (2012). Table 1 provides an overview of the assumed annual amounts of CO 2 captured in each of the countries, as well as the annual CO 2 storage capacity.…”

“…Recent research has produced a number of models that are capable of determining the optimal (i.e. cost-minimising) CO 2 transport network that can transport CO 2 from sources to sinks, such as Middleton andBielicki (2009), Broek et al (2010a,b), Mendelevitch et al (2010) and Morbee et al ( , 2012. These studies, however, do not describe how the necessary coordination to achieve such optimal infrastructure would be realised.…”

“…However, the trans-European networks described by e.g. Mendelevitch et al (2010) and Morbee et al ( , 2012 require coordination and joint pipeline infrastructure investment by a large number of countries. The question we study in this paper is how such international cooperation could be structured in order to achieve the benefits of joint infrastructure optimisation.…”

The Impact of Policy Measures on Future Power Generation Portfolio and Infrastructure: A Combined Electricity and CCTS Investment and Dispatch Model (ELCO)

“…A series of studies analyzed the technical potential of CCTS deployment, including possible CO 2 pipeline routing (Oei, Herold, and Mendelevitch 2014;Morbee, Serpa, and Tzimas 2012;Middleton and Bielicki 2009;Kazmierczak et al 2008;Kobos et al 2007). The construction of such large-scale new infrastructure networks is highly influenced by public acceptance, especially in densely populated regions such as the European Union (Gough, O‫׳‬Keefe, and Mander 2014).…”