Potential economies of scale in CO2 transport through use of a trunk pipeline

Chandel, Munish K.; Pratson, Lincoln F.; Williams, Eric

doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2010.06.020

Cited by 103 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are two reasons for the small cost reduction. First, the cost reduction in the onshore pipeline induced by the lower transport rate in the Boryeong-Hadong section was ~30% because of the well-known economies of scale effect with regard to mass flows [45]. For example, the cost of the onshore pipeline at B1 + H1 was approximately US$10/tCO2, which corresponded to 80% of the onshore pipeline at B2, as shown in Figure 6a.…”

Section: Scenariomentioning

confidence: 94%

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

Kang¹,

Seo

Chang

et al. 2015

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this study, a techno-economic model was used to calculate the costs of CO2 transport and specify the major equipment required for transport in order to demonstrate and implement CO2 sequestration in the offshore sediments of South Korea. First, three different carbon capture and storage demonstration scenarios were set up involving the use of three CO2 capture plants and one offshore storage site. Each transport scenario considered both the pipeline transport and ship transport options. The temperature and pressure conditions of CO2 in each transport stage were determined from engineering and economic viewpoints, and the corresponding specifications and equipment costs were calculated. The transport costs for a 1 MtCO2/year transport rate were estimated to be US$33/tCO2 and US$28/tCO2 for a pipeline transport of ~530 km and ship transport of ~724 km, respectively. Through the economies of scale effect, the pipeline and ship transport costs for a transport rate of 3 MtCO2/year were reduced to approximately US$21/tCO2 and US$23/tCO2, respectively. A CO2 hub terminal did not significantly reduce the cost because of the short distance from the hub to the storage site and the small number of captured sources. OPEN ACCESSEnergies 2015, 8 2177

show abstract

Section: Scenariomentioning

confidence: 94%

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

Kang¹,

Seo

Chang

et al. 2015

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several pipeline costs models for CO2 have been published in the course of the past ten years (Chandel et al, 2010;Heddle et al, 2003;International Energy Agency GreenHouse Gas R&D Program (IEAGHG), 2005;McCoy, 2009;Mikunda et al, 2011;Parker, 2004;Serpa et al, 2011), with important discrepancies among them. Some of the models are only based on a gas pipeline cost model and do not take into account the lineic mass differences, or are not based on the same geographical region.…”

Section: Pipeline Investment Costs: the Regional Effect Of Pipeline Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking of CO2 transport technologies: Part I—Onshore pipeline and shipping between two onshore areas

Roussanaly

Jakobsen

Hognes

et al. 2013

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…3(e)) and sinks (s n , Fig. 3(e)) are converted to a cost per tonne using a simplifi cation in Chandel et al 26 that relates the cost per tonne of CO 2 per kilometer transported to the total amount transported. We select a transport mass of 10 MT/yr, which is the emission rate of 1.1 GW of average coal-fi red power.…”

Section: Transport and Storage Optimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluation of offshore storage potential in the US Exclusive Economic Zone

Eccles

Pratson

2012

Greenhouse Gases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing upon previously published results, we evaluate the offshore potential for storing CO 2 within marine sediments located inside the US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We then model the cost for transporting and injecting CO 2 into these strata, including into deep-marine (>3000m water depth) strata that we refer to as being 'self-sealing' because pressure and temperature regimes would form an overlying gravitational seal. Finally, we compare the integrated transport and injection cost estimates for self-sealing and non-self-sealing offshore storage against the same integrated cost estimates for onshore storage in 15 deep-saline sandstone aquifers located throughout the continental USA. The comparison is presented in the form of marginal abatement cost curves, which show that ocean storage is likely to be two or more times as expensive as onshore storage: 500 million tonnes of annual CO 2 emissions from coal-fi red power plants in the USA is available for <$5/tonne in onshore DSAs, < $10/ tonne in non-self-sealing offshore strata, and <$15/tonne in self-sealing offshore strata, with the cost differential between onshore and offshore storage increasing further up the supply curve. The higher total offshore costs are due to a combination of increases in transport and storage costs, with transport costs dominating total costs with increasing distance from shore. This suggests that CO 2 capture system operators would have to pay substantially more for offshore geologic storage over onshore options. The cost difference may be mitigated by certain advantages of offshore storage, which could include easier access to property rights, simplifi ed regulation, and possibly lower monitoring, measurement, and verifi cation (MMV) requirements.

show abstract

Potential economies of scale in CO2 transport through use of a trunk pipeline

Cited by 103 publications

References 6 publications

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

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

Benchmarking of CO2 transport technologies: Part I—Onshore pipeline and shipping between two onshore areas

Economic evaluation of offshore storage potential in the US Exclusive Economic Zone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About