Screening for Geologic Sequestration of CO2: A Comparison Between SCO2TPRO and the FE/NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model

Ogland-Hand, Jonathan D.; Kammer, Ryan; Bennett, Jeffrey A.; Ellett, Kevin; Middleton, Richard S.

doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103557

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1) Enhancing the professional version of the Sequestration of CO 2 Tool [SCO 2 T PRO (Middleton et al, 2020a(Middleton et al, , 2020bOgland-Hand et al, 2022b), referred to as SCO 2 T in this paper] to estimate the cost of CPG and the power that a single CPG power plant could generate as a function of the five geologic properties that define a saline aquifer: geothermal temperature gradient, permeability, net thickness, porosity, and depth (or pressure). Section 2.1 further describes these enhancements.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, even after a potential site has been thoroughly characterized, which requires substantial time and investment in itself, the CO 2 injectivity and capacity of the site, and thus its cost, is largely unknown until at-scale CO 2 injection starts (Eiken et al, 2011). Second, while sedimentary basins are ubiquitous (e.g., underlying approximately half of North America (NETL, 2015)), the geology of these formations also varies geospatially, so the cost and capacity of CO 2 sequestration can change from one location to another (Ogland-Hand et al, 2022b). Third, knowledge of the lowest-cost CO 2 sequestration locations alone is insufficient because the CO 2 sources, CO 2 transportation network, and existing energy infrastructure can all influence the targeted sequestration location (Hannon and Esposito, 2015;Grant et al, 2018;Middleton and Yaw, 2018).…”

Section: Background and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SCO 2 T is an Excel-based tool that replicates full-physics dynamic reservoir simulations via reduced-order models to estimate the capacity and cost of geologic CO 2 storage given five primary geologic properties (Chen et al, 2020;Middleton et al, 2020a;Middleton et al, 2020b;Ogland-Hand et al, 2022a;Ogland-Hand et al, 2022b). As such, when applied to an input dataset of geospatial geologic properties, SCO 2 T can be used to estimate the geospatially-distributed cost and capacity of CO 2 storage.…”

Section: Enhancements Made To Sco 2 T and Input Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As shown in Figure 1, we use the portion of the NATCARB dataset (NETL, 2015) that was collected and generated by the Plains CO 2 Reduction (PCOR) partnership (PCOR, 2021). While the NATCARB dataset spans the entirety of the United States, our prior work demonstrates that the PCOR data is the only subset that is viable for SCO 2 T because it is the only portion that reports a permeability, porosity, temperature, depth, and thickness within the SCO 2 T input geology range (Ogland-Hand et al, 2022b). In other words, in this study, we apply SCO 2 T to all saline aquifers across the United States that can be defined from a single publicly available dataset.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These ratios are the approximate p5, p50, and p95 netto-gross ratios, respectively, from the USGS National Assessment of Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources for the subsurface formations in PCOR (USGS, 2013). In prior work, we used only the p50 value as the net-to-gross ratio instead of multiple scenarios (Ogland-Hand et al, 2022b). Here we use scenarios because 1) holding everything else constant, the cost of CPG power generation and the cost of CO 2 storage both decrease with increasing reservoir thickness (i.e., with increasing net-to-gross ratio) (Middleton et al, 2020b;Adams et al, 2021), but 2) it has yet to be studied if the magnitude of this sensitivity is the same for CPG power generation and CO 2 storage.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Geospatial Cost Comparison of CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) Power and Geologic CO2 Storage

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) power plants can use gigatonne-levels of CO2 sequestration to generate electricity, but it is unknown if the resources that support low-cost CPG power align with the resources that support low-cost CO2 sequestration. Here, we estimate and compare the geospatially-distributed cost of CPG and CO2 storage across a portion of North America. We find that the locations with lowest-cost CO2 storage are different than the locations with lowest-cost CPG. There are also locations with low-cost CO2 storage (<$5/tCO2) that do not support CPG power generation due to insufficient reservoir transmissivity or temperature. Thus, CPG development may require electricity prices that are greater than the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) to offset the increased cost of sequestration. We introduce the “Additional Cost of Electricity (ACOE)” metric to account for this cost and add it to the LCOE to calculate breakeven electricity prices that are required for CPG development. We find that breakeven prices are lower when new CO2 injection wells are drilled specifically for CPG (i.e., “greenfield” CPG development) compared to if only existing CO2 sequestration injection wells are used (i.e., “brownfield” CPG development). This is because comparatively few wells are needed for sequestration-only, and the increased power capacity from having more CPG wells outweighs the increased costs from more drilling. We also find that sequestered CO2 could be used to approximately triple the United States geothermal electricity power capacity via a single CPG “sweet spot” in South Dakota, but that breakeven electricity price for this development is on the order of $200/MWeh.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Enhancements Made To Sco 2 T and Input Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Geospatial Cost Comparison of CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) Power and Geologic CO2 Storage

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

GCS site selection in saline Miocene formations in South Louisiana

Zulqarnain

Sears

Zeidouni

et al. 2023

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rate and growth limits and the role of geologic carbon storage in meeting climate targets

Fuhrman,

Lane,

McJeon

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in geologic reservoirs is expected to play a large role in low-emissions scenarios that comply with the Paris Agreement, especially its aspirational 1.5 ⁰C goal. Yet these scenarios are often overly optimistic regarding near-term CCS deployments. They have also failed to consider regional differences in capacity to deploy large-scale subsurface CO2 injection. Here, we quantify a range of regionally explicit scalability rates for CCS and use these to update a leading integrated energy-economy model. We then evaluate implications for Paris-compliant emissions trajectories, energy mix, use of rate-limited storage capacity, and mitigation costs. Under limited CCS ramp-up rates, deployment in 2100 could be reduced by a factor of 5, with a factor of 20 reduction at mid-century under a below 2 ⁰C emissions trajectory. Residual use of oil, gas, and coal in a below-2⁰C scenario could also be reduced by nearly 50%. However, sustained efforts to rapidly scale CCS could reduce transition costs by nearly $12 trillion (20%) globally, with cost reductions most heavily concentrated in regions such as China and India. Delaying mitigation in anticipation of unconstrained CCS scaling that in fact proceeds far more slowly results in + 0.15 ⁰C higher temperatures in 2100. In contrast, aggressive emissions cuts in anticipation of slower CCS scaling that subsequently far exceeds expectations results in lower peak temperatures and help de-risk efforts to meet the 1.5 ⁰C goal.

show abstract

Screening for Geologic Sequestration of CO2: A Comparison Between SCO2TPRO and the FE/NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

A Geospatial Cost Comparison of CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) Power and Geologic CO2 Storage

A Geospatial Cost Comparison of CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) Power and Geologic CO2 Storage

GCS site selection in saline Miocene formations in South Louisiana

Rate and growth limits and the role of geologic carbon storage in meeting climate targets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About