Techno-economic evaluation of CO 2 transport from a lignite-fired IGCC plant in the Czech Republic

Roussanaly, Simon; Skaugen, Geir; Aasen, Ailo; Jakobsen, Jana P.; Veselý, Ladislav

doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.08.022

Cited by 20 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This included $0.88/t for staging and loading facilities. Roussanaly et al (2017) estimated 4 €/t and 11 €/t ($5 and $13) to transport CO 2 for 50 km and 200 km, respectively, for a project in the Czech Republic. That includes about 1 €/t for loading and unloading facilities.…”

Section: Representative Collection Cost ($/T Dry Basis)mentioning

confidence: 95%

Transport Cost for Carbon Removal Projects With Biomass and CO2 Storage

Stolaroff

Pang

et al. 2021

Front. Energy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategies to remove carbon from the atmosphere are needed to meet global climate goals. Promising strategies include the conversion of waste biomass to hydrogen, methane, liquid fuels, or electricity coupled with CO2 capture and storage (CCS). A key challenge for these projects is the need to connect geographically dispersed biomass supplies with geologic storage sites by either transporting biomass or CO2. We assess the cost of transport for biomass conversion projects with CCS using publicly available cost data for trucking, rail, and CO2 pipelines in the United States. We find that for large projects (order of 1 Mt/yr CO2 or greater), CO2 by pipeline is the lowest cost option. However, for projects that send most of the biomass carbon to storage, such as gasification to hydrogen or electricity production, biomass by rail is a competitive option. For smaller projects and lower fractions of carbon sent to storage, such as for pyrolysis to liquid fuels, CO2 by rail is the lowest cost option. Assessing three plausible example projects in the United States, we estimate that total transport costs range from $24/t-CO2 stored for a gasification to hydrogen project traversing 670 km to $36/t for a gasification to renewable natural gas project traversing 530 km. In general, if developers have flexibility in choosing transport mode and project type, biomass sources and storage sites can be connected across hundreds of kilometers for transport costs in the range of $20-40/t-CO2 stored. Truck and rail are often viable modes when pipelines cannot be constructed. Distances of 1,000 km or more can be connected in the same cost range when shared CO2 pipelines are employed.

show abstract

Section: Representative Collection Cost ($/T Dry Basis)mentioning

confidence: 95%

Transport Cost for Carbon Removal Projects With Biomass and CO2 Storage

Stolaroff

Pang

et al. 2021

Front. Energy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The potential and costs for both pipeline and rail transport have been directly evaluated by Roussanaly et al (2017b), as well as more recently by Stolaroff et al (2021). These studies conclude that there may be an argument for cost parity between rail and pipeline at intermediate distances and volumes of less than 1 MtCO 2 /yr.…”

Section: The Economics Of Rail Transportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rail-based transport of CO 2 could address many of the issues faced with pipeline and trucking. Several studies have suggested that within certain distances and at lower volumes, rail-based (tanked) transport could be cheaper than pipeline (Metz et al, 2005;Roussanaly et al, 2014;Geske et al, 2015;Roussanaly et al, 2017a). Beyond potentially cost-effective scenarios, utilizing the existing rail infrastructure yields benefits that, while not easily quantified in financial analysis, should be considered in the overall decision-making process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunities for rail in the transport of carbon dioxide in the United States

Ho,

Giannopoulos,

Pilorgé

et al. 2024

Front. Energy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The deployment of carbon management strategies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) at scale will require significant investments in transport infrastructure to deliver CO2 to reliable storage. While pipeline transport has dominated the conversation due to economic reasons, there is increasing evidence that other modes may become viable alternatives when considering scale, regional opportunities, and social acceptance. This paper assesses the viability of rail for CO2 transport in the United States using market analysis, techno-economic assessment and geographic information systems mapping. We believe rail presents many advantages, notably in existing infrastructure with established right-of-ways, but also as an instrument to address unwanted effects of our energy transition, particularly in coal communities. We find that the strategic replacement of coal as a freight commodity could translate into 100 Mt/yr of CO2 movement by rail by 2050, and support up to 60,000 jobs in that industry. Further, we find that while rail pricing is notoriously volatile, there is strong support for rail being the least cost option over pipeline for volumes under 2 Mt CO2 per year, which aligns well with smaller, more risk-averse, and distributed carbon management projects that are scheduled to deploy over the next decade. Rail can also be an alternative in regions where CO2 pipeline projects have had limited success, like in the Midwest, where CO2 is captured from ethanol plants that are already serviced by rail networks. Likewise, rail can service roughly 25% of point-source CCS opportunities that are not proximal to projected trunk pipeline networks, of which 94% are located 1-mile from railroad. Finally, rail may be an integral part of CDR development in regions that are not coterminous with geologic storage, particularly in the Western and Northern US.

show abstract

“…In addition to evaluation of CCS from industry based on pipeline transport, it is worth noting that transport of CO2 via ship, and more generally tanked-based solutions (ship, barge, train, truck) is more and more considered for CCS from industry, especially in Europe [129]. Indeed, while pipeline transport has traditionally been the default option considered in CCS-based evaluations, ship-based transport of CO2 can be an attractive option for industrial emitters in some cases, due to its cost efficiency for small CO2 volumes and transport over long distances [125,130].…”

Section: Flue-gas Treatment Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards improved guidelines for cost evaluation of carbon capture and storage

Roussanaly

Rubin

Spek

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the costs of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is essential to understand the role for and potential of CCS technology in addressing climate change, for guidance in research activities aiming to reduce the cost and improve the performance of promising new CCS technologies in different applications. In practice, however, there are many challenges in establishing reliable cost estimates for CCS technologies. To help identify and overcome these challenges, a group of experts from industry, government, academia and other organisations came together in 2011 to form the CCS Cost Network (which came under the aegis of IEAGHG in 2017 [1]). Following discussions at the first CCS Cost Network workshop [1], several members of the workshop steering committee formed a task force to focus on the basic structure of CCS cost estimates. That effort produced a White Paper entitled, "Toward a Common Method of Cost Estimation for CCS at Fossil Fuel Power Plants" [2]. This white paper aimed at overcoming identified pitfalls in CCS cost evaluations for fossil fuel power plants arising from the different methodologies used by various organisations. Towards this aim, the white paper established a common costing methodology and nomenclature, as well as guidelines for CCS cost reporting to improve the clarity and consistency of cost estimates for greenhouse gas mitigation measures. While that work laid the foundation for establishing a common costing methodology for CCS, several important cost issues still remained to be addressed. Building on that earlier work and the interest from additional organisations, the current white paper is an effort to draw up a complementary set of CCS costing guidelines in three complementary areas where further guidelines and better practices are needed, and where efforts are underway to address those topics. This effort is a collaboration among researchers at several industrial research institutes (Electric

show abstract

Techno-economic evaluation of CO 2 transport from a lignite-fired IGCC plant in the Czech Republic

Cited by 20 publications

References 54 publications

Transport Cost for Carbon Removal Projects With Biomass and CO2 Storage

Transport Cost for Carbon Removal Projects With Biomass and CO2 Storage

Opportunities for rail in the transport of carbon dioxide in the United States

Towards improved guidelines for cost evaluation of carbon capture and storage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About