利用咸水层的非常规水满足冷却用水需求的co2捕集和封存成本估算

Klise, Geoffrey Taylor; Roach, Jesse Dillon; Kobos, Peter Holmes; Heath, Jason E.; Gutierrez, Karen A

doi:10.1007/s10040-012-0951-2

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The initial findings presented in the national analysis indicate under certain conditions, only a portion of the added cooling water demands for CCS can be met by extracting and treating saline formation waters. Similar findings in previous studies (Kobos et al, 2011;Klise et al, 2013) support this finding at the single power plant level. Additionally, the capture and compression of CO 2 remains the largest share of the added costs to CCS systems as reported in Kobos et al (2011) and that competition for geologically-favorable storage sites will increase the costs to store CO 2 (Roach et al, 2010(Roach et al, , 2012(Roach et al, , 2015Kobos et al, 2008Kobos et al, , 2011Kobos et al, , 2012.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…As described previously (Kobos, et al, 2011, each topical component receives its own module for direct connection to the literature-based assumptions, as well as customizable options. Figure 1 illustrates how the model components integrate together for a single power plant and can be expanded to the full coal and natural gasfired power generating fleet (Klise et al, 2013). Fig.…”

Section: Wecssim Framework Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Illustration of the Water, Energy and Carbon Sequestration simulation model (WECSsim) interrelated components that include CO 2 capture, injection, storage (CCS) and water extraction and treatment (WET) with reverse osmosis (RO) technology in the base case. Adapted from Klise et al(2013). Figure 1 employ a series of assumptions and equations at the power plant and geological formation-specific levels.…”

Section: Wecssim Framework Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous analyses have shown that CO 2 capture costs represent the dominant cost in a CCS cost breakdown, which includes a substantial cost variability when accounting for different geological parameters (Klise, et al, 2013;Roach et al, 2010Roach et al, , 2012Roach et al, , 2014Heath et al, 2012;Kobos et al, 2011Kobos et al, , 2012Tidwell et al, 2011). Costs of the CCS systems may vary dramatically as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The storage formation analysis represents the composition of all formations as one of four types with accompanying mean porosity and permeability values (Clean sandstone [13%, 316.2 mD], Dirty sandstone [18, 1.0 mD], Carbonate [14.05%, 6.3 mD] or Gulf Coast [8.1%, 6.3 mD])(Klise et al, 2013). This analysis also divides each formation into three 762m thick depth intervals starting from 762 m of depth, and ending with 3048 m of depth(Roach et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Parametric analysis of technology costs for CO2 storage in saline formations

Kobos

Klise

Malczynski

et al. 2016

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decade, a substantial amount of economic, engineering, and geoscience research has focused on storing CO 2 in geological formations. Of those different formations, storage in saline water-bearing formations represents the largest storage potential. Fossil fuel-based power plants in the U.S. (coal and natural gas) contributed to 40% of all CO 2 emissions in 2008 and therefore represent an important factor to address atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The Water, Energy and Carbon Sequestration Simulation Model (WECSsim) was developed to calculate water use and treatment options, CO 2 injection volumes and the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) results for both a single representative power plant paired with a saline formation scenario, and a full power plant fleet. The details of the analysis presented here broadly demonstrate the sensitivity of CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) costs in geologic saline formations with water extraction, treatment and reuse to changes in the water demands associated with implementing CCS across the power plant fleet (coal and natural gas). The majority of the coal and natural gas plants in the U.S. have an avoided cost of $70−200 per tonne of CO 2. Storing 1.0 Gt/yr of the nation's 2.3 Gt/yr total CO 2 emissions returns an avoided (storage) cost of range 79−143 (57−81) $/tonne ($US 2013) under various scenarios. These scenarios include allowing competition between power plants for saline formation space to store CO 2 , varying the duration of the storage rights, and permitting the extraction of saline waters for treatment. Under the same 1 Gt/yr captured scenario, the extracted and treated water volumes could offset 12% of the added water demand due to the parasitic energy requirements of CCS at the national level. The cost of water treatment, using a reverse osmosis system, ranges between approximately $3.20/m 3 water (for larger, older coal-fired plants like the San Juan Power Generating Station) and $2.60/m 3 water for natural gas combined cycle plants (such as the Oyster Creek Power Generating Station) with substantial variability in costs based on plant location and design. For context, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) composition of the pulverized coal-based San Juan Generation Station is 52%, 43% and 5% for the base LCOE, parasitic energy requirements, and water extraction, treatment and utilization costs, respectively. Similarly, for the Oyster Creek natural gas combined cycle plant, these percentages are 64%, 33%, and 2% of the total LCOE, respectively. In both technology cases the parasitic energy requirement costs far outweigh the cost to extract, treat, transport, and utilize saline formation waters. Additional results indicate that of the 325 saline formations included in the national-level analysis, the Mt. Simon formation has an estimated capacity to hold 53% of all the CO 2 generated from the U.S. coal and natural gas-based power plants without extracting and treating saline water. The St. Peter Sandstone formation could hold 43%, though with saline water extract...

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Wecssim Framework Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Wecssim Framework Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Parametric analysis of technology costs for CO2 storage in saline formations

Kobos

Klise

Malczynski

et al. 2016

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

System-level benefits of extracting and treating saline water from geologic formations during national-scale carbon capture and storage

Roach¹,

Heath²,

Kobos³

et al. 2014

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy and CO₂ Emissions Penalty Ranges for Geologic Carbon Storage Brine Management

Bartholomew

Mauter

2021

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Safe and cost-effective geologic carbon storage will require active CO 2 reservoir management, including brine extraction to minimize subsurface pressure accumulation. While past simulation and experimental efforts have estimated brine extraction volumes, carbon management policies must also assess the energy or emissions penalties of managing and disposing of this brine. We estimate energy and CO 2 emission penalties of extracted brine management on a per tonne of CO 2 stored basis by spatially integrating CO 2 emissions from U.S. coal-fired electric generating units, CO 2 storage reservoirs, and brine salinity data sets under several carbon and water management scenarios. We estimate a median energy penalty of 4.4−35 kWh/tonne CO 2 stored, suggesting that brine management will be the largest post capture and compression energy sink in the carbon storage process. These estimates of energy demand for brine management are useful for evaluating end-uses for treated brine, assessing the cost of CO 2 storage at the reservoir level, and optimizing national CO 2 transport and storage infrastructure.

show abstract

利用咸水层的非常规水满足冷却用水需求的co2捕集和封存成本估算

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

Parametric analysis of technology costs for CO2 storage in saline formations

Parametric analysis of technology costs for CO2 storage in saline formations

System-level benefits of extracting and treating saline water from geologic formations during national-scale carbon capture and storage

Energy and CO₂ Emissions Penalty Ranges for Geologic Carbon Storage Brine Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

利用咸水层的非常规水满足冷却用水需求的co2捕集和封存成本估算

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

Parametric analysis of technology costs for CO2 storage in saline formations

Parametric analysis of technology costs for CO2 storage in saline formations

System-level benefits of extracting and treating saline water from geologic formations during national-scale carbon capture and storage

Energy and CO2 Emissions Penalty Ranges for Geologic Carbon Storage Brine Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Energy and CO₂ Emissions Penalty Ranges for Geologic Carbon Storage Brine Management