Benchmarking of CO 2 transport technologies: Part II – Offshore pipeline and shipping to an offshore site

Roussanaly, Simon; Brunsvold, Amy L.; Hognes, Erik Skontorp

doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.06.019

Cited by 85 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The membrane module is estimated on the basis of the 50 $2010/m 2 cost adopted by Zhai and Rubin [15]. The membrane framework is based on the cost function suggested by van der Sluijs et al [63] for the framework of the membrane separation system in an ammonia plant of DSM, and modified by Roussanaly et al [21] to take the influence of the design pressure of the module into account, as shown in equation 1 and Table 14 25 . [63] 25 It is worth noting that a limit of 25,000 m 2 of membrane area per module is used in order to avoid having unrealistically large modules.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparison of the stand-alone pipeline transport with the shipping base case indicates an increase of 45% in the cost of CO2 conditioning and transport. Indeed, even if the conditioning costs are lower in the case of pipeline transport [31], pipeline CO2 transport is an extremely cost-inefficient method for transport of small volumes over long distances, as shown in Figure 9 and as documented in the literature [25,27]. However when considering a common pipeline infrastructure shared with two other actors of similar size to the cement plant base case, the costs of transport and conditioning allocated to the cement plant are reduced by 50% compared to the stand-alone case, and thus lead to conditioning and transport costs 30% lower than in the base case (i.e using shipping).…”

Section: Opportunities For Reduction In Transport Costmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A techno-economic case study of CO2 capture, transport and storage chain from a cement plant in Norway

Jakobsen

Roussanaly

Anantharaman

2017

Journal of Cleaner Production

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Opportunities For Reduction In Transport Costmentioning

confidence: 95%

A techno-economic case study of CO2 capture, transport and storage chain from a cement plant in Norway

Jakobsen

Roussanaly

Anantharaman

2017

Journal of Cleaner Production

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As a result, the specific CO2 conditioning costs are 10 and 22% higher in the "OXY" and "GAS" cases respectively than in the "BASE" case. With regard to CO2 transport costs, the evaluation shows that, while the costs are different for each of the impurity cases, in each case a cost-optimal pipeline diameter exists, due to the trade-off between the pipeline investment cost and the electricity pumping cost (McCoy and Rubin, 2008;Roussanaly et al, 2014;Roussanaly et al, 2013b). For each of the three impurity cases considered, the cost evaluation highlights that a 24" diameter pipeline is the most cost-efficient option.…”

Section: Impact On Costs and Optimal Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Techno-economic evaluation of the effects of impurities on conditioning and transport of CO 2 by pipeline

Skaugen

Roussanaly

Jakobsen

et al. 2016

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyses the effect of transporting 13.1 MTPA CO 2 with impurities over a distance of 500 km on the operating and investment costs. In the cases study, two different impurity levels coming as a result of gas sweetening (GAS) and from capture from oxy-fuel combustion (OXY). The analysis includes the cost for the conditioning and the compression of the CO 2 stream after capture, from atmospheric conditions to transport conditions in the dense phase. In the calculation of the operating cost in terms of compression power and cooling requirements, the effect of the impurities are taken into account by using real thermo-physical properties depending of local fluid temperature and pressure and including heat transfer with the surroundings. The analysis investigates the total cost of choosing different pipeline diameters for transporting CO 2. The technical analysis shows that the number of required booster stations increases from 2 to 17 going from a 28" to an 18" pipeline and from 3 to 25 in the worst case with (GAS). In the second technical comparison, the feed flow rate for the CO 2 mixtures has been reduced so that the installed compression power for transport will be equal for all three cases. In this analysis a 24" pipeline with 4 booster stations was used. The techno-economic assessments show a significant impact of the impurity cases considered on the CO 2 conditioning and transport design and cost. Indeed, in the Oxy-feed and Gas-feed cases, the specific conditioning and transport costs are respectively 13 and 22% higher than in the Base-feed case for the cost-optimal diameter. In absolute value, this represents a direct increase of the specific conditioning and transport cost of 2.3 and 3.8 €/t CO2,avoided . Even if the cost evaluation leads to the same cost optimal diameter for the three impurity cases considered, it is important to note that this result is specific to the transport system considered in this paper and that in principle different impurity cases can lead to different cost-optimal diameters especially for low pipeline diameters. The impact of impurities on an existing pipeline infrastructure design not taking into account these potential impurities show an even stronger cost impact. Indeed, the cost evaluations shows that the specific cost of the Oxy-feed and Gas-feed cases can be expected to be respectively at least around 20 and 40% more expensive than in the Base-feed case due to the lower amounts of CO 2 transported and the important cost-penalty associated with the CO 2 emissions not transported. Finally, while the cost presented here considered only the impact of impurities on the conditioning and transport cost, impurities can also be expected to have a significant impact on the technical and economic performances of the whole CCS chain. This therefore highlights the importance of evaluating, on a case-to-case basis, the tradeoffs between impact of impurities on the CCS cost and cost of impurities removal in order to provide recommendations on cost-optimal level of imp...

show abstract

“…This study considered two different transport methods: a pipeline and ships. Recent studies [10][11][12][13] have reported that pipeline transport is suitable for short distances, and ship transport is suitable for long distances. The distance where ship transport becomes more cost-effective is around 200-1000 km.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, many previous studies on CO2 transport costs did not consider the compression and liquefaction costs. Recent studies [11][12][13][14] have considered the cost of the liquefaction process, but these studies assumed that the CO2 was already compressed to a pressure greater than 100 bar and only considered the additional liquefaction cost. To strictly compare the transport costs between pipeline transport and ship transport, the compression/liquefaction costs were considered in this study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Benchmarking of CO 2 transport technologies: Part II – Offshore pipeline and shipping to an offshore site

Cited by 85 publications

References 36 publications

A techno-economic case study of CO2 capture, transport and storage chain from a cement plant in Norway

A techno-economic case study of CO2 capture, transport and storage chain from a cement plant in Norway

Techno-economic evaluation of the effects of impurities on conditioning and transport of CO 2 by pipeline

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About