Economic evaluation of CO2 pipeline transport in China

Experimental investigation of the impact of liquid carbon dioxide injection on temperature in pulverized coal

“…In addition, the boundary of phase transition cooling area expanded on a higher injection pressure. However, the injection in industrial processes cannot be conducted once the initial injection pressure was less than 1.8 MPa, because of a high risk of pipeline blockage . Obviously, the injection pressure was the dominant factor in promoting the efficiency of cooling.…”

“…However, the injection in industrial processes cannot be conducted once the initial injection pressure was less than 1.8 MPa, because of a high risk of pipeline blockage. 43 Obviously, the injection pressure was the dominant factor in promoting the efficiency of cooling. Here, the quantitative analysis of the effect of injection pressure on cooling area was consistent with mass flow rate and nozzle diameter.…”

A $70/tCO2 greenhouse gas mitigation backstop for China's industrial and electric power sectors: Insights from a comprehensive CCS cost curve

“…Naturally, projects with characteristics that combine these two factors will experience the highest levelized transport costs overall, whereas projects consisting of very high CO 2 capture rates and minimal transport distances will see the lowest per-ton costs. Though recent studies on CO 2 pipeline transport costs in China have been published (Zhang et al, 2012;Liu and Gallagher, 2011), the costing methods described by these studies omit key components or details that make them difficult to apply in this analysis and difficult to compare to the costs presented above. Zhang et al performed detailed hydrodynamic flow modeling and examinations of pipeline pressure, temperature, thickness, and other design characteristics, however, while some cost components including steel and insulation material are detailed and based on Chinese costs, pipeline right-of-way and installation costs are not considered, which would have been more useful to our study.…”

Assessment of Integral Thermo-Hydraulic Models for Pipeline Transportation of Dense-Phase and Supercritical CO2

“…Figure 3 shows ‫ߜ‬ and ∆ܶ calculated using equations (29) and (31) respectively, based on the simulations using the various models from Table 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Model 1A. The model 1A introduces little inaccuracy in predictions of both the pressure drop (less than 2% in Figure 3, a) and the outlet temperature (less than 0.7 o C, Figure 3, b).…”