Benchmarking of CO2 transport technologies: Part II – Offshore pipeline and shipping to an offshore site

This paper continues the illustration of the methodology and the functionality of the CCS value chain tool developed within the BIGCCS Research Centre through the use of two new transport assessment modules for offshore pipeline and shipping to an offshore site. Technical, costs, and climate impact characteristics of each transport infrastructure are assessed and used to benchmark offshore pipeline and CO2 shipping to an offshore site transports in a base case for a range of distances and capacities. As expected, the base case illustrates that short distances and large capacities favour pipeline transport while ship transport is favoured by long distances and small capacities. The results show that the distance effect is stronger in the case of transport to an offshore site than in the case of transport between harbours, due to both higher pipeline investment costs and the pipeline pressure drop limitation for offshore. The base case is used to draw conclusions regarding specific case studies under the hypotheses described in this paper. Our methodology also appears to lead to results consistent with cases available in the literature when the same cost hypotheses are taken into consideration. Sensitivity analyses are used to quantify the impact of several important parameters and show that the four most influential parameters regarding the transport technology selection are: (1) the geographical context through the distance ratio, (2) the regional effect of pipeline costs and uncertainties in pipeline investment costs through the pipeline investment costs, (3) the project ownership effect through the discount rate, and (4) the First Of A Kind effect and uncertainties on investments through the overall investment costs. The CO2 avoided transport costs of the two transport technologies are illustrated in order to emphasise the importance of selecting the most efficient transport technology. The evaluation of costs underlines the fact that knowing the actual costs and limiting uncertainties is very important for the selection of the cost-optimal technology, to avoid cost overruns, and limit financial risks. The cost evaluation is also used to demonstrate the impact of limiting transport cost on the conditions in which CO2 transport is economically viable. The results demonstrate that the stronger the cost constraint, the more “long” distances and “small” capacities should be ruled out. The methodology and results are also used to illustrate how constraint on initial investment, in order to limit financial exposure, is to the disadvantage of pipeline transport due to the large investments required for transport via pipeline.

[1]  Jana P. Jakobsen,et al.  A standardized Approach to Multi-criteria Assessment of CCS Chains , 2013 .

[2]  Axel Pierru,et al.  Country Risk, Ownership Concentration and Debt Ratio of Gas Transport Projects: A Statistical Analysis , 2012 .

[3]  Nils Henrik Eldrup,et al.  Hva koster egentlig CO2-håndtering? , 2011 .

[4]  Andrea Ramírez,et al.  Improved cost models for optimizing CO2 pipeline configuration for point-to-point pipelines and simple networks , 2014 .

[5]  Nils Henrik Eldrup,et al.  Costs of CO2 Transportation Infrastructures , 2013 .

[6]  Rahul Anantharaman,et al.  Selection of Optimal CO2 Capture Plant Capacity for Better Investment Decisions , 2013 .

[7]  Tzimas Evangelos,et al.  Technical and Economic Characteristics of a CO2 Transmission Pipeline Infrastructure , 2011 .

[8]  E. Hertwich,et al.  Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  Erik Skontorp Hognes,et al.  Benchmarking of CO2 transport technologies: Part I—Onshore pipeline and shipping between two onshore areas , 2013 .

[10]  Erik Skontorp Hognes,et al.  Multi-criteria Analysis of Two CO2 Transport Technologies , 2013 .

[11]  Jochen Ströhle,et al.  Carbonate looping experiments in a 1 MWth pilot plant and model validation , 2014 .

[12]  Frederic P. Miller,et al.  IPCC fourth assessment report , 2009 .

[13]  Rahul Anantharaman,et al.  Low-temperature CO2 capture technologies – Applications and potential , 2013 .

[14]  M. Quante,et al.  The contribution of ship emissions to air pollution in the North Sea regions. , 2010, Environmental pollution.

[15]  Thijs Peters,et al.  Investigation of La1−xSrxCrO3−∂ (x ~ 0.1) as Membrane for Hydrogen Production , 2012, Membranes.

[16]  Jacob Nygaard Knudsen,et al.  Evaluation of process upgrades and novel solvents for the post combustion CO2 capture process in pilot-scale , 2011 .

[17]  H. Kheshgi,et al.  Carbon dioxide capture and storage: Seven years after the IPCC special report , 2012, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

[18]  Sangwon Suh,et al.  Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological–economic model , 2004 .

[19]  Ton Wildenborg,et al.  Economic CO2 network optimization model COCATE European Project (2010-2013)☆ , 2013 .

[20]  Simon Roussanaly,et al.  Costs benchmark of CO2 transport technologies for a group of various size industries , 2013 .

[21]  Ad Seebregts,et al.  Towards a CO2 infrastructure in North-Western Europe: Legalities, costs and organizational aspects , 2011 .

[22]  Axel Pierru,et al.  Capital structure in LNG infrastructures and gas pipelines projects: Empirical evidences and methodological issues , 2013 .

[23]  Christian Solli,et al.  Applying Leontief's Price Model to Estimate Missing Elements in Hybrid Life Cycle Inventories , 2008 .

[24]  Erik Skontorp Hognes,et al.  Comprehensive assessment of CCS chains–Consistent and transparent methodology , 2011 .

[25]  Erik Skontorp Hognes,et al.  Integrated Techno-economic and Environmental Assessment of an Amine-based Capture , 2013 .

[26]  J. Repke,et al.  Techno-Economic Analysis of Postcombustion Processes for the Capture of Carbon Dioxide from Power Plant Flue Gas , 2010 .

[27]  Michael Klett,et al.  The Economics of CO2 Storage , 2003 .

[28]  Stephan Moll,et al.  Towards a global multi-regional environmentally extended input-output database , 2009 .

[29]  André Faaij,et al.  A state-of-the-art review of techno-economic models predicting the costs of CO2 pipeline transport , 2013 .

[30]  Isabel M. Marrucho,et al.  Pyrrolidinium-based polymeric ionic liquid materials: New perspectives for CO2 separation membranes , 2013 .

[31]  Simon Roussanaly,et al.  Techno Economic Evaluation of Amine based CO2 Capture: Impact of CO2 Concentration and Steam Supply , 2012 .

[32]  Luis M. Romeo,et al.  Optimization of intercooling compression in CO2 capture systems , 2009 .

[33]  Sean T. McCoy,et al.  The Economics of CO2 Transport by Pipeline and Storage in Saline Aquifers and Oil Reservoirs , 2008 .

[34]  Douglas Probert,et al.  Monte-Carlo simulation of investment integrity and value for power-plants with carbon-capture , 2012 .

[35]  Reinhard Radermacher,et al.  Development of CO2 liquefaction cycles for CO2 sequestration , 2012 .

[36]  A. Aspelund,et al.  Liquefaction of captured CO2 for ship-based transport , 2005 .

[37]  Rahul Anantharaman,et al.  Post-combustion CO2 capture from a natural gas combined cycle by CaO/CaCO3 looping , 2012 .

[38]  Adam Whitmore,et al.  Realistic costs of carbon capture , 2009 .

[39]  Eric Williams,et al.  Potential economies of scale in CO2 transport through use of a trunk pipeline , 2010 .

[40]  Nils A. Røkke,et al.  BIGCCS Centre–Boosting CCS research and innovation , 2011 .

[41]  Neil Wildgust,et al.  The effect of impurities in oxyfuel flue gas on CO2 storage capacity , 2012 .

[42]  Dianne E. Wiley,et al.  Comparison of MEA capture cost for low CO2 emissions sources in Australia , 2011 .