Costs benchmark of CO2 transport technologies for a group of various size industries

• Published in: International journal of greenhouse gas control Vol. 12; pp. 341 - 350
• Main Authors: Roussanaly, Simon, Bureau-Cauchois, Gaelle, Husebye, Jo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.01.2013
• Subjects: CCS; Cluster; CO2; Costs benchmark; Costs evaluation; Pipeline; Pooling network; Shipping; Transport; Netherlands; Netherlands, Rotterdam; France, Haute-Normandie, Le Havre; France; KPI; CO2; Cluster; CAPEX; Costs benchmark; Pipeline; OPEX; CCS; Costs evaluation; NPV of costs; Shipping; Transport; Pooling network
• ISSN: 1750-5836; 1878-0148
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.05.008

► We assessed the costs of transporting CO2 from a group of small- to large-scale emitters. ► Different options to pool, condition and export CO2 had been studied. ► Conditioning CO2 at the cluster level is the most cost-effective solution. ► The evaluation highlighted three potential transport solutions. ► The onshore pipeline options proved to be 10% cheaper than the shipping scenario. This paper summarizes key results from the Collaborative COCATE Project for the European Commission (FP7). The costs of transporting a total of 13.1 MtCO2/y from small- to large-scale emitters around Le Havre (France), to Rotterdam (Netherlands) via onshore pipeline or shipping are evaluated. Sources send emissions to five CO2 capture centres, which are then linked via a 40km long collection network to deliver the treated CO2 to the point of export. This network was designed to accommodate peak flow rates and multiple network designs were considered for the various export scenarios evaluated in the study. The economic evaluation established that conditioning CO2 at the cluster level, rather than at the point of export, and transporting it in dense phase was the most cost-effective solution for both export systems. As for exporting the CO2 from Le Havre to Rotterdam, the evaluation highlighted three potential transport solutions: either onshore via one 24in. or one 28in. diameter pipeline or offshore using three ships with effective capacities of 30,000m3 each. The onshore pipeline options proved to be 10% cheaper than the shipping scenario. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the onshore options remained the best choice.