Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The application of CO2 capture and storage at industrial scales requires the development of a transport
Received 24 November 2014 infrastructure which is suitable to transport millions of tons of CO2 per year. Important offshore storage
Received in revised form 19 January 2015 sites could be served by pipelines or vessels. The discrimination between these options is a crucial sci-
Accepted 26 January 2015
entic task for the assessment of the potential of CCS and the design of a CO2 transport infrastructure. In
Available online 19 March 2015
this research the analysis of vessel transport cost is rened by the optimization of vessel size in a eet
scheduling context. A cost model for a point-to-point CO2 transport by vessel that includes liquefaction,
Keywords:
intermediate storage, loading, vessel/eet construction and storage has been derived from a compre-
Vessel transport
Pipeline transport
hensive literature survey and has been optimized for vessel capacity. The cost savings potential of the
Cost model optimization can reach up to 40%. A reliable cost estimation should therefore carefully account for the
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) dimensioning of the vessels. The optimized vessel transport option was then compared to pipeline trans-
port connections to offshore storage sites. In a compact graphical presentation it is shown that vessel
transport can be advantageous compared to pipeline transport for long distances and small volumes. The
breakeven distance of vessel transport becomes up to 40% greater due to optimized vessel size. The cost
models were then applied to nd the cost effective transport mode for a connection of the West Mediter-
ranean region1 (i.e. Spain, Portugal, and Morocco) to a European CO2 transport infrastructure including
the North Sea. Transport of CO2 by vessel turns out to be cost-effective and could be protable if CO2 is
used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction burden resulting from the introduction of the new technology, the
optimization of the transport infrastructure, including the choice
In recent years, national and international institutions have set of transport modes, is therefore important to determine.
ambitious goals to reduce CO2 emissions over the coming decades. Some of the potential CO2 storage sites are located undersea.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can play an important role in Although storage at these sites is more expensive than onshore,
meeting these targets as it allows established technological pro- they are located further away from densely populated areas (ZEP,
cesses to continue operation while reducing CO2 emissions. In this 2011b) and therefore offer an advantage in terms of public accep-
way an expensive adjustment of these processes can be avoided. tance. In addition, the CO2 can be used protably for Enhanced Oil
The cost of CO2 emission reduction via CCS has been analyzed Recovery (EOR). The transport modes that are suitable for trans-
in several energy system analysis studies (e.g. GCCSI, 2011; ZEP, porting millions of tons of CO2 to these offshore storage sites are
2011a). Next to cost of capture and storage, the upfront investment pipelines and vessels (Svensson et al., 2004).2,3 Recent research
in a transport infrastructure makes up a large share of these costs shows that cost models for pipelines are common practice (Knoope
(e.g. Middleton and Bielicki, 2009). In order to reduce the nancial et al., 2013). However, the cost-effectiveness of vessel transport
has mostly been analyzed for specic connections between CO2
source(s) and CO2 storage site(s) and often in comparison to
Corresponding author at: Institute for Energy and Climate Research, Systems pipeline transport (e.g. Metz et al., 2005 (IPCC report); ZEP, 2011b;
Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE), Forschungszentrum Jlich, 52428 Barrio et al., 2005; Yoo et al., 2013; Ozaki et al., 2013; Mallon
Jlich, Germany. Tel.: +49 2461611722; fax: +49 2461612540.
E-mail address: j.geske@fz-juelich.de (J. Geske).
1
The term West Mediterranean is used for the description of the region
2
including Spain, Portugal and Morocco. Even though Portugal does not border the Details of this reference can be found in Odenberger and Svensson (2003).
3
Mediterranean Sea, it is usually included in Mediterranean organizations. The units kt, Mt, Gt refer to tons of CO2 in this paper.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.01.026
1750-5836/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
176 J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188
5
Aspelund et al. (2006) refer to vessels with a capacity of 10001500 m3 CO2 .
4
This work is part of the project COMET: Integrated infrastructure for CO2 trans- These vessels are used to transport CO2 mainly for the food industry. The estimated
port and storage in the west MEdiTerranean (20102012). European market volume of CO2 is 3 Mt/y.
J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188 177
occurs only in the solid and gaseous phase. However, transport- requires cooling by expansion and recompression (MHI, 2004; IEA,
ing CO2 in solid phase is not expected to be economical because of 2004). The associated electricity demand is described in Table 1.
the effort required for loading and unloading. In the gaseous phase MHI (2004) and Aspelund et al. (2006) report a tremendous
the low density of the medium would require too much costly hull difference in the energy requirement for liquefaction and oper-
material for storage and transport. For this reason, transport condi- ating cost dependent on the inlet pressure. We could not correct
tions must be selected that respect (1) avoidance of the solid phase, the data in Table 1 for differences in this factor because of insuf-
and (2) for the tank construction, superatmospheric pressures with cient background data. Nevertheless the differences between the
higher density of the medium to be transported. The solution com- CO2 Europipe (2011) and MHI (2004) energy consumption data can
monly used is transport near the triple point (5.2 bar, 56.6 C) partly be explained by the lower inlet pressure of 75 bar in Europipe
in the liquid phase with a density of 1200 kg/m3 6 under so called (2011) compared to 100 bar in MHI (2004).
semipressurized conditions. Equipment suited for the transport The CAPEXLi [D ] of liquefaction are assumed to depend linearly
of semipressurized gases is used for LPG transport (Aspelund on total capacity CGes [t] and the specic cost of a liquefaction unit
et al., 2006).7 pcli [D /t]. OPEXLi [D /y] is determined by the constant poli [%/y],
Besides the physical conditions, transport by vessel differs from CAPEXLi specic electricity consumption eel [kWh/t] and the elec-
transport by pipeline with respect to the discontinuity of the mass tricity price pel [D /kWh].
ow. Therefore, un/loading procedures as well as buffering facili-
CAPEXLi = pcli CGes (1)
ties are required. Sea transport of CO2 entails the following process
steps: (1) (As system boundary) capture, compression and initial and
transport of CO2 , (2) liquefaction and conditioning, (3) intermedi-
ate storage, (4) loading CO2 into the vessel, (5) transport by vessel OPEXLi = poli CAPEXLi + eel pel CGes (2)
and (6) unloading the CO2 . In the next section a cost model for cap-
ital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenditures (OPEX) of 2.2.3. Intermediate storage
the process steps is derived from a comprehensive literature sur- Because vessel transport is discontinuous in contrast to the liq-
vey including a derivation of the optimized vessel capacity and eet uefaction process, intermediate storage tanks for semipressurized
size. CO2 are required to buffer incoming CO2 . These storage tanks are
already operated in the context of LPG storage (Aspelund et al.,
2.2.1. System boundary: high pressure pipeline transport 2006). A tank capacity Ctank [t] of at least one vessel of capacity CShip
Local conditions require that, after CO2 capture and before ves- [t], with an additional safety markup Sc , is required to temporarily
sel transport, at least a short transport by pipeline is necessary store CO2 during the interval between departure of a vessel and
(e.g. Coussy et al., 2013). To simplify infrastructure modeling, all the arrival of the following vessel. Specic cost of the tank capacity
pipelines are assumed to work under the same physical conditions is pctk [D /t]. Intermediate storage might also be necessary at the
of a pressure of 110 bar (as was assumed in COMET8 ). In this case, offshore storage site if the mass ow of liquid CO2 at the unload-
costs for the compression of CO2 to 110 bar are included in the cap- ing process was higher than mass ow of pressurized CO2 to its
ture costs and are therefore irrelevant for the modal choice and will nal destination. As data on the necessity of additional unloading
not be considered in the following cost analysis. storage capacity are not available, it is assumed that intermediate
storage with the same capacity and the same cost of the loading
site is also necessary at the storage site.11 CAPEXTk [D ] and OPEXTk
2.2.2. Liquefaction
[D /y] of an intermediate storage facility with constant potk [%/y] can
After CO2 transport in supercritical phase by pipeline to a harbor,
be determined as:
it is liqueed (at its triple point, a pressure of 5.2 bar and temper-
ature of 56.6 C) and loaded to a vessel.9 The most cost-effective CAPEXTk = (1 + Sc )pctk CShip (3)
way to liquefy CO2 under these boundary conditions is to com-
press the CO2 , cool it with air or water and subsequently expand it. and
During liquefaction, water must be removed (drying) to prevent OPEXTk = potk CAPEXTk (4)
hydration, freezing, and corrosion. Other contaminants (volatile
components) must be removed as well in order to prevent dry ice Parameter values for specic CAPEXTk [D /t], OPEXTk [D /y] and
forming. These two steps are referred to as liquefaction and con- additional safety capacity Sc (measured in terms of vessel capacity)
ditioning. CO2 transported by pipe at a pressure of 110 bar only10 from other studies are compiled in Table 2. Procedures to sample
these data and the computed values are explained in Table 4.
6
This is 2.5 times the density of LNG (400500 kg/m3 ), 50% more than the density
2.2.4. Loading/unloading
of supercritical CO2 used for pipeline transport (800 kg/m3 ) and has a density 20% The schedule and the capacity of the vessels is decisive for the
higher than water. determination of the eet size and the total transport cost. Within
7
Exotic approaches to CO2 transport, such as transport as hydrate, currently do this schedule, the time required for traveling and un/loading are the
not appear to be competitive (MHI, 2004). A further variant involves the design of
largest components. In principle, the charging rate can be indepen-
a vessel that is suited for transporting CO2 and natural gas (dual purpose vessels).
This type of vessel would boost exibility further. dent of the vessel capacity. If the number of loading arms increases
8
This assumption stands in contrast to the results of COCATE (Roussanaly et al., with vessel capacity, higher mass ows are possible and the loading
2013b) where the transport in liquid phase prior to vessel transport is favored. Nev- time stays constant. The evaluation of the data of the charging time
ertheless the infrastructure modeling gets much easier as with homogenous pipeline
versus vessel capacity (Table 2) reveals that four studies explic-
transport conditions the following mode of transport (ship or pipeline) does not
impact on the design of an initial pipeline connection.
itly assume a capacity independent, constant charging time of:
9
A transport chain with CO2 liquefaction using ammonia cooling cycles at the 8 h (MHI, 2004), 12 h (ZEP, 2011b; Roussanaly et al., 2014) and
industrial cluster or plant level in combination with onshore pipelines transport- 24 h (Svensson et al., 2004). To assess the dependence between
ing liquid CO2 is preferable under certain conditions (see Roussanaly et al., 2013b).
Additional research would be needed to identify these conditions in the cases of the
COMET project.
10
In practice there is a trade-off between the cost of the presence of impurities not consider conditioning cost for pipeline transport. Further research is needed to
(pressure drops, corrosion and compression cost) and the cost of removing them decide on the cost effective solution.
11
for pipeline transport. As cost data for this trade-off are not yet reliable, we do Buffer storage at an offshore storage site can be ensured by a stationary ship.
178 J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188
Table 1
CAPEX, OPEX and energy consumption for liquefaction.
Liquefaction (prepressurized)
Fig. 1. Data on vessel charging rate [t/h] by vessel capacity [t], 8 h (blue line), 12 h
(red line) and 24 h (green line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this
Fig. 2. Data on vessel construction cost [Mio D ] by capacity [t] and regression curve
gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
of the construction cost.
the charging rate and vessel capacities, data of six other reports
2004). As missing background data impede an explicit explana-
were added (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, Lee et al. (2011) considered a
tion, to make the analysis independent of these variations and to
charging rate of 3200 t/h for a vessel of 30,000 m3 . Fig. 1 shows that
improve the comparability with an offshore pipeline system,13 no
the (yellow) cone between MHI (2004) and ZEP (2011b) includes
explicit offshore unloading cost are considered. Instead, the cost of
seven of fourteen point estimates of the studies. If the extreme esti-
the onshore loading facility is doubled.
mates of Svensson, Kujanp (24 h) and Gao (2 h) are excluded
the average constant charging time is tload = 11 h.
The loading system comprises pumps and pipelines through 2.2.5. Vessel
which the CO2 is pumped into the vessel via a loading arm. CAPEXLo Capital cost of vessel transport is signicantly inuenced by the
and OPEXLo of the Loading facility depend on the specic loading eet size F [no. of vessels] necessary to transport the mass ow
cost pclo [D /t] and the constant polo [%/y] as follows Cges [t/y]. The eet size itself depends on the time required for a
transport cycle ttrip [h]. The trip time consists of the time required
CAPEXLo = pclo CGes (5) for traveling the distance L (length of one direction only; trip length
is thus 2L) with velocity vship [sm/h] and un/loading with a constant
and
loading time of tload [h]:
OPEXLo = polo CAPEXLo (6)
L
Data on specic loading CAPEXLo listed in Table 3 differ substan- ttrip = 2 + tload . (7)
1.8vship
tially. This variance could not be explained.
The offshore unloading procedure includes the transport of the The number of trips of one vessel per year depends on the num-
CO2 from the vessel to the reservoir and the reconditioning of the ber of operating hours per year hy via hy /ttrip . Therefore, the eet
liquid CO2 to high pressure storage conditions. This phase transition size F of vessels with capacity CShip which can transport total capac-
has to be designed in a way to avoid solidication (dry ice) and gas-, ity Cges [t/y] is determined by the eet scheduling
hydrate formation. While the transport requires a loading platform
possibly with intermediate storage tanks and a hose connec- Cges ttrip
F= . (8)
tion from the vessel to the platform and from the platform to the CShip hy
undersea compression facility, the reconditioning can be achieved
The relation between vessel construction cost and vessel capac-
by a combination of pumps, heat exchangers and vaporizers12
ity CShip was found by linear regression (Fig. 2) of literature values
(Vermeulen, 2011). As the storage depends on local conditions (e.g.
in Table 2. Construction cost of the eet can thus be expressed as
depth and number of wells) and on remaining storage capacities,
little can be stated about the design and the cost of the unload- CAPEXFleet = F (acs CShip + bcs ). (9)
ing process in general. The literature review revealed signicant
design differences for the CAPEX of unloading facilities (Table 3). Operating cost OPEXFleet [D /y] consists of the cost for the crew,
Some studies assume complex offshore CO2 compression (MIT, fuel cost and harbor fee. The cost of the crew is assumed to depend
2003; detailed analysis in Chiyoda, 2011), while others assume less linearly on the CAPEXFleet via parameter acrs . Fuel cost depends lin-
expensive onshore unloading for further transport on land (MHI, early on the time specic fuel consumption of a vessel of capacity
12 13
Deriving (vaporized) CO2 is required to ll the volume during evacuation of A reconditioning of the CO2 will also be necessary following an offshore pipeline
liquid CO2 and maintain the pressure in the tanks. transport (Vermeulen, 2011).
Table 2
Vessel construction cost and OPEX, fuel consumption and harbor fee for different vessel capacities storage capacity, specic CAPEX, OPEX, and safety capacity by studies. Data converted to t using a the density of liquid CO2 of
1200 g/cm3 ; time required for loading a vessel of specic size and mass ow, key economic data.
Roussanaly et al. (2013b) d 26,190 16.5 40 5.10 27 14,131 108,000 1478 5 3.2 12 12 2182 8 30 30
36,666 16.5 48 4.91 33 26,418 132,000 1478 5 2.9 12 12 3055 8 30 30
47,142 16.5 55 4.52 31 51,122 156,000 1478 5 2.8 12 12 3928 8 30 30
179
180 J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188
Table 3
CAPEX and OPEX of the loading and unloading facilities.
r
TOTEXvt = OPEXvt + CAPEXvt . (13)
1 (1 + r)T
Table 4 lists the complete set of parameters used for the anal-
Fig. 3. Data on fuel consumption [t/d] by vessel capacity [t] with regression curve. ysis in this study. All cost data have been corrected for ination
and currency to D 2012 with the exchange rates and interest rate
also presented in Table 4. If original cost data are presented, this is
CShip (parameters afs , bfs ), the fuel price pfuel and the time required
explicitly stated.
for the distance L:
Cges
#Pipes (Cges ) = . (15)
CgesMax
Table 4
Parameter values and elasticities with respect to the vessel capacity ship and the TOTEX cost , evaluated for L = 200 km and total capacity of 4 Mt. Monetary data in D 2012 .
Storage pctk D /t 1400 0.50 0.28 Specic CAPEX Average of data in Table 2
potk %/y 5 0.22 0.12 OPEX Most frequent markup in Table 2
Sc 0.5 0.17 0.09 Safety markup Most frequent safety margin in Table 2
Un/loading pclo D /t 1.4 0 0.06 Specic CAPEX Mean of data in Table 3, MIT (2003)
and MHI (2004) discarded
polo %/y 1.5 0 0.02 OPEX Mean of data in Table 3, MIT (2003)
and MHI (2004) discarded
tload h 11 0.20 0.14 Loading ow Explained in Section 2.2.4
Shipping
Vessel acs D /t 500 0 0.04 Capacity dependent CAPEX Approximated regression parameters
component of data in Table 2
bcs Mio D 30 0.34 0.19 Fixed CAPEX component Approximated regression parameters
of data in Table 2
acrs %/y 5.00 0.14 0.10 OPEX MHI (2004)
vs sm/h 15 0.29 0.19 Vessel velocity Based on the range presented in Table 2
Fuel afs tfuel /(tvessel d) 1/3730 0 0.01 Capacity dependent fuel Regression parameters of data in
consumption Table 2
bfs tfuel /d 22 0.16 0.09 Fixed fuel consumption per day Regression parameters of data in
Table 2
Harbor fee ahs D /(cycle,t) 0.17 Capacity dependent fee (OPEX) Regression parameters of data in
Table 2
bhs D /(cycle, vessel) 22,204 Fixed harbor fee Regression parameters of data in
Table 2
Economic r %/y 5 0.05 0.21 Interest rate Lowest value of data in Table 2 b
parameters T Years 30 0.04 0.16 Project life time Information bulletins on ship
demolition c
pel D /kWh 0.1 0 0.25 Electricity price Eurostat (2012) d
pfuel D /t 500 0.16 0.10 Fuel price BW380 Index: 632 $/te
%/y 8% per 5y Ination rate Aspelund and Gundersen (2009)
hy h 8322 95% of 365 24 h; 5% maintenance, Roussanaly et al.
(2014)
D /$ 0.8 Exchange rates Exchange rate according to ECB,
01.09.2012
D /DKK 0.13 Exchange rate according to ECB,
01.02.2013
D /RMB 1/8.6 Gao et al. (2011)
a
MHI (2004) is using a pressure of 100 bar. The small difference to the COMET parameter was ignored in this study.
b
The detailed survey of interest rates used for vessel transport shows a range of 511% (see Table 2). The lowest value was used as it is closer to the real interest rate and
therefore reects economic discounting in a more fundamental way.
c
The end of life of ships summarized in Ship-breaking.com Information bulletins on ship demolition, # 17 from January 1 to December 31, 2006 is around 30 years
which is signicantly longer than 10 years in MHI (2004), 15 years as assumed in Kujanp et al. (2011) and Aspelund and Gundersen (2009) (exception CO2 Europipe (2011),
25 years). Despite the other studies assuming shorter lifetimes, we decided to assume an equal project lifetime for vessels and the pipeline of 30 years.
d
Electricity price was based on Eurostat (2012) with an electricity price of 0.11 and 0.10D /kWh for Spain and Portugal, respectively, and was approximated to 0.1D /kWh.
e
http://www.bunkerworld.com/prices/index/bw380 (11.04.2013).
Table 5
Pipeline parameters.
As more pipelines are constructed each pipeline carries only a Fig. 5. Specic TOTEX [D /t] in dependence of the vessel capacity [t] for a transport of
4 Mt/y over a distance of 200 km; the red curve includes harbor fees and blue curve
fraction of the total CO2 and the diameter can be adjusted down-
excludes them. A marks the cost-minimal vessel size without harbor fee (B with
wards. Keeping the total cross section areas constant for #Pipes harbor fee). (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the
pipelines the adjusted diameter DPipes (Cges ) [m] is reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
Cges
DPipes (Cges ) = DC . (19)
#Pipes (Cges )
The impact of the terrain, the length of the connection and the
diameter on the investment cost IPipe (Cges ,L) [D ] is given by van den
Broek et al. (2010b)
Fig. 6. Optimal vessel capacity in dependence of the transport distance and total
CAPEXpt (Cges , L) = #Pipes (Cges )IPipe (Cges , L)
capacity; Total transport capacity 4 Mt/y (blue curves), 40 Mt/y (red curves); dashed
+ #Booster (Cges , L)(pcbov PBoost (Cges , L) + pcbof ) (20) lines include harbor fee. A marks the example from Fig. 5. (For interpretation of
the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
and the yearly OPEX depend linearly on the CAPEX and expendi- of the article.)
tures for electricity of the booster stations
OPEXpt (Cges , L) = qop CAPEXBoost (Cges , L) + pe PBoost (Cges , L)8760. (21) sized (A). Harbor fees shift the optimization toward higher vessel
capacities (18,000 t, B).
As in the vessel transport case, annualized pipeline trans- Optimal vessel capacity and specic cost for 4 and 40 Mt
port cost TOTEXpt [D /y] depends on the connection length total transport capacity per year are presented in Figs. 6 and 7.
and the total volume of CO2 transported(22)TOTEXpt = OPEXpt + Optimal vessel size (without harbor fee) triples from 10 to 30 kt
r
T CAPEXpt for a transport capacity of 4 Mt/y and almost quadruples from 30
1(1+r)
to 110 kt for 40 Mt/y as the transport distance rises to 2000 km.
3. Results Specic cost (Fig. 7) drops by more than one third (one half for
2000 km) as total transport capacity increases from 4 to 40 Mt/y.
3.1. Cost of CO2 transport by an optimized vessel eet
14
While offshore compression via costly rigs is technically feasible subsea com-
pression can be expected to be possible and cost effective within the time period of
realization of CCS (Bjerkreim, 2004; Hjelmeland et al., 2011; Hedne, 2014). Currently
offshore subsea compression is in the pilot stage for gas pipelines. Therefore it is dif-
cult to assess the future costs of subsea compression. In line with our approach to
use onshore cost estimates for offshore storing and unloading of CO2 we also use
onshore cost estimates for booster stations. Fig. 7. Specic TOTEX of CO2 transport in dependence of the transport distance.
15
The optimization of vessel capacity depending on decreasing construction cost Total transport capacity 4 Mt/y (blue curves), 40 Mt/y (red curves); dashed lines
and rising intermediate storage requirements is explicitly mentioned by Nilsson include harbor fee. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend,
(2010). the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188 183
Table 6
Comparison of the cost estimates for maritime CO2 transport; estimates marked green deviate by less than 20% from our estimates.
MIT 2003 50, 100, 300 8.03 14, 16, 20 5.2, 5.5, 6.5
MHI/IEA 2004 1000, 3000, 12,000 6 15, 23, 44 10, 16, 36
IPCC (2005) (Statoil) 2004 7600/2 5.50 38 19
Aspelund et al. 2006 750 2.00 22 13
Haugen et al. 2009 170 0.70 18 13
Decarre 2009 1000 2.50 29 14
Nilsson 2010 180, 750 2.50 13, 14 8, 12
Kujanp et al. 2011 1950 2.6 12 18
Gao et al. 2011 300 1.46 6 11
CO2 Europipe 2011 486 7.29 15 7.7
ZEP 2011b 1801500 2.5 (20) 914 (1322) 816 (59)
Roussanaly et al. 2013b 550 13.14 8 7
investments for vessel transport infrastructure and are not consid- one vessel with a capacity of 10,000 t or a pipeline with a diameter
ered in this study. of 0.5 m.
Therefore, pipeline transport is advantageous for short distances To estimate an upper bound of the impact of poorly speci-
while vessel transport becomes more attractive for longer dis- ed vessels, the break-even distance was also computed for a 40%
tances. This result is in line with IPCC (2005). The break-even markup to total vessel cost (Section 3.1). As a result of this articial
depends on total capacity: the break-even distances in Fig. 9 for cost increase, the break-even distance also rises by up to 40%.
total capacity of 4 and 40 Mt/y is point A: 194 km (5.85D /t) and B: While vessel transport costs have been reported in a substan-
591 km (4.50D /t), respectively. tial number of reports, only a few calculated the break-even points
In the more comprehensive presentation in Fig. 10 the combina- with respect to pipeline transport costs. The break-even estimates
tions of transported mass and transport distance are indexed blue of ve reports have been entered in Fig. 12. IPCC (2005) has been
if vessel transport is more cost effective and red if it is pipeline left out because the break-even distance of 1000 km for a 6 Mt/y it
transport. The separating curve between both areas (break-even is out of range of the gure and exceeds the estimate of 300 km
curve) has the form of a sawtooth. This is caused by the limita- in this study. Decarre et al. (2010) estimates a break-even dis-
tion of the pipeline diameter. For capacities above 40.56 Mt/y a tance of 350 km for 2.8 Mt, which is almost twice the value in this
further pipeline has to be constructed, which increases cost and study (180 km). Recent data for 10 Mt and 400 km of Yoo et al.
lowers the break-even distance from almost 600 km at 40 Mt/y to (2013) are more in line with our estimates. The signicant differ-
350 km 40.56 Mt/y. In general vessel transport is advantageous for ences can be explained by reecting on the details of the studies.
long distances with low mass ow rates. Pipelines are more cost Decarre et al. (2010) assumes vessel transport conditions of 15 bar
effective for short distances or high ow rates. As rule of thumb, twice the value in this study resulting in higher vessel construc-
vessel transport is not preferable to pipeline transport below dis- tion cost, non-optimized vessel capacity and includes compression,
tances of 100 km but always for distances longer than 600 km in
between it depends on the transport volume.
For the transportation of 40 Mt/y over 591 km (break-even point 700
6 5 4.5
B) either 5 vessels each with a capacity of 60,000 t or a pipeline
with a diameter of 1.15 m would be required (Figs. 11 and 12); B
600
respectively, for 194 km and 4 Mt/y (breakeven point A) more than
400
300
Offshore Pipeline
A 2
200
100 1
Fig. 9. Specic cost of CO2 transport vessel transport (blue curves), pipeline Fig. 10. Comparison of vessel and pipeline transport; distancemass ow combina-
transport (red curves) for 4 Mt/y (straight curves) and 40 Mt/y (dashed curves). tions with a cost advantage for vessel transport (blue shaded area) and for offshore
Break-even points: A (4 Mt/y, 194 km) and B (40 Mt/y, 591 km). (For interpretation pipeline (red area); iso cost curves [D /t] (dashed); including break-even points A
of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web and B from Fig. 9. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend,
version of the article.) the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188 185
Massflow [Mt/y]
17
Fig. 12. Comparison of vessel and pipeline transport; distancemass ow combina- CO2 Europipe, 2011 WP2.2 Report Development of a large-scale CO2 transport
tions with a cost advantage for vessel transport (blue shaded area) and for offshore infrastructure in Europe: matching captured volumes and storage availability: In
pipeline (red area); iso-capacity curves (dashed) measured in [kt] for vessel trans- the reference scenario, most of the West European countries have sufcient national
port; breakeven points/line entered in black. (For interpretation of the references to storage capacity to store their CO2 .. . .
18
color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.) A result that has been conrmed in Section 3.2.
186 J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188
Table 7
Air line distance of selected route sections (distances determined by http://www.mg2.de/map.html).
Gijn, Spain Rotterdam, Netherlands Offshore via Brest: 546 + 749 = 1295 Onshore via Bayonne: 1372
2000
Mt/y
t/y
t/y
Mt/y
1 Mt/
Mt
0 Mt
M
M
11
70
1
7
1500
Distance [Km]
4.2
1000
500
Offshore Pipeline
0
0 20 40 60 80
Massflow [Mt/y]
Fig. 14. Areas of cost advantages for vessel transport, on/off-shore pipeline and
offshore pipeline by capacity [Mt/y] and distance [km]; iso-specic-cost curves [D /t]
(dashed curves) (for on/offshore pipeline and vessel only).
Fig. 13. North Sea storage sites range from NL1 (southern North Sea) to NO3 (north-
ern North Sea) (aquifer clusters blue, oil eld clusters yellow areas gas eld the blue area, vessel transport has a cost advantage over pipeline
clusters green, from CO2 Europipe (2011), EOR scenario, transportation routes).
transport. Due to the higher terrain factor (i.e. 3) the offshore
(For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of the article.) pipeline is always more expensive than the onshore pipeline (ter-
rain factor 1).
The gray rectangle, mostly in the blue area, shows that ves-
To identify a transport volume interval CO2 capture volumes in
sel transport is more cost-effective than pipeline transport for
Spain, Portugal and Morocco have been determined for the COMET
almost19 all storage locations in the North Sea, transport routes,
scenario Conservative CCS (Table 8, Boavida et al., 2013). In this
and transport volumes. Specic costs of the vessel transport (iso-
scenario a maximum of 11 and 142 Mt per year in 2020 and 2050,
specic-cost curves are marked dashed in Fig. 14) to the southern
respectively, is captured in the West Mediterranean region. These
North Sea range from 4.2 (pipeline transport) to 7.7D /t (on average
volumes form the lower and halved since it seems to be very high
6D /t). The transport to the northern North Sea is 2D /t (overall aver-
the upper bound for the CO2 transportation demand: [11 Mt/y,
age is 7D /t) more expensive than to the southern part. For volumes
70 Mt/y].
of 11 Mt/y and regardless of the distance, a eet of 4 vessels with
The distancevolume combinations relevant for the transport of
a capacity of 5060 kt per vessel is optimal. For 70 Mt/y the opti-
CO2 from the Iberian Peninsula to the North Sea have been entered
mal vessel capacity rises to 120 kt and a eet of 8 vessels for the
as the gray rectangle [11 Mt/y, 70 Mt/y] [1375 km, 2238 km] in
transport distance of 1375 km and 10 vessels of 140 kt for 2238 km.
Figure 14. Furthermore the distancequantityarea where the off-
Vessels of this capacity have been realized in the context of LNG
shore pipeline transportation is more cost effective than vessel
transport.20
transport is marked red and the area where on/offshore pipeline
If vessel transport costs were not optimized and therefore vessel
transport is advantageous to vessel transport is labeled light red. In
transport cost were overestimated by 40% (Section 3.2), transport
by pipeline turned out to be cost-effective for the southern third of
Table 8
National capture volumes, COMET scenario CCS-Conservative [Mt/y].
the North Sea, independent of the transport volume. Transport cost nondeterministic issues such as investment and nancial risks and
to the southern North Sea would then range from 4.2 to 8.5D /t (on the value of exibility of the infrastructure options. In particular,
average 6.5D /t). The transport to the northern North Sea would the cost benets that vessel transport could realize by making the
be 5D /t (average over all is 9D /t) more expensive. Summarizing, infrastructure more exible, are not taken into account.22 Answers
transport cost could be overestimated by up to 30%. for these questions are a challenge for future research and require
the integration of stochastic elements into a systems perspective.
4. Conclusion Data on CO2 vessel transport used in this study need to be
improved. Since CO2 vessel transport is not operated at large
In this research, a method was developed to identify how costs scale, cost estimates were based on LPG transport. Besides the
of CO2 vessel transport can be decreased by optimizing the size technological and cost uncertainties, legislative issues remain as
and eet of vessels. The method was applied to compare transport yet unresolved. Future research should therefore investigate the
options for the long distance transport from the West Mediter- drivers and barriers related to CO2 shipping, as was done by
ranean region (i.e. Spain, Portugal, and Morocco) to offshore storage Berghout et al. (forthcoming) for CO2 pipeline transport.
sites in the North Sea.
First, the costs of transporting CO2 by vessel were evaluated Acknowledgement
and modeled in detail. Vessel transport entails the process steps of
liquefaction, conditioning, storage, loading, transport and unload- The research is part of the FP7 EU Project COMET: Integrated
ing. A detailed sensitivity analysis based on available data for all infrastructure for CO2 transport and storage in the west MEdiTer-
process steps revealed that the cost components of vessel construc- ranean (20102012).
tion, loading time and fuel consumption increased the economic
attractiveness of large vessels. On the other hand, large vessels References
require costly intermediate storage capacities.21 An optimization
of the vessel capacity and vessel eet for point-to-point connec- Aspelund, A., Molnvik, M.J., Koeijer, G.DE., 2006. Ship transport of CO2 techni-
tions made it possible to derive total costs of vessel transport as a cal solutions and analysis of costs, energy utilization, exergy efciency and
CO2 emissions. Trans. IChemE Part A: Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 84 (A9), 847855,
function of transport distance and capacity. These cost estimates http://dx.doi.org/10.1205/cherd.5147, SINTEF, STATOIL.
of optimized vessels were then compared to the total costs of Aspelund, A., Gundersen, T., 2009. A liqueed energy chain for transport and utiliza-
non-optimized eets. The cost savings potential of the optimiza- tion of natural gas for power production with CO2 capture and storage Part 3:
The combined carrier and onshore storage. Appl. Energy 86, 805814.
tion were as high as 40% of the transport cost. The optimization
Barrio, M., Aspelund, A., Weydahl, T., Sandvik, T.E., Wongraven, L.R., Krogstad, H.,
of the vessel size should therefore be considered in any economic Henningsen, R., Mlnvik, M., Eide, S.I., 2005. Ship-based transport of CO2 . In:
assessment of vessel transport options. Rubin, E.S., Keith, D.W., Gilboy, C.F., Wilson, M., Morris, T., Gale, J., Tham-
bimuthu, K. (Eds.), Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, vol. 7. Elsevier Science
The costs of the optimized vessels/eet were compared to off-
Ltd, Oxford, pp. 16551660, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044704-9/
shore pipeline transport costs. The break-even distances above 50193-2, ISBN 9780080447049.
which vessel transport is more cost-effective than pipeline trans- Berger, B., Kaarstad, O., Haugen, H.A., 2004. Creating a large-scale CO2 infrastruc-
port increase with larger transport volumes. It could be shown that ture for enhanced oil recovery. In: International Conference on Greenhouse
Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-7), Vancouver, Canada. Elsevier, Vancouver,
a 40% increase in total cost as a result of non-optimized vessel Canada.
capacities resulted in (up to) 40% longer break-even distances. Berghout, N., Cabal, H., Gouveia J.P., Broek, M. van den, Faaij, A.P.C., forthcoming.
These break-even distances were used to evaluate at which Method for identifying drivers, barriers and synergies related to the deployment
of a CO2 pipeline network A case study for the Iberian Peninsula and Morocco.
point it becomes advantageous to substitute vessel transport for Utrecht University, Utrecht (the Netherlands).
pipeline transport in the long distance transport of CO2 from the Bjerkreim, B., 2004. Subsea gas compression a future option. In: Offshore Technol-
Iberian Peninsula to offshore storage sites in the North Sea. The ogy Conference, 5/3/2004, Houston, TX, http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/16561-MS,
ISBN 978-1-55563-251-9.
distance-volume combinations relevant for this transport were Boavida, D., Carneiro, J., Martinez, R., van den Broek, M., Ramirez, A., Rimi, A., Tosato,
estimated as 1170 Mt/y over 14002200 km. Due to the higher G., Gastine, M., 2013. Planning CCS development in the West Mediterranean.
terrain factor the offshore pipeline was always more expensive Energy Proc. 37, 32123220, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.208,
ISSN 1876-6102.
than the onshore pipeline. Vessel transport was more cost-effective
Chiyoda Corporation (Global CCS Institute), 2011. Preliminary Feasibility Study on
than pipeline transport for almost all storage locations in the North CO2 Carrier for Ship-based CCS., pp. 1178.
Sea, transport routes, and transport volumes. Specic costs of the [CO2 ] Europipe, 2011. Towards a Transport Infrastructure for Large-Scale CCS in
Europe, Reports available at: http://www.co2europipe.eu/
vessel transport to the North Sea amounted to 7D /t. These costs
COCATE, 2011. Economic Assessment of CO2 Export Systems and Comparison
could be overestimated by up to 30% due to misspecied vessel of Implementation Strategies, Report of the Project COCATE Large-
capacities. For volumes of 11 Mt/y a eet of 4 vessels with a capac- scale CCS Transportation infrastructure in Europe, Deliverable No. D4.1.2.
ity of 5060 kt per vessel was optimal. For 70 Mt/y only twice as http://projet.ifpen.fr/Projet/jcms/xnt 12256/cocate-d412
Coussy, P., Roussanaly, S., Bureau-Cauchois, G., Wildenborg, T., 2013. Economic CO2
much vessel (810) with the double capacity (120140 kt) would network optimization model, COCATE European Project (20102013). Energy
be required. As the protability interval of offshore storage oper- Proc. 37, 29232931.
ations in Europe ranges from 11 to 21D /t (IPCC, 2005, p. 262; Decarre, S., Berthiaud, J., Butin, N., Guillaume-Combecave, J.L., 2010. CO2
maritime transportation. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (5), 857864,
on average 6D /t) it cannot be excluded that EOR revenues exceed http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.05.005.
transport costs. Therefore, the transport of CO2 to the North Sea European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP),
could be economical when considered in the context of alternative 2011a. The Costs of CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage Post-demonstration
CCS in the EU. European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power
storage options for Iberian CO2 and competitors for the scarce and Plants, pp. 151.
valuable resource of EOR storage volume. European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP),
In this study the vessel transport option has been analyzed with 2011b. The Costs of CO2 Transport Post-Demonstration CCS in the EU. European
Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants, pp. 153.
respect to investment and operating cost. Furthermore, a com-
Eurostat, 2012. Code: ten00114, Electricity Prices for Industrial Consumers.
prehensive economic assessment of the vessel transport option Farris, C.B., 1983. Unusual design factors for supercritical CO2 pipelines. Energy Prog.
as basis for investment decisions requires the consideration of 3, 150158.
21 22
This can be deduced from the large positive (respectively negative) elasticities The relevance of the value of exibility is analyzed in detail in Sanders et al.
of the optimal vessel size with respect to the parameters in Table 4. (2013).
188 J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188
Gao, L., Fang, M., LI, H., Hetland, J., 2011. Cost analysis of CO2 transporta- Odenberger, M., Svensson, R., 2003. Transportation Systems for CO2 Application to
tion: case study in China. Energy Proc. 4, 59745981, http://dx.doi.org/ Carbon Sequestration. Department of Energy Conversion, Chalmers University
10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.600. of Technology Gteborg, Sweden.
GCCSI, 2011. Economic Assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies. Piessens, K., Laenen, B., Nijs, W., Mathieu, P., Baele, J.M., 2008. Policy Support System
2011 Update. Global CCS Institute, pp. 157. for Carbon Capture and Storage. SD/CP/04A., pp. 1269.
Geske, J., Berghout, N., van den Broek, M., 2015. Cost-effective balance between Roussanaly, S., Jakobsen, J.P., Hognes, E.H., Brunsvold, A.L., 2013a. Bench-
CO2 vessel and pipeline transport. Part II design of multimodal CO2 transport. marking of CO2 transport technologies: Part I Onshore pipeline and
The case of the West Mediterranean region. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 33, shipping between two onshore areas. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control
122134, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.12.005. 19, 584594, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.031, ISSN 1750-5836.
Haugen, H.A., Eldrup, N., Bernstone, C., Liljemark, S., Pettersson, H., Noer, M., Holland, pii:S1750583613002478.
J., Nilsson, P.A., Hegerland, G., Pande, J.O., 2009. Options for transporting CO2 Roussanaly, S., Bureau-Cauchois, G., Husebye, J., 2013b. Costs benchmark of CO2
from coal red power plants Case Denmark. Energy Proc. 1, 16651672. transport technologies for a group of various size industries. Int. J. Greenhouse
Heddle, G., Herzog, H., Klett, M., 2003. The Economics of CO2 Storage, MIT LFEE Gas Control 12C, 341350.
2003-003 RP. Roussanaly, S., Brunsvold, A.L., Hognes, E.H., 2014. Benchmarking of CO2
Hedne, P.E., 2014. Managing the risk of the unknowns: & Asgard Subsea Compression transport technologies: Part II Offshore pipeline and shipping to an off-
Qualication Program 2014. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 0508 May, shore site. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 28, 283299, http://dx.doi.org/
Houston, TX, http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/25409-MS. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.06.019.
Hjelmeland, M., Olsen, A.B., Marjohan, R., 2011. Advances in subsea wet gas Sanders, M., Fuss, S., Engelen, P.J., 2013. Mobilizing private funds for carbon capture
compression technologies. In: International Petroleum Technology Conference, and storage: an exploratory eld study in the Netherlands. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas
79.2.2012, Bangkok, Thailand. Control 19 (November), 595605, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.09.015.
Knoope, M.M.J., Ramrez, A., Faaij, A.P.C., 2013. A state-of-the-art review of techno- Sarv, H., 1999. Large scale CO2 Transportation and Deep Ocean Sequestration.
economic models predicting the costs of CO2 pipeline transport. Int. J. Green- Phase I Final Report. McDermott Technology Corp., Inc, DE-AC26-98FT40412,
house Gas Control 16, 241270, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.01.005, Online document: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/833297-ddMwv1/
ISSN 1750-5836. pii:S175058361300011X. native/833297.pdf, Requested on 9th March 2015.
Knoope, M.M.J., Guijt, W., Ramrez, A., Faaij, A.P.C., 2014. Improved cost models for Svensson, R., Odenberger, M., Johnsson, F., Strmberg, L., 2004. Transportation sys-
optimizing CO2 pipeline conguration for point-to-point pipelines and simple tems for CO2 application to carbon sequestration. Energy Convers. Manage.
networks. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 22, 2546. 45, 23432353, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2003.11.022.
Kujanp, L., Rauramo, J., Arasto, A., 2011. Cross-border CO2 infrastructure van den Broek, M., Ramrez, A., Groenenberg, H., Neele, F., Viebahn, P.,
options for a CCS demonstration in Finland. Energy Proc. 4, 24253243, Turkenburg, W., Faaij, A., 2010a. Feasibility of storing CO2 in the Utsira for-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.136. mation as part of a long term Dutch CCS strategy: an evaluation based
Lee, U., Lim, Y., Lee, S., Jung, J., Han, C., 2011. CO2 storage terminal for ship trans- on a GIS/MARKAL toolbox. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 4, 351366,
portation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200762f. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.09.002, pii:S1750583609000905.
Metz, B., Davidson, O., Coninck, H.D., Loos, M., Meyer, L., 2005. Carbon Dioxide Cap- van den Broek, M., Brederode, E., Ramirez, A., Kramers, L., van der Kuip, M., Wilden-
ture and Storage: IPCC Special Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, borg, T., Turkenburg, W., Faaij, A., 2010b. Designing a cost-effective CO2 storage
Technical Summary. pp. 150 (Report 3) and pp. 179194 (Chapter 4, Transport infrastructure using GIS based linear optimization energy model. Environ.
of CO2 ). Model. Softw. 25, 17541768, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.06.015.
Middleton, R.S., Bielicki, J.M., 2009. A scalable infrastructure model for carbon cap- van den Broek, M., Boavida, D., Cabal, H., Carneiro, J., Fortes, P., Gouveia, J.P., Labriet,
ture and storage: Sim-CCS. Energy Policy 37, 10521060. M., Lechn, Y., Martinez, R., Mesquita, P., Rimi, A., Seixas, J., Tosasto, G.C.,
MHI Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, IEA Report PH4-30 2004. Ship Transportation of Zarhoule, Y., COMET Technical Note 6.4 2013. Report with Selection of Most
CO2 ., pp. 1115. Promising CCS Infrastructure Options.
Mallon, W., Buit, L., van Wingerden, J., Lemmens, H., Eldrup, N.H., 2013. Costs of CO2 Vermeulen, T.N., 2011. Knowledge Sharing Report CO2 Liquid Logistics Shipping
transportation infrastructures. Energy Proc. 37, 29692980. Concept (LLSC): Overall Supply Chain Optimization. Tebodin Netherlands B.V.,
Nilsson, P.A., 2010. CO2 shipping do the numbers add up? Carbon Capture J. (15), The Hague.
2527. Yoo, B.Y., Choi, D.K., Kim, H.J., Moon, Y.S., Na, H.S., Lee, S.G., 2013. Development of CO2
Ozaki, M., Ohsumi, T., Kajiyama, R., 2013. Ship-based offshore CCS featur- terminal and CO2 carrier for future commercialized CCS market. Int. J. Green-
ing CO2 shuttle ships equipped with injection facilities. Energy Proc. 37, house Gas Control 12, 323332, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.11.008,
31843190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.205, ISSN 1876-6102. ISSN 1750-5836.
pii:S1876610213004487.