Você está na página 1de 14

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc

Cost-effective balance between CO2 vessel and pipeline transport.


Part I Impact of optimally sized vessels and eets
Joachim Geske a, , Niels Berghout b , Machteld van den Broek b
a
Forschungszentrum Jlich IEK-STE, Germany
b
Copernicus Institute, University Utrecht, Netherlands

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

transport volumes (1070 Mt/y) to be considered. For this broad


Nomenclature range of conditions the optimization of the vessels and the eet
can be expected to play an important role.
CTot total mass of CO2 transported Further benets resulting from the application of the cost mod-
CShip vessel transport capacity els are presented in Geske et al. (2015). By embedding the vessel
ttrip time for a trip of length L and pipeline cost models in a multimodal (vessel and pipeline)
tLoad un/loading time of the vessel CO2 transport optimization model the authors quantied a sav-
F number of vessels required on a transport route ings potential of up to 40% by substitution and complementarity of
vShip speed of the vessel; capital/operational expendi- vessel and pipeline transport in a case study for the West Mediter-
tures for: CAPEXLi /OPEXLi liquefaction of CO2 ranean region.
CAPEXTk /OPEXTk intermediate storage The article is organized as follows: In Section 2, the cost models
CAPEXLo /OPEXLo un/loading for vessel and pipeline transport are developed. In Section 3 the
CAPEXFleet /OPEXFleet eet generic comparison between vessel and pipeline transport together
DPipes pipeline diameter with the case study are presented. Final conclusions are drawn in
#Pipes number of parallel pipes Section 4.
CTotMax maximum capacity of a single pipeline
of fshore on fshore
#Sections , #Sections number of pipeline sections 2. Method
PBoost /#Booster power/number of boosters
P Boost maximum booster power 2.1. Overview
Ipips pipeline investment cost
CAPEXBoost capital expenditures for boosters; capi- The cost model including all elements of the vessel transport
tal/operational expenditures chain liquefaction, intermediate storage, loading, transport and
CAPEXvt /OPEXvt for vessel unloading has been derived from a comprehensive literature sur-
CAPEXpt /OPEXpt pipeline transport vey. As far as possible, parameter estimates are based on linear
TOTEXvt /TOTEXvt total expenditures for vessel/pipeline regression analysis of the survey data (e.g. construction cost, fuel
transport consumption and harbor fee), resulting in robust parameters.
The cost model of the vessel transport chain is then embedded
in a eet scheduling that connects vessel capacity, number of ves-
et al., 2013; Roussanaly et al., 2013a, 2014). Mallon et al., Yoo et al. sels, total transport volume and time for traveling and un-/loading.
and Roussanaly et al. found that for volumes of e.g. 10 Mt/yr, the The resulting total costs are highly nonlinear in the vessel capacity
breakeven distance for which vessel transport becomes more cost- and can be optimized. From this follows (for any combination of
effective varies between 400 and 500 km. transport volume and transport distance) the optimal vessel size,
In these studies the general question of cost effectiveness of the associated eet size and total cost. Total transport cost con-
the transport by vessel is addressed in specic cases of distance, sidering optimized vessel size can then be compared to total cost
total transport volume, vessel capacity and eet size. A general without considering optimized vessel size. From the difference an
analysis can be found in Roussanaly et al. (2014), who identied upper bound of the cost savings potential can be deduced.
a breakeven curve of vessel transport in dependence of transport The pipeline cost model is derived from fundamental equations
volume and distance depending on a selection of specic vessel as they can be found in Knoope et al. (2014) and van den Broek et al.
capacities. In almost all studies a justication for the determination (2010a,b). These results of the generic comparison are presented in
of vessel capacities is missing. Only Nilsson (2010) proposed the compact graphical illustrations, indicating the cost effective option
optimization of vessel capacity. Therefore, little is known about the for any CO2 transport distance and volume and also the optimal ves-
size of optimally dimensioned vessels and its cost savings poten- sel size, the associated eet size and total cost. A detailed sensitivity
tial, which is especially relevant in the comparison with offshore analysis reveals the impact of parameters and cost components to
pipeline transport to offshore storage sites. the optimal vessel size and total cost. Vessel transport cost and
In this research, an assessment is made of how optimization of break-even distances are compared to other studies of the litera-
the vessel capacity and eet will inuence the cost-effectiveness of ture survey. Finally, as a case study, the cost models are applied to
vessel transport compared to pipeline transport. For this purpose the cost assessment of long distance CO2 transport options from
a cost model of all elements of the vessel CO2 transport chain is the Iberian Peninsula (Boavida et al., 2013; COMET) to the North
developed, within which the optimization of the vessel capacity Sea possibly for EOR.
and eet scheduling is explicitly taken into account. This approach
can be used to compare structural variables of the transport by 2.2. Cost model of CO2 transport by vessel
optimized and non-optimized vessels to get deeper insights in the
cost structure of CO2 vessel transport. At present, only small amounts of CO2 are transported by
This cost model and a pipeline cost model are then applied to vessel.5 No experience with large scale (millions of tons per year
give a generic comparison between vessel transport and pipeline from single sources) CO2 transport exists. For this reason, in order
transport for varying transport distance and capacity. Next, they to estimate costs of CO2 transport, analogies can be drawn to the
are applied to a specic case, namely, the cost assessment of infrastructure for the large scale transport of liqueed natural gas
long distance CO2 transport options from the Iberian Peninsula (LNG) and liqueed petroleum gas (LPG; MHI, 2004; Svensson et al.,
(Boavida et al., 2013; COMET4 ) to the North Sea possibly for EOR. 2004). For LNG transport, the gas is cooled to below 160 C, liq-
This case is important because in Portugal, in particular, onshore ueed and transported in tankers at atmospheric pressure. With
storage potential is limited and CO2 transport demands covering CO2 this is not possible, because under atmospheric pressure, CO2
distances of 14002200 km with a huge spectrum of possible

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)

Source Capacity CAPEX OPEX Energy


Mt/y Mio D %CAPEX kWh/t

CO2 Europipe (2011) 3.0 31 10.02 45.0


MHI (2004) 6.2 27 5.00 14.4

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.

J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188


Source Vessel Storage Loading Economic data
c
Capacity Speed CAPEX OPEX Fuel Harb Tank CAPEX OPEX Sc /vs Loading Unloading Speed Interest Vessel life Pipeline life

t Knb Mio D % t/d D /stop t D /t % v h h t/h % y y

Svensson et al. (2004) 45,600 16 53 5.74 38 19,526 3600 2073 24 48 1900 5 25 25


70,800 16 67 4.76 45 28,715 3600 2073 24 48 2950 5 25 25
93,600 16 72 4.57 50 34,458 3600 2073 24 48 3900 5 25 25

MHI (2004) 10,000 15 31 5.00 30 19,626 20,000 1357 5 6.0 8 8 1250 11


30,000 15 52 5.00 38 31,009 20,000 1357 5 2.7 8 8 3750 11
50,000 15 74 5.00 43 41,487 20,000 1357 5 2.0 8 8 6250 11

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

CO2 Europipe (2011) 42,000 16 66 1805 2 1.5 21 21 2000 10 25


38,400 15 63 7.43 24 6000 1515 4 1.5 16 16 2400 8 40
19,200 15 40 8.24 30 6000 1557 4 1.5 10 36 1920 8 40

MIT (2003) 26,400 18 66 5.00 12 6 6 4400


Aspelund et al. (2006) 24,000 14 31,055 1.5 13 1846 7 15
Aspelund and 14,400 16 45 3.00 3600 855 1 12 1200 7 30
Gundersen (2009)
Gao et al. (2011) 4320 18 11 5.00 39 3600 1847 1.5 2 2 2160 5 25 25
ZEP (2011b) 48,000 15 2.00a 846 5 1.0 12 4000 8 40 40
Kujanp et al. (2011) 40,000 16 66 6.08 3000 575 1 1.5 1000 8 30
a
Crew not included.
b
Kn = seamile/h.
c
Storage capacity/vessel capacity.
d
Data for loading and unloading from Roussanaly et al. (2014).

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.

Source Capacity Loading Unloading

Mt/y CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX

Mio D D /t % CAPEX Mio D D /t % CAPEX

Kuljanp (2011) 3.0 3.0 1.0 1 40 13.3 4


CO2 Europipe (2011) 3.0 9.6 3.2 2 3 1.0 1
Aspelund and Gundersen (2009) 10.0 5.2 0.5 1 41 4.1 1
MHI (2004) 6.2 7.2 1.2 25 7.2 1.2 25
MIT (2003) 8.1 65.0 8.0 2 260 32.1 2

2.2.6. Overview cost parameters


Total CAPEX and OPEX of the vessel transport assuming an on-
and off-shore loading and tank facility can be summarized to

CAPEXvt = CAPEXFleet + CAPEXLi + 2(CAPEXTk + CAPEXLo ) (11)

OPEXvt = OPEXFleet + OPEXLi + 2(OPEXTk + OPEXLo ). (12)

CAPEX can be annualized and added to OPEX to get annualized


total cost TOTEXvt [D /y]

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:

OPEXFleet = acrs CAPEXFleet Crew


 2.3. Cost model of CO2 pipeline transport
hy 1 2L
+F (afs CShip + bfs )pfuel Fuel (10)
ttrip 24 1.8vship
The cost model for the pipeline transport is based on the rela-

+ahs CShip + bhs Harb. fee tionship (Farris, 1983) between the diameter of the pipeline Dc [m]
and the mass transported Cges [Mt/y]
A regression of vessel capacity on fuel consumption (Fig. 3) is
based on the data in Table 2. Computed values are gathered in   2 1/5
Table 4. 8f Cges 109
DC (Cges ) = . (14)
A further cost component is the harbor fee. It depends on the 1002 CO2 P 365 24 602
number of cycles connected to a loading procedure in a harbor and
linearly on the capacity of the vessels by parameters ahs and bhs in Parameters and their sources are summarized in Table 5. As a
Eq. (10). A regression (Fig. 4), based on data in Table 2, is presented reference point, Eq. (14) is evaluated as DC (CgesMax ) = D at a con-
in Table 4. The variance of the regression parameters is obviously stant pressure drop P and a maximum diameter D [m] and solved
higher than in the previous regression analyses. for CgesMax = 40.56 Mt/y. The limit to the capacity of a single pipeline
by D can be overcome by distributing the massow over additional
piplines. The number of pipelines required to transport Cges is

Cges
#Pipes (Cges ) = . (15)
CgesMax

A maximum pipeline inlet pressure Poff = 220 bar is assumed for


offshore pipelines, because higher pressures would result in pro-
hibitive capital expenditures for pipeline wall thicknesses capable
of dealing with extremely high pressures (Knoope et al., 2014).
Onshore booster stations are installed every 150 km. If higher pres-
sure is required because of the transport distance, booster stations
are considered in equidistant distribution. The number of these
intermediate stations is

offshore LP onshore L


#Sections (L) = , #Sections (L) = . (16)
Fig. 4. Data on the harbor fee [D ] by vessel capacity [t] with regression curve. P Pin 150
J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188 181

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 .

System components Parameter Unit Value ship cost Description/classication Source/method

Liquefaction pcli D /t 5.1 0 0.09 Specic CAPEX MHI (2004) a


poli %/y 5 0 0.04 OPEX MHI (2004)
eel kWh/t 14.4 0 0.25 Electricity consumption MHI (2004)

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.

Parameter Value Unit Description Source


3
CO2 1000 kg/m Density of CO2 for pipeline transport Average density of CO2 between 110 bar and 220 bar.
Bc 1357 D 2010 /m2 Material cost pipeline (onshore) Pipeline transport parameter (van den Broek et al.,
2010a,b, 2013).
Fc 3 Terrain factor offshore pipeline
pcbov 0.54710 Costs booster station COCATE (2011)
pcbof 0.4210
qop 1.5 %/y OPEX
P 0.1 Bar/km Constant pressure drop Pressure drops can vary between 0.10.5 bar/km (Knoope
et al., 2014), where pressure drops tend to be on the lower
end of the range for long distances to, for example, North
Europe.
Tboost 25 Years Life time booster station Knoope et al. (2014)
P boost 5 MWe Max. capacity pump Personal communication with Knoope et al. (2013),
pipeline expert
P off 220 Bar Maximum pipeline pressure on/offshore
D on , D
off 1.36, 1.15 m Upper bound of the inner diameter of pipelines
Pout 100 Bar Outlet pressure onshore CO2 pipeline(s) Own assumption
Pin 80 Bar Outlet pressure offshore pipeline(s) van den Broek et al. (2010a,b)
f 0.015 Friction coefcient
boost 0.8 Efciency booster Piessens et al. (2008)
182 J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188

It increases every 150 km onshore and 1400 km offshore.14 The


power PBoost (Cges ,L) [MWe ] required for the generation of additional
pressure at each of these booster stations is

Cges 109 #Sections (L) LP


 +
PBoost (Cges , L) = Pin + Pout 105 .
hy 3600 CO2 boost #Sections (L)
(17)

Booster power is limited to P Boost [MWe ]. So the total number


of boosters can be determined by


PBoost (Cges , L)
#Booster (Cges , L) = . (18)
P Boost

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)

IPipe (Cges , L) = Bc Fc Fs [Flu (1 0.1N + 0.1NFci )]LDPipes (Cges )

with the construction cost parameter Bc [D ] and four terrain factors:


Fc for following existing pipeline trajectories or not, Fs for steepness,
Flu for land use and Fci for N crossings.
The CAPEXpt [D ] of the pipeline consists of the pipeline invest-
ment cost IPipe [D ] and the investment cost for booster stations

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

Inserting terms (1)(12) in Eq. (13) reveals that there is a tradeoff


between decreasing construction cost of a eet and rising interme-
diate storage requirements as capacity of vessels rises. Therefore
vessel capacity can be optimized.15 The example in Fig. 5 shows
that for a distance of 200 km and a transport volume of 4 Mt/y a
eet consisting of vessels with capacity of 13,500 t are optimally

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

by variations in transport distance and total transport volume are


considered.
In spite of the difculties in comparing the studies, it is never-
theless valuable to obtain an overview of the distribution of cost
estimates for CO2 transport by ship. Therefore, comparable studies
have been evaluated with respect to specic transport cost depend-
ing on transport distance and total transport capacity per year.
The ination-adjusted specic transport cost was selected because
this aggregated gure was reported in almost all studies directly.
Cost estimates presented by Sarv (1999), Heddle et al. (2003) and
Svensson et al. (2004) are not included in the review, because they
are not based on the latest data and there is no indication that they
contain the costs of the CO2 liquefaction process step. A special fea-
ture of MHI (2004) and Roussanaly et al. (2013b) is the fact that the
Fig. 8. Continuous approximation of the eet size [vessels] by distance [km]. Total CO2 is unloaded in a port and as a result, no complex unloading
transport capacity 4 Mt/y (blue curves), 40 Mt/y (red curves); dashed lines include
facilities had to be constructed. Roussanaly et al. also considered
harbor fee. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of the article.) additional target port storage capacity.
Specic cost estimates (Table 6) range from 6 to 44D /t. A signi-
cant part of the variation can be explained by variations in transport
This indicates signicant economies of scale for the CO2 vessel capacities (0.713.14 Mt/y) and distances (5012,000 km). To
transport cost with respect to transport distance. Fleet size doubles exclude cost differences based on distance and transport capacities,
as transport distance increases to 2000 km for a total transport specic cost were computed for each study specic distance and
capacity of 4 Mt/y from 1 to 2 vessels and for 40 Mt/y from 4 to 7 capacity with the method and parameterization presented in this
vessels (see Fig. 8). Trip duration rises linearly from 1 to 7 days as study. The results are shown in the last column of Table 6. Except for
transport distance climbs to 2000 km. three values, all estimates exceed our specic cost estimates. Our
As vessel transport includes constant loading time, liquefaction results deviate from ZEP (2011b; small volume case), Roussanaly
cost and minimal storage requirements have a positive value even if et al. (2013b), Nilsson (2010) and MHI (2004; long distance case)
the transport distance is close to zero, since they depend positively by less than 20% and can therefore be considered to be in line with
on transport capacity total cost. the ndings of these studies.
The harbor fee dened in the last term of Eq. (10) can be inter- One reason for the higher cost in most of the studies might be
preted as taxation of the vessel stops. It thereby rises specic cost that (besides Nilsson, 2010) vessel capacity and eet size is not opti-
by almost 1D /t for 40 Mt/y and around 2D /t for 4 Mt/y capacity. mized as it is in this study. The extent of the difference in specic
Effectively, it biases the vessel construction toward higher capac- cost due to non-optimally adjusted vessel capacities and eet sizes
ities (Fig. 6, 50% for a distance of 100 km, 15% for 2000 km) and can be estimated by the cost function in Fig. 5. As the curvature
smaller eet sizes (Fig. 8). of the cost function is low at the optimum, the cost difference can
The sensitivity of the optimal vessel capacity and the cost in exceed 4D /t for a total capacity of 4 Mt/y16 or equivalently, cost
dependence of the parameter values have been determined by savings of up to 40% are possible by vessel/eet size optimization.
elasticities. The elasticity x (y) of x with respect to parameter y is Another reason for the difference in specic cost could be the con-
dened as sideration of a construction cost for offshore unloading platforms
dx/x that far exceeds our approach of doubling the cost of the loading
x (y) = (23) facility. Unfortunately this cost component could not be excluded
dy/y
ex post from the studies.
This elasticity is a dimensionless parameter that shows by how
many percent variable x changes as variable y rises by 1%. The
3.2. Comparison of vessel and offshore pipeline transport costs
elasticities of the cost model evaluated for L = 200 km and total
capacity of 4 Mt/y are presented in Table 4. Total costs are most sen-
A complete cost comparison of offshore pipeline and vessel
sitive to a change in intermediate storage cost (cost (pctk ) = 0.28),
transport would require the consideration of two different routes,
the electricity price and electricity consumption for liquefaction
namely cluster-landfall-sink and cluster-harbor-sink, respectively.
(cost (pel ) = cost (eel ) = 0.25), the interest rate (cost (r) = 0.21) and the
However, in this section we compare only the offshore part of
construction cost (cost (bcs ) = 0.19). The parameters of the fuel con-
the connection and assess how its costs depend on total capacity
sumption that are related to the transport distance have low direct
and distance. We assume that the pipeline transport deviates from
impact on the cost. An increase of the life time of the vessel rises
existing pipelines (Fc = 3), has a slope <10% (Fs = 1) and crosses zero
optimal vessel capacity and decreases annualized economic cost as
infrastructures (N = 0).
CAPEX are distributed over a longer period.
Fig. 9 shows that the costs of pipeline transport depend almost
The derivation of the bottom up cost model presented in Sec-
linearly on distance for each capacity while vessel transport
tion 2.2 has illustrated that the cost estimate depends on various
requires signicant initial investments even for low transport dis-
assumptions like the determination of the system boundaries. In
tances. Nonzero cost of vessel transport for zero transport distance
some studies of liquefaction, vessel capacity optimization, com-
reects the constant charging time of 11 h. A minimum vessel
pression and offshore storage are included, while in others they
and storage capacity for 11 h loading and unloading is therefore
are not. Also, some studies (e.g. Decarre et al., 2010) assumed
required. Although pipeline transport would in reality also have
alternative physical conditions of the CO2 (15 bar) for vessel trans-
initial investment costs, these are negligible compared to initial
port. Unfortunately the results were not reproducible (exception
MHI, 2004) in sufcient detail, thereby making it difcult to com-
pare them to the estimate in this study with equivalent system
boundaries, methods and parameters. Signicant differences of 16
The associated interval of 66% (4D /t for transport cost of 6D /t in case A
cost estimates can therefore be expected, even if differences caused 4Mt/y over 200 km; Fig. 7) includes more than half of the estimates in Table 5.
184 J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188

Table 6
Comparison of the cost estimates for maritime CO2 transport; estimates marked green deviate by less than 20% from our estimates.

Study Year Transport distance Capacity Specic cost Our estimate


km Mt/y D /t D /t

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

500 Vessel Transport


4
Distance [Km]

400

300
Offshore Pipeline

A 2
200

100 1

one line two lines


0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Distance [Km] Massflow [Mt/y]

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

700 cost but only if the optimization of the liquefaction process in


1 2 3 4 5 Roussanaly offsets the advantages from vessel/eet size optimiza-
tion in this study.
600 B

3.3. Case study: CO2 transport cost from West Mediterranean


Vessel Transport region to North Sea
500

The method developed in the previous sections is now applied


Distance [Km]

400 to assess infrastructure options for CO2 transport and storage


for Spain, Portugal and Morocco. Analyses for Europe show that
depleted oil and gas elds and saline aquifers allow the storage of
300 CO2 for periods of up to 2050 in the respective national territories.17
Offshore Pipeline
Against this background, the necessity to set up a European CO2
transport infrastructure is not obvious. If CO2 storage is consid-
200 A ered with respect to public acceptance and economic aspects,
offshore storage compared to onshore storage might in some cases
be preferable due to the high distances to populated areas, and the
100 option to use CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). The alterna-
one line two lines tive of offshore storage of Portuguese CO2 in national territories is
0.6 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 0.9 1 limited. Beyond that, only the North Sea comes under consideration
0 for offshore storage within Europe. Since not all European countries
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 have access to North Sea offshore storage sites, a cross-European
CO2 transport infrastructure would then be needed to make these
Massflow [Mt/y]
offshore storage sites accessible for North Sea non-adjacent states
Fig. 11. Comparison of vessel and pipeline transport; distancemass ow combina- such as Portugal (and Spain).
tions with a cost advantage for vessel transport (blue shaded area) and for offshore In this section it is examined how costly North Sea storage of
pipeline (red area); iso-eet size curves (dashed) measured in [vessels] for vessel Iberian CO2 is. In the CO2 Europipe (2011) project this option is dis-
transport and diameter [m] for offshore-pipelines. (For interpretation of the refer-
carded ex ante: South-West and South Europe were not included
ences to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the
article.) in the current study, as these are assumed not to become linked to
the storage capacity in Central and North-Western Europe, due to
the large distances involved and the mountain ranges in between.
onshore pipeline transport and injection. Details of the offshore
(2010, WP2.2 Report, p. iii). Obviously, the analysis focused on
pipeline cost model have been mentioned in Mallon et al. (2013)
onshore pipeline transport, although Berger et al. (2004) noted
and Roussanaly et al. (2014). If 30% lower pipeline investment cost
With ships, CO2 can be transported surprisingly long distances
as used in Roussanaly are taken into account, the difference in the
at moderate cost.18 Therefore in this study, transport by vessel in
breakeven distance disappears almost completely. It can be con-
addition to pipeline connections is explicitly included in a cross-
cluded, that the difference is mainly driven by pipeline investment
European transport infrastructure for CO2 .
As the origin of potential CO2 transport, the northern Spanish
700 port of Gijon is chosen because it is of sufcient size and its distance
20 30 40 50 60 70 to the North Sea along the western coast of Brittany (Brest, France)
10
Roussanaly et al., 2014 B
is the shortest among all north Spanish ports.
600 Suitable North Sea storage sites for CO2 from Central and Eastern
Vessel Transport Europe have been identied in the CO2 Europipe (2011) project
Mallon et al., 2013 (Fig. 13). The most southern sites are located in cluster NL1 and the
500
most northern in cluster NO3. The length of the transport routes
from Spain to these clusters is approximated by airline distances
Yoo et al., 2013
Distance [Km]

400 from Gijon via Rotterdam to NL1 or NO3 (Table 7).


Decarre, 2010 Three infrastructure options are considered, namely, transport
by vessel, an offshore pipeline, and a combination of an onshore
300 pipeline (from Gijon to Rotterdam) with an offshore pipeline (from
Offshore Pipeline
Rotterdam to the North Sea). The length of the offshore pipeline
from Gijon to Rotterdam is not very different from its onshore alter-
200
A
native (i.e. 6% shorter), therefore, in the calculations both are set to
the same value, namely 1295 km. Although the onshore pipeline
Vermeulen et al., 2011
crosses mountainous areas (Pyrenees, among others), the associ-
100
ated higher terrain factor for these parts of the route has not been
taken into account.
one line two lines
0 The method used in Section 3.2 is now applied to compare the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 transport modes for the transport from Gijon to the North Sea.

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).

Starting points Destination points Air line distance [km]

Gijn, Spain Rotterdam, Netherlands Offshore via Brest: 546 + 749 = 1295 Onshore via Bayonne: 1372

Rotterdam, Netherlands NL1 (southern North Sea) 80 80


Bergen (NO3), Norway (northern North Sea) 943 943

Total 1375 2238 1452 2315

9.75 7.7 Vessel Transport 6.6


Northern
N
Nort
ort
rtherrn N
Nort
ort
rth Se
Sea
Sea

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

On-/ Offshore Pipeline

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].

2020 2030 2040 2050 19


Only a small band of storage sites in the southern North Sea can be reached more
Spain 11 49 92 122 cost effectively by pipeline. The area is small enough to disregard pipeline transport
Morocco 2 2 3 as an option.
20
Portugal 0 4 7 16 Largest operating LNG Carrier: Q-Max Ships with a capacity of 266,000 m3 LNG.
This is at a density of 500 kg/m3 equivalent to 126,900 t (http://maritime-connector.
Total 11 57 101 142
com/worlds-largest-ships/).
J. Geske et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 36 (2015) 175188 187

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.

Você também pode gostar