Search

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

Highlights: [•] We illustrate the functionality of two transport assessment modules developed. [•] Onshore pipeline and shipping are compared for different distances and capacities. [•] The base case enables to draw conclusions on particular cases. [•] Sensitivity analyses highlight the most important factors involved in the technology selection. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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