Search

The aim of this study was to analyze whether, and if so, in what way risks would influence the design, costs and routing of CO 2 pipelines. This article assesses locational and societal risks of CO 2 pipeline transport and analyses whether rerouting or implementing additional risk mitigation measures is the most cost-effective option. The models EFFECTS and RISKCURVES are used to estimate the dispersion and risk, respectively. The pipeline routes are optimized by using the least cost path function in ArcGIS. This article evaluates three case studies in the Netherlands. The results show that pipelines transporting dense phase CO 2 (8–17 MPa) with a minimal amount of risk mitigation measures already meet the 10 −6 locational risk required in the Netherlands. 10 −6 locational risks of 135 m are calculated for intermediate pumping stations, handling 450 kg CO 2 /s (about 14 Mt CO 2 /year). In all the cases, pumping stations could be located along the pipeline route without any problem. For the cases studied transporting gaseous CO 2 (1.5–3 MPa) leads to larger 10 −6 locational risk distances than transporting dense phase CO 2 . This is caused by the large momentum behind a dense phase CO 2 release, leading to smaller but higher jet and to a higher mixing rate with the surrounding air than for a gaseous CO 2 release. Based on our analysis, it can be concluded that dense phase CO 2 transport is safe if it is well organized. The risks are manageable and widely accepted under current legislation. In addition, risk mitigation measures, like marker tape and increased surveillance, are available which reduce the risk significantly and increase the costs only slightly. Pipeline routing for gaseous CO 2 transport appears more challenging in densely populated areas, because larger safety zones are attached to it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In the face of climate change that may result from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the scarcity of agricultural land and limited competitiveness of biomass energy on the market, it is desirable to increase the performance of bioenergy systems. Multi-product crops, i.e. using a crop partially for energy and partially for material purposes can possibly create additional incomes as well as additional GHG emission reductions. In this study, the performance of several multi-product crop systems is compared to energy crop systems, focused on the costs of primary biomass fuel costs and GHG emission reductions per hectare of biomass production. The sensitivity of the results is studied by means of a Monte-Carlo analysis. The multi-product crops studied are wheat, hemp and poplar in the Netherlands and Poland. GHG emission reductions of these multi-product crop systems are found to be between 0.2 and 2.4Mg CO2eq/(hayr) in Poland and 0.9 and 7.8Mg CO2eq/(hayr) in the Netherlands, while primary biomass fuel costs range from −4.1 to −1.7€/GJ in the Netherlands and from 0.1 to 9.8€/GJ in Poland. Results show that the economic attractiveness of multi-product crops depends strongly on material market prices, crop production costs and crop yields. Net annual GHG emission reductions per hectare are influenced strongly by the specific GHG emission reduction of material use, reference energy systems and GHG emissions of crop production. Multi-product use of crops can significantly decrease primary biomass fuel costs. However, this does not apply in general, but depends on the kind of crops and material uses. For the examples analysed here, net annual GHG emission reductions per hectare are not lowered by multi-product use of crops. Consequently, multi-product crops are not for granted an option to increase the performance of bioenergy systems. Further research on the feasibility of large-scale multi-product crop systems and their impact on land and material markets is desirable. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This work assesses the viability of regional biomass chains by comparing the economic performance of potential bioenergy crops with the performance of current agricultural land uses. The biomass chains assessed are ethanol production from Miscanthus and from sugar beet in the North of the Netherlands. The competitiveness of bioenergy crops is assessed by comparing the Net Present Value (NPV) of perennial crops, current rotations, and rotation schemes which include additional years of sugar beet. The current land use and soil suitability for present and bioenergy crops are mapped using a geographical information system (GIS) and the spatial distribution of economic profitability is used to indicate where land use change is most likely to occur. Bioethanol production costs are then compared with petrol costs. The productions costs comprise costs associated with cultivation, harvest, transport and conversion to ethanol. The NPVs and cost of feedstock production are calculated for seven soil suitability classes. The results show that bioenergy crops are not competitive with current cropping systems on soils classed as “suitable”. On less suitable soils, the return on intensively managed crops is low and perennial crops achieve better NPVs than common rotations. Our results showed that minimum feedstock production costs are 5.4€/GJ for Miscanthus and 9.7€/GJ for sugar beet depending on soil suitability. Ethanol from Miscanthus (24€/GJ) is a better option than ethanol from sugar beet (27€/GJ) in terms of costs. The cost of bioethanol production from domestically cultivated crops is not competitive with petrol (12.34€/GJ) production under current circumstances. We propose that the method demonstrated in this study, provides a generic approach for identifying viable locations for bioenergy crop production based on soil properties and current land use. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]