Skip to main content

Modeling a Carbon Capture, Transport, and Storage Infrastructure for Europe

Abstract

In this paper, we develop a model to analyze the economics of carbon capture, transport, and storage (CCTS) in the wake of expected rising CO2 prices. We present a scalable mixed integer, multiperiod, welfare-optimizing network model for Europe, called CCTS-Mod. The model incorporates endogenous decisions on carbon capture, pipeline and storage investments, as well as capture, flow and injection quantities based on given costs, CO2 prices, storage capacities, and point source emissions. Given full information about future costs of CCTS-technology, and CO2 prices, the model determines a cost minimizing strategy on whether to purchase CO2 certificates, or to abate the CO2 through investments into a CCTS-chain on a site by site basis. We apply the model to analyze different scenarios for the deployment of CCTS in Europe, e.g., under high and low CO2 prices, respectively. We find that beyond CO2 prices of €50 per t, CCTS can contribute to the decarbonization of Europe’s industry sectors, as long as one assumes sufficient storage capacities (onshore and/or offshore). We find that CCTS is only viable for the power sector if the CO2 certificate price exceeds €75 per t.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Notes

  1. The model tends to overestimate the potential for CCTS. Considering the large number of different players and technologies, the uncertainties regarding CO2 prices, learning rates, legal issues, permitting, certification of storage capacity, and further policy measures would increase the total costs. Real costs are therefore expected to be higher and come along with a lower deployment of CCTS in the future.

  2. 2x Intel Xeon X5355 2.66 GHz Quad-Core, 8 MB Cache

References

  1. Ainger, D., Argent, S., Haszeldine, S. (2010). October 2010. Europe-wide CO2 infrastructures feasibility study. Berlin Forum on Sustainable Fossil Fuels, 18–19.

  2. ARI, M.-C. (2010). Optimization of CO2 storage in CO2 enhanced oil recovery projects. Tech. rep., Department of energy & climate change (DECC), office of cabon capture and storage.

  3. Bentham, M. (2006). An assessment of carbon sequestration potential in the UK—Southern North Sea case study. Working Paper 85, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

  4. Bentham, M., Kirk, K., Wiliams, J. (2008). Basin-by-basin analysis of CO2 storage potential of all-island Ireland. Sustainable energy and geophysical surveys programm. Commissioned report CR/08/036, British geological survey.

  5. Brook, M., Shaw, K., Vincent, C., Holloway, S. (2009). Gestco case study 2a-1: storage potential of the bunter sandstone in the UK sector of the southern North Sea and the adjacent onshore area of Eastern England. Tech. rep., sustainable energy and geophysical surveys programm. commissioned report CR/03/154.

  6. Davidson, C., Dahowski, R., Dooley, J. (2011). A quantitative comparison of the cost of employing EOR-Coupled CCS supplemented with secondary DSF storage for two large CO2 point sources. Energy Procedia, 4 (January), 2361–2368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dooley, J.J., Dahowski, R.T., Davidson, C.L., Wise, M.A., Gupta, N., Kim, S.H. (2006). Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage—a core element of a global energy technology strategy to address climate change. College Park, USA: Global Energy Technology Strategy Program (GTSP).

    Google Scholar 

  8. EC (2012). 23 Innovative renewable energy demonstration projects receive € 1.2 billion EU funding. European commission, climate action, newsroom, brussels, 18. December.

  9. EEA. (June 2011). The European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environmental Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Finkenrath, M. (2011). Cost and performance of cabon dioxide capture from power generation. Tech. rep., International energy agency (IEA/OECD). Paris: France.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Fritze, K. (2009). Modeling CO2 storage pipeline routes in the United States. Tech. rep., Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences. http://hdl.handle.net/10161/985.

  12. GeoCapacity, E. (2009). Assessing european capacity for geological storage of carbon dioxide. Tech. rep.,EU GeoCapacity—Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland.

  13. Gerling, J.P. (2010). CO 2 Storage—German and International Perspective. Berlin seminar on energy and climate policy, Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung Vol. 3. Berlin: Juni 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Greenpeace (2011). Potentielle CO2-Endlager in Deutschland in Salzwasser führenden Tiefengestein (in German). Auswertung der BGR-Daten durch Greenpeace.

  15. Hazeldine, S. (March 2009). Carbon capture and storage: UK’s fourth energy pillar, or broken bridge? Working Paper SCCS 2009-03. Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage.

  16. Heddle, G., Herzog, H., Klett, M. (2003). The Economics of CO2 Storage. MIT LFEE 2003-003 R. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  17. Herold, J., Ruester, S., von Hirschhausen, C. (2010a). Vertical integration and market structure along the extended value added chain including carbon capture, transport and sequestration (CCTS). Project report for the european commission. Project No, 213744. SECURE Work package 5.3.2.

  18. Herold, J., von Hirschhausen, C., Ruester, S. (2010b). Carbon capture, transport and storage in Europe: a problematic energy bridge to nowhere? CEPS Working Document 341. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hirschhausen, C.v., Herold, J., Oei, P.-Y. (2012). How a low carbon innovation can fail—tales from a lost decade for carbon capture, transport, and sequestration (CCTS). Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, 2, 115–123.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ho, M. T., Allinson, G. W., Wiley, D. E. (2010). Comparison of MEA capture cost for low CO2 emissions sources in Australia. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B83WP-50G5H9G-3/2/c46881a78b698c9ca910a8dafdb39877.

  21. IEA. (2005). Building the cost curves for CO 2 storage: European sector. Tech. rep., international energy agency. France: Paris.

  22. IEA. (2009). CO 2 Capture and storage—a key carbon abatement option. Tech. rep., international energy agency. France: Paris.

  23. IEA. (2012). Energy Technology Perspectives 2012. Pathways to a clean energy system. Tech. rep., international energy agency. France: Paris.

  24. IEA, & UNIDO. (2011). Technology roadmap carbon capture and storage in industial applications. Tech. rep., international energy agency. united nations industrial development organization. France: Paris.

  25. IEAGHG, ZEP. (2011). The costs of CO 2 storage—post demonstration CCS in the EU. Tech. rep., IEA greenhouse gas R & D programme (IEAGHG) and european technology platform for zero emission power plants (ZEP). Belgium: Brussels.

  26. IETA (2012). Briefing on the EU’s emissions trading scheme. Tech. rep.,International Emissions Trading Association.

  27. IPCC (2005). IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Tech. rep., intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), Internet:Accessed: 31 July 2009.

  28. Kazmierczak, T., Brandsma, R., Neele, F., Hendriks, C. (2008). Algorithm to create a CCS low-cost pipeline network. Energy Procedia 1 (1), 1617–1623, greenhouse gas control technologies 9, proceedings of the 9th international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies (GHGT-9), (pp. 16–20). Washington DC, USA: November 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kemp, A., & Kasim, S. (2012). The Economics of CO2-EOR Cluster Developments in the UK Central North Sea/Outer Moray Firth. North Sea Study Occational Paper, 123, 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Klokk, O., Schreiner, P., Pagès-Bernaus, A., Tomasgard, A. (2010). Optimizing a CO2 value chain for the Norwegian continental shelf. Energy Policy, 38, 6604–6614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Institut, Öko (2012). Potenziale und Chancen der Technologie zur CO2- Abtrennung und Ablagerung (CCS) für industrielle Prozessemissionen [in German]. Study for the world wildlife. Tech. rep. Institut for Applied Ecology.

  32. Kobos, P.H., Malczynski, L.A., Borns, D.J., McPherson, B.J. (2007). The ’String of Pearls’: The Integrated Assessment Cost and Source-Sink Model. The 6th Annual Carbon Capture & Sequestration Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, May 7–10, 2007.

  33. Kuby, M.J., Bielicki, J.M., Middleton, R.S. (2011). Optimal spatial deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage given a price on carbon dioxide.

  34. Kuramochi, T., Ramírez, A., Turkenburg, W., Faaij, A. (2012). Comparative assessment of CO2 capture technologies for carbon-Intensive industrial processes. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 38 (1), 87–112.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McPherson, B., Allis, R., Biediger, B., Brown, J., Cappa, G. (2009). Southwest regional partnership on carbon sequestration. Revised semiannual report. New Mexico institute of mining and technology, Socorro. USA: New Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mendelevitch, R. (2013). The Role of CO2-EOR for the Development of a CCTS Infrastructure in the North Sea Region: A Techno-Economic Model and Application. Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin. German Institute for Economic Research, 1308, 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Middleton, R., Herzog, H., Keating, G., Kuby, M., Liao, X. (2007). Optimization for geologic carbon sequestration and carbon credit pricing. Sixth annual conference on carbon capture & sequestration.

  38. Middleton, R.S., & Bielicki, J.M. (2009). A scalable infrastructure model for carbon capture and storage: SimCCS. Energy Policy, 37 (3), 1052–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. MIT (2012). Carbon capture and sequestration technologies @ MIT. Carbon apture and sequestration project database. Tech. rep., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. URL http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.htmlAccessed:7thOctober2013.

  40. Neele, F., Hendriks, C., Brandsma, R. (Feb. 2009). Geocapacity: economic feasibility of CCS in networked systems. Energy Procedia, 1 (1), 4217–4224. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610209008753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Oei, P.-Y., Herold, J., Tissen, A. (2011). CO2 Speicherung in Deutschland: Eine Brückentechnologie als Klimaloesung? [in German]. Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft, 35 (4), 263–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Platts (January 2011). Power system database Europe. The McGraw-Hill companies.

  43. Radoslaw, T., Barbara, U.-M., Adam, W. (2009). CO2 storage capacity of deep aquifers and hydrocarbon fields in Poland—EU GeoCapacity project results. Energy Procedia, 1 (1), 2671–2677.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. RECCS. (2010). RECCS plus: comparison of renewable energy technologies with carbon dioxide capture and storage. Tech. rep., federal ministry for the environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). Germany: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rubin, E.S., Yeh, M.A., Berkenpas, M., Davison, J. (2007). Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 1 (2), 188–197.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tavoni, M., & van der Zwaan, B. (2011). Nuclear Versus Coal plus CCS: a comparison of two competitive base-Load climate control options. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 16, 431–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tzimas, E. (2009). The cost of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects in Europe. Tech. rep., JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, European Commission.

  48. VGB (2011). Geplante Neubauprojekte in der EU [in German]. Tech. rep. VGB PowerTech e, V.

  49. WorleyParsons, Schlumberger. (2011). Economic assessment of carbon capture and storage technologies: 2011 update. Tech. rep., The Global CCS Institute. Australia: Camberra.

    Google Scholar 

  50. ZEP. (2011a). The costs of CO 2 Capture. Post Demonstration CCS in the EU. Tech. rep., European technology platform for zero emissions fossil fuel power plants. Zero Emissions Platform. Belgium: Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  51. ZEP. (2011b). The costs of CO 2 transport. Post demonstration CCS in the EU. Tech. rep., European technology platform for zero emissions fossil fuel power plants. zero emissions platform. Belgium: Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pao-Yu Oei.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 7 Definition of indices, parameters, and variables of CCTS-Mod
Table 8 Estimated CO2 storage potential
Fig. 10
figure 10

Storage by sector in million tCO2 and infrastructure investment and variable costs in billion €, On50

Fig. 11
figure 11

Storage by sector in million tCO2 and infrastructure investment and variable costs in billion €, On100

Fig. 12
figure 12

Storage by sector in million tCO2 and infrastructure investment and variable costs in billion €, Off100

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oei, PY., Herold, J. & Mendelevitch, R. Modeling a Carbon Capture, Transport, and Storage Infrastructure for Europe. Environ Model Assess 19, 515–531 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-014-9409-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-014-9409-3

Keywords

  • Carbon capture
  • CCS
  • Modeling
  • Infrastructure
  • CO2-mitigation
  • MIP