Representing Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage Network Investments within Power System Planning Models

Maxwell Brown (), Matthew Irish, Daniel Steinberg, Tamar Moss, Daniel P. Cherney, Travis Shultz, David Morgan, Alexander Zoelle and Thomas Schmitt
Additional contact information
Maxwell Brown: Department of Economics and Business, Colorado School of Mines, Engineering Hall, 816 15th St, Golden, CO 80401, USA
Matthew Irish: Our Next Energy, Novi, MI 48377, USA
Daniel Steinberg: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA
Tamar Moss: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA
Daniel P. Cherney: ExxonMobil Technology and Engineering Company, Spring, TX 77389, USA
Travis Shultz: National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA
David Morgan: National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, USA
Alexander Zoelle: National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, USA
Thomas Schmitt: National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA

Energies, 2024, vol. 17, issue 15, 1-24

Abstract: Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) capture and storage (CCS) is frequently identified as a potential component to achieving a decarbonized power system at least cost; however, power system models frequently lack detailed representation of CO 2 transportation, injection, and storage (CTS) infrastructure. In this paper, we present a novel approach to explicitly represent CO 2 storage potential and CTS infrastructure costs and constraints within a continental-scale power system capacity expansion model. In addition, we evaluate the sensitivity of the results to assumptions about the future costs and performance of CTS components and carbon capture technologies. We find that the quantity of CO 2 captured within the power sector is relatively insensitive to the range of CTS costs explored, suggesting that the cost of CO 2 capture retrofits is a more important driver of CCS implementation than the costs of transportation and storage. Finally, we demonstrate that storage and injection costs account for the predominant share of total costs associated with CTS investment and operation, suggesting that pipeline infrastructure costs have limited influence on the competitiveness of CCS.

Keywords: carbon capture and storage; power system modeling; electricity systems (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/15/3780/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/15/3780/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:15:p:3780-:d:1447076

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().