- Boolean operators
- This OR that
This AND that
This NOT that
- Must include "This" and "That"
- This That
- Must not include "That"
- This -That
- "This" is optional
- This +That
- Exact phrase "This That"
- "This That"
- (this AND that) OR (that AND other)
- Specifying fields
- publisher:"Publisher Name"
author:(Smith OR Jones)
Perspectives on CCS Cost and Economics
- Haroon S. Kheshgi (ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company) | Hans Thomann (ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company) | Nazeer A. Bhore (Exxon Mobil Corporation) | Robert B. Hirsch (ExxonMobil Gas and Power Marketing Company) | Michael E. Parker (ExxonMobil Production Company) | Gary Teletzke (ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Economics & Management
- Publication Date
- January 2012
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 24 - 31
- 2012. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 2.5.1 Global Climate Change/CO2 Capture and Management
- ghg, carbon, CCS, climate change
- 14 in the last 30 days
- 852 since 2007
- Show more detail
Focus on carbon capture and storage (CCS) has grown over the past decade with recognition of CCS's potential to make deep CO2-emission reductions and that fossil fuels will continue to be needed to supply much of the world's energy demands for decades to come. How CCS will compare with other options in the future depends critically on the cost of CCS (the focus of this paper) and resolution of barriers to CCS deployment and costs and barriers for other emission-reduction options.
This paper provides a comparison of the cost of electricity of five power-generation options--coal-and-gas-combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) with and without CCS and nuclear--and shows regions of carbon price and fuel prices where each can be economically viable.
Current cost estimates for coal CCS for nth-of-a-kind power-generation plant are in the USD 60 to 100/t of CO2 avoided, which is higher than some of the earlier CCS estimates, and higher than the generally accepted range of expected carbon prices in the next 2 decades. The high cost of coal CCS suggests that
- Gas-based power generation is significantly more economical than coal CCS at carbon prices less than USD 60 to 100/t CO2.
- Even after carbon prices reach USD 60 to 100/t CO2, gas CCS produces lower-cost electricity than coal CCS, as long as natural-gas prices remain less than USD 9/1,000 Btu.
- Nuclear has a lower cost of electricity than coal CCS.
Although coal or gas CCS is unlikely to be economical in power generation over the next 2 decades, subsidized demonstrations of CCS are likely to occur. In addition, components of CCS technologies will continue to be economically practiced in early-use segments [e.g., natural-gas processing and enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) operations]. In the natural-gas-processing industry, CO2 separation cost is a fraction of the cost of CO2 capture in power generation because of its higher gas pressure, and the CO2 separation is typically necessary to monetize the natural-gas resource.
In contrast, CCS for most refinery and industrial emissions is expected to be significantly more costly than in power generation because the CO2 streams are typically smaller scale and more distributed than those from large power plants.
Realistic cost estimates for CCS and for other greenhouse-gas (GHG) mitigation options are an important input for focusing research, development, and demonstration addressing barriers to applications that show the greatest promise and for development of sound policy.
Al-Juaied, M. and Whitmore, A. 2009. Realistic Costs of Carbon Capture.Discussion Paper 2009-08, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (July 2009), http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/960194-GpDT0k/960194.pdf.
Brock, W.R. and Bryan, L.A. 1989. Summary Results of CO2 EORField Tests, 1972-1987. Paper SPE 18977 presented at the Low PermeabilityReservoirs Symposium, Denver, 6-8 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18977-MS.
Burgers, W.F.J., Northrop, P.S., Kheshgi, H.S., and Valencia, J.A.2010. Worldwide development potential for sour gas. Paper presented atthe 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT10), Amsterdam, 19-23 September.
Connors, S.R., Hezir, J.S., McRae, G.S., Michaels, H., and Ruppel, C.2010. The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
DECC. 2010. UK Electricity Generation Costs Update. Assessment SummaryReport, Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC)/Mott MacDonald,Brighton, United Kingdom (June 2010), http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/Projections/71-uk-electricity-generation-costs-update-.pdf.
Duke Energy. 2010. Duke Energy: Edwardsport IGCC Plant to Cost 23% More.POWERnews, 21 April 2010, http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/Duke-Energy-Edwardsport-IGCC-Plant-to-Cost-23-percent-More_2639.html.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009. Assumptions to the AnnualEnergy Outlook 2009. Cost and Performance Characteristics of New CentralElectricity Generating Technologies. Annual Report No. DOE/EIA-0554(2009), USDOE/EIA, Washington, DC (March 2009), http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo09/assumption/index.html.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2010a. Assumptions to the AnnualEnergy Outlook 2010. Electricity Market Module. Annual Report No.DOE/EIA-0554(2010), US DOE/EIA, Washington, DC (9 April 2010). http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/electricity.html.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2010b. Updated Capital CostEstimates for Electricity Generation Plants. Annual Report, Office of EnergyAnalysis, US DOE/EIA, Washington DC (November 2010), http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/pdf/updatedplantcosts.pdf.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2010c. Electric PowerMonthly. Monthly Report No. DOE/EIA-0226 (2010/02), Office of Coal, Nuclear,Electric and Alternate Fuels, US DOE/EIA, Washington, DC (February 2010), http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/archive/pdf/02261002.pdf.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Report of the Interagency TaskForce on Carbon Capture and Storage. Final Report, US DOE/EPA, Washington, DC(August 2010), http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/CCS-Task-Force-Report-2010.pdf.
Figueroa, J.D., Fout, T., Plasynski, S., McIlvried, H., and Srivastava, R.D. 2008. Advances in CO2 capture technology--The U.S.Department of Energy's Carbon Sequestration Program. Int. J. Greenhouse GasControl 2 (1): 9-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1750-5836(07)00094-1.
Flannery, B.P. and Kheshgi, H.S. 2004. An industry perspective on successfuldevelopment and global commercialization of innovative technologies for GHGmitigation. Paper presented at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeWorkshop on Industry Technology Development, Transfer and Diffusion, Tokyo,21-23 September
Global CCS Institute. 2011. The Global Status of CCS: 2010. Annual Report,Global CCS Institute, Canberra, Australia (8 March 2011), http://cdn.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/12776/global-status-ccs-2010.pdf.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2010. Coal Power Plants:Opportunities Exist for DOE to Provide Better Information on the Maturity ofKey Technologies to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Report to CongressionalRequesters No. GAO-10-675, US GAO, Washington, DC (June 2010), 69, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10675.pdf.
Grubler, A. 2009. An assessment of the costs of the French nuclear PWRprogram 1970-2000. IIASA Interim Report IR-09-036, International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (6 October 2009), http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-09-036.pdf.
Hamilton, M.R., Herzog, H.J., and Parsons, J.E. 2009. Cost and U.S. publicpolicy for new coal power plants with carbon capture and sequestration.Energy Procedia 1 (1): 4487-4494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.266.
Hargrove, B., Melzer, L.S., and Whitman, L. 2010. A Status Report onNorth American CO2 EOR Production and CO2 Supply.Presentation given at the 16th Annual CO2 Flooding Conference,Midland, Texas, USA, 9-10 December.
Herzog, H., Smekens, K., Dadhich, P., et al. 2005. Cost and economicpotential. In IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,ed. B. Metz, O. Davidson, H.D. Coninck, M. Loos, and L. Meyer, 442. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.
IEA and OECD-NEA. 2010. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity,2010 edition. Paris, France: International Energy Agency (IEA).
IEA. 2004. Prospects for CO2 Capture and Storage, 252. Paris, France:International Energy Agency (IEA)/OECD.
IEA. 2009. Power generation in the 450 scenario. In World Energy Outlook2009, Chap. 7. Paris, France: International Energy Agency (IEA). http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2009/weo2009.pdf.
IHS CERA. 2009. Capital Costs Analysis Forum--North American Power, http://www.ihs.com/products/energy-capital-costs-analysis/north-american-power.aspx.
IHS CERA. 2010. Fueling North America's Energy Future: The UnconventionalNatural Gas Revolution and the Carbon Agenda. Final Report, IHS CambridgeEnergy Research Associates, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 105.
IHS CERA. 2011. Cost Fundamentals: Clean Technology Advancement. Appendix:Cost and Performance Assumptions, Spring 2011. Final Report, IHS CambridgeEnergy Research Associates, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Kaplan, S. 2008. Power Plants: Characteristics and Costs. CRS Report forCongress, Order Code RL34746, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC(13 November 2008), http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34746.pdf.
Kelley, B.T., Valencia, J.A., Northrop, P.S., and Mart, C.J. 2010.Controlled Freeze Zone™ Technology for Developing Sour Gas Reserves. Paperpresented at the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas ControlTechnologies, Amsterdam, 19-23 September.
Kheshgi, H.S. and Prince, R.C. 2005. Sequestration of fermentationCO2 from ethanol production. Energy 30 (10):1865-1871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.11.004.
Markandya, A., Halsnaes, K., Lanza, A. et al. 2001. Costing Methodologies.In Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, ed. B. Metz, Chap. 7, 451-487.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Metz, B., Davidson, O., Coninck, H.D., Loos, M., and Meyer, L. ed.2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MIT. 2007. The Future of Coal: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal.pdf
Parker, M.E., Valencia, J., Northrop, S., Foglesong, B., and Duncan, W.T.2009. CO2 Management at ExxonMobil's LaBarge Field, Wyoming, USA.Paper IPTC 13258 presented at the International Petroleum TechnologyConference, Doha, Qatar, 7-9 December. http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/13258-MS.
Power Engineering. 2010. IGCCcostwrap. Power-Eng, 19 March 2010, http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2010/03/igcc-cost-wrap.html.(formerly "IGCC power plant cost top $5,500/kW," Power-GenWorldwide)
PowerAdvocate. 2010. Annual Capital Investment Report (26 February 2010).PowerAdvocate Cost Intelligence, http://marketing.poweradvocate.com/cost.
Rubin, E.S., Yeh, S., Antes, M., Berkenpas, M., and Davison, J. 2006.Estimating Future Costs of CO2 Capture Systems Using Historical ExperienceCurves. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Greenhouse GasControl Technologies (GHGT-8), Trondheim, Norway, 19-22 June.
Simbeck, D. 2005. Hydrogen costs with CO2 capture. InGreenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 7th InternationalConference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 5-9 September 2004,Vancouver, Canada, ed. M. Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale, and K. Thambimithu,Vol. 2, 1059-1066. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Simbeck, D. 2009. Near-Term Technologies for Retrofit CO2 Captureand Storage of Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants in the United States. Presentedat the MIT Symposium on Retrofitting of Coal-Fired Power Plants forCO2 Emissions Reductions, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 23 March2009.
Sweatman, R.E., Parker, M.E., and Crookshank, S.L. 2009. IndustryExperience With CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology. Paper SPE126446 presented at the SPE International Conference on CO2 Capture,Storage, and Utilization, San Diego, California, USA, 2-4 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/126446-MS.
Thambimuthu, K.Soltanieh, M.Abanades, J.C., et al. 2005. Capture ofCO2. In IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture andStorage, ed. B. Metz, O. Davidson, H.D. Coninck, M. Loos, and L. Meyer,Chap. 3, 106-178. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/special-reports/.files-images/SRCCS-Chapter3.pdf.
van Straelen, J., Geuzebroek, F., Goodchild, N., Protopapas, G., and Mahony,L. 2010. CO2 capture for refineries, a practical approach. Int. J.Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2): 316-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.09.022.
Ventyx. 2010. North American Power Reference Case. Presented at the 2010Spring Workshop, New York, 21 May.
Wilkinson, J.R., Leahy-Dios, A., Teletzke, G.F., and Dickson, J.L. 2010. Useof CO2 Containing Impurities for Miscible Enhanced Oil Recovery. Paper SPE131003 presented at the International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition inChina, Beijing, 8-10 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/131003-MS.
Woods, M.C., Capicotto, P.J., Haslbeck, J.L. et al. 2007. Cost andPerformance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants. Volume 1: Bituminous Coal andNatural Gas to Electricity. Final Report DOE/NETL-2007/1281, National EnergyTechnology Laboratory, US DOE, Washington, DC (May 2007), http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/assets/pdfs/cctr/NETL-BituminousReport-2007.pdf.
WorleyParsons. 2009. Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon andStorage. Report 2: Economic Assessment of Carbon Capture and StorageTechnologies. Final Report, Global CCS Institute, Canberra, Australia (May2009). http://cdn.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/5751/report-2-economic-assessment-carbon-capture-and-storage-technologies.pdf
Yeh, S. and Rubin, E.S. 2010. Uncertainties in Technology Experience Curvesfor Energy-Economic Models. Proc., NAS Workshop on Assessing theEconomic Impacts of Climate Change, April 2010, 76-91.
Not finding what you're looking for? Some of the OnePetro partner societies have developed subject- specific wikis that may help.
The SEG Wiki
The SEG Wiki is a useful collection of information for working geophysicists, educators, and students in the field of geophysics. The initial content has been derived from : Robert E. Sheriff's Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Geophysics, fourth edition.