Info

Figure 4.4 Transport costs derived from various information sources for offshore and onshore pipelines. Costs exclude possible booster stations, applying a capital charge rate of 15% and a load factor of 100% (IEA GHG, 2002; Hendriks et al., 2005; Bock, 2003; Sarv, 2000; 2001a; 2001b; Ormerod, 1994; Chandler, 2000; O&GJ, 2000)

IEA GHG (2004) estimates a considerable lower investment for a liquefaction facility, namely US$ 80 million for 6.2 Mt yr-1. Investment costs are reduced to US$ 30 million when carbon dioxide at 100 bar is delivered to the plant. This pressure level is assumed to be delivered from the capture unit. Cost estimates are influenced by local conditions; for example, the absence of sufficient cooling water may call for a more expensive ammonia driven cooling cycle. The difference in numbers also reflects the uncertainty accompanied by scaling up of such facilities

A detailed study (Statoil, 2004) considered a marine transportation system for 5.5 Mt yr-1. The base case had 20 kt tankers with a speed of 35 km h-1, sailing 7600 km on each trip; 17 tankers were required. The annual cost was estimated at US$ 188 million, excluding linquefaction and US$ 300

Figure 4.5 Transport costs for onshore and offshore pipelines per 250 km. High (broken lines) and low range (continuous lines) are indicated.

Mass flow rate (MtC02yr1)

Figure 4.5 Transport costs for onshore and offshore pipelines per 250 km. High (broken lines) and low range (continuous lines) are indicated.

Figure 4.6 Costs, plotted as transportation cost in US$/tCO2 against distance, for onshore and offshore pipelines, and ship transport. The costs include intermediate storage facilities, harbour fees, fuel costs and loading/unloading activities. Costs also include additional costs for liquefaction compared to compression. There is a capital charge factor of 11% for all transport options.

Figure 4.6 Costs, plotted as transportation cost in US$/tCO2 against distance, for onshore and offshore pipelines, and ship transport. The costs include intermediate storage facilities, harbour fees, fuel costs and loading/unloading activities. Costs also include additional costs for liquefaction compared to compression. There is a capital charge factor of 11% for all transport options.

million, including liquefaction, decreasing to US$ 232 million if compression is allowed (to avoid double counting). The corresponding specific transport costs are 34, 55, and 42 US$ t-1. The study also considered sensitivity to distance: for the case excluding liquefaction, the specific costs were 20 US$ t-1 for 500 km, 22 US$ t-1 for 1500 km, and 28 US$ t-1 for 4500 km.

A study on a comparable ship transportation system carried out for the IEA shows lower costs. For a distance of 7600 km using 30 kt ships, the costs are estimated at 35 US$ t-1. These costs are reduced to 30 US$ tonne-1 for 50 kt ships. The IEA study also showed a stronger cost dependency on distance than the Statoil (2004) study.

It should be noted that marine transport induces more associated CO2 transport emissions than pipelines due to additional energy use for liquefaction and fuel use in ships. IEA GHG (2004) estimated 2.5% extra CO2 emissions for a transport distance of 200 km and about 18% for 12,000 km. The extra CO2 emissions for each 1000 km pipelines come to about 1 to 2%.

Ship transport becomes cost-competitive with pipeline transport over larger distances. Figure 4.6 shows an estimate of the costs for transporting 6 Mt yr-1 by offshore pipeline and by ship. The break-even distance, i.e. the distance for which the costs per transport mode are the same, is about 1000 km for this example. Transport of larger quantities will shift the break-even distance towards larger distances. However, the cross-over point beyond which ship transportation becomes cheaper than pipeline transportation is not simply a matter of distance alone. It involves many other factors, including loading terminals, pipeline shore crossings, water depth, seabed stability, fuel cost, construction costs, different operating costs in different locations, security, and interaction between land and marine transportation routes.

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Guide to Alternative Fuels

Guide to Alternative Fuels

Your Alternative Fuel Solution for Saving Money, Reducing Oil Dependency, and Helping the Planet. Ethanol is an alternative to gasoline. The use of ethanol has been demonstrated to reduce greenhouse emissions slightly as compared to gasoline. Through this ebook, you are going to learn what you will need to know why choosing an alternative fuel may benefit you and your future.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment