Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CO2 Storage Costs”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2

Reduced Order Costs for CO 2 Saline Storage for Use in Energy Market Models

This report provides the results of a collaboration between NETL, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and FECM headquarters personnel. NETL's FECM/NETL CO 2 Saline Storage Cost Model (CO2_S_COM) and LANL's Sequestration of CO 2 Tool (SCO 2 T) model were run with the same assumptions to generate costs for 314 potential storage formations in the U.S. The two models gave similar results. The results from CO2S_COM were then aggregated into a smaller number of costs that can be utilized in energy market models. The report has a companion spreadsheet called red_ord_costs_CO2_S_COM with the reduced order costs. The spreadsheet can be viewed online here: https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=fb6d93df-0702-47aa-8147-59a5ae0c7cfd

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NETL’s Techno-Economic Models for Assessing CO2 Pipeline Transport and Geologic Storage

Presentation at Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Workshop: Future Energy Roadmap – Navigating Through the Energy Transition, held in Galveston, Texas, August 22-23, 2022. The presentation provides an overview of the techno-economic models NETL has developed for assessing performance characteristics and cost drivers for CO2 pipeline transport (FECM/NETL CO2 Transport Cost Model or CO2_T_COM), CO2 saline storage (FECM/NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model or CO2_S_COM), and oil production and CO2 storage using CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR) (FE/NETL CO2 Prophet Model or CO2_Prophet and FE/NETL Onshore CO2 EOR Cost Model or CO2_E_COM). A high-level description of each model is presented along with useful outputs that can be generated with each model. These tools can be used individually to evaluate the economic opportunity for specific CCUS components, or they can be used in tandem to assess an integrated CCUS value chain.

Morgan, David↗

Overview of the Geoanalytical Economic Evaluation of Saline Storage (GEESS) System

This report provides an overview on the Geoanalytical Economic Evaluation of Saline Storage (GEESS) system which characterized 57 geologic saline formations targeted for geologic carbon storage across the lower-48 U.S. states using publicly available resources. The GEESS system consists of high spatial resolution datasets (up to 5 km grid spacing) that provide key geologic parameters (e.g., depth, thickness, permeability), and estimates of CO 2 plume size and CO 2 first-year break-even price that were determined by exercising GEESS data through the FECM/NETL CO 2 Saline Storage Cost Model (CO2_S_COM). The GEESS geodatabase is available on NETL’s EDX at GEESS Geodatabase.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

GEESS as a Mechanism to Facilitate the Commercialization of Geologic Carbon Sequestration

This is a presentation featuring an overview of the Geoanalytical Economic Evaluation of Saline Storage (GEESS) project and latest results. The GEESS project has worked towards characterizing 57 geologic saline formations targeted for geologic carbon sequestration (GCS) using publicly available datasets. The GEESS system consists of high spatial resolution datasets (up to a 5 km grid spacing) that characterize critical geologic parameters such as depth, thickness, porosity, permeability, fracture pressure, and more. Further, GEESS geologic data were exercised using the FECM/NETL Saline Storage Cost Model (CO2_S_COM) to estimate CO2 plume sizes and the first-year break-even price of CO2 at the grid point level. GEESS is now available on NETL’s Energy Data Exchange (EDX).

Eppink, Jeffrey↗

Systems Analysis of Biomass and Coal Co-firing Power Plants with Deep Carbon Capture Toward Net-zero Emissions

Achieving a net-zero emission economy in the United States requires integrating diverse low-carbon and negative-emission technologies into the existing fossil fuel-dominant power fleet. Potential technologies from the low-carbon portfolio include renewable power, fossil power with carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), and direct air capture (DAC). Renewable power is a clean energy source but has to pair with costly battery storage to provide dispatchable electricity. Fossil power with CCS offers dispatchable electricity yet still relies on DAC to offset residual emissions, even when deploying deep CCS with more than 90% CO2 capture. Coal-biomass co-firing with CCS, a subset of BECCS, is a reliable energy production technology that can be retrofitted from existing electricity generation units (EGUs). Power plant retrofit maximizes the use of the current U.S. coal power fleet without the need for large-scale deployment of new renewable power, battery storage, or DAC. Retrofitting coal-biomass co-firing with deep CCS in EGUs is a promising option, but not a universal solution. Biomass co-firing at a power plant introduces economic challenges and indirectly poses pressure on land and water resources. Meanwhile, retrofitting deep CCS affects plant efficiency and raises electricity generation costs. Overall, the technical feasibility and economic viability of plant retrofits vary across EGUs, as they are contingent upon the regional availability of biomass, unit-specific characteristics, site-specific fuel supply costs, and adjacent CO2 storage potential. Government incentives like 45Q can improve the retrofit viability, though the impact requires further quantification. A comprehensive analysis at the unit level is essential to address the question regarding the fate of the U.S. coal-fired electricity generation fleet toward the net-zero emission goal. This study conducts a systematic techno-economic-environmental assessment of EGUs to identify the viability of biomass co-firing and deep CCS retrofits in the U.S. coal-fired power fleet. Specifically, it characterizes the techno-economic performance of deep carbon capture, estimates life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and conducts a fleet-level assessment on retrofit viability. The key objectives are (1) to estimate the unit-specific performance and retrofitted cost under various biomass co-firing levels and CO2 capture rates; (2) to determine the possibility of reaching net-zero emission at the fleet level; (3) to quantify the cumulative capacities that are suitable for plant retrofits under current and future biomass supply scenarios; and (4) to improve the understanding of policy impacts on such retrofits to help the power sector’s transition to a net-zero economy. Techno-economic Model of Deep Carbon Capture. This study develops the performance and economic models for Monoethanolamine-based post-combustion CO2 capture at 95–99% capture rates. The process is simulated in Aspen Plus, analyzing the performance of carbon capture technology by varying the plant sizes, solvent lean loading, CO2 concentrations, and flue gas inlet temperature. Based on the key inputs and output parameters of CO2 capture, a reduced-order performance model of deep carbon capture is formulated. In addition, an engineering-economic model integrating the performance metrics is developed to estimate the capital as well as operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Capital cost estimations follow the framework of the Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM) and incorporate data regressions from three technical reports by IECM, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The O&M cost estimation utilizes the actual inventory consumption rate and labor requirements. Both performance and cost models are embedded into IECM v13.0-beta, a fossil-fuel power plant modeling tool. Life Cycle Assessment of Power Plants. This study estimates the GHG emissions of power plants through life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA scope includes fuel supply, combustion-based power generation, and CO2 transport and storage. The fuel-based life cycle module is designed following the framework of the NETL Unit Process Library and CO2U LCA Guidance Toolkit. The module is then incorporated into IECM v13.0-beta. The process-based LCA is applied to estimate the GHG emissions of coal and biomass supply, coal- and coal-biomass co-firing power plant operation, as well as CO2 pipeline transport and geographical sequestration. An uncertainty analysis is conducted to quantify the variability and uncertainty associated with the LCA using the Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) method. Fleet-level Assessment. This study evaluates the technical and economic feasibility of selected coal-fired EGUs, examines the role of tax credits in retrofit viability, and assesses the competitiveness of retrofitted units against other low-carbon options. Unit screening identifies EGUs for the study, focusing on new, efficient baseload units with air pollution controls. The power plant databases are then established to organize unit-specific information on performance and operating conditions from the relevant public databases. Biomass for co-firing retrofits is selected based on home and neighboring county availability, ensuring sustained operation with at least a 5% co-firing level. The CO2 storage site is determined by state-level storage potential, with ArcGIS Pro and NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model used to identify the optimal balance between the nearest transport distances and affordable storage costs. The latest IECM v13.0-beta is then employed to configure and evaluate the eligible EGUs with or without the deployment of deep CCS and biomass co-firing. A supply curve is established to illustrate the cumulative installed capacity suitable for retrofits at different cost levels. A sensitivity analysis on tax credits for carbon sequestration is performed. Finally, a unit-level cost comparison is conducted among retrofitted plants, renewable power with battery storage, and abated fossil fuels with DAC. Expected Results. This study evaluates the technical, economic, and environmental metrics of each EGU across an array of CO2 capture rates and biomass co-firing level scenarios. Unit-level comparisons will identify critical factors influencing technical performance. The supply curves with and without tax incentives will provide insights into the impact of tax credits on biomass co-firing and CCS deployment. The cost comparisons with renewables and DAC-retrofit will assess the competitiveness of the retrofitted units. Life cycle emissions from each unit will be assessed to identify the scenarios under which net-zero emissions can be achieved. These analyses are expected to determine the total coal-fired capacity suitable for serving as a low-carbon energy source with or without tax incentives. The study results are novel in identifying optimal unit-specific strategies for producing carbon-neutral power, whether through retrofitting EGUs with deep CCS, biomass co-firing, DAC, or installing renewable power with battery. The findings will provide insight into nationwide efforts to ensure reliable, affordable, and low-carbon electricity. It also will inform investment decisions and policies in the deployment of deep carbon capture and negative emission technologies for a net-zero energy future.

Biomass Co-firing↗

Enhanced Rock Weathering for Carbon Dioxide Removal: Life Cycle Analysis and Techno-Economic Assessment

The study models enhanced rock weathering (ERW) using minerals such as basalt and olivine in terrestrial environments. Our analysis shows potential for ERW CO2 removal and storage costs to approach US$ 100 per tonne (t) of CO2 removed and stored under certain conditions (2023 dollars). In the environmental analysis, the 100-year global warming potential impact with igneous rock and industrial waste materials ranges from 34–263 and 23–180 kg CO2-eq per tonne of CO2 removed and stored, respectively (these values result in overall emissions (removed minus emitted) between –977 and –737 kg CO2-eq net removed per tonne of CO2 removed and stored, meaning for every tonne of CO2 removed by ERW, after accounting for the CO2 equivalent emissions from the GWP, the overall emissions are negative.

Priyadarshini, NFN [NETL Site Support Contractor, ↗

Site Selection and Cost Estimation of Pilot-Scale CO2 Saline Storage Study in the Gulf of Mexico

Presentation at NETL Carbon Management Project Review Meeting held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 15–19, 2022. The presentation provides a high-level overview of initial conceptual analysis evaluating site selection, geologic assessment, infrastructure, and project cost considerations associated with the development of pilot-scale CO2 storage projects in the offshore Gulf of Mexico.

Wijaya, Nur↗

Application of Modified Meshgraphnets for Subsurface Prediction during CO2 Sequestration

In the face of the increasingly dire consequences of anthropogenic climate change, capturing and storing carbon dioxide is paramount. However, several impediments exist to the safe and effective subsurface storage of CO2, such as cost of transport, identification of suitable sites for subsurface storage, and assessment of long-term risk from storage in subsurface aquifers. Accurate subsurface modeling is necessary to ensure that CO2 storage is both safe and effective. Still, such modeling has traditionally required either substantial time and computational power (numerical simulation) or a substantial amount of pre-existing data for training (machine learning models). Additionally, these models lack flexibility in dealing with both changes in discretization of the input data and generalizability beyond the data on which they are trained. In order to address these issues, this research applies graph neural networks (GNNs) to predict subsurface saturation and pressure during CO₂ injection in a model of the Illinois Basin-Decatur Project (IBDP). GNNs provide a flexible, intuitive method for representing and manipulating complex unstructured data, which is often found in many practical domain problems such as fluid flow and subsurface characterization. These unstructured grids are easily represented in GNNs by representing spatially-localized features such as permeability, porosity, saturation, and pressure as nodes in a graph and relationships between these properties as edges connecting these nodes. This research applies a specific GNN model called MeshGraphNets (MGN) to model the change in CO2 saturation and pressure over a 50-month time period (36 months of injection, 14 months post-injection). The MGN model leverages a message passing process that allows the network to learn both the spatial and temporal dynamics of this system simultaneously. Additionally, training on a limited dataset (64 realizations, 20 time points each) resulted in a high degree of accuracy in saturation prediction both within the same timeframe as the training (20 months, 0.039 average RMSE) and when projecting out to the end of injection (36 months, 0.053 average RMSE). Temporal predictions such as those generated by MGNs and other similar models are prone to accumulated error over time; in order to address this, a multi-step rollout (MSR) training process was applied to calculate training loss. This method mimics the forward prediction during inference by “rolling out” multiple time points in a single training step using the previous prediction as input to the MGN model. By calculating the loss several time steps forward from the current prediction, the model is forced to find a more stable state over time. Application of MSR to the MGN model resulted in an average 15% reduction in inference error over time during forward prediction. This study showcases the immense potential of GNNs as a game-changing methodology for predicting pressure and saturation evolution in CCS projects, ultimately paving the way for more sustainable and effective carbon storage solutions. Presentation prepared for the 2024 AiChE Annual Meeting, October 27 to November 1 2024, San Diego, CA.

Holcomb, Paul↗

Transport Cost for Carbon Removal Projects With Biomass and CO2 Storage

Strategies to remove carbon from the atmosphere are needed to meet global climate goals. Promising strategies include the conversion of waste biomass to hydrogen, methane, liquid fuels, or electricity coupled with CO 2 capture and storage (CCS). A key challenge for these projects is the need to connect geographically dispersed biomass supplies with geologic storage sites by either transporting biomass or CO 2 . We assess the cost of transport for biomass conversion projects with CCS using publicly available cost data for trucking, rail, and CO 2 pipelines in the United States. We find that for large projects (order of 1 Mt/yr CO 2 or greater), CO 2 by pipeline is the lowest cost option. However, for projects that send most of the biomass carbon to storage, such as gasification to hydrogen or electricity production, biomass by rail is a competitive option. For smaller projects and lower fractions of carbon sent to storage, such as for pyrolysis to liquid fuels, CO 2 by rail is the lowest cost option. Assessing three plausible example projects in the United States, we estimate that total transport costs range from $24/t-CO 2 stored for a gasification to hydrogen project traversing 670 km to $\$ 36$/t for a gasification to renewable natural gas project traversing 530 km. In general, if developers have flexibility in choosing transport mode and project type, biomass sources and storage sites can be connected across hundreds of kilometers for transport costs in the range of $20-40/t-CO 2 stored. Truck and rail are often viable modes when pipelines cannot be constructed. Distances of 1,000 km or more can be connected in the same cost range when shared CO 2 pipelines are employed.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

A Geospatial Cost Comparison of CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) Power and Geologic CO2 Storage

CO 2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) power plants can use gigatonne-levels of CO 2 sequestration to generate electricity, but it is unknown if the resources that support low-cost CPG power align with the resources that support low-cost CO 2 sequestration. Here, we estimate and compare the geospatially-distributed cost of CPG and CO 2 storage across a portion of North America. We find that the locations with lowest-cost CO 2 storage are different than the locations with lowest-cost CPG. There are also locations with low-cost CO 2 storage (<$5/tCO 2 ) that do not support CPG power generation due to insufficient reservoir transmissivity or temperature. Thus, CPG development may require electricity prices that are greater than the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) to offset the increased cost of sequestration. We introduce the “Additional Cost of Electricity (ACOE)” metric to account for this cost and add it to the LCOE to calculate breakeven electricity prices that are required for CPG development. We find that breakeven prices are lower when new CO 2 injection wells are drilled specifically for CPG (i.e., “greenfield” CPG development) compared to if only existing CO 2 sequestration injection wells are used (i.e., “brownfield” CPG development). This is because comparatively few wells are needed for sequestration-only, and the increased power capacity from having more CPG wells outweighs the increased costs from more drilling. We also find that sequestered CO 2 could be used to approximately triple the United States geothermal electricity power capacity via a single CPG “sweet spot” in South Dakota, but that breakeven electricity price for this development is on the order of $200/MW e h.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

CO2 Storage Economic Analysis: CarbonSAFE Use Case

Poster on “CO2 Storage Economic Analysis: CarbonSAFE Use Case” for the CCUS 2025 conference held in Houston, Texas March 3-5, 2025. The cost of designing, permitting, constructing, operating, and closing a CO2 storage project is of vital importance to project developers. The National Energy Technology Laboratory has developed the NRAP/SMART Technoeconomic and Liability Evaluation for Storage (TALES) Model to provide quantitative cost-based insights to support developers planning CO2 injection and storage projects. This study presents a collaborative economic analysis applying TALES with data from the San Juan Basin CarbonSAFE Phase III project led by the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology to estimate potential costs incurred during the implementation of a real-world commercial-scale carbon storage project. Scenario analysis was implemented in which different operational and cost attributes were varied and the associated cost implications observed. Key results data and project cost summary metrics, first-year breakeven price of CO2 ($/tonne) and net present value (NPV), are presented for base and alternative cases. Output provides a unique perspective for project stakeholders towards evaluating the influence of different operational strategies and financing approaches on overall project cost and financial viability.

carbon storage↗

Carbon Capture, Transport, And Storage (CTS) Cost Modeling Of The Onshore Gulf Coast

The onshore Gulf of Mexico region presents significant opportunities for CO2 capture, transport, and storage due to its numerous CO2 sources, such as power plants, refineries, and its substantial CO2 storage potential. However, operators face critical decisions in designing an efficient and cost-effective CO2 pipeline network. This study examines the economic implications of two primary strategies: constructing a trunkline with excess initial capacity versus developing dedicated pipelines incrementally as new CO2 sources come online. Building a trunkline first offers the advantage of future-proofing the network, allowing for the accommodation of increased CO2 volumes from various sources over time. However, this approach incurs higher upfront costs and risks underutilizing the transport capacity in the initial stages, potentially resulting in economic inefficiencies. Conversely, constructing dedicated pipelines for each new CO2 source as it becomes operational may avoid the initial overcapacity issue but fails to capitalize on the economies of scale. This could lead to higher overall costs due to the duplication of infrastructure and increased complexity in network management. This research employs a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, integrating factors such as capital expenditure, operational costs, projected CO2 volumes, and potential economies of scale. Through this analysis, we aim to provide operators with insights into the most economically viable strategy for CO2 pipeline network design in the region. The findings underscore the importance of strategic planning and highlight the trade-offs between immediate capacity utilization and long-term cost savings, ultimately guiding stakeholders towards informed decision-making in the development of CO2 transport infrastructure. Presented at the 41st USAEE/IAEE North American Conference, 3-6 November 2024, Baton Rouge, LA, United States.

Shih, Chung Yan↗

CO2 Capture from Biofuels Production and Storage into the Mt Simon Sandstone

Advanced carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies offer significant potential for reducing anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while minimizing the cost of employing these technologies. Under the Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage (ICCS) Program, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) collaborated with industry in cost-sharing arrangements to demonstrate technologies that captured CO2 emissions from industrial sources and either stored or beneficially re-use them. The technologies included in the ICCS program progressed beyond the research and development stage to a scale that can be deployed into commercial practice within the industry. The Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage (IL-ICCS) project sought to demonstrate the ability of the Mt. Simon Sandstone to accept and retain industrial-scale volumes of carbon dioxide (CO2) from an anthropogenic source for permanent geologic sequestration. The project was a collaboration of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) Company, the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), Schlumberger Carbon Services (SCS), and Richland Community College (RCC), and had average annual injection rate of between 1,500 and 2,400 metric tons per day (MTPD) or 0.5 to 0.7 million metric tons (MMT) annually. The project site is in Decatur, Illinois on the property of ADM and RCC (Fig 1) and is directly adjacent to the Illinois Basin – Decatur Project (IBDP), a large scale pilot project of the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC), which collected and injected CO2 from the ADM fuel ethanol production unit, where high purity biogenic CO2 is produced during the anaerobic fermentation of sugars to alcohol. The IL-ICCS project had an operational period of approximately six (6) years, in which 3.5 MMT of CO2 was captured, compressed, injected, and permanently stored in the Mt Simon Sandstone.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Cryogenic Carbon Capture™ (CCC) Status Report

The Cryogenic Carbon Capture™ (CCC) process separates CO2 from light gases in essentially any continuous process. CCC cools the gases to the frost or desublimation point of CO2 (-100 to -135 °C), separates and pressurizes the solids, and warms all streams to produce a CO2-depleted stream at ambient pressure and a pure (99+%) pressurized liquid CO2 stream typically to about 150 bar, both at ambient temperature. The process also recovers all gas moisture and most gas impurities less volatile than CO2 (NOx, SOx, Hg, PM, UHC, CCC, etc.) in separable streams. CCC nearly eliminates refrigeration energy for sensible temperature changes through heat integration. CCC does require energy to change the CO2 phase from a mixed vapor to a pressurized fluid, which represents the minimum energy required of any process for this separation. CCC uses additional energy for turbomachinery inefficiencies, heat losses, moisture removal and overall process pressure drop. Aside from these real-world energy demands, CCC operates near the minimum energy required to perform this gas separation by minimizing stream recycling. CCC compresses CO2 as a liquid, which is one of several reasons it costs about about half as much and consumes about half as much energy as an amine process when using flue gases with about 15% CO2. The process also has several major additional advantages, including (a) it is a bolt-on retrofit technology that does not need steam or any modification of existing equipment, (b) it recovers water and nearly all pollutants in addition to CO2 from the flue gas, (c) it enables highly efficient and cost effective energy storage at grid scale and on time scales of minutes, (d) it enables NG storage if the energy storage option is used, and (d) it has a small footprint and is minimally disruptive to existing plants, requiring only electrical power and a gas source to operate. Sustainable Energy Solutions (SES) has scaled this technology through several levels, the largest of which captures nominally 1 tonne of CO2/day and is called the skid system. Skid system field tests include utility-scale power plants, cement plants, heating plants, and other utility or industrial sites that burn natural gas, biomass, coal, shredded tires, municipal waste, and combinations of these fuels. These field tests produced 95-99% CO2 capture with CO2 purities of 99+% and initial CO2 contents that range from 4 to 28%. SES currently seeks to scale the system to merchant scale (10-80 tonnes of CO2 per day). In the process of doing so, SES has demonstrated the potential for CCC to contribute to energy storage and direct air capture in innovative and cost-effective ways. This presentation discusses the overall process and highlights results from field and in-house tests. These include (a) measured CO2 capture rates and operating conditions from in-house and field tests, and (b) predicted utility-scale costs and energy demands. This discussion also includes the application of the CCC technology to energy storage and direct air capture.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗