Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CO2 storage”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

A Hierarchical Framework for CO2 Storage Capacity in Deep Saline Aquifer Formations

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage in deep saline aquifers is a vital option for CO 2 mitigation at a large scale. Determining storage capacity is one of the crucial steps toward large-scale deployment of CO 2 storage. Results of capacity assessments tend toward a consensus that sufficient resources are available in saline aquifers in many parts of the world. However, current CO 2 capacity assessments involve significant inconsistencies and uncertainties caused by various technical assumptions, storage mechanisms considered, algorithms, and data types and resolutions. Furthermore, other constraint factors (such as techno-economic features, site suitability, risk, regulation, social-economic situation, and policies) significantly affect the storage capacity assessment results. Consequently, a consensus capacity classification system and assessment method should be capable of classifying the capacity type or even more related uncertainties. We present a hierarchical framework of CO 2 capacity to define the capacity types based on the various factors, algorithms, and datasets. Finally, a review of onshore CO 2 aquifer storage capacity assessments in China is presented as examples to illustrate the feasibility of the proposed hierarchical framework.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

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↗
DOE OSTI2022

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↗