IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v34y2012i5p1569-1579.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of geologic variability on capacity and cost estimates for storing CO2 in deep-saline aquifers

Author

Listed:
  • Eccles, Jordan K.
  • Pratson, Lincoln
  • Newell, Richard G.
  • Jackson, Robert B.

Abstract

While numerous studies find that deep-saline sandstone aquifers in the United States could store many decades worth of the nation's current annual CO2 emissions, the likely cost of this storage (i.e. the cost of storage only and not capture and transport costs) has been harder to constrain. We use publicly available data of key reservoir properties to produce geo-referenced rasters of estimated storage capacity and cost for regions within 15 deep-saline sandstone aquifers in the United States. The rasters reveal the reservoir quality of these aquifers to be so variable that the cost estimates for storage span three orders of magnitude and average>$100/tonne CO2. However, when the cost and corresponding capacity estimates in the rasters are assembled into a marginal abatement cost curve (MACC), we find that ~75% of the estimated storage capacity could be available for<$2/tonne. Furthermore, ~80% of the total estimated storage capacity in the rasters is concentrated within just two of the aquifers—the Frio Formation along the Texas Gulf Coast, and the Mt. Simon Formation in the Michigan Basin, which together make up only ~20% of the areas analyzed. While our assessment is not comprehensive, the results suggest there should be an abundance of low-cost storage for CO2 in deep-saline aquifers, but a majority of this storage is likely to be concentrated within specific regions of a smaller number of these aquifers.

Suggested Citation

  • Eccles, Jordan K. & Pratson, Lincoln & Newell, Richard G. & Jackson, Robert B., 2012. "The impact of geologic variability on capacity and cost estimates for storing CO2 in deep-saline aquifers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1569-1579.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:34:y:2012:i:5:p:1569-1579
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.11.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988311002891
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.11.015?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Middleton, Richard S. & Bielicki, Jeffrey M., 2009. "A scalable infrastructure model for carbon capture and storage: SimCCS," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1052-1060, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Viebahn & Emile J. L. Chappin, 2018. "Scrutinising the Gap between the Expected and Actual Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage—A Bibliometric Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-45, September.
    2. Zhang, Xiaodong & Duncan, Ian J. & Huang, Gordon & Li, Gongchen, 2014. "Identification of management strategies for CO2 capture and sequestration under uncertainty through inexact modeling," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 310-317.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kemp, Alexander G. & Kasim, Sola, 2013. "The economics of CO2-EOR cluster developments in the UK Central North Sea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1344-1355.
    2. Sun, Alexander Y., 2020. "Optimal carbon storage reservoir management through deep reinforcement learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    3. Massol, Olivier & Tchung-Ming, Stéphane & Banal-Estañol, Albert, 2018. "Capturing industrial CO2 emissions in Spain: Infrastructures, costs and break-even prices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 545-560.
    4. Pao-Yu Oei and Roman Mendelevitch, 2016. "European Scenarios of CO2 Infrastructure Investment until 2050," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Sustainab).
    5. Qianlin Zhu & Chuang Wang & Zhihan Fan & Jing Ma & Fu Chen, 2019. "Optimal matching between CO2 sources in Jiangsu province and sinks in Subei‐Southern South Yellow Sea basin, China," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 9(1), pages 95-105, February.
    6. Jeffrey M. Bielicki & Guillaume Calas & Richard S. Middleton & Minh Ha‐Duong, 2014. "National corridors for climate change mitigation: managing industrial CO 2 emissions in France," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 4(3), pages 262-277, June.
    7. Qian Wu & Qianguo Lin & Qiang Yang & Yang Li, 2022. "An optimization‐based CCUS source‐sink matching model for dynamic planning of CCUS clusters," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 12(4), pages 433-453, August.
    8. Adrien Nicolle & Diego Cebreros & Olivier Massol & Emma Jagu, 2023. "Modeling CO2 pipeline systems: An analytical lens for CCS regulation," Post-Print hal-04297191, HAL.
    9. Wang, Peng-Tao & Wei, Yi-Ming & Yang, Bo & Li, Jia-Quan & Kang, Jia-Ning & Liu, Lan-Cui & Yu, Bi-Ying & Hou, Yun-Bing & Zhang, Xian, 2020. "Carbon capture and storage in China’s power sector: Optimal planning under the 2 °C constraint," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    10. Sun, Liang & Chen, Wenying, 2017. "Development and application of a multi-stage CCUS source–sink matching model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P2), pages 1424-1432.
    11. Zhang, Shuai & Liu, Linlin & Zhang, Lei & Zhuang, Yu & Du, Jian, 2018. "An optimization model for carbon capture utilization and storage supply chain: A case study in Northeastern China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C), pages 194-206.
    12. Sun, Liang & Chen, Wenying, 2013. "The improved ChinaCCS decision support system: A case study for Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region of China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 793-799.
    13. Abdoli, B. & Hooshmand, F. & MirHassani, S.A., 2023. "A novel stochastic programming model under endogenous uncertainty for the CCS-EOR planning problem," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    14. Jayadev, Gopika & Leibowicz, Benjamin D. & Kutanoglu, Erhan, 2020. "U.S. electricity infrastructure of the future: Generation and transmission pathways through 2050," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    15. Kemp, Alexander G. & Sola Kasim, A., 2010. "A futuristic least-cost optimisation model of CO2 transportation and storage in the UK/UK Continental Shelf," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3652-3667, July.
    16. Suoton P. Peletiri & Nejat Rahmanian & Iqbal M. Mujtaba, 2018. "CO 2 Pipeline Design: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-25, August.
    17. Lilliestam, Johan & Bielicki, Jeffrey M. & Patt, Anthony G., 2012. "Comparing carbon capture and storage (CCS) with concentrating solar power (CSP): Potentials, costs, risks, and barriers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 447-455.
    18. Dai, C. & Cai, Y.P. & Li, Y.P. & Sun, W. & Wang, X.W. & Guo, H.C., 2014. "Optimal strategies for carbon capture, utilization and storage based on an inexact mλ-measure fuzzy chance-constrained programming," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 465-478.
    19. Xie, Qiyuan & Tu, Ran & Jiang, Xi & Li, Kang & Zhou, Xuejin, 2014. "The leakage behavior of supercritical CO2 flow in an experimental pipeline system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 574-580.
    20. Jagu Schippers, Emma & Massol, Olivier, 2022. "Unlocking CO2 infrastructure deployment: The impact of carbon removal accounting," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Carbon storage; Carbon sequestration; CCS; Geology; Resource evaluation; Marginal abatement;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q30 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q31 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Demand and Supply; Prices

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:34:y:2012:i:5:p:1569-1579. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.