IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bcc/wpaper/2013-07.html

Evaluation of Two Alternative Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies: A Stochastic Model

Author

Listed:
  • Luis M. Abadie
  • Ibon*Galarraga and Dirk*Rübbelke

Abstract

In this paper we evaluate two alternative CCS technologies of a coal-fired power plant from an investor’s point of view. The first technology uses CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) paired with storage in deep saline formations (DSP) and the second one just stores CO2 in DSF. For projects of this type there are many sources of risk, and three sources of uncertainty stand out: the price of electricity, the price of oil and the price of carbon allowances. In this paper we develop a general stochastic model that can be adapted to other projects such as enhanced gas recovery (EGR) or industrial plants that use CO2 for either EOR or EGR with CCS. The model is calibrated with UK data and applied to help understand the conditions that generate the incentives needed for early investments in these technologies. Additionally, we analyse the risks of these investments.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis M. Abadie & Ibon*Galarraga and Dirk*Rübbelke, 2013. "Evaluation of Two Alternative Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies: A Stochastic Model," Working Papers 2013-07, BC3.
    • Handle: RePEc:bcc:wpaper:2013-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.bc3research.org/h6T8Uy8Nm4gFs0O/201409220941501606742634.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:aen:journl:32-3-a07 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Gunnar Luderer & Valentina Bosetti & Michael Jakob & Marian Leimbach & Jan Steckel & Henri Waisman & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2012. "The economics of decarbonizing the energy system—results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 9-37, September.
    3. Lohwasser, Richard & Madlener, Reinhard, 2012. "Economics of CCS for coal plants: Impact of investment costs and efficiency on market diffusion in Europe," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 850-863.
    4. Shackley, Simon & Waterman, Holly & Godfroij, Per & Reiner, David & Anderson, Jason & Draxlbauer, Kathy & Flach, Todd, 2007. "Stakeholder perceptions of CO2 capture and storage in Europe: Results from a survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 5091-5108, October.
    5. Abadie, Luis M. & Chamorro, José M., 2008. "European CO2 prices and carbon capture investments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2992-3015, November.
    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. Knoope, M.M.J. & Ramírez, A. & Faaij, A.P.C., 2015. "The influence of uncertainty in the development of a CO2 infrastructure network," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 332-347.
    3. Luis Mª Abadie & José M. Chamorro, 2017. "Valuation of Real Options in Crude Oil Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Narita, Daiju & Klepper, Gernot, 2015. "Economic incentives for carbon dioxide storage under uncertainty: A real options analysis," Kiel Working Papers 2002, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    5. Josué M. Polanco-Martínez & Luis M. Abadie, 2016. "Analyzing Crude Oil Spot Price Dynamics versus Long Term Future Prices: A Wavelet Analysis Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Vögele, Stefan & Rübbelke, Dirk & Mayer, Philip & Kuckshinrichs, Wilhelm, 2018. "Germany’s “No” to carbon capture and storage: Just a question of lacking acceptance?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 205-218.

    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. Vögele, Stefan & Rübbelke, Dirk & Mayer, Philip & Kuckshinrichs, Wilhelm, 2018. "Germany’s “No” to carbon capture and storage: Just a question of lacking acceptance?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 205-218.
    2. Eide, Jan & de Sisternes, Fernando J. & Herzog, Howard J. & Webster, Mort D., 2014. "CO2 emission standards and investment in carbon capture," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 53-65.
    3. Rübbelke, Dirk & Vögele, Stefan, 2013. "Effects of carbon dioxide capture and storage in Germany on European electricity exchange and welfare," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 582-588.
    4. 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.
    5. Dirk*Rübbelke and Stefan*Vögele, 2013. "Time and tide wait for no man: pioneers and laggards in the deployment of CCS," Working Papers 2013-13, BC3.
    6. Spiecker, S. & Eickholt, V. & Weber, C., 2014. "The impact of carbon capture and storage on a decarbonized German power market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 166-177.
    7. Stephan Spiecker & Volker Eickholt, 2013. "The Impact Of Carbon Capture And Storage On A Decarbonized German Power Market," EWL Working Papers 1304, University of Duisburg-Essen, Chair for Management Science and Energy Economics, revised Oct 2013.
    8. Jin, S.W. & Li, Y.P. & Nie, S. & Sun, J., 2017. "The potential role of carbon capture and storage technology in sustainable electric-power systems under multiple uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 467-480.
    9. Lotze-Campen, Hermann & von Witzke, Harald & Noleppa, Steffen & Schwarz, Gerald, 2015. "Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 79-84.
    10. Ruiz Estrada, Mario Arturo, 2013. "The Macroeconomics evaluation of Climate Change Model (MECC-Model): The case Study of China," MPRA Paper 49158, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Aug 2013.
    11. Veith, Stefan & Werner, Jörg R. & Zimmermann, Jochen, 2009. "Capital market response to emission rights returns: Evidence from the European power sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 605-613, July.
    12. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    13. Hermann Held, 2019. "Cost Risk Analysis: Dynamically Consistent Decision-Making under Climate Targets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 247-261, January.
    14. Mo, Jian-Lei & Schleich, Joachim & Zhu, Lei & Fan, Ying, 2015. "Delaying the introduction of emissions trading systems—Implications for power plant investment and operation from a multi-stage decision model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(PB), pages 255-264.
    15. van der Zwaan, Bob & Kober, Tom & Calderon, Silvia & Clarke, Leon & Daenzer, Katie & Kitous, Alban & Labriet, Maryse & Lucena, André F.P. & Octaviano, Claudia & Di Sbroiavacca, Nicolas, 2016. "Energy technology roll-out for climate change mitigation: A multi-model study for Latin America," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 526-542.
    16. Audoly, Richard & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Guivarch, Céline & Pfeiffer, Alexander, 2018. "Pathways toward zero-carbon electricity required for climate stabilization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 884-901.
    17. Audrey Laude & Christian Jonen, 2011. "Biomass and CCS: The influence of the learning effect," Working Papers halshs-00829779, HAL.
    18. Standardi, Gabriele & Cai, Yiyong & Yeh, Sonia, 2017. "Sensitivity of modeling results to technological and regional details: The case of Italy's carbon mitigation policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 116-128.
    19. Lennox, James A. & Witajewski-Baltvilks, Jan, 2017. "Directed technical change with capital-embodied technologies: Implications for climate policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 400-409.
    20. Zhang, Shuwei & Bauer, Nico & Yin, Guangzhi & Xie, Xi, 2020. "Technology learning and diffusion at the global and local scales: A modeling exercise in the REMIND model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bcc:wpaper:2013-07. 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: Sergio Henrique Faria (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.bc3research.org/ .

    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.