The UK 2050 Calculator Web Flash Excel Wiki
Register or sign in
This is a wiki Anyone can contribute, therefore we don't vouch for its accuracy.

XVIII Carbon Storage Costs

Return to the page.

Showing all changes since 2011-04-27 17:25:06 UTC

See all changes since this wiki was released




Title: 2050 Carbon Capture

Content: h1 Lead and sign-off

2050 Costs team lead - Michael Clark 

Working-level analyst - Selcan Kayihan (DECC)

Senior analyst - Rocio Concha

h1 Data sources


h1 Technologies costed in this sector

* CCS Storage

h1 CCS Storage

Costs summary (£ per MtCO2):

| Overall | Low     | High   |
| Capital | 436,133 | 37,224 |

h2 Current Calculator assumptions

* Investment occurs at the same carbon is stored

h2 Cost sources

* High = Oil/Gas field storage (coal) from Markal3.24Doc
* Low = EOR Storage (coal)from Markal3.24Doc

h1 Methodology

I decided to include this as a capital cost in a seperate sheet, although it's a function of energy used rather than a fixed one-off cost before production. In reality, creating the infrastructure will be a one off capital investment and the plant operator would presumably pay a fee to the owner per tonne of carbon stored in order to cover the initial investment. 

High costs were the final vintage in the spreadsheet and low costs were vintage 1 in the spreadsheet from Markal3.24Doc 

The Markal costs of carbon storage are included per PJ. I have interpreted this as meaning cost of storage per PJ of per unit of input fuel and taken a range for the CO2 emissions per TWh of input fuel (from Coal to Gas). High costs are the highest form of storage multiplied by the CO2 intensity of coal and low costs are the cheapest form of storage multiplied by the CO2 intensity of Gas.

h1 Issues, Concerns and Questions

* Very large range

* Should investments be brought forward to reflect a lag between new build and use

Category: 2050 pathway costs

User: Tom Counsell

Picture updated at: 

Signed off by: 

Signed off at:
Title: XVIII Carbon Storage Costs

Content: h1 Costs Summary

The cost of building carbon storage infrastructure. 

h2 Technology costs

* Carbon Storage - Please click on: Carbon Storage cost data

h1 Costs Methodology

h2 Methodology used

The user defines the amount of carbon captured through their choices on CCS power plants (I.b Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) Costs) and Industry emissions intensity (XI.a Industrial processes Costs). We then take the cost of storage as a function of MtCO2 captured under the chosen scenario in the year it is captured.

Please see 2050 Methodology for a full description of the costs approach in the Calculator.

h2 Methodology issues and uncertainty

* Investment ahead of time - One concern is that investments for carbon storage would have to take place several years ahead of time i.e. before carbon actually flows through pipes. Also, through using a cost as a function of MtCO2 we may be artifically flattening investment cost profiles and misrepresenting the timings of investment.

* Pipelines and Geographical location - The costs currently used are a function of CO2 and therefore we have assumed include both storage and transport costs, however this may be based on a series of assumptions on geographical location. ESME splits the costs of CO2 storage as follows:

# Geological storage = £7m/MtCO2
# Pipeline transport = £0.12m/MtCO2/year/km

* The 2050 Calculator currently does not make assumptions on geographical location of energy infrastructure, which it would be necessary to know in order to split out the costs of both transmission and storage of CO2. Assumptions on the location of industry with Carbon Capture, as well as power, would need to be estimated.

h1 Technical assumptions

The costs are not assumed to vary with the amount of CO2 stored. For information the model reports amount stored 2010-2050 compared with the available storage capacity []:

| Type                                                 | Low capacity (GtCO2) | High capacity (GtCO2) |
| Oil & Gas fields                                     | 7.4                  | 9.9                   |
| Triassic Bunter Sandstone Formation in the North Sea | 1.7                  | 16.7                  |
| Ten large aquifers offshore Scotland                 | 4.6                  | 46                    |

h1 Questions to Stakeholders

* We have implemented costs as a function of CO2 captured. Should we split costs out into transmission and cost of storage sites or would this require too many uncertain assumptions on the size of the transmission network and geographical location of carbon capture?

* Should we include decommissioning costs or are they immaterial and/or captured within storage costs?   

h1 General comments

User: Joseph Downie

Picture updated at: 

Signed off by: 

Signed off at: