### Abstract

This study aims to provide a systematic overview and comparison of capital and O&M costs models for CO_{2} pipelines and booster stations currently available in literature. Our findings indicate significantly large cost ranges for the results provided by the different cost models. Two main types of capital cost models for pipeline transport were found in literature, models relating diameter to costs and models relating mass flow to costs. For the nine diameter based models examined, a capital cost range is found of, for instance, 0.8-5.5M€_{2010}/km for a pipeline diameter of 0.8m and a length of 25km. For the five mass flow based cost models evaluated in this study, a cost range is found of, for instance, 0.9-2.1M€_{2010}/km for a mass flow of 750kg/s over 25km (TRUNK-25). An important additional factor is that all capital costs models for CO_{2} pipeline transport, directly or indirectly, depend on the diameter. Therefore, a systematic overview is made of the various equations and parameter used to calculate the diameter. By applying these equations and parameters to a common mass flow, height difference and length result in diameters between 0.59 and 0.91m for TRUNK-25. The main reason for this range was different assumptions about specific pressure drop and velocity. Combining the range for diameter, mass flow and diameter based cost models gives a capital and levelized cost range which varied by a factor 10 for a given mass flow and length. The levelized cost range will further increase if the discrepancy in O&M costs is added, for which estimations vary between 4.5 and 75€/m/year for a pipeline diameter of 0.8m. On top of this, most cost models underestimate the capital costs of CO_{2} pipelines. Only two cost models (namely the models who relate the costs to the weight of the pipeline) take into account the higher material requirements which are typically required for CO_{2} pipelines. The other sources use existing onshore natural gas pipelines as the basis for their cost estimations, and thereby underestimating the material costs for CO_{2} pipelines. Additionally, most cost models are based on relatively old pipelines constructed in the United States in the 1990s and early 2000s and do not consider the large increase in material prices in the last several years. Furthermore, key model characteristics are identified for a general cost comparison of CCS with other technologies and a system analysis over time. For a general cost comparison of CCS with other technologies, pipeline cost models with parameters which have physical or economic meaning are the preferred option. These are easy to interpret and can be adjusted to new conditions. A linear cost model is an example of such an model. For a system analysis over time, it is advised to adapt a pipeline cost model related to the weight of the pipeline, which is the only cost model that specifically models thickness of the pipeline and include material prices, to incorporate the effect of impurities and pipeline technology development. For modeling booster station costs, a relation between capacity and costs including some economies of scale seems to be the most appropriate. However, the cost range found in literature is very large, for instance, 3.1-3.6M€_{2010} for a booster station with a capacity of 1.25MW_{e}. Therefore, validation of the booster station cost is required before such models are applied in further research.

Original language | English |
---|---|

Pages (from-to) | 241-270 |

Number of pages | 30 |

Journal | International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control |

Volume | 16 |

DOIs | |

Publication status | Published - 1 Aug 2013 |

Externally published | Yes |

### Keywords

- Booster stations
- CCS
- CO pipeline
- Cost model
- Transport

## Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A state-of-the-art review of techno-economic models predicting the costs of CO<sub>2</sub> pipeline transport'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

## Cite this

_{2}pipeline transport.

*International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control*,

*16*, 241-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.01.005