Next Article in Journal
A Robust Battery Grouping Method Based on a Characteristic Distribution Model
Next Article in Special Issue
An Optimization Framework for Investment Evaluation of Complex Renewable Energy Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Study of Dielectric Breakdown Performance of Transformer Oil Based Magnetic Nanofluids
Previous Article in Special Issue
Design of a H Robust Controller with μ-Analysis for Steam Turbine Power Generation Applications
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of GHG Emission Reduction in South Korea Using a CO2 Transportation Network Optimization Model

1
Department of Industrial Engineering, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea
2
Business School, Kwangwoon University, 20 Kwangwoon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 01897, Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2017, 10(7), 1027; https://doi.org/10.3390/en10071027
Submission received: 26 January 2017 / Revised: 5 July 2017 / Accepted: 13 July 2017 / Published: 19 July 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Energy Production Systems)

Abstract

:
Korea’s national carbon capture and storage (CCS) master plan aims to commercialize CCS projects by 2030. Furthermore, the Korean government is forced to reduce emissions from various sectors, including industries and power generation, by 219 million tons by 2030. This study analyzes a few scenarios of Korean CCS projects with a CO2 pipeline transportation network optimization model for minimizing the total facility cost and pipeline cost. Our scenarios are based on the “2030 basic roadmap for reducing greenhouse gases” established by the government. The results for each scenario demonstrate that the effective design and implementation of CO2 pipeline network enables the lowering of CO2 units cost. These suggest that CO2 transportation networks, which connect the capture and sequestration parts, will be more important in the future and can be used to substitute and supplement the emission reduction target in case the execution of other reduction options faces uncertainty. Our mathematical model and scenario designs will be helpful for various countries which plan to introduce CCS technology.

1. Introduction

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has attracted considerable attention as an effective technology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in response to climate change concerns. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that CCS has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 19% by 2050. Since 1996, CCS technology has been actively applied and developed for oil and natural gas development projects in the United States, Canada, and the European Union (EU). CO2 underground storage is the most scientifically or technologically effective method for eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere. Moreover, it is regarded as the best approach in economic or industrial terms. Hence, developed countries, such as the United States, Australia, Japan, and several EU countries, have focused on promoting the commercialization of CCS as a next-generation technology to boost growth. The total annual global investment in CCS technology is around $1 billion, and it is expected to increase significantly by 2020. Thus, governments and private companies in technically advanced countries are jointly promoting CCS technology [1].
South Korea is attempting to develop several types of effective methods for reducing GHG emissions in response to climate change concerns. In December 2016, a detailed plan was presented for reducing the forecasted emissions by 37% (851 million tons) by 2030, following the announcement of the basic plan for climate change response. The main reduction policies include supplying renewable energy, expanding clean fuel generation, improving energy efficiency, implementing emissions trading, and evaluating international carbon market mechanisms [2]. To minimize the industrial burden, the GHG reduction rate (including industrial processes) should not exceed 12% of the “business-as-usual” (BAU) emissions. However, this target presents great difficulties for many companies that produce large amounts of GHGs. To overcome this problem, South Korea is pursuing CO2 reduction through a large-scale CCS project in order to boost growth through new energy industries.
This study focuses on analyzing the empirical effects of the CCS project being pursued in accordance with the climate change response plan of South Korea. A mathematical model is proposed to construct an optimal CCS network based on the given GHG emission sources, representative candidate sequestration sites, and facility construction–operation costs. In addition, according to the Ministry of Strategy and Finance [2], this study attempts to monitor the impact of the CCS project on the effectiveness of GHG reduction.
Carbon capture and storage, sometimes referred to as carbon capture and sequestration, is an emerging technology that can efficiently reduce CO2 emissions. According to Zhou et al. [3], CCS is widely regarded as a major means for reducing CO2 emissions from large point sources, such as fossil fuel power plants and energy intensive industries, such as the steel, petrochemical, and refining industries. The introduction of CCS is expected to not only reduce the industrial burden but also lower voluntary reduction targets.
An integrated CCS project involves three major steps: (1) capturing CO2 produced by large emission sources; (2) compressing the captured CO2 and then transporting it to an appropriate geographical site or deep saline aquifer via various modes (truck, pipeline, ship, or marine); and (3) injecting CO2 for long-term storage. CCS technology is expected to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 19% by 2050. Moreover, without CCS, the overall cost of halving CO2 emissions could increase by 70% by 2050 [4]. However, CCS represents a significant financial investment. According to a survey, Europe will invest $4–6 billion for developing 6–12 CCS projects, followed by the United States (approximately $4 billion for 5–10 projects), by 2020. Both developed and developing countries are attempting to identify appropriate ways to reduce investment for CCS projects by considering the associated high capital and operating costs.
As stated above, the key impediment to the introduction of CCS is the enormous budgetary investment. Various studies have focused more on the capture and sequestration aspects rather than on the transport aspect of CCS. Establishing an optimal transportation network is an important requirement considering the large investment required for CCS projects. Nevertheless, important issues related to CO2 pipelines remain to be addressed, including pipeline cost, pipeline installation sites, and relevant policies. Therefore, to maximize the GHG reduction effect of CCS projects, it is necessary to consider not only the national GHG reduction targets but also the economic aspects.
Over the last 15 years, many studies have been proposed to reduce CO2 emissions on the basis of CCS technologies [5,6,7]. Recently, a few studies have assessed the economics of large-scale CO2 transportation models by focusing on CO2 sources and geological storage reservoirs. For instance, Li et al. [8] focused on the data, methodology, and results of basin-scale CO2 storage capacity and CO2 point emission estimation in China. In Zhou et al. [3], Middleton and Bielicki [9], and Han et al. [10], the authors attempted to develop an optimal model for minimizing the overall cost of large-scale CCS projects. Specifically, Middleton and Bielicki [9] introduced a scalable infrastructure model for CCS (simCCS), considering all the components of CCS infrastructure using a single CO2 pipeline that directly connects a single source to a single sequestration site. Further, a mixed integer linear programing (MILP) model was applied to construct the proposed approach. Only one pipeline (of any size) is to be constructed on any potential arc. The author demonstrated simCCS by considering the 37 largest CO2 sources (21 natural gas power plants, one coal power plant, ten oil refineries, and five cement manufacturers) and 14 reservoirs (depleted oil fields). In Zhou et al. [3], a decomposition algorithm was proposed to solve the pipeline network problem by adding intermediate sites (such as pump stations). Further, a mixed integer programming (MIP) model was developed. A real-world case study in North China, involving 45 emissions sources and four storage sinks, was conducted to demonstrate the proposed model. In Han et al. [10], a multi-period model was proposed for maximizing the average annual profit of CCS infrastructure (including utilization, capture, storage, and sequestration facilities) over a long-term planning interval considering the disposal and utilization of CO2. In addition, the author referred to the concept of intermediate storage technologies that exist only to collect CO2 captured from emission sources within a particular region and load the collected CO2 for delivery by different transport modes.
Other existing studies on CCS transport networks in different regions around the world have assumed that CO2 flowing through a network is static throughout the life of the network. For example, steady-state optimization of CCS networks has been investigated in Australia [11,12] and the United States [13,14,15]. A major drawback of using a static network model is that it assumes that all CO2-emission sources are matched to sequestration sites with the same infrastructures (fixed capture capacity, storage capacity, and transport mode within unchanged transport networks) and that CO2 flow rates remain constant for the entire lifecycle. The CO2 infrastructures, including capture facilities, storage facilities, transport modes, and injection facilities, proposed in these studies would require significant upfront financial investment to achieve the predicted economies of scale in CO2 transport and avoidance costs [16].
According to the IEA, to achieve the 2 °C target, no more than one-third of the global proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed before 2050, unless CCS is widely deployed. In Europe, four large-scale integrated CCS projects have been implemented in different countries and industries, such as power generation and natural gas [17]. In the roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050, the European Commission (EC) suggests that costs will rise if investments in low-carbon technology are postponed, highlighting that CCS needs to be demonstrated and implemented without delay. The United States has indicated its strong interest in CCS technologies over the last two decades, such as the reduction of CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. Given the uncertainties in terms of the technical, economic, and environmental aspects, policies for developing CCS are key factors that could determine the future of this technology [18]. The growing portfolio of operating projects and a number of notable project milestones achieved in 2016 have shown that CCS is capable of not only preventing large quantities of CO2 from entering the atmosphere but also of storing CO2 securely and effectively [19].
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses the construction of the CCS network mathematical model. Section 3 describes the application of the proposed model to the Korean first basic plan on climate change. Six scenarios are assumed by considering the uncertainty in the CO2 reduction methods of various sectors. Finally, Section 4 states the conclusions and briefly explores directions for future research.

2. Mathematical Model

A mathematical approach is proposed for the design of a CO2 pipeline transportation network for large-scale CCS projects. This study focuses on designing CO2 pipeline transportation networks by inserting intermediate storage sites that connect CO2-emission plants and sequestration sites. In addition, emitted CO2 can be transported from one emission plant to another or from one intermediate storage site to another. Thus, several nodes can share a single pipeline to transport CO2. The pipeline transportation cost is determined by the pipeline diameter and length, as the maximum transport flow per unit time fluctuates with these parameters. The pipeline transport mode is different from the general transport mode. Basically, the transportation cost is directly proportional to the distance and the vehicle size is directly proportional to the transportation volume. A mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model was formulated to solve the proposed problem.
In general, a network with an existing degree of flow (such as commodities or information) can be designed in the origination-to-destination mode, as shown in Figure 1. Several sub-points should be taken into account: (1) where and when to insert intermediate storage sites; and (2) how, when and where to install how much and what size of pipeline. Pipelines can be built between CO2-emission sources, intermediate storage sites, and sequestration sites. In addition, they can be built between two different CO2-emission sources or intermediate storage sites. An intermediate storage site may offer significant economic and operational benefits when designing a pipeline network.

2.1. Assumptions

For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that (1) the sequestration site is located offshore and the injection capacity is unlimited; (2) each CO2 emission plant has the ability to capture and store CO2; (3) candidate intermediate storage sites are obtained by a heuristic algorithm in advance [20]; and (4) pipeline transport is the only transport mode.
The problem statement addressed in this study is as follows:
  • The entire CCS system is assumed to consist of several fixed CO2-emission sources, undetermined intermediate storage sites, and candidate offshore sequestration sites for a long time period.
  • The objective of the proposed problem is to minimize the total cost of CCS projects over the entire operating time. One of the most critical costs is the pipeline transportation cost, including the pipeline capital cost and pipeline operating cost. The pipeline cost functions are cited from National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) studies [21].
  • Flow may exist between two different emission plants or intermediate storage sites. In other words, there are four types of pipeline links: (1) emission source–emission source; (2) emission source–intermediate storage site; (3) intermediate storage site–intermediate storage site; and (4) intermediate storage site–sequestration site.
  • Standard pipeline diameters are employed and the distance between two different nodes is calculated as the Euclidean distance according to the latitude and longitude.
  • Net present value (NPV) calculation of the pipeline cost is used, and its ratio is set at 6% to reflect the case more realistically.

2.2. Model Description

Objective Function

The mathematical model aims to minimize the total relevant costs of the CCS project (Equation (1)), which can be categorized as follows: capital cost of building CO2 capture facility (Equation (2)) and infrastructure and operating expenses of CO2 pipeline (Equation (3)). Several types of constraints are involved in this model.
M i n i m i z e Z = TFC + TPC ,
TFC = t T i I ( CCF × N × C c a p i t × Y i t ) ,
TPC = PCC + POC ,
Equations (4)–(12) represent the pipeline infrastructure costs, which are determined by the diameter and length of the pipeline installed between two nodes.
PCC = t T ( TMTC t + TLC t + TMCC t + TRC t ) [ 1 ( 1 + r ) T t LT OT 1 + T t LT ( 1 + r ) OT + 1 ] ,
TMTC t = d D ( i , i I : i i MTCPP i i d t + i I , j J MTCPI i j d t + j , j J : j j MTCII j j d t + j J , k K MTCIS j k d t ) t T ,
TLC t = d D ( i , i I : i i LCPP i i d t + i I , j J LCPI i j d t + j , j J : j j LCII j j d t + j J , k K LCIS j k d t )      t T ,
TMCC t = d D ( i , i I : i i MCCPP i i d t + i I , j J MCCPI i j d t + j , j J : j j MCCII j j d t + j J , k K MTCIS j k d t ) t T ,
TRC t = d D ( i , i I : i i RCPP i i d t + i I , j J RCPI i j d t + j , j J : j j RCII j j d t + j J , k K RCIS j k d t )      t T ,
MTCPP i i d t = p P ZD i i d p t [ MTC 1 + MTC 2 PLPP i i ( MTC 3 PD d 2 + MTC 4 PD d + MTC 5 ) ] i , i I : i i , d D , t T ,
MTCPI i j d t = p P ZD i j d p t [ MTC 1 + MTC 2 PLPI i j ( MTC 3 PD d 2 + MTC 4 PD d + MTC 5 ) ] i I , j J , d D , t T ,
MTCII j j d t = p P ZD j j d p t [ MTC 1 + MTC 2 PLII j j ( MTC 3 PD d 2 + MTC 4 PD d + MTC 5 ) ]    j , j J : j j , d D , t T ,
MTCIS j k d t = p P ZD j k d p t [ MTC 1 + MTC 2 PLIS j k ( MTC 3 PD d 2 + MTC 4 PD d + MTC 5 ) ] j J , k K , d D , t T ,
LCPP i i d t = p P ZD i i d p t [ LC 1 + LC 2 PLPP i i ( LC 3 PD d 2 + LC 4 PD d + LC 5 ) ]          i , i I : i i , d D , t T ,
LCPI i j d t = p P ZD i j d p t [ LC 1 + LC 2 PLPI i j ( LC 3 PD d 2 + LC 4 PD d + LC 5 ) ]          i I , j J , d D , t T ,
LCII j j d t = p P ZD j j d p t [ LC 1 + LC 2 PLII j j ( LC 3 PD d 2 + LC 4 PD d + LC 5 ) ]          j , j J : j j , d D , t T ,
LCIS j k d t = p P ZD j k d p t [ LC 1 + LC 2 PLIS j k ( LC 3 PD d 2 + LC 4 PD d + LC 5 ) ]          j J , k K , d D , t T ,
MCCPP i i d t = p P ZD i i d p t [ MCC 1 + MCC 2 PLPP i i ( MCC 3 PD d + MCC 4 ) ]          i , i I : i i , d D , t T ,
MCCPI i j d t = p P ZD i j d p t [ MCC 1 + MCC 2 PLPI i j ( MCC 3 PD d + MCC 4 ) ]          i I , j J , d D , t T ,
MCCII j j d t = p P ZD j j d p t [ MCC 1 + MCC 2 PLII j j ( MCC 3 PD d + MCC 4 ) ] j , j J : j j , d D , t T ,
MCCIS j k d t = p P ZD j k d p t [ MCC 1 + MCC 2 PLIS j k ( MCC 3 PD d + MCC 4 ) ]          j J , k K , d D , t T ,
RCPP i i d t = p P ZD i i d p t [ RC 1 + RC 2 PLPP i i ( RC 3 PD d + RC 4 ) ]               i , i I : i i , d D , t T ,
RCPI i j d t = p P ZD i j d p t [ RC 1 + RC 2 PLPI i j ( RC 3 PD d + RC 4 ) ]              i I , j J , d D , t T ,
RCII j j d t = p P ZD j j d p t [ RC 1 + RC 2 PLII j j ( RC 3 PD d + RC 4 ) ]               j , j J : j j , d D , t T ,
RCIS j k d t = p P ZD j k d p t [ RC 1 + RC 2 PLIS j k ( RC 3 PD d + RC 4 ) ]              j J , k K , d D , t T ,
Equation (13) represents total operating costs of the pipeline and Equation (14) shows the detailed calculation of the operating cost of a pipeline connected between two nodes (CO2 emission sources, intermediate storage sites, and sequestration sites).
POC = t T ( d D ( i , i I : i i POCPP i i d t + i I , j J POCPI i j d t + j , j J : j j , POCII j j d t + j J , k K POCIS j k d t ) )          [ OT T t ( 1 + r ) T t ] ,
POCPP i i d t = PLPP i i UOCP d t τ = 1 t p P ZD i i d p τ       i , i I : i i , d D , t T ,
POCPI i j d t = PLPP i j UOCP d t τ = 1 t p P ZD i j d p τ       i I , j J , d D , t T ,
POCII j j d t = PLPP j j UOCP d t τ = 1 t p P ZD j j d p τ    j , j J : j j , d D , t T ,
POCIS j k d t = PLPP j k UOCP d t τ = 1 t p P ZD j k d p τ       j J , k K , d D , t T ,
Constraint (15) indicates the maximum amount of transported CO2 for a certain pipeline diameter per unit time, expressed in tons per hour.
Flow d = PD d 2 π 1 4 v Density d d D ,
Constraint (16) indicates the expanded pipeline capacity of each link in time period t, and the actual pipeline capacity of each arc can be obtained by Constraint (17).
PaddPP i i t = d D ( Flow d p P ZD i i d p t ) PLPP i i    i , i I : i i , t T ,
PaddPI i j t = d D ( Flow d p P ZD i j d p t ) PLPI i j i I , j J , t T ,
PaddII j j t = d D ( Flow d p P ZD j j d p t ) PLII j j    j , j J : j j , t T ,
PaddIS j k t = d D ( Flow d p P ZD j k d p t ) PLIS j k j J , k K , t T ,
PcapPP i i t = PcapPP i i t 1 + PaddPP i i t i , i I : i i , t T ,
PcapPI i j t = PcapPI i j t 1 + PaddPI i j t i I , j J , t T ,
PcapII j j t = PcapII j j t 1 + PaddII j j t j j J : j j , t T ,
PcapIS j k t = PcapIS j k t 1 + PaddIS j k t j J , k K , t T ,
Constraints (18) and (19) ensure that the flow rate of the transported CO2 does not exceed the maximum tolerance of the existing pipeline capacity.
X i i t PcapPP i i t i , i I : i i , t T ,
X i j t PcapPI i j t i I , j J , t T ,
X j j t PcapII j j t j , j J : j j , t T ,
X j k t PcapIS j k t j J , k K , t T ,
i I : i i X i i d t M Y i t   i I , d D , t T ,
i I : i i X i i d t M Y i t   i I , d D , t T ,
j J X i j d t M Y i t   i I , d D , t T ,
Constraints (20)–(22) represent the mass flow balance equations of the proposed model. The incoming flow should be equal to the outgoing flow at each node as well as in each stage.
i I : i i X i i t + Ccap i t = i I : i i X i i t + j X i j t i I , t T ,
j J : j j X j j t + i I X i j t = j J : j j X j j t + k X j k t j J , t T ,
i I Ccap i t = k K I k t t T ,
Constraints (23) and (24) represent the limit of the captured CO2 volume. The captured volume should be less than the emission volume but greater than the target volume.
Ccap i t EV i t i I , t T ,
TV t i I Ccap i t t T ,
Constraint (25) indicates that CO2 transportation should not occur at the same node. Constraint (26) determines whether a pipeline will be constructed. Finally, Constraint (27) is a non-negativity constraint.
PaddPP i i t , PcapPP i i t , X i i t = 0 i , i I : i = i , t T ,
PaddII j j t , PcapII j j t X j j t = 0 j , j J : j = j , t T ,
ZD i i d p t , ZD i j d p t , ZD j j d p t , ZD j k d p t , Y i t { 0 , 1 }       d D , i , i I : i i , j , j J : j j , k K , p P , t T ,
Ccap i t , PaddPP i i t , PaddPI i j t , PaddII j j t , PaddIS j k t , PcapPP i i t , PcapPI i j t , PcapII j j t , PcapIS j k t , X i i t , X i j t , X j j t , X j k t 0       i , i I : i i , j , j J : j j , k K , t T ,

3. Scenario Analysis

3.1. Data

The proposed CCS network optimization model is used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of CCS construction on the basis of South Korean CCS projects.
Since South Korea aims to commercialize CCS projects by 2030, this study selected thermal power plants and large-scale factories that would be operated on the basis of the relevant year when considering the candidate sites for emission sources.
With regard to large-scale factories, only the top seven producers of GHG emissions in South Korea were considered in our study. The geographical information and total amount of emissions for the candidate sites are summarized in Table 1.
The total amount of emissions of each candidate power plant was estimated on the basis of the generation capacity, and the industrial company was estimated through linear regression based on the history of emission volumes. On the other hand, information for the intermediate and sequestration sites is required to run the mathematical model. In Yun et al. [20], a heuristic algorithm was proposed to identify nodes using the central limit theorem. According to this algorithm, the information on the intermediate and sequestration sites is summarized in Table 2. The list of the pipeline costs according to factors [21] and pipeline lifespan is in Table 3.

3.2. Scenario Configurations

3.2.1. South Korea’s 2030 Basic National Roadmap for Greenhouse Gas Reductions

The Korean government published the “2030 basic roadmap for reducing greenhouse gases” [22] in 2016 and presented the emission reduction targets for each sector (see Table 4). In the conversion sector, it plans to reduce emissions by 35 million tons through a combination of low-carbon power sources, which reduce coal usage, and increased utilization of renewable and clean energy. In addition, it plans to reduce emissions by 12 million tons and 17.5 million tons through demand management and improved power generation and distribution efficiency, respectively.
In the industrial sector, it aims to reduce emissions by 56.4 million tons, i.e., a reduction of 11.7% compared to the BAU levels. Further, it plans to reduce emissions by 21.3 million tons through the early introduction of energy optimization technologies and the efficient operation of factory energy management systems. Moreover, it plans to reduce emissions by 14.8 million tons through the introduction of innovative technologies and the application of value-added products to energy-consuming industries. In addition, developing eco-friendly processes and employing eco-friendly fuels is expected to reduce emissions by 20.3 million tons. In the building sector, reduced energy consumption and increased use of high-efficiency lighting equipment could reduce emissions by 35.8 million tons. Furthermore, emissions can be reduced by 28.2 million tons by fostering new energy technologies, such as CCS technology, microgrids, and smart factories. In the transportation sector, it plans to reduce emissions by 25.9% by increasing the supply to environmentally friendly communities and strengthening the average fuel efficiency system. It also aims to attain a domestic reduction target of 219 million tons by reducing public waste.
In addition, the government has announced that it plans to reduce emissions by 96 million tons overseas, i.e., a reduction of 11.3% compared to the BAU levels, by 2030, through sustainable development mechanisms and direct carbon emission trading.

3.2.2. Scenario Description

Difficulties are anticipated in implementing the reduction targets set out in the national roadmap. To achieve the reduction targets by 2030, the related technologies should be developed and commercialized. However, specific implementation plans remain ambiguous. This study considers various scenarios in which CCS technology is used to substitute and supplement the emission reduction target for each sector, given the uncertainty in the development and commercialization of the related technology for each reduction target in each sector. It is assumed that the uncertainty rate is 30% of the target. In addition, this study tries to estimate the optimal CCS deployment network and costs in order to meet the reduction target level for each scenario.
The first scenario assumes that the development and commercialization of related technologies will proceed as planned in the implementation of the CO2 reduction targets, and only CCS technology would be used as presented in the national GHG reduction roadmap. As shown in Table 4, in terms of nurturing new energy industries, the Korean government aims to achieve a reduction of 10 million tons by 2030, by developing and commercializing CCS technology to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants and industries. The Korean government is preparing for a preemptive strategy in response to climate change concerns by intensively fostering new energy industries and intensively investing in it. However, many experts point out that the proliferation of microgrids and smart factories, and the utilization of unused heat, which are regarded as means for reducing emissions in the relevant sectors, will face many difficulties in implementing the target reductions by 2030, if the related technology development and improvement is not supported. Considering the uncertainty in implementing CO2 reductions by fostering new energy industries, a second scenario is recommended, i.e., the use of CCS technology to achieve 30% of the reduction target of 10.7 million tons, through the proliferation of microgrids and smart factories, and the utilization of unused heat.
A realistic way to reduce GHG emissions in the power generation sector is to reduce the generation of coal-fired power itself by increasing nuclear power generation and liquefied natural gas (LNG) power generation, or to reduce GHG emissions from coal-fired power as much as possible. However, there are many indications that the actual reduction is not sufficient owing to the high cost of LNG generation. In the third scenario, CCS technology replaces uncertainties in the implementation of reductions in the power sector. The Korean government also seeks to achieve its GHG emission reduction targets through increased use of eco-friendly vehicles in the transportation sector. However, problems related to the commercialization of related technologies of hybrid vehicles are often encountered, including mileage limitations due to the battery life of electric cars. Even in the case of hydrogen cars, it will be difficult to optimize their penetration rate by 2030, because global automobile companies are presently in the early stages of launching their initial models. Therefore, this paper formulates a fourth scenario to overcome the uncertainty in the implementation of the reduction target by adopting CCS technology.
The Korean government has presented a national roadmap to divide domestic and overseas reductions, and it has proposed a plan to actively use the global carbon award mechanism reduce emissions by 11.3% of the total BAU levels by adopting an emissions trading scheme. However, to ensure smooth implementation, it is necessary to fulfill certain preconditions, such as international agreements on reduction, the expansion of the global emissions trading market, and preparation of financing schemes. Specific plans for reduction are yet to be finalized. Therefore, significant difficulties are expected for the achievement of such high targets through overseas reduction activities or the international emissions market. A fifth scenario has been proposed, in which CCS technology is adopted to replace the overseas reduction target partially by considering the uncertainty in the implementation of overseas reductions. Finally, this study assumes the worst-case scenario as the sixth scenario and considers the uncertainty in the implementation of mitigation measures at the same time. In this scenario, it aims to establish an optimal CO2 transportation network under CCS technology to reduce emissions by a total of 57.72 million tons. In Table 5, it describes each scenario’s content and reduction targets.

3.3. Scenario Results

Table 6 and Figure 2 show the optimal CO2 transport network with the CO2 reduction amount and cost results for each scenario with the CCS network optimization model.
In scenario (a), to reduce emissions by 10 million tons, i.e., 3.3% of the forecasted CO2 emission rate in 2030, the best approach is to capture 8.3 million tons and 1.6 million tons of CO2 from Samcheok power plant (node 20) with 2000 MW generation capacity and Donghae power plant (node 1) with 400 MW generation capacity, then finally transport it to Samcheok Gate (sequestration site 1) through intermediate storage site 5. The total cost is $1.81 billion.
As scenario (b) aims to capture 13.21 million tons of CO2 and store it deep in the sea, the most efficient approach is to collect 8.7 million and 4.5 million tons of CO2 from Samcheock power plant (2000 MW generation capacity) and Bukpyeong power plant (1000 MW generation capacity), and to then store it in Samcheock Gate after transporting it through intermediate storage site 5. The estimated cost is around $2.4 billion.
Scenario (c) replaces some of the GHG emission reductions in the power sector with CCS technology. It is necessary to install a CO2 capturing facility at Tongyang Cement & Energy Corp., in addition to considering the Samcheock and Bukpyeong power plants considered in scenario (b). The most economical approach for this scenario is to construct a CCS network by capturing 7 million, 5 million, and 8.4 million tons of CO2 from the three sites, respectively, which is then transport through intermediate storage site 5 and stored at the Samcheok sequestration site, which is located deep in the sea. Toward this end, the total cost of the CCS network is estimated as $3.6441 million (pipeline construction cost, $0.38 million; pipeline operation cost, $0.0699 million; and CO2 capture and storage installation cost, $3.1966 million).
In scenario (d), CCS technology is applied as a complementary measure by considering that CO2-emission reduction through increased use of eco-friendly cars is not implemented smoothly. The required emission reduction target is 14.71 million tons. The optimal CCS operating model collects 14.71 million tons of CO2 from one site, namely Sangyong Cement Industrial Co., Ltd., and follows the same network as that used in the previous scenario to store the CO2 at Samcheok gate. The estimated cost is $2.5255 million.
Scenario (e) aims to reduce emissions by 38.8 million tons by adopting CCS technology, which is expected to partially account for the overseas reduction target of 96 million tons. The optimal network derived from the mathematical model collects the required CO2 volumes from two thermal power plants with 2000 MW generation capacity and two cement companies (Sangyong Cement Industrial Co., Ltd. (Donghae, Korea), and Tongyang Cement & Energy Corp. (Samcheok, Korea)). The total cost for CCS construction and operation and CO2 capture and storage is estimated to be around $7.132 million.
In scenario (f), CCS technology partially replaces the uncertainty in the emission targets for each sector of the national roadmap. A CO2 capture, transport, and storage network is required to reduce emissions by 57.7 million tons. Two networks need to be created to achieve the target reduction in scenario (f), which is different from the other scenarios. Figure 2 shows that one network should reduce emissions by around 32.4 million tons through one 2000 MW generation capacity plant, two cement factories, and one 400 MW capacity thermal power plant, and the other network should collect 25.3 million tons of CO2 from only one thermal power plant with a generation capacity of 2000 MW. The estimated total cost is $11.639 million, of which around 80% is for building CO2 capture and storage facilities.
A comparison of the CO2 unit cost (pipeline operating cost and capital cost) per scenario shows that the basic scenario (a) has the highest cost, and the reduction targets do not increase linearly with the costs. Thus, the reduction target could be met more efficiently if the reduction targets of the CCS project are considered by the Korean government, in addition to other reduction policies and targets, during the planning and decision-making process.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Global modeling efforts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the IEA highlight the importance of CCS in achieving a climate goal of a 2 °C reduction in global temperatures. In response to climate change concerns, CCS is regarded as a key component of GHG reduction solutions. If the objectives of the Paris Agreement are to be achieved, CCS must be integrated into the mainstream of climate mitigation actions to be undertaken by governments and businesses.
This study attempted to design an optimal pipeline transportation network for large-scale CCS projects. The objective of the proposed model is to minimize the total investment cost of CCS projects, including pipeline capital costs, operation costs, and facility costs, by assuming that the maximum flow in the pipeline changes with its length and diameter. In addition, to implement CCS projects in Korea’s master plan to tackle climate change, an optimal CCS network was proposed by considering the CO2 emission sources, candidate sequestration sites, and facility construction and operation cost data. Various scenarios for CCS projects were experimentally configured to realize different effects on CO2 reduction by analyzing the total investment.
The results of this research are helpful for the Korean government when deciding to utilize the CCS project as a complement to make up the reduction targets of other sectors, which are uncertain.
They will also serve as an important reference not only for planning CCS projects in South Korea, but also for enabling national and international policy makers to determine investment strategies for developing CCS networks for CO2 reduction.
In the future, the study plans to extend to CCS networks with different transportation modes besides pipelines. In addition, it plans to present a model that is more realistic and suitable for Korea by considering updated national policies and technologies.

Author Contributions

Suk Ho Jin developed the mathematical model and performed the experiments. Lianxi Bai performed the overall paperwork, Jang Yeop Kim provided secondary data, and Suk Jae Jeong conceived and analyzed the experimental sections of the paper. Kyung Sup Kim developed the overall concept and the basic outline of the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notations

Indices

iCO2-emission source number (i = 1, 2, …, I)
jCO2 intermediate storage site number (j = 1, 2, …, J)
ksequestration site number (k = 1, 2, …, K)
dpipeline diameter (d = 1, 2, …, D)
ppipeline number (p = 1, 2, …, P)
tperiod number (t = 1, 2, …, T)

Parameters

CCFcapital cost of building CO2 capture facilityt CO2/h
Densityddensity of CO2 transported via pipeline with diameter dKg/L
Flowdmaximum amount of CO2 transported per unit time via pipeline with diameter dt CO2/h
EVtiemission volume from each CO2-emisson source i per unit time in time period t-
LC1labor cost factor 1-
LC2labor cost factor 2-
LC3labor cost factor 3-
LC4labor cost factor 4-
LC5labor cost factor 5-
LTpipeline lifespan-
Ma large positive value-
MCC1miscellaneous cost factor 1-
MCC2miscellaneous cost factor 2-
MCC3miscellaneous cost factor 3-
MCC4miscellaneous cost factor 4-
MCC5miscellaneous cost factor 5-
MTC1material cost factor 1-
MTC2material cost factor 2-
MTC3material cost factor 3-
MTC4material cost factor 4-
MTC5material cost factor 5-
Nnumber of hours per year-
OTtotal operating time-
PDdpipeline diameter d-
PLIIjj’pipeline length between intermediate storage sites j and j’ (jj’)m
PLISjkpipeline length between intermediate storage site j and sequestration site km
PLPIijpipeline length between CO2-emission source i and intermediate storage site jm
PLPPii’pipeline length between CO2-emission sources i and i’ (ii’)m
rratio of NPV-
RC1right-of-way cost factor 1-
RC2right-of-way cost factor 2-
RC3right-of-way cost factor 3-
RC4right-of-way cost factor 4-
Ttconstruction time-
TVttarget reduction volume in time period t-
UOCPtdunit operating cost of pipeline with diameter d in time period t-
vspeed of flowm/h

Variables

Ccaptiamount of CO2 captured at emission source i in per unit time in time period tt CO2/h
Itkamount of CO2 injected at sequestration site k in time period tt CO2/h
LCIItjj’dlabor cost between intermediate storage sites j and j’ (j’ ≠ j) through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
LCIStjkdlabor cost between intermediate storage site j and sequestration site k through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
LCPItijdlabor cost between CO2-emission source i and intermediate storage site j through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
LCPPtii’dlabor cost between CO2-emission sources i and i’ (i’ ≠ i) through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
MCCIItjj’dmiscellaneous cost between intermediate storage sites j and j’ (j’ ≠ j) through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
MCCIStjkdmiscellaneous cost between intermediate storage site j and sequestration site k through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
MCCPItijdmiscellaneous cost between CO2-emission source i and intermediate storage site j through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
MCCPPtii’dmiscellaneous cost between CO2-emission sources i and i’ (i’ ≠ i) through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
MTCIItjj’dmaterial cost between intermediate storage sites j and j’ (j’ ≠ j) through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
MTCIStjkdmaterial cost between intermediate storage site j and sequestration site k through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
MTCPItijdmaterial cost between CO2-emission source i and intermediate storage site j through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
MTCPPtii’dmaterial cost between CO2-emission sources i and i’ (i’ ≠ i) through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
PaddIItjj’dexpanded pipeline capacity from intermediate storage site j to j’ (j’ ≠ j) in time period t-
PaddIStjkdexpanded pipeline capacity from intermediate storage site j to sequestration site k in time period t-
PaddPItijdexpanded pipeline capacity from CO2-emission source i to intermediate storage site j in time period t-
PaddPPtii’dexpanded pipeline capacity from CO2-emission source i to i’ (i’ ≠ i) in time period t-
PcapIItjj’dpipeline capacity from intermediate storage site j to j’ (j’ ≠ j) in time period t-
PcapIStjkdpipeline capacity from intermediate storage site j to sequestration site k in time period t-
PcapPItijdpipeline capacity from CO2-emission source i to intermediate storage site j in time period t-
PcapPPtii’dpipeline capacity from CO2-emission source i to i’ (i’ ≠ i) in time period t-
PCCpipeline capital cost$
POCpipeline operating cost$
POCIItjj’doperating cost between intermediate storage sites j and j’ (j’ ≠ j) through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
POCIStjkdoperating cost between intermediate storage site j and sequestration site k through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
POCPItijdoperating cost between CO2-emission source i and intermediate storage site j through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
POCPPtii’doperating cost between CO2-emission sources i and i’ (i’ ≠ i) through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
RCIItjj’dright-of-way cost between intermediate storage sites j and j’ (j’ ≠ j) through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
RCIStjkdright-of-way cost between intermediate storage site j and sequestration site k through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
RCPItijdright-of-way cost between CO2-emission source i and intermediate storage site j through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
RCPPtii’dright-of-way cost between CO2-emission sources i and i’ (i’ ≠ i) through pipeline with diameter d in time period t$
TFCtotal facility cost$
TLCtlabor cost of pipeline in time period t$
TMCCtmiscellaneous cost of pipeline in time period t$
TMTCtmaterial cost of pipeline in time period t$
TPCtotal pipeline cost$
TRCttotal right-of-way cost of pipeline in time period t$
Xtii’amount of CO2 transported from emission source i to i’ (i’ ≠ i) per unit time in time period tt CO2/h
Xtijamount of CO2 transported from emission source i to intermediate storage site j per unit time in time period tt CO2/h
Xtjjamount of CO2 transported from intermediate storage site j to j’ (j’ ≠ j) per unit time in time period tt CO2/h
Xtjkamount of CO2 transported from intermediate storage site j to sequestration site k per unit time in time period tt CO2/h

Binary Variables

ZD i i d p t = { 1 ,    if pipeline p with diameter d    is expanded between CO 2 - emission source    i and i in   time   period   t 0 , otherwise
ZD i j d p t    = { 1 ,    if pipeline p with diameter d    is expanded between CO 2 - emission source    i and intermediate storage site j in   time   period t 0 , otherwise
ZD j j d p t = { 1 ,    if pipeline p with diameter d    is expanded between intermediate storage site j and j in   time   period t 0 , otherwise
ZD j k d p t    = { 1 ,    if pipeline p with diameter d    is expanded between intermediate storage site j and sequestration   site k in   time   period t 0 , otherwise
Y i t    = { 1 ,    if   CO 2   capture   facility   is   built   at   site   i   in   time   period   t 0 , otherwise

References

  1. Study on the Legal Basis of Environmental CO2 Capture and Storage 1. Available online: http://www.prism.go.kr/homepage/entire/retrieveEntireDetail.do;jsessionid=A0AF907E277D51C006614795585A7A05.node02?cond_research_name=&cond_research_start_date=&cond_research_end_date=&research_id=1480000-201300059&pageIndex=779&leftMenuLevel=160 (accessed on 15 June 2017).
  2. Basic Plan on Climate Change. Available online: http://mosf.go.kr/nw/nes/detailNesDtaView.do?searchBbsId=MOSFBBS_000000000028&menuNo=4010100&searchNttId=MOSF_000000000006696 (accessed on 15 June 2017).
  3. Zhou, C.; Liu, P.; Li, Z. A superstructure-based mixed-integer programming approach to optimal design of pipeline network for large-scale CO2 transport. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 2014, 60, 2442–2461. [Google Scholar]
  4. Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage—Foldout. Available online: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CCS_roadmap_foldout.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2017).
  5. Figueroa, J.D.; Fout, T.; Plasynski, S.; McIlvried, H.; Srivastava, R.D. Advances in CO2 capture technology—the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Program. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2008, 2, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lupion, M.; Diego, R.; Loubeau, L.; Navarrete, B. Ciuden ccs project: Status of the CO2 capture technology development plant in power generation. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 5639–5646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rubin, E.S.; Mantripragada, H.; Marks, A.; Versteeg, P.; Kitchin, J. The outlook for improved carbon capture technology. Prog. Energy Combust. 2012, 38, 630–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, X.; Wei, N.; Liu, Y.; Fang, Z.; Dahowski, R.; Davidson, C. CO2 point emission and geological storage capacity in China. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 2793–2800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Middleton, R.S.; Bielicki, J.M. A scalable infrastructure model for carbon capture and storage: Simccs. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 1052–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Han, J.H.; Lee, J.U.; Lee, I.B. Development of a multiperiod model for planning CO2 disposal and utilization infrastructure. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 2983–2996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Weihs, G.F.; Wiley, D.; Ho, M. Steady-state optimisation of CCS pipeline networks for cases with multiple emission sources and injection sites: South-east Queensland case study. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 2748–2755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Weihs, G.A.F.; Wiley, D. Steady-state design of CO2 pipeline networks for minimal cost per tonne of CO2 avoided. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2012, 8, 150–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ambrose, W.; Breton, C.; Holtz, M.; Nunez-Lopez, V.; Hovorka, S.; Duncan, I. CO2 source-sink matching in the lower 48 United States, with examples from the Texas Gulf Coast and Permian Basin. Environ. Geol. 2009, 57, 1537–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kuby, M.J.; Bielicki, J.M.; Middleton, R.S. Optimal spatial deployment of CO2 capture and storage given a price on carbon. Int. Regional Sci. Rev. 2011, 34, 285–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Middleton, R.S.; Kuby, M.J.; Bielicki, J.M. Generating candidate networks for optimization: The CO2 capture and storage optimization problem. Comput. Environ. Urban 2012, 36, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, Z.; Weihs, G.A.F.; Cardenas, G.; Wiley, D. Optimal pipeline design for CCS projects with anticipated increasing CO2 flow rates. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 2014, 31, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kapetaki, Z.; Simjanović, J.; Hetland, J. European carbon capture and storage project network: Overview of the status and developments. Energy Procedia 2016, 86, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Nguyen-Trinh, H.A.; Ha-Duong, M. Perspective of CO2 capture & storage (CCS) development in Vietnam: Results from expert interviews. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 37, 220–227. [Google Scholar]
  19. The Global Status of CCS: 2016 Summary Report. Available online: https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/201158/global-status-ccs-2016-summary-report.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2017).
  20. Yun, H.Y.; Bai, L.; Kim, K.S.; Jeong, S.J. Networks optimization for capturing and transporting CO2. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Bandar Sunway, Malaysia, 9–12 December 2014; pp. 739–743. [Google Scholar]
  21. Grant, T.; Morgan, D.; Gerdes, K. Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage Costs in NETL Studies; NET Laboratory, US Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  22. 2030 Basic Roadmap for Reducing Greenhouse Gases. Available online: http://www.me.go.kr/home/web/board/read.do;jsessionid=1l6rNHDX28D1cNA8S7CjLu09oZ1HCsVCa6oPRJnzZiHI1EFXgXhMqA8OtXBtfQj7.meweb2vhost_servlet_engine1?pagerOffset=0&maxPageItems=10&maxIndexPages=10&searchKey=&searchValue=&menuId=286&orgCd=&boardMasterId=1&boardCategoryId=&boardId=722500&decorator (accessed on 15 June 2017).
Figure 1. Typical CO2 pipeline transportation network with direct source-sink connection.
Figure 1. Typical CO2 pipeline transportation network with direct source-sink connection.
Energies 10 01027 g001
Figure 2. Display of optimal network by scenario.
Figure 2. Display of optimal network by scenario.
Energies 10 01027 g002
Table 1. Candidate power plants and industrial facilities in the CCS network.
Table 1. Candidate power plants and industrial facilities in the CCS network.
No.Industry TypeNameLatitudeLongitudeGeneration Capacity (MW)CO2 Emission (Tons) (2016)
1Power plantDonghae37.486167129.1457554002293
2Boryeong #136.520369126.491087400022,929
3Samcheonpo34.953830128.103294324018,573
4Seocheon #136.137074126.4967944002293
5Yeosu #134.839776127.6921633291886
6Yeongdong37.739142128.9800083251863
7Yeongheung37.240886126.457106334019,146
8Hadong34.951411127.820701400022,929
9Honam34.870595127.7323985002866
10Dangjin37.055521126.511184200034,623
11Samcheok #137.253689129.330733200011,717
12Bukpyeong37.479118129.14430310006972
13Taean36.904755126.232409200034,967
14Boryeong #236.396320126.50672120005732
15Yeosu #234.853664127.7345435002051
16Dangjin-Eco36.889177126.63914210006796 (scheduled in 2021)
17Seocheon #236.138854126.49753810005732 (scheduled in 2019)
18Goseong34.912132128.109340200011,923 (scheduled in 2020)
19Gangneung37.733047128.975955200011,923 (scheduled in 2019)
20Samcheok #237.435377129.186957200012,038 (scheduled in 2021)
21IndustryPosco36.000917129.388823-75,660
22Hyundai Steel36.004511129.377504-20,271
23Ssangyong Cement37.485633129.056319-12,444
24Tongyang Cement37.430384129.175678-7070
25GS Caltex35.11251127.705823-5849
26S-Oil35.697698129.342696-5369
27SK energy35.505224129.353489-4288
Table 2. Intermediate storage and sequestration site coordinates.
Table 2. Intermediate storage and sequestration site coordinates.
Site TypeNameLatitudeLongitudeStorage Capacity
Intermediate storage sitecandidate site #137.477295126.69566undetermined
candidate site #236.626061126.26392undetermined
candidate site #334.920193128.1084undetermined
candidate site #435.276665129.23671undetermined
candidate site #537.479146129.1329undetermined
Sequestration siteSamcheok Gate37.45130129.18853unlimited
Taean Gate36.77253126.11306unlimited
Busan Gate35.05965129.09600unlimited
Table 3. Pipeline costs and lifespan.
Table 3. Pipeline costs and lifespan.
Cost TypeFactor
12345
Materials cost (MTC)70,3502.01330.5686.726,960
Labor cost (LC)371,8502.01343.22074170,013
Miscellaneous cost (MCC)147,2501.5584177234-
Right of way cost (RC)51,2001.2857729,788-
Pipeline lifespan (LT)30
Table 4. Korea’s 2030 target reduction by sector.
Table 4. Korea’s 2030 target reduction by sector.
SectorBAU (Million Tons)Reduction (Million Tons)Reduction Rate (%)Detailed MethodDetailed Reduction (Million Tons)
Compared to Sector BAUCompared to National BAU
Conversion(333) *64.5(19.4)7.6Power mix35
Demand management12
Power generation, transmission, and distribution efficiency improvement17.5
Industry48156.411.76.6Improve process efficiency21.3
Introduction of innovative technologies and application of value-added products14.8
Eco-friendly process development10.6
Others9.7
Building197.235.818.14.2Cooling and heating energy saving13.2
Promoting high-efficiency lighting equipment19.1
Optimize energy utilization3.5
New energy industry-28.2-3.3Carbon capture and storage (CCS)10
Microgrids4
Utilizing unused heat2.5
Smart factory2.4
Eco-friendly energy town1.8
Others7.5
Transportation105.225.924.63Increased use of eco-friendly cars15.7
Efficient green logistics3.9
Others6.3
Public others213.617.30.4-
Waste15.53.6230.4-
Agriculture20.714.80.1-
TotalDomestic reduction851 *21925.70%--
Overseas reduction9611.30%--
* The total emission reduction (domestic reduction and overseas reduction), i.e., 851 million tons, includes process emissions (around 2 million tons) as well as gas production and fugitive emissions (around 8.4 million tons). BAU levels in the conversion sector are indirectly included in each sector's emissions; hence, they are excluded from the total emission estimates.
Table 5. Scenario description and reduction targets.
Table 5. Scenario description and reduction targets.
Scenario No.Scenario DescriptionReduction Target
(a)Only CCS reduced demand10 million tons
(b)Including uncertainty in the new energy industry segment, proliferation of microgrids and smart factories, utilization of unused heat, and eco-friendly energy13.21 million tons
(c)Including the uncertainty in the conversion segment, low-carbon power mix20.5 million tons
(d)Including the uncertainty in the transportation segment, increased use of eco-friendly cars14.71 million tons
(e)Including the uncertainty in the offshore sector38.8 million tons
(f)Including all the above uncertainties57.72 million tons
Table 6. The results by cost of each scenario.
Table 6. The results by cost of each scenario.
ScenarioTotal Facility Cost (TFC) (Billion $)Pipeline Operating Cost (POC) (Billion $)Pipeline Capital Cost (PCC) (Billion $)Total Cost (Billion $)CO2 Unit Cost ($·(t CO2)−1)
(a)1.36670.06920.36991.805843.91
(b)1.98640.06450.34582.396731.06
(c)3.19660.06990.37763.644121.83
(d)2.13040.06270.33242.525526.86
(e)5.61430.24281.27517.132239.12
(f)9.33870.36841.931911.63939.85

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jin, S.H.; Bai, L.; Kim, J.Y.; Jeong, S.J.; Kim, K.S. Analysis of GHG Emission Reduction in South Korea Using a CO2 Transportation Network Optimization Model. Energies 2017, 10, 1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10071027

AMA Style

Jin SH, Bai L, Kim JY, Jeong SJ, Kim KS. Analysis of GHG Emission Reduction in South Korea Using a CO2 Transportation Network Optimization Model. Energies. 2017; 10(7):1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10071027

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jin, Suk Ho, Lianxi Bai, Jang Yeop Kim, Suk Jae Jeong, and Kyung Sup Kim. 2017. "Analysis of GHG Emission Reduction in South Korea Using a CO2 Transportation Network Optimization Model" Energies 10, no. 7: 1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10071027

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop