Master's Thesis

CCS

Economic Evaluation of Ship-based Korean CCS Chain

with Availability

( Seo, Youngkyun)

School of Mechanical, Aerospace and System Engineering,
Division of Ocean Systems Engineering

KAIST

2012

i
MOSE . Seo, Youngkyun. Economic Evaluation of Ship-based Korean CCS with
Availability. CCS .
20103308 School of Mechanical, Aerospace and System Engineering. 2011. 49 p. Advisor
Prof. Chang, Daejun. Text in English

ABSTRACT

This study developed the economic evaluation model to select the optimal method to transport CO2 from

the power plant to offshore storage site. When Korea introduces the CCS to reduce the CO2 emission, the

only offshore storage site is available because there is no potential storage site in onshore. There are two way

to transport CO2 to offshore storage site: the pipeline and the ship. In this study, the only ship-based CCS

chain is considered and the liquefaction system and the temporary storage site are installed on the liquefaction

barge. The ship-based CCS chain has several options in the method of transportation from the power plant to

the liquefaction barge, in the refrigeration system and in the size of CO2 carrier. The LCC (Life Cycle Cost) is

estimated for the candidate options with availability taken into account as well as the CAPEX (Capital

Expenditure) and OPEX (Operation Expenditure). Availability was estimated with the commercial code,

MAROS, based on the Monte-Carlo simulation method. The failure rates and the active repair times of the

components contained in the candidate systems were collected from the commercially available databases.

Availability was interpreted as the loss of production and added to the LCC as being referred to the European

Union Emission Trading Scheme. The results obtained from two case studies indicated that the number and

the size of the CO2 carrier should be defined after the economic evaluation because the total cost of the CO2

carrier is not always decreased with the size of carrier.

Keywords: CCS chain, Ship-based, LCC, CAPEX, OPEX, Availability, Economic evaluation model

ii
 Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 CCS

1.2 Korea CCS

1.3 Purpose

2 System Description and Design Alternatives

2.1 System Description

2.1.1 Big Picture

2.1.2 Module 1. Compression System

2.1.3 Module 2. Liquefaction Barge

2.2 Design Alternatives

2.2.1 One vs. Two Compressor

2.2.2 Refrigeration System

2.2.3 Capacity of Liquefaction Barge and CO2 Carrier

3 Economic Evaluation

3.1 Methodology of Economic Evaluation

3.2 Module 1. Compression System

3.2.1 Preliminary Design

iii
 3.2.2 Compressor

3.2.3 Pipeline

3.3 Module 2. Liquefaction Barge

3.3.1 Liquefaction System

3.3.2 Barge Hull

3.3.3 Storage Tank

3.4 Module 3. CO2 Carrier

3.5 Availability

3.5.1 Definition of Availability

3.5.2 Methodology of Availability Analysis

3.5.3 Availability Analysis of Korea CCS

4 Logic of Evaluation Model and Case Studies

4.1 Logic of Evaluation

4.2 Case Studies

5 Conclusions

iv
 List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Global land-ocean temperature anomaly ()

Figure 1.2 Existing and planned CCS projects

Figure 1.3 Concept of economic evaluation model

Figure 2.1 Ship-based Korea CCS chain

Figure 2.2 Schematic diagram of liquefaction barge

Figure 2.3 Phase diagram of CO2

Figure 2.4 Two alternatives of compression system

Figure 2.5 Alternatives of refrigeration system

Figure 3.1 Configuration of LCC

Figure 3.2 Diameter of pipeline at quantity 1 [million/a year]

Figure 3.3 Diameter of pipeline at quantity 3 [million/a year]

Figure 3.4 Diameter of pipeline at quantity 5 [million/a year]

Figure 3.5 Diameter of pipeline at quantity 7 [million/a year]

Figure 3.6 Diameter of pipeline at quantity 10 [million/a year]

Figure 3.7 Pressure drop at quantity 1 [million/a year]

Figure 3.8 Pressure drop at quantity 3 [million/a year]

Figure 3.9 Pressure drop at quantity 5 million/a year

Figure 3.10 Pressure drop at quantity 7 million/a year

Figure 3.11 Pressure drop at quantity 10 million/a year

Figure 3.12 Ammonia-Ethane cascade cycle with -30 condensing temperature

Figure 3.13 Ammonia-Ethane cascade cycles with -20, -10, 0 condensing temperature

Figure 3.14 Ammonia-Ethane cascade cycle with 10 condensing temperature

Figure 3.15 Total equipment cost of refrigeration system

Figure 3.16 Normalized total equipment cost of refrigeration system

Figure 3.17 Energy consumption of refrigeration system

Figure 3.18 Normalized energy consumption of refrigeration system

Figure 3.19 Average cost of bulk carrier

Figure 3.20 Average cost of oil tanker

Figure 3.21 MTTF, MTTR and MTBF

Figure 3.22 Procedure of availability analysis

Figure 3.23 RBD of ship-based Korean CCS chain

Figure 4.1 Logic of the evaluation model

Figure 4.2 CO2 Source and sink of case study 1

Figure 4.3 CO2 Source and sink of case study 2

vi
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 Rank of CO2 emission

Table 2.1 Properties and composition of feed CO2

Table 2.2 Differences of fans, blowers and compressor

Table 2.3 Alternatives in cascade cycle

Table 3.1 Unavailable cases of one compressor type

Table 3.2 Unavailable cases of two compressor type

Table 3.3 Energy consumption of one compressor type

Table 3.4 Energy consumption of two compressors type

Table 3.5 Percentage of delivered equipment cost

Table 3.6 Method to estimate the OPEX

Table 3.7 Efficiency of cascade cycles with different cascade condensing temperature

Table 3.8 Fuel consumption rate [ton/day]

Table 3.9 Reliability data of Korean CCS chain components

Table 4.1 LCC of case study 1

Table 4.2 LCC of case study 2

vii
1 Introduction

1.1 CCS

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is one of the feasible solutions to mitigate the impact of
global warming. The global warming, mainly caused by the carbon dioxide from the power plant
and other industrial sources, is one of the critical issues that the world is facing. Figure 1.1

indicates that the temperature of the earth has been dramatically increased since the man used

the fossil fuel. The temperature of the earth is increased so that people are damaged through

season shifting, temperature climbing and sea level rising. Even though the experts suggested
many solutions such as using renewable energy, saving energy and sequestration, the most
feasible solution is CCS. CCS consists of three parts: capture, transportation and storage. CO2

from the sources are captured then transported by pipeline or ship, and finally injected into

geological storage sites where CO2 is sequestered.

Figure 1.1 Global land-ocean temperature anomaly ()

There is worldwide effort to reduce the carbon dioxide emission through the CCS.
According to the Global CCS Institute (GCCSI), there are approximately 200 worldwide projects
involving CO2 capture, transportation and storage. Figure 1.2 shows the existing and planned CCS

projects. Over $26 billion fund has been proposed by the governments for large-scale projects in
the world.

i
 Figure 1.2 Existing and planned CCS projects

1.2 Korea CCS

According to the European Commissions Joint Research Center, Korea is the seventh largest CO2
emission country in 2010 and the third fastest country in the growth of CO2 emission as shown in

Table 1.1. Korea was designated as the developing country at Kyoto Protocol so that Korea was

not forced to reduce the CO2 emission. After the United Nations Climate Change Conference on
the island Bail, the effort for decreasing the CO2 emission is strongly recommended because the
GDP of the Korea is high to be classified to the developing country, Korea GDP is the tenth in the

world. Korea has to strive to decrease the CO2 emission.

Table 1.1 Rank of CO2 emission

1990 2009 2010 Rank

Country vs. 1990 (%)
(1 billion ton) (1 billion ton) (1 billion ton) (2010)
USA 4.99 5.04 5.25 2 5.2
EU-27 4.35 3.94 4.05 - -6.9
Russia 2.44 1.67 1.75 4 -28.3
Japan 1.16 1.09 1.16 5 0.0
Germany 1.02 0.79 0.83 6 -18.6
Canada 0.45 0.52 0.54 8 20.0
England 0.59 0.48 0.50 9 -15.3
Korea 0.25 0.54 0.59 7 136.0
Chain 2.51 8.10 8.94 1 256.2
India 0.66 1.69 1.84 3 178.8

ii
 The Korea CCS has mainly two alternatives to transport CO2 from the sources to the

offshore geological storage site. The offshore geological storage site is only considered in Korea

CCS because there is no potential onshore storage site. The captured CO2 is transported to the

offshore storage site either by the pipeline or the ship. The economical method of transport
depends on the locations of capture and storage, distance from source to sink and the quantities

of CO2 to be transported.

1.3 Purpose

This thesis focuses on developing the ship-based economic evaluation model to choose the

optimal transport method between the pipeline and the ship. The designer is forced to select one
transportation way in the concept design stage. Economic evaluation data is valuable to a
designer who has to choose optimal design among the several alternatives in the early design

stage even though the accuracy of it is low. To get the economic evaluation data for many cases

is time consuming and requires lots of work since Korea CCS has lots of cases depending on the

distance from source to sink and the amount of CO2 to be transported. The economic evaluation
model is required to consider lots of the potential cases and to reduce time. Figure 1.3 indicates

the schematic concept of the economic evaluation model based on the ship. This study covers

only the ship transportation.

iii
 Figure 1.3 Concept of economic evaluation model

First of all, the whole configuration of the ship-based Korea CCS chain and details are

described in Chapter 2. Also several alternatives in the ship-based CCS chain are introduced in

Chapter 2. Chapter 3 is designed to provide the economic evaluation and theoretical background.
The results of the case studies and conclusions are described in Chapter 4 and 5.

iv
2 System Description and Design Alternatives

2.1 System Description

2.1.1 Big Picture

Figure 2.1 Ship-based Korea CCS chain

Ship-based Korea CCS chain consists of seven segments as shown in Figure 2.1: compression
system, liquefaction barge and CO2 carrier. The captured CO2 at the power plant is compressed
by a compressor and then transported from the power plant to the liquefaction barge by the
pipeline. When the compressed CO2 arrives at the liquefaction barge, it is liquefied through the
liquefaction system. The liquefied CO2 is stored at the temporary storage tank for waiting the

ship transportation. The stored CO2 is unloaded into the CO2 carrier by the cargo handling
system. The liquefied CO2 is transported to the storage site of the saline aquifer or depleted oil

and gas fields by CO2 carrier and then injected the site.

v
 Here are the assumptions for the ship-based Korea CCS chain.

- The boundary of the ship-based Korea CCS chain is after the capture facility and before
the injection facility at the storage site.

- The power plant and Iron &steel production mills are only considered as CO2 emission

sources.

- The liquefaction system and the storage tanks are installed on the barge because even

the space for the capture facility and compressor is not enough in most power plants in

Korea.

- The liquefaction point is near the triple point.

- The properties and composition of the feed CO2 are specified in Table 2.1

Table 2.1 Properties and composition of feed CO2

Items Unit Value

Temperature 30
Pressure Bar 1.00
CO2 95.870
O2 0.001
Composition H2o Mile % 4.110
N2 0.020
SO2 0.001

2.1.2 Module 1. Compression System

The compression system includes a compressor and a pipeline. The captured CO2 is compressed
by the compressor to cope with the resistance of the pipeline then transported from power plant
to liquefaction barge.

vi
Compressor

The captured CO2 should be increased at certain points in order to force gas in and exhaust out.

There are three devices to increase the pressure of the gas: fans, blowers and compressors. These
are classified depending on the compression ratio. Table 2.2 indicates the different compression

ratio of the fans, blowers and compressors. Since the captured CO2 must be compressed more
than 1.20 compression ratio, the compressor is considered. There are two kinds of the compressor

depending on the features: the centrifugal and the reciprocating compressor. Although the
centrifugal compressor cannot achieve the high compression ratio without multiple stages, it gives

high flow-rate than a similarly sized reciprocating compressor. Finally, the centrifugal compressor
is used to send the massive amount of CO2.

Table 2.2 Differences of fans, blowers and compressor

Equipment Compression Ratio

Fans up to 1.11

Blowers 1.11 to 1.20

Compressors more than 1.20

Pipeline

The steel pipeline with coating is used for the transportation of the compressed CO2. There are
two kinds of pipeline depending on application: for high pressure or not. The steel pipeline for

high pressure is employed if the design pressure is higher than 25 bar. As the pressure during the
transportation from the power plant to the liquefaction barge does not exceed 25 bar, the steel

pipeline is selected and coated with zinc to prevent corrosion.

2.1.3 Module 2. Liquefaction Barge

The liquefaction barge is divided into the liquefaction system, the temporary storage tank, the
barge hull and the cargo handling system as shown in Figure 2.2.

vii
 Figure 2.2 Schematic diagram of liquefaction barge

Liquefaction System

The liquefaction system is required to increase the density of CO2. The density of gas CO2 is

considerably lower than the liquid CO2 for the economic transportation. The gas CO2 requires
roughly 100 more CO2 carriers for transportation than the same amount liquid CO2. CO2 is

liquefied above the triple point (5.17 bar, -57 ) as adjusting the condensation pressure and

temperature. Figure 2.3 shows the phase diagram of CO2 and indicates that there are lots of the

ways to liquefy CO2 between the triple point and the critical point. This study assumed that the
CO2 is liquefied near the triple point because its density is higher than other points. Even though

it requires lots of energy for the liquefaction because of the low temperature, it is economical

when considering the whole CCS chain.

The liquefaction system consists of the compression and refrigeration system. The

compression system is required to increase the pressure above the triple point and refrigeration
system is needed to decrease the temperature. Since the captured CO2 is compressed above the
triple point at the compression system, only refrigeration system is required for the liquefaction. If
the pressure of the transported CO2 is lower than triple point, it must be recompressed.

viii
 Figure 2.3 Phase diagram of CO2

Temporary Storage Tank

The new pressure tank is used for the temporary storage of the liquefied CO2 in this study. Since

the pressure of the liquefied CO2 is higher than the atmospheric pressure, pressure tank is

mandatory. The most frequently employed pressure tank is the cylindrical type which has some
disadvantage in the aspect of the volume. The cylindrical pressure tank occupies huge volume in

the barge even though the space is limited. The new pressure vessel is employed to solve the

space problem in the barge. The cylindrical pressure vessel will eventually replace the new
pressure vessel in the offshore although this new type pressure tank is still under development.

Barge Hull

The general barge is principally for river and canal transport of heavy goods, but the liquefaction

barge is installed near the CO2 source and then fixed by the mooring system. The temporary
storage tanks are installed inside of the barge hull while the liquefaction and cargo handling

system are located on the barge hull.

ix
Cargo Handling System

The submerged pump and the flexible or rigid arm are employed in the cargo handling system to

transfer the liquefied CO2 from the storage tank to the CO2 carrier. The second line is required to
send back the Boil off gas (BOG) to the storage tank. The BOG is generated during the ship

transportation because of the heat ingress to the cargo tank of the CO2 carrier.

2.2 Design Alternatives

2.2.1 One vs. Two Compressor

Figure 2.4 Two alternatives of compression system

There are two alternatives in the compression system depending on the number of installed
compressor as shown in Figure 2.4. If one compressor is employed in the compression system,

CO2 should be compressed to keep the pressure above the triple point at the end of the pipeline.
This type allows the transported CO2 to be directly liquefied without recompression. The

advantage of one compressor type is that it requires only one compressor, and the diameter of
the pipeline is smaller than the type two because the density of CO2 is higher than the other. The
disadvantage of this type is that relatively more energy is consumed because of the high pressure

drop. The high pressure causes the high pressure drop in the pipeline transport.

In two compressors type, the compressors are installed at the power plant and the
liquefaction barge for the recompression. CO2 is lightly compressed at the power plant and then

x
recompressed over the triple point at the liquefaction barge. The advantage of two compressors

type is the stable operation and low pressure drop. As CO2 is recompressed at the liquefaction

barge, it could allow the unpredicted pressure drop during the transport. And it causes the low

pressure drop because it is transported comparably at low pressure. The disadvantage of this type
is that it requires two compressors. In order to choose the optimal type depending on the various

cases, economic evaluation is necessary. The pressure drop and the diameter of the pipeline

should be calculated before the economic evaluation.

2.2.2 Refrigeration System

There are many alternatives in the refrigeration system depending on the kinds of the cycle. The
refrigeration system is basically classified into two cycles based on the characteristic: open and

close cycle. The closed cycle is categorized into the single refrigerant and cascade depending on

the number of the refrigerants, and cascade cycle is also classified into several cycles depending

on the kinds of the refrigerants. Figure 2.5 shows the tree of the alternatives of the refrigeration
system.

Figure 2.5 Alternatives of refrigeration system

In the open cycle, the fluid acts as a refrigerant. It is compressed and then expanded
through the expansion valve or turbine to decrease temperature in itself. In the case of the closed

xi
cycle, the refrigerant cool down the fluid as it is circulated in the refrigeration system. Since the

open cycle requires lots of energy than the closed cycle, the latter is considered in this study. In

case of the single refrigerant cycle, the pressure ant the evaporation is below the atmospheric

pressure which causes air leakage to the evaporator. For this reason, single refrigerant is not
considered in this study. Even though the cascade cycle is decided, there are lots of options

depending on the kinds of the refrigerants. Four common refrigerants are investigated: Ammonia,

Propane, R134a and Ethane. Ammonia, Propane and R134a are the refrigerants of the top

compression cycle, whereas Ethane is the bottom cycle. The alternatives in the cascade cycle are
tabulated in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Alternatives in cascade cycle

Refrigerants
Top Ammonia Propane R134a
Bottom Ethane Ethane Ethane

2.2.3 Capacity of Liquefaction Barge and CO2 Carrier

The capacity of liquefaction barge and CO2 carrier are various depending on the distance from

source to sink and the quantity of CO2 to be transported. The capacity of the liquefaction barge
is assumed twice bigger than the CO2 carrier for the unexpected delay of the voyage.

xii
3 Economic Evaluation

3.1 Methodology of Economic Evaluation

LCC (Life Cycle Cost) is employed to evaluate the ship-based Korea CCS chain. The equation of
LCC is made by using the available data and referring open literatures to make the evaluation
model depending on the various distances and the quantity. LCC is the total cost of ownership of

a product over its life cycle which includes research and development, construction, operation and

maintenance and disposal. The estimated LCC is useful for the decision making in the early design

stage to optimize the design. The conventional LCC commonly consists of CAPEX and OPEX on
the highest level. CAPEX is the capital expenditure and includes following items: the equipment
purchased cost, installation cost, building cost, service facilities cost, legal expanse and design &

administration cost. OPEX is the operation expenditure and classified into man-hour cost, energy

consumption cost, maintenance cost, operating suppliers cost and insurance cost. If the
unavailability of the system is high, the cost from the deferred production may give considerable

impact on the LCC. In this study, the cost of deferred production is also taken into account to the

LCC as the unavailability cost. Figure 3.1 shows the configuration of the LCC. The CAPEX and the

OPEX is estimated for the all segments in the modules while the availability is calculated for the
whole chain.

Figure 3.1 Configuration of LCC

xiii
3.2 Module 1. Compression System

3.2.1 Preliminary Design

The diameter of the pipeline and the pressure drop during the transportation must be provided
to estimate the cost of the compressor and the pipeline. There are several equations to calculate

the pressure drop of the pipeline depending on the compressible flow or not. If the Mach number
of the gas is lower than 0.3, it could be assumed as incompressible flow. Since the captured CO2

is a gas, we should determine that it is compressible or not. If the pressure drop is greater than
10 % but less than 40 % of the inlet pressure, it could be assumed as the incompressible flow, but

the pressure should be the average pressure between inlet and outlet when calculating the

density of the gas. In this study, the gas CO2 is assumed as incompressible flow as considering

lower pressure drop than 40 % of the inlet pressure. Although the floe is assumed as the
incompressible flow, there still are two equations depending on the laminar or turbulent. This

study assumed that the flow is turbulent because the almost engineering case is the turbulent.

After applied the above assumptions, the equations of the hydrodynamic are arranged like below.

Equations

xiv
The followings show the assumption, input and output variables

l Assumptions

- The pressure drop caused by the valves and others is negligible.

- The outlet pressure of one-compressor case is 700 kPa.

- The outlet pressure of two-compressor case is 200 kPa.

- The pressure drop of one-compressor should be lower than 200 kPa.

- The pressure drop of two-compressors should be lower than 133 kPa.

- : viscosity = 1.528 x 10-5 [kg/m-s]

- : roughness = 0.046 x 10-3 (for general steel pipeline)

- v: average velocity during the transportation = 30 [m/s]

l Input variables

- Quantity (Mass flowrate) [kg/hour]

- Distance [m]

l Output variables

- P: pressure drop [kPa]

- d: diameter of pipeline [m]

- : density [kg/m3]

- P: average pressure between inlet and outlet [kPa]

- f: friction factor
xv
The aforementioned non-linear equations could be estimated by the Newton-Raphson method.

Since the equation of the friction factor has the log function, it is complicated to employ

Newton-Raphson method. Therefore, four variables excepting the friction factor are calculated by

the Newton-Raphson method then the friction factor is estimated by try and error.

Results

In order to make the evaluation model depending on the various distance and quantities, the

equations should be made with those variables. All of the cases below are calculated and then the
equation is created.

- Quantity: 1, 3, 5 7, 10 [million ton/a year]

- Length: 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 [km]

The following figures show the results of the above cases. The Diameters of pipelines are
indicated from Figure 3.2 to 3.6 and the pressure drops are demonstrated from Figure 3.7 to 3.11.

l Diameter of pipeline

Figure 3.2 Diameter of pipeline at quantity 1 [million/a year]

xvi
Figure 3.3 Diameter of pipeline at quantity 3 [million/a year]

Figure 3.4 Diameter of pipeline at quantity 5 [million/a year]

Figure 3.5 Diameter of pipeline at quantity 7 [million/a year]

xvii
 Figure 3.6 Diameter of pipeline at quantity 10 [million/a year]

l Pressure drop

Figure 3.7 Pressure drop at quantity 1 [million/a year]

Figure 3.8 Pressure drop at quantity 3 [million/a year]

xviii
 Figure 3.9 Pressure drop at quantity 5 million/a year

Figure 3.10 Pressure drop at quantity 7 million/a year

Figure 3.11 Pressure drop at quantity 10 million/a year

xix
 l Boundary of compression system

When the pressure drop is greater than 40 %, it is compressible flow. Since the compressible flow

is complicated, the case whose pressure drop is greater than 40 % is not considered in this study
as making the boundary. The unavailable cases which exceed the boundary are tabulated in the

Table 3.1 and 3.2 for one and two compressor type.

Table 3.1 Unavailable cases of one compressor type

Distance [km]
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1 O X X X X X
3 O O X X X X
Mass flow
5 O O O X X X
[million-ton/year]
7 O O O O X X
10 O O O O O X

Table 3.2 Unavailable cases of two compressor type

Distance [km]
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1 O O O O O X
3 O O O O O O
Mass flow
5 O O O O O O
[million-ton/year]
7 O O O O O O
10 O O O O O O

l Energy consumption

The energy for the compression system is estimated by the commercial process simulation tool
which is called HYSYS. Table 3.3 and 3.4 indicate the energy consumption of the one compressor

type and two compressors. The specific cases which exceed the boundary are left as the blank.

xx
 Table 3.3 Energy consumption of one compressor type

Distance [km]
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1 6303
3 18120 18960
mass flow
5 29840 30860 31990
[million-ton/year]
7 41540 42700 43940 45260
10 59020 60350 61800 63280 64770

Table 3.4 Energy consumption of two compressors type

Distance [km]
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1 5867 6121 6373 6659 6972
3 17280 17635 18021 18396 18838 19265
mass flow
5 28660 29110 29550 29970 30530 31010
[million-ton/year]
7 40010 40540 41060 41560 42060 42640
10 57010 57610 58210 58790 59370 62800

3.2.2 Compressor

CAPEX

The CAPEX of the compressor is estimated by the compressor cost equation and percentage

delivered equipment cost. The compressor cost equation is generated by referring the website

which help estimate equipment cost (www.matche.com). The equation for the compressor cost is
indicated below. The heat exchanger and the scrubber in the compressor are ignored in this study
because those costs are comparably small than the compressor.

xxi
The other lists in the CAPEX are estimated by the percentage of delivered equipment cost. This is

the method for estimating many costs in the CAPEX using the equipment cost. Table 3.5 shows

how other costs are estimated.

Table 3.5 Percentage of delivered equipment cost

CAPEX
Percentage of delivered
Items
equipmentcost[%]
Purchased equipment 100
Purchased equipment installation 47
Instrumentation and controls 36
Piping and Electrical system 79
Building 18
Service facilities 70
Engineering and supervision 33
Legal expenses 4
Contractor's fee 22
Contingency 44

OPEX

The main parameter in the OPEX is the energy consumption cost. The energy consumption is

converted into cost by referring the unit electricity cost in Korea. The other costs in the OPEX are
also estimated through the CAPEX. Table 3.6 shows the method to estimate the OPEX.

xxii
 Table 3.6 Method to estimate the OPEX

OPEX

Items Methods of estimation

Man-hour cost Not considered
Energy consumption cost Using commercial tool
Maintenance and repair 7 % of CAPEX
Operating supplies 15 % of maintenance and repair
Local Taxes 3 % of CAPEX
Insurance 1 % of CAPEX
Plant overhead costs 60 % of the maintenance and repair

3.2.3 Pipeline

The MIT CO2 pipeline transportation cost model with MIT correlation is employed to estimate the
pipeline cost demand on the length and the diameter and it is verified by comparing with the
quotation from the pipeline supplier in Korea. There are several studies to estimate the CO2

pipeline cost which is based on the natural gas pipeline data. The MIT CO2 pipeline

transportation cost model is selected in this study because it is simple and does not require many

coefficients.

MIT CO2 pipeline transportation cost model

Annualized Cost = Land construction cost x Capital charge factor + O&M cost

Land construction cost: MIT Correlation

O&M cost: operation and maintenance cost: $ 5,000/mile

xxiii
3.3 Module 2. Liquefaction Barge

3.3.1 Liquefaction System

Selection of refrigeration cycle

Propane-Ethane cascade cycle with -40 condensing temperature is decided for the

refrigeration system because of the highest efficiency. At the previous section, the cascade cycle is
adopted and the four general refrigerants are suggested: Ethane, Ammonia, Propane and R134a.

Even though the refrigeration cycle and the refrigerants are determined, there is still one more
variable that is the cascade condensing temperature. The cascade condensing temperature gives

the significant impact on the efficiency. There is an optimize equation for the cascade condensing
temperature of Ammonia-Carbon dioxide case in the literature while the other cases are not.

Since there are no open literatures, the suggested cascade cycles are simulated by the process

simulation tool. The following section shows the assumptions to simulate it.

l Assumptions

- The maximum pressure ratio of one compression stage is 3.

- The pressure drop in the heat exchanger and pipelines are ignored.

- The different temperature between the cycles is 3 (Minimum approach temperature).

- The Efficiency of the compressor is 0.75 (Adiabatic).

- The Seawater temperature is 30 .

- The equation of state is Pen Robinson.

- COP and second law efficiency are employed for the comparison.

l Process

Process Flow Diagram (PFD) of the Ammonia-Ethane cascade cycles with the different cascade
condensing temperature are illustrated in from the Figure 3.12 to 3.14

xxiv
 Figure 3.12 Ammonia-Ethane cascade cycle with -30 condensing temperature

Figure 3.13 Ammonia-Ethane cascade cycles with -20, -10, 0 condensing temperature

xxv
 Figure 3.14 Ammonia-Ethane cascade cycle with 10 condensing temperature

l Results

From the Table 3.7, it is seen that Propane-Ethane cascade cycles with condensing temperature

-40 has the highest efficiency among the investigated cycles. The COP and the 2nd law
efficiency are employed to evaluate the refrigeration system without evaluating LCC because the
efficiency of the process is the most critical factor in the LCC.

xxvi
 Table 3.7 Efficiency of cascade cycles with different cascade condensing temperature

CAPEX

The percentage delivered equipment cost is also employed as the compression system to
estimate the CAPEX of the liquefaction system. The equipment used in the refrigeration system is
the compressor, the cooler, the scrubber and the heat exchanger. All of the equipment costs are
estimated by the commercial tool which is called Aspen HYSYS Economic Analyzer, but the heat

exchanger is excluded because its data is not available. The total equipment cost as increasing the
quantity of CO2 is shown in Figure 3.15 and the normalized total equipment cost is indicated in
Figure 3.16. The normalized total equipment costs are decreasing as the quantity of CO2 is
increasing. This shows that there is scale up effect in the total equipment cost of the refrigeration
system.

xxvii
 Figure 3.15 Total equipment cost of refrigeration system

Figure 3.16 Normalized total equipment cost of refrigeration system

xxviii
Using those data, the equation for the total equipment cost is generated to make the evaluation

model.

OPEX

The OPEX of the refrigeration system is divided into the energy consumption cost and other

general cost such as the maintenance, the operating suppliers and insurance cost. The energy

consumption is calculated by the process simulation tool and the general cost is estimated by

referring the CAPEX like the compression system. The energy consumption of the compressor is
only considered because it is considerably higher than the others. Figure 3.17 shows the energy

consumption which is proportionally increased with the amount of CO2 and Figure 3.18 indicates

that the normalized energy consumption is independent with the quantity of the CO2.

Figure 3.17 Energy consumption of refrigeration system

xxix
 Figure 3.18 Normalized energy consumption of refrigeration system

In order to make the evaluation model, the equation of the energy consumption is made using

above data.

3.3.2 Barge Hull

The cost of a bulk carrier is used to estimate the cost of the barge. Although there is difference
between the bulk carrier and the barge, their costs are similar because of the main cost of these

two is the material cost. Figure 3.19 shows the average cost of the bulk carrier for the last four
years with various capacity of the bulk carrier. The following is the equation of the bulk carrier.

xxx
 Figure 3.19 Average cost of bulk carrier

3.3.3 Storage Tank

The cost of the new pressure tank is roughly estimated by multiplying 1.5 to the material cost of
the cylindrical type. At the previous section, the new pressure tank is selected to increase the
efficiency of the space. To estimate the cost of the new pressure tank has some problem because

it is under development, but the material may need approximately 1.5 times more than the
cylindrical pressure tank. First of all, the optimum radius and length of cylindrical pressure tank
are calculated to get the material cost. It is the optimization problem with two variables and one
constraint. The objective function is the cost function with the radius and the length as the

variables. The constraint equation is determined when the storage amount is given. The following
shows the equations and the assumptions to get the cost of the cylindrical tank. This optimization
problem with two variables and one constrain is calculated by the Lagrange multiplier equations.

xxxi
Equation

Assumptions

- The material is 9 % Ni steel

- The cost of the 9 % Ni steel is 5,000 $/ton

- The density of the 9 % Ni steel is 8000 kg/m3

- The design pressure is calculated by referring the pressure vessel code

- Allowable stress value of 9 % Ni steel is 273 MPa [from Pressure Hand Book]

- Joint efficiency is 0.85 [from 2007 ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code]

- Corrosion allowance is 3 mm

After calculating the optimum radius and length, the material weight is calculated by multiplying

xxxii
the density to the material volume of the cylindrical pressure vessel and then the total material

cost is estimated from the material cost per unit ton. The CAPEX is estimated by assuming that

the material cost is about the 55% of the CAPEX and OPEX is assumed as 5 % of the CAPEX.

3.4 Module 3. CO2 Carrier

CAPEX

The CAPEX of the CO2 carrier is estimated by adding the storage tank cost to the carrier hull cost.

The same methodology is employed to calculate the cost of the storage tank like the section
3.3.3. The oil tanker cost from the Clarkson is used to estimate the carrier hull cost. Figure 3.20

shows the oil tanker cost depending on the size. And the equation for the carrier hull cost is

generated using the data from Figure 3.20.

Figure 3.20 Average cost of oil tanker

xxxiii
OPEX

The OPEX of the CO2 carrier is divided into the fuel consumption cost and the general operating

cost such as crewing, insurance, repair and maintenance cost. The fuel consumption cost is
estimated by referring the oil tankers fuel consumption rate. The capacity of the fuel tank of the

oil tanker and crusing range are used to calculate fuel consumption rate of the oil tanker
depending on the size. The fuel consumption rate per day is calculated by dividing the size of the

fuel tank into the crusing range. The fuel consumption rate depending on the size of the oil
tanker is tabulated in the Table 3.8 and the equation of the fuel consumption rate made. The

general cost of the CO2 carrier is assumed as the 5 % of the CAPEX.

Table 3.8 Fuel consumption rate [ton/day]

Fuel consumption
Size Crusing range HFO(ton)
(ton/day)
13 29 500 17.2
29 27 855 31.7
50 41 1500 36.6
74 56 2350 42.0
115 57 2800 49.1
320 77 8100 105.2

3.5 Availability

3.5.1 Definition of Availability

According to the IEC60050, the availability is the ability of an item to be in a state to perform a
required function under given conditions at a given instant of time or over given time interval,
assuming that the required external resources are provided. The availability may be estimated by
xxxiv
the subtracting the production loss time from the total calendar time of the system operation,

and dividing it by total calendar time of the system operation. The following equation shows the

definition of the availability and Figure 3.21 shows the MTTF, MTTR and MTBF.

Figure 3.21 MTTF, MTTR and MTBF

3.5.2 Methodology of Availability Analysis

The availability is estimated by drawing the reliability block diagram (RBD) and using the
simulation model. The procedure of the Availability analysis is shown in Figure 3.22. The first step

is to develop the failure mode through the Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA).
The second step is to construct the RBD which is a success-oriented logical presentation of the
process. The third step is to collect the failure rates and the repair times of the components from

the available databases. The simulation model is built by the simulation tool and then the
reliability data is entered into the simulation mode. Finally, the availability is estimated by the

simulation tool.

xxxv
 Figure 3.22 Procedure of availability analysis

3.5.3 Availability Analysis of Korea CCS

There are seven segments in the ship-based Korean CCS chain. The process segments have

significant effects on the availability so that the process segments and CO2 carrier are only
considered. Even though the CO2 carrier is not the process segment, its availability is reduced by
the environment conditions such as the typhoon and strong wind. The compressor, liquefaction

system, cargo handling system and CO2 carrier are used for the availability. The following shows
the assumption and the procedure to estimate the availability of the ship-based Korean CCS
chain.

Assumptions

- The Level of the simulation model is the equipment level.

- The reliability data is collected from OREDA (Offshore reliability data).

- Active repair time is considered as the repair time.

- Reliability data for the Scrubber (10m3) is used since the scrubber (10m3) is not available.

xxxvi
 - Reliability data for the control valve is used for the expansion valve.

- Redundancy is not considered.

Procedure

Step_1. In this study, only the critical failure mode is considered.

Step_2. Figure 3.23 illustrate the RBD of the ship-based Korean CCS chain

Step_3. The reliability data is collected. Table 3.9 shows failure rate and active repair time of

the equipment which is employed in this system.

Step_4. Simulation model is built and the reliability data are entered.

Step_5. Availability is estimated by the commercial simulation tool which is called MAROS.

Step_6. The unavailability cost is estimated by referring EU-EST

Figure 3.23 RBD of ship-based Korean CCS chain

xxxvii
Table 3.9 Reliability data of Korean CCS chain components

Failure rate Repair Active Time

Components 6
(per 10 hours) (hours)
Compressor 182.8 49
Electrical motor 80.75 12
Heat Exchanger 13.98 4.2
Pump 60.76 18
Scrubber 28.99 5.8
Expansion valve 9.31 2
CO2 carrier 343 72~96

xxxviii
4 Logic of Evaluation Model and Case Studies

4.1 Logic of Evaluation

This section indicates that how the cost is estimated and how optimal option is selected among
the several alternatives based on the LCC. Figure 4.1 shows the schematic logic of the evaluation
model.

Figure 4.1 Logic of the evaluation model

This is the procedure of the evaluation model.

1. The diameter of the pipeline and the pressure drop are calculated using the distance

from the power plant to the liquefaction barge and the quantity of CO2.

2. When the pressure drop is calculated, the requiring pressure of the compressor is

measured. The process of the compression system is simulated.

3. After the simulation, the capacity of the compressor and the energy consumption are
calculated. The equipment cost is estimated using the capacity of the compressor.

xxxix
4. Using the percentage of delivered equipment cost method, the CAPEX of the compressor

is estimated.

5. Using the energy consumption of the compressor and CAPEX, the OPEX is estimated.

6. Optimum compression method is selected by comparing the LCC of two cases: one

compressor type and two compressors.

7. After calculated diameter of the pipeline, the LCC of the pipeline is estimated by the MIT

CO2 pipeline transportation cost model.

8. The time that is spent during one voyage is estimated using distance from the

liquefaction barge to storage site. (The speed of the ship is assumed as 15 knot, loading
time and unloading time are assumed as 20 hours each, leaving port time and entering

port time are assumed as 2 hours each)

9. The number of the carrier and the number of the voyage of each ship are estimated by

the quantity of CO2 depending on the capacity of the ship: 20K, 40K, 80K, 120K.

10. The CAPEX of the CO2 carrier is estimated by adding CAPEX of the ship to CAPEX of the

storage tank. OPEX of the ship and storage tank are estimated.

11. After the capacity of the CO2 carrier is decided, the CAPEX and OPEX of the barge hull is

estimated.

12. The CAPEX and OPEX of the liquefaction system are estimated using the equations which
are introduced in the section 3.3.1.

13. The LCC of the storage tank is estimated.

14. The availability analysis of the whole CCS chain is performed and then it is converted to
the unavailability cost.

xl
4.2 Case Studies

4.2.1 Case Study 1

The Figure 4.2 shows the CO2 source and the CO2 sink of the case study 1. The CO2 source is the
Hadong power plant and CO2 sink is the Donghae gas field. The detail information about the

case study 1 is indicated below.

- Capacity of power plant: 4000 [MW] (500 MW x 8)

- Fuel of power plant: Coal

- CO2 emission: 29.2 [million ton / year]

- Quantity of disposal CO2: 1 [million-ton / year]

- Distance from power plant to liquefaction barge: 2.0 [km]

- Distance from liquefaction barge to storage site: 270 [km]

Figure 4.2 CO2 Source and sink of case study 1

xli
After performing the evaluation model using above data, the one compressor type is selected and

one 20,000 DWT CO2 carrier is enough to transfer 1 million-ton per year. The detail results are

arranged below and the LCC is tabulated in the Table 4.1.

- Pressure drop: 75.3 [kPa]

- Diameter of pipeline: 0.6 [m]

- Time per one voyage: 65 [hour], (Including loading and unloading time, leaving and enter

port time)

- Number of voyage per year: 50

Table 4.1 LCC of case study 1

Unavailability
CAPEX [$] OPEX [$] LCC [$]
Cost [$]
Compressor 13,503,001 110,339,900
Pipeline 496,136 124,300
Ship 28,000,000 80,224,000
Storage tank 9,696,962 9,696,962 40,800,000 630,221,129
Barge hull 29,140,800 29,140,800
Liquefaction 32,700,439 208,898,160
Storage tank 18,729,835 18,729,835
Total 132,267,172 457,153,956 40,800,000 630,221,129
The refrigeration system is dominant among the segments and the Percentage of the CAPEX,

OPEX and unavailability cost is 21 %. 72.5 % and 6.5 %.

xlii
4.2.2 Case Study 2

The Figure 4.3 shows the case study 2. The CO2 source is the Boryeong power plant and CO2

sink is the Donghae gas field. The detail information for the case study 1 is indicated below.

- Capacity of power plant: 4000 [MW] (500 MW x 8)

- Fuel of power plant: Coal

- CO2 emission: 29.2 [million ton / year]

- Quantity of disposal CO2: 10 [million-ton / year]

- Distance from power plant to liquefaction barge: 0.5 [km]

- Distance from liquefaction barge to storage site: 724 [km]

Figure 4.3 CO2 Source and sink of case study 2

xliii
After performing the evaluation model, the one compressor type is selected and one 120,000

DWT CO2 carrier is enough to transfer 1 million-ton per year. The detail results are arranged

below and the LCC is tabulated in the Table 4.2.

- Pressure drop: 3.8 [kPa]

- Diameter of pipeline: 2.0 [m]

- Time per one voyage: 96 [hour], (Including loading and unloading time, leaving and enter

port time)

- Number of voyage per year: 64

Table 4.2 LCC of case study 2

Unavailability
CAPEX [$] OPEX [$] LCC [$]
Cost [$]
Compressor 76,078,496 589,004,660
Pipeline 844,061 31,040
Ship 105,154,000 402,178,000
Storage tank 53,839,151 53,839,151 408,000,000 3,807,277,911
Barge hull 85,708,800 85,708,800
Liquefaction 172,380,090 1,559,155,058
Storage tank 107,678,302 107,678,302
Total 601,682,900 2,797,595,011 408,000,000 3,807,277,911
The refrigeration system is dominant among the segments and the Percentage of the CAPEX,
OPEX and unavailability cost is 15.8 %. 73.5 % and 10.7 %.

xliv
5 Conclusions

This study suggests the evaluation model to decide on the best options in the ship-based Korean

CCS chain depending on the quantity and the distance.

In case of one compressor type, the pressure drop is the critical factor while the diameter

of the pipeline is important factor in two compressor type. The pressure in the one compressor

type is dramatically dropped as the quantity CO2 and distance are increased. When pressure is
greater than 40 % of the inlet pressure, it is considered as the compressible flow. The one

compressor should be carefully selected.

The propane-ethane cascade cycle with 40 condensing temperature is the best

refrigeration cycle for the CO2 liquefaction. The cascade cycles with the different refrigerants and

condensing temperature are suggested and then simulated by the process simulation tool. COP
and 2nd law efficiency are employed to compare the cycles. The average 2nd law efficiency of the
cycles suggested is approximately 0.55, but the propane-ethane cascade cycle with 40 is

about 0.60. The equipment cost of the refrigeration system has the scale up effectiveness, but the

energy consumption is not. The normalized equipment cost of the refrigeration system is
decreased as the quantity of CO2 is increasing while the normalized energy consumption is not

changed with the quantity of CO2.

The number and the size of the CO2 carrier should be defined after the evaluation.

Normally, one large size CO2 carrier is better than many small size carriers to transfer the same

amount. But in ship-based Korean CCS chain, the size of the CO2 carrier is strong related to the
barge size, the total cost of the CO2 carrier is not always decreased with the size of carrier

Not only CAPEX and OPEX but also unavailability cost was introduced in the LCC
methodology for the economic evaluation. The unavailability cost is critical factor in the LCC. The
percentage of the unavailability cost is about the 6 ~ 10 percent in the LCC.

When Hadong power plant and Donghae gas field are selected as the CO2 source and
the sink for the Korean CCS, two compressors type and one 20,000 DWT CO2 carrier are the best

options. The refrigeration system is the most critical segment, percentage of the CAPEX, OPEX
and unavailability cost is 21 %. 72.5 % and 6.5 %.F

xlv


[1] Joo Hee Lee. (2011). CCS Chain Design and Optimization, Masters Thesis, Korea Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 99 pages.

[2] Yoshio KAWAUCHI. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis in oil and chemical process industries,
78 pages.

[3] Marvin Rausand. (2004). System reliability theory, Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, 636 pages.

[4] Yunus A. Cengel. (2003). Thermodynamics an Engineering Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York,
914 pages.

[5] Max S. Peters. (2003). Plant Design and Economic for Chemical Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 988 pages.

[6] OREDA Participants. (2009). OREDA (Offshore reliability Data), OREDA Participants, 794
pages.

[7] Joana Serpa. (2011). Technical and Economic Characteristics of a CO2 transmission Pipeline
Infrastructure, European Union, 43 pages.

[8] Abdullah Alabdulkarem, Yunho Hwang, and reinhard Radermacher (2011). "Development of
CO2 liquefaction cycles for CO2 sequestration" Applied Thermal Engineering, (2011), pp. 1-13.

[9] Hans Aksel Haugen, and Nils Eldrup (2009). "Options for transporting CO2 from coal fired
power plants Case Denmark.", Energy Procedia, 1 (2009), pp. 1665-1672.

[10] Byeong-Yong Yoo, Sung-Geun Lee, Key-pyo Rhee, Hee-Seung Na, and Ju-Mi Park. (2011).
"New CCS system intergration with CO2 carrier and liquefaction process" Energy Procedia, 4
(2011), pp. 2308-2314.

[11] Audun Aspelund, and Kristin Jordal (2007). "Gas conditioning The interface between CO2
capture and transport." International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 1 (2007), pp. 343-354.

[12] A. Aspelund, M. J. Molnvik, and G. De koeijer. (2006). "Ship Transport of CO2 Technical
Solutions and Analysis of Costs, Energy Utilization, Exergy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions"
Chemical; Engineering Research and Design, 84(A9), pp. 847-855.

[13] Sandrine Decarre, Julien Bethiaud, Nicolas Butin, and Jean-Louis Guillaume-Combecave
(2010). "CO2 maritime transportation" International Journal og Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(2010),
pp. 857-864.

xlvi
 Summary

Economic Evaluation of Ship-based Korean CCS Chain

with Availability
CCS CCS
CCS . CCS
. .
.
CCS.
,
. .
(Availability)
.

xlvii