English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Energy system planning tools suggest that the cost and feasibility of climate-stabilizing energy transitions are sensitive to the cost of CO 2  capture and storage processes (CCS), but the representation of CO 2  transportation and geologic storage in these tools is often simple or non-existent. We develop the capability of producing dynamic-reservoir-simulation-based geologic CO 2  storage supply curves with the Sequestration of CO 2  Tool (SCO 2 T) and use it with the ReEDS electric sector planning model to investigate the effects of CO 2  transportation and geologic storage representation on energy system planning tool results. We use a locational case study of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region. Our results suggest that the cost of geologic CO 2  storage may be as low as $3/tCO 2  and that site-level assumptions may affect this cost by several dollars per tonne. At the grid level, the cost of geologic CO 2  storage has generally smaller effects compared to other assumptions (e.g., natural gas price), but small variations in this cost can change results (e.g., capacity deployment decisions) when policy renders CCS marginally competitive. The cost of CO 2  transportation generally affects the location of geologic CO 2  storage investment more than the quantity of CO 2  captured or the location of electricity generation investment. We conclude with a few recommendations for future energy system researchers when modeling CCS. For example, assuming a cost for geologic CO 2  storage (e.g., $5/tCO 2 ) may be less consequential compared to assuming free storage by excluding it from the model.

The Importance of Modeling Carbon Dioxide Transportation and Geologic Storage in Energy System Planning Tools