chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2721–2731

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cherd

Planning of carbon capture and storage with pinch

analysis techniques

Raymond E.H. Ooi a , Dominic C.Y. Foo a,∗ , Denny K.S. Ng a , Raymond R. Tan b
a Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering/Centre of Excellence for Green Technologies, University of Nottingham
Malaysia, Broga Road, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia
b Chemical Engineering Department/Center for Engineering and Sustainable Development Research, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft

Avenue, 1004 Manila, Philippines

a b s t r a c t

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a means for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions from fossil fuel combus-
tion in power generation and industrial processes. It involves the capture of CO2 for subsequent storage in various
geological formations. The selection and matching of the power plants and storage sites are often an issue of optimi-
sation due to various constraints, i.e., time of availability, injection rate, and storage capacity limits. In this work, a
novel graphical targeting tool based on pinch analysis is proposed to address the planning problem of the storage of
captured CO2 from power generating plants into corresponding reservoirs. The main consideration for the problem
is the time of availability of the latter, since reservoirs need to be developed prior to CO2 storage. The time limita-
tion is addressed by the graphical technique where time is taken as the governing element in solving the problem.
Hypothetical examples are used to elucidate the proposed approach.
© 2013 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Carbon capture and storage; CO2 emission reduction; Process integration; Pinch analysis; Targeting; Source-
sink matching

1. Introduction fuel by approximately 80–90%, based on data from Intergov-

ernmental Panel on Climate Change (Metz et al., 2005).
Recently, more countries around the world have committed Promising carbon capture (CC) technologies include oxy-
to progressive carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emission reduction over fuel combustion, which involves burning fuel in the absence
time, as the world struggles to balance the growth in energy of nitrogen to yield CO2 -rich flue gas (Wall et al., 2009). Besides,
requirement and environment conservation for a sustainable other technologies developed for CC includes chemical loop-
future. This trend has contributed to the growing interest ing combustion, pre-combustion capture (using integrated
in carbon capture and storage (CCS) initiatives which have gasification combined cycles, IGCC), or post combustion cap-
been widely discussed as means to cut emission from pro- ture (via flue gas scrubbing with solvents such as amines)
cesses involving fossil fuel combustion. CCS mainly involves (Yang et al., 2008). Retrofitting existing power plants with
capturing CO2 from large point sources such as fossil fired CCS allows for continued used of fossil fuel such as coal and
power plants, and subsequently storing the captured CO2 in natural gas while drastically reducing emission. Besides, CC
geological reservoirs to ensure that it does not enter the atmo- technologies will be able to cushion the pressure imposed
sphere. Large-scale deployment of CCS can reduce the total on the development of large scale application in renewable
carbon emission levels of a country or region, even with an energy to replace fossil fuels in the future. Total replacement
increase in power generation capacity and demand. The emis- of fossil fuels for power generation is not expected to materi-
sion level from retrofitted power plants will be lower than alise in near future as dependency on fossil fuel is expected
a modern conventional plant (without CCS) using the same to continue and expand. The World Energy Outlook (WEO)

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 89248130, fax: +60 3 8924 8017.
E-mail addresses: rayooi80@yahoo.com (R.E.H. Ooi), Dominic.Foo@nottingham.edu.my, foodominic@yahoo.com (D.C.Y. Foo),
Denny.Ng@nottingham.edu.my (D.K.S. Ng), Raymond.Tan@dlsu.edu.ph (R.R. Tan).
Received 11 May 2012; Received in revised form 19 November 2012; Accepted 4 April 2013
0263-8762/$ – see front matter © 2013 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2013.04.007
2722 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2721–2731

2009 claims that fossil fuels remain the dominant sources of CO2 Storage
primary energy accounting for more than three quarters of “service”
overall increase in energy use between 2007 and 2030 (IEA, CO2 Storage CO2 Emitting Fossil
Reservoirs Power Plants
2009a). As such, CCS can be used in conjunction with other (Source) (Sink)
“technology wedges” such as renewables to reduce green- Captured CO2
house gas emissions from energy use (Williams et al., 2012).
The main disadvantage of using CC in power plants is the Fig. 1 – CO2 source and demand convention for CCS
reduction of power output due to the energy requirements of planning problem (Tan et al., 2008).
capturing CO2 ; this power loss, combined with capital outlays,
can result in an increase of power generation costs by 40–60% that provides “service” to CO2 emitting power plants, which
(IEA, 2009b). takes the analogy of man power availability in completing
Captured CO2 from the power plants may be either stored in a given task in human resource management problem (Foo
reservoirs such as unused saline aquifers (Bachu and Adams, et al., 2010a, 2010b). In effect, storage capacity is treated as
2003), inaccessible coal seams and geological reservoirs or a resource that is available in geological reservoirs, and is
transported to depleted oil production fields for enhanced oil consumed by the power plants that generate captured CO2
recovery (EOR). The captured CO2 can be stored permanently streams. These plants thus act as storage demands (analogy to
in geological reservoirs, where deep aquifers can contain large task to be completed in human resource management prob-
amount of CO2 in the form of compressed gas, liquid or aque- lem – Foo et al., 2010a, 2010b), are to be matched to the
ous solution under high formation pressure. Koide et al. (1999) appropriate storage source. This new definition for the role
conducted a study on utilising the unused reservoir for perma- and contribution of the sink–source is shown in Fig. 1. Note
nent CO2 storage and concluded that from the point of storage that the convention used in this work where physical sources
capacity and economics, CO2 containment in geological reser- of CO2 emission (i.e., power plants) are taken as demand for
voir is a feasible solution. In the context of EOR, CO2 can be the service of CO2 disposal, and conversely the storage reser-
used as injection gas into oil producing wells to increase the voirs which act as physical sinks are taken as sources of this
amount of oil recoverable from an oil field (US Department of service. Hence, the disposal service flows in the opposite direc-
Energy, 2012). CO2 injection into oil wells can be considered as tion as the captured CO2 itself. This convention was proposed
a viable option to extend the production life of the oil fields in the context of life cycle assessment by Tan et al. (2008); its
and at the same time contribute to reduction in CO2 emission logical basis in the context of general waste treatment and
to the atmosphere. However, in this case both injection rate disposal systems is discussed in detail by Heijungs and Suh
and period of operation for CO2 capture are constrained by oil (2002). From the above description, the sink–source definition
extraction considerations. is different than the assumption made in the work of Tan et al.
Although the selection and utilisation of CO2 for EOR looks (2012, 2013) where power plants are considered as CO2 sources
to be the more promising method for CO2 storage from an eco- while the storage as sinks.
nomic viewpoint compared to permanent reservoir storages, The paper will first approach the problem using macro-
the amount required for CO2 storage may be limited and there scopic approach based on overall matching of storage source
are regional disparities in the occurrence of oil and gas fields. available and storage demand. The timing of the requirement
Required CO2 injection may be subjected to oil production for the additional storage resource will be optimised using
forecast and capability of the oil and gas production facili- targeting methods to ensure that additional storage is only
ties to handle the increase in oil recovery from the existing introduced when required. This will provide better estimation
field. In addition, the timing and availability of CO2 sinks and of the urgency of the need for a new reservoir to be developed
sources, coupled with injection facilities does require com- to support the deficit of storage capacity in the CCS network.
prehensive planning to optimise the sink–source matching. Subsequently, a detailed approach will be used to iden-
Turk et al. (1987) presented pure integer linear programming tify the pairing options available for a particular power plant
model in an early attempt to optimise the matching of CO2 to a specific storage site. The various options identified will
sink–sources for EOR. be developed into roadmaps for further evaluation on project
Among the factors considered during feasibility planning economics and logistics for the best option to proceed with
stage in matching of CO2 sinks and sources is the time engineering and construction (however this is outside the
availability, CO2 storage capacity and injection rate. In addi- scope of this work).
tion, grid-related aspects such as energy losses need to be
accounted for. Linear programme (LP) and mixed integer linear 2. Problem statement
programme (MILP) models were developed by Foo et al. (2010a),
˛
Pekala et al. (2010) and Tan et al. (2010), where CCS retrofit The formal statement derived for the CCS planning problem
was performed for carbon-constrained energy planning, tak- is given as follows:
ing into account the need to compensate for power losses due
to CC. Tan et al. (2012, 2013) and Lee and Chen (2012) later • The CCS network is assumed to be comprised of i storage
extended the MILP model into continuous-time and discrete- sources, and j storage demands and the planning horizon
time variants for the matching of CO2 sources and sinks under consists of k time steps.
temporal, injection rate and storage capacity constraints. • Sources are represented by available storage reservoirs or
In this paper, the CCS planning problem is addressed via EOR requirements for an oil field. Demands are comprised
a novel graphical tool, which is extended from the human of fossil fuelled power plants where CC retrofit has been
resource management problem based on pinch analysis tech- performed. The CO2 captured from the plants will be trans-
nique (Foo et al., 2010b). However, a new definition for resource ported to the reservoirs for storage/EOR usage. The CO2
sinks and sources is used here. In this work, the availabil- emission can only be stored in reservoirs which have been
ity of CO2 storage reservoirs is defined as storage sources developed earlier. Should a power plant start to capture
 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2721–2731 2723

Table 1 – Captured CO2 load from power plants for hypothetical example.
Plants Start to end (y) Plant life considered in Average captured Total CO2
planning horizon (y) CO2 rate (Mt/y) load (Mt)

Plant A 0–30 30 10 300

Plant B 10–50 40 10 400
Total 700

CO2 before a storage source is available, additional make- (a) Year

up storage sources (i.e. external service) is required to take
the CO2 load from the power plant. 0
Reservoir A
• Since the sources (i.e. reservoirs) comprises of storage 10
capacities which can generally store a large amount of CO2 ,
20
these storage sources can be linked to one or more demands Plant A
(power plants) as the storage available can be shared among 30
Reservoir B
Plant B
the plants. 40
CO2 load (Mt)
• Due to the fact that the choice of pairing a CO2 power plant
50
to a designated reservoir is mainly driven by the project 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
economics and geographical feasibility, the pairing of CO2
Total storage
emitting power plants to a particular CO2 storage/EOR field
capacity = 600 Mt
will be justified only if a power plant linked to a reservoir
will continue sending captured CO2 load to the reservoir for Total demand
the rest of the operating life of the plant, unless limited by capacity = 700 Mt
its storage capacity and operating life. (b) Year
• For a feasible planning problem, a reservoir is only made
available to store captured CO2 after it has been developed 0 Plant A Source Composite
Reservoir A
from time T onward. However, available storage capacity 10
Curve
need not be used immediately upon becoming available.
20
Conversely, plants with captured CO2 will use up stor- Plant A +B Reservoir B
age capacity immediately upon the generation of the CO2 30
Demand Composite
stream. Note that this asymmetric temporal relationship 40 Curve CO2 load (Mt)
between the storage sites and power plants resembles Plant B
50
the heat and mass transfer driving force in conventional 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
pinch analysis, i.e. temperature in the case of heat recovery
(Linnhoff et al., 1982), as well as concentration for mass inte- Additional Region for matching power Excess
storage plant with storage storage
gration and resource conservation (El-Halwagi, 2006; Foo,
requirement capacity
2012). In other words, the sources (i.e., CO2 storage sites)
must be present before the demands (i.e., plants with cap- Fig. 2 – (a) CC with separate plot for storage reservoir and
tured CO2 ). demands (power plants) for hypothetical case. (b)
Combined CSCC for hypothetical example.

3. Carbon storage composite curve

Table 2 – Storage capacity from reservoirs for
hypothetical example.
To handle the CCS planning problem illustrated above, a new
Plants Available from (y) Total CO2 load (Mt)
graphical tool known as carbon storage composite curves (CSCCs)
is proposed. As shown in Fig. 2, the CSCCs are plotted on a Reservoir A 10 300
time vs. capacity diagram, where y-axis represents the time Reservoir B 30 300

axis (usually in year) of the planning problem, i.e. storage and Total – 600
life span of power plants; while the x-axis represents the total
accumulated CO2 load (usually in Mt) involved for capture and
storage. storage sources and demands are then merged to become
For better illustration, a hypothetical example is used, with the source and demand composite curves. Note that the source
data in Table 1 represents the storage demand for plants A and composite curve takes the form of a “staircase”, as it is
B (with captured CO2 load), both with different life duration constructed by various horizontal segments. In contrast, the
and starting year of operation. For available storage, Reservoirs demand composite curve is formed by merging the diago-
A and B will be developed to cater for their demands. The avail- nal segments within each time interval. For instance, within
ability of the reservoirs varies, with Reservoir B developed 20 the interval of 10–30 years where both plants A and B exist,
years after Reservoir A, as shown in Table 2. their total CO2 load are added, in order to form a single seg-
As shown in Fig. 2(a), the storage reservoirs (storage ment.
sources) are first plotted as horizontal segments on the time As mentioned earlier, for a feasible solution, the reservoirs
versus capacity diagram, while CO2 storage demands (from (sources) are to be developed well ahead before they may
the power plants) are represented by diagonal segments. be used for storing the capture CO2 load. Hence, the source
Note that the slopes of these segments represent the CO2 composite curve is moved horizontally to the right, until it is
flowrates for the given time frame. Both segments for the entirely above and just touching the demand composite curve
2724 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2721–2731

Table 3 – CO2 storage capacity from reservoirs for case study.

Storage site Start to end Reservoir life considered in CO2 injection rate Total CO2
(y) planning horizon (y) (Mt/y) capacity (Mt)

Reservoir A 3–12 10 40 400

Reservoir B 8–18 11 60 660
Reservoir C 13–21 9 20 180

Total 1240

(left shift of the demand composite curve is also permissible; Similar to the hypothetical case, the objective of this case
but not vertical shift). This corresponds to the case in Fig. 2(b). study is to determine the amount of additional storage (if
As shown, the arrows within the overlapping area between the required) and also to identify excess storage capacity (if avail-
two composite curves indicate the reservoirs (storage sources) able). Table 3 shows the data of the reservoirs. As shown,
are ready for use for the power plants (storage demands). In Reservoirs A–C are identified for use, each with different stor-
other words, 500 Mt CO2 load can be sent from power plants to age capacity. Note that the total CO2 storage capacity of the
the storage reservoirs (in the reverse direction of the arrows), reservoirs is determined as 1240 Mt, with Reservoir A being
within the given time interval. The opening on the left side the earliest available storage source, i.e. in year 3 (see Table 3).
of the composite curves indicates that additional storage of Table 4 summarises the data for CO2 load captured from
200 Mt is needed, due to the earliest storage by Reservoir A is power plants in consideration and to be sent for storage in
only available from year 10 onwards. This additional storage the reservoirs. As shown, the total planning horizon for the
requirement has to be fulfilled by outsourcing the storage with case study is approximately 20 years, which is a reasonable
an external party (e.g. other nearby geographical region). On period for energy planning. In practice, longer time horizons
the other hand, the amount of excess storage capacity of the are subject to significant uncertainties. The power plant fleet
reservoirs is identified from the opening of the right side of comprises of coal, natural gas and oil power plants. To demon-
the composite curve, i.e. 100 Mt from Reservoir B. This excess strate the variation of power plants from the same fossil fuel
storage may then be used by other neighbouring geographical type, two coal power plants A and B are considered in the
regions if they experience insufficient storage capacity prob- planning horizon with coal power plant B assumed to be a
lem. Note that the additional storage requirement and excess new plant constructed as replacement for coal plant A. As
capacity in this problem are conceptually similar to heat inte- such, coal power plant B requires storage for captured CO2
gration problem where minimum hot and cold utilities are towards the end of the planning horizon, i.e. from year 18
needed (Linnhoff et al., 1982); or the resource conservation onwards. Note that the availability of coal power plant B
networks with external resources and waste discharge (Foo, is only 4 years although realistically plant operation life is
2012). Finally, note that the point where the two composite more than 20 years. However, it is assumed that the plant
curves touch is termed as the “time pinch”, which is the bottle- is constructed late, and hence exceeds the planning hori-
neck that limits the storage of CO2 load from the power plants zon considered for this study. The remaining operating life
to the reservoirs. of plant B can be considered in the next planning hori-
From above illustration, it is clear that the CSCC provides zon.
valuable insights for CCS planning problem, particularly in CSCCs for the case study are plotted in Fig. 3. For clarity
identifying the bottleneck of the planning problem (i.e. the on the proposed methodology, the CSCC in Fig. 2 is further
pinch point in the CSCC). Storage capacity deficiency can be enhanced in detailed where the curves are plotted based on
mitigated from additional storage available from other reser- a year-by-year basis, such that the original diagonal demand
voirs located sufficient close in geographical proximity. Excess composite curve also takes the form of a “staircase”, as the CO2
storage capacity in the reservoirs can be addressed with allo- storage demand is now represented by horizontal bars, each
cation to other power plants in the region. A case study is next equals the storage demand required from the power plants
used to demonstrate the application of the CSCC. for a particular year. From Fig. 3, it is observed that there are
potential matching regions for off-setting, identified from the
4. Case study overlapping region where both source and sink are available.
The source composite curve is then shifted to the left until it
For this case, the allocation problem will be addressed for a touches the sink composite curve at the time pinch, i.e. year
specific geographical region within a time planning horizon. 8 (Fig. 4).

Table 4 – Captured CO2 load from power plants for case study.
Power plant Start to end Plant life considered in Average captured Total CO2 load
(y) planning horizon (y) CO2 rate (Mt/y) (Mt)

Coal power plant A 5–18 14 40 560

Natural gas power plant 6–15 10 20 200
8–15 8 20 160
Oil power plant
16–17 2 40 80
18–19 2 40 80
Coal power plant B
20–21 2 60 120
Total 1200
 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2721–2731 2725

Fig. 3 – Plotting of CSCC for case study.

Fig. 4 – A feasible CSCC for case study.

We may also further categorise the region above and based on their time availability. As shown in the first two
below pinch in Fig. 4. As shown, the amount of additional columns of Table 5, the availability time Tk is arranged in
CO2 storage requirement is identified from the region above acceding order (k = 1, 2, 3, . . ., n), with the earliest storage
the pinch as 40 Mt CO2 . Additional storage can be supplied demand and source arranged at the top level. As explained
from neighbouring storage sites in the area/region to sup- earlier, CO2 storage sources (reservoirs, with capacity FSRi )
port the storage deficit identified (i.e., excess CO2 may be on year Tk will only be available for storage from that time
exported beyond the boundaries of the geographic region). onwards and may not be used immediately once developed.
In the region below the pinch, the amount of excess stor- For this example, an arbitrary step size (year by year) approach
age capacity from the reservoir is identified as 80 Mt. This is applied to demonstrate the CSCA method, where the stor-
spare capacity can be used to accommodate CO2 storage from age sources can cater to storage demand (captured CO2 load
other additional power plants implemented with CCS initia- from power plants, with capacity FSKj ) in the following year, i.e.
tives in the area/region, or for the next planning horizon (i.e. Tk+1 . For instance, Reservoir A is developed at time step T = 3,
as external storage available prior to the start of year 22). Hav- can be made available for storage use at time step T = 4. The
ing to identify the storage deficit enables the country to revise demands and sources are summed at their respective time
its energy plan so that external storage requirement can be step and arranged in columns 3 and 4. Column 5 presents the
reduced.

5. Cascade analysis for additional storage

and excess capacity targeting

Apart from graphical approach, an algebraic technique is

also developed in this work to address the same problem.
This newly developed carbon storage cascade analysis (CSCA)
is analogous to material cascade analysis reported for resource
conservation networks (Manan et al., 2004; Foo et al., 2006;
Foo, 2012). The general framework for CSCA is shown in
Fig. 5. The case study is revisited and solved using CSCA
to determine the minimum storage requirement for the
captured CO2 load. Similarly, the approach also determines
the amount of excess CO2 storage capacity available from the
region.
Table 5 shows the basic framework of CSCA. The first step
in conducting a CSCA is to arrange the demand and sources Fig. 5 – Concept of CSCA.
2726 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2721–2731

Table 5 – General framework for CSCA.

1 2 3 4 5 6
k Tk j FSKj i FSRi i FSRi − j FSKj FT,k

FAD
k Tk (j FSKj )k (i FSRi )k (i FSRi − j FSKj )k
FC,k
k+1 Tk+1 (j FSKj )k+1 (i FSRi )k+1 (i FSRi − j FSKj )k+1
FC,k+1
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
n−2 Tn−2 (j FSKj )n−2 (i FSRi )n−2 (i FSRi − j FSKj )n−2
FC,n−2
n−1 Tn−1 (j FSKj )n−1 (i FSRi )n−1 (i FSRi − j FSKj )n−1
FC,n−1 = FEX
n Tn

net capacity i FSRi − j FSKj between the storage sources and column represents the minimum required storage capacity for
demands at the time point k; with positive indicating surplus a feasible cascade solution. The cascade exercise is carried out
and negative indicating deficit. again with the identified storage capacity requirement (FAD ).
Next, the net CO2 flowrate surplus/deficit is cascaded down Excess storage capacity (FEX ) of the CCS network is determined
the time intervals to yield the cumulative surplus/deficit from the last time interval in the feasible cascade table (where
capacity (FC,k ) in column 6. The largest deficit value in this no deficit value found in column 6).

Table 6 – CSCA for case study.

k Tk (y) (i FSRi )k (Mt/y) (j FSKj )k (Mt/y) (i FSRi − j FSKj )k (Mt/y) FC,k (Mt/y)

FAD = 40
1 4 40 40
80
2 5 40 40 0
80
3 6 40 60 −20
60
4 7 40 60 −20
40
5 8 40 80 −40
0
6 9 100 80 20 (Pinch)
20
7 10 100 80 20
40
8 11 100 80 20
60
9 12 100 80 20
80
10 13 100 80 20
100
11 14 80 80 0
100
12 15 80 80 0
100
13 16 80 80 0
100
14 17 80 80 0
100
15 18 80 80 0
100
16 19 80 40 40
140
17 20 20 60 −40
100
18 21 20 60 −40
60
19 22 20 0 20
FEX = 80
 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2721–2731 2727

Fig. 6 – Time grand composite curve (GCC) plotted graphically to illustrate horizontal gaps between sink–source composite
curve.

The case study is revisited with CSCA, with results shown as conducting additional geological surveys of candidate stor-
in Table 6. The amount of additional storage capacity require- age sites, etc. As indicated in the CSCC in Fig. 4, additional
ment (FAD ) is determined as 40 Mt CO2 , while the total excess storage requirement of 40 Mt is required in year 3. This does
storage available for other use (FEX ) is determined as 80 Mt CO2 not reflect the planning scenario where the earliest CO2 load
from the last entry of column 6. Both values are consistent captured from power plants for storage only starts in year 5
with the results reported by CSCC in Fig. 4. (see Table 4). As such, the actual timing of the additional and
Note that the CSCA provides quantitative results which are excess storage can be determined from the grand composite
more accurate as compared to the graphical method using curve (GCC), as illustrated in Fig. 6. The GCC curve is plotted
the CSCC the graphical method provides conceptual insights by transferring the horizontal differences of the feasible CSCC
on the solution as rough estimation on the CO2 load quantity from Fig. 4 for every year of the planning horizon.
can be deciphered from the CSCC. On the other hand, cascade From the GCC in Fig. 6(c), time pockets (represented by the
analysis is a numerical tool which is preferred when rapid and shaded areas) are first identified. This corresponds to the heat
accurate answers, or when repeated calculation is required. pocket in thermal pinch analysis, in which process-to-process
This technique for example is easily implemented in the form heat transfer occurs without the use of external hot or cold
of a spreadsheet. The results from Table 6 can also be applied utilities (Linnhoff et al., 1982). In other words, available heat
in plotting the grand composite curve, which will be discussed source (to be cooled) complements the required heat sink (to
in the following section. be heated). For this problem, the time pockets represent the
time interval where the available CO2 storage capacities from
the sources can accommodate the storage requirement (i.e.
6. Scheduling for additional and excess CO2 load captured from the power plants). This also repre-
storage sents the corresponding time interval or duration where the
sink complements the sources without additional make-up
The feasible CSCC in Fig. 4 determines the additional storage requirements. The open area above the time pinch in Fig. 6(c)
requirement and excess capacity of the CCS planning problem. indicates that the additional storage of 40 Mt CO2 storage
However, these requirements may not be necessarily made requirement is only needed in year 7. Hence, it is noticed that
available at the start time of the planning horizon, which the GCC provides accurate representation on the timing of the
allows time for resources to be deployed for activities such additional storage requirement. The open area below the time

Fig. 7 – Detailed CSCC for Option 1 of sink-source pairing.

2728 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2721–2731

Fig. 8 – Detailed time composite curve for Option 1.

pinch represents the years and corresponding amount where using a macroscopic approach, without exact allocation of CO2
excess storage is available from the storage reservoirs. From load from power plants to reservoirs.
Fig. 6(c), cumulative excess storage from year 9 to year 11 totals The CSCC in Fig. 7 is further refined by breaking down
to 60 Mt CO2 , while that for year 22 corresponds to 20 Mt CO2 , the demand and source composite curves into their indi-
leading to the total of 80 Mt CO2 . This result is consistent with vidual constituents (i.e., power plants of coal, natural gas
the initial estimation of excess storage capacity represented and oil; Reservoirs A–C), instead of plotting for total storage
by the sink–source composite curves in Fig. 4. capacity and requirement. To determine a possible pairing
Results from the GCC in Fig. 6 may also be transferred to combination, the individual source and demand for each time
form the “balanced CSCC” given in Fig. 7, to include details on interval will be rearranged to ensure that once a power plant is
the actual timing of the additional and excess storage avail- paired to a reservoir, the plant will continue sending captured
able in the planning horizon. The segments of the source CO2 load to the same reservoir unless limited by the reser-
composite curve from year 3 to year 7 are shifted to the voir storage capacity, or operating life, as explained in Section
left of the time pinch (i.e. year 8). The empty slot (where 2. This will ensure an economically viable pairing option to be
the composite curve detaches from the original curve) in identified, as setting up CCS facilities between a plant and stor-
year 7 now confirms the requirement of 40 Mt CO2 storage age site often entails costly facilities (e.g. pipeline and booster
identified by the GCC. Similarly, segments of the demand com- compressors). As such, limiting the number of routes from
posite curve from year 9 to year 21 are shifted to the right a plant to a reservoir (where possible) will be the primary
of the time pinch. Three (3) empty slots are created from approach adopted when determining possible permutation
the shift now represents the amount of excess storage avail- options in pairing.
able at 20 Mt CO2 per year from year 9 to year 11, as total For the case study above, two (2) possible allocation options
storage capacity of 100 Mt CO2 exceeds the required stor- have been identified using the detailed CSCC, which is differ-
age demand from the power plants of 80 Mt CO2 . Note also entiated by the variation in pairing a power plant to a reservoir
there exist an excess storage capacity of 20 Mt at the end of for CO2 storage. Detailed CSCC for Option 1 is shown in Fig. 8.
the planning horizon (in which can only be utilised in the The allocation and connectivity between power plant and
next planning horizon), making the total excess capacity of reservoir is better explained with the schematic representa-
80 Mt. tion in Fig. 9. A total of 10 connections are established between
the power plants and reservoirs. The spare storage capacity
7. Detailed allocation and matching of CO2 available from year 9 to year 11 is derived from Reservoir B to
sources with storage reservoir support neighbouring plant requirements in the area/region.
Detailed allocation and breakdown on the CO2 flowrate trans-
Following the identification of planning targets, the case study ported from the power plants to the reservoir is summarised
is revisited to determine the allocation of storage demands in Table 7 for easy reference. Based on results in Option 1, CO2
and sources. In Sections 4–6, the planning problem is solved captured from coal power plant A will be sent to Reservoir A

Fig. 9 – Schematic representation of sink–source pairing for Option 1.

 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2721–2731 2729

Table 7 – Detailed allocation between captured CO2 in power plant and reservoirs (Option 1).
From To Duration (y) CO2 flowrate (Mt/y)

Reservoir A 5–13 40
Coal power plant A
Reservoir B 14–18 40

Reservoir A 6–7 20
Natural gas power plant Reservoir D 8 20
Reservoir B 9–15 20

Reservoir D 8 20
Oil power plant Reservoir B 9–14 20
16–17 20
Reservoir C 15–17 20

Reservoir B 18–19 20
Coal power plant B
20–21 60
Reservoir C 18–19 20
21 60

Fig. 10 – Detailed CSCC for Option 2 of sink-source pairing.

Fig. 11 – Schematic representation of sink–source pairing for Option 2.

for storage from year 5 to year 13 until the end life of Reservoir will be considered in next planning horizon (assuming that
A after which alternative Reservoir B is required for storage of coal power plant B, Reservoirs B and C are still available in the
remaining captured CO2 from coal power plant A (each with new planning horizon).
CO2 flowrate of 40 Mt/yr). Spare storage capacity has been identified for Reservoir B
Captured CO2 from natural gas power plant will be sent to from year 9 to 11 to accommodate additional captured CO2
Reservoirs A, B and D (additional make-up storage) throughout from the power plants or new plants located in the region.
the operating life of the plant. Also, captured CO2 from oil Option 2 provides another possible solution for the allo-
power plant will be sent for storage in Reservoirs B–D from cation problem and is represented in Figs. 10 and 11. In
year 8 to year 17. addition, in this option, a total of 10 connections are estab-
Captured CO2 from coal power plant B will be sent to Reser- lished between the power plants and reservoirs. Detailed
voirs B and C when it starts operation in year 18. Since the allocation and breakdown on the CO2 flowrate transported
planning horizon considered in this study is only 20 years, the from the power plants to the reservoir is tabled in Table 8 for
storage strategy for coal power plant B from year 22 onwards easy reference.
2730 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2721–2731

Table 8 – Detailed allocation between captured CO2 in of power plant and reservoirs (Option 2).
From To Duration (y) CO2 flowrate (Mt/y)

Reservoir A 5–7 40
Coal power plant A
8–9 20
11–13 40
Reservoir B 9 20
14–18 40

Reservoir A 6–7 20
Natural gas power
plant
Reservoir D 8 20

Reservoir B 9–15 20

Reservoir D 8 20
Oil power plant
Reservoir B 9–14 20
16–17 20
Reservoir C 15–17 20

Reservoir B 18–19 20
Coal power plant B
20–21 60
Reservoir C 18–19 20
21 60

For Option 2, spare storage capacity has been identified for For future work, multi-region systems can be used to
Reservoir A for year 10 and Reservoir B for year 9 and year 11 to optimise CO2 management planning and storage strategy
accommodate additional captured CO2 from the power plants implemented for multiple regions around the world and not
or new plants located in the region. limited to a single region. In other words, the captured CO2
can be sent for storage in reservoirs located in another region
while reservoirs can be utilised to accommodate CO2 storage
8. Conclusion for power plants in other regions. This is similar to previ-
ous work on inter-plant water integration by Chew and Foo,
A pinch-based graphical tool known as carbon storage compos- 2009. In addition, the graphical approach may be improved to
ite curves (CSCC) has been developed for use in the selection account for injection rate limits of storage sites.
and allocation of CO2 storage capacity with power plants
that implement carbon capture (CC). The proposed graphi-
cal approach with CSCC serves as a valuable decision support References
tool for providing planning insights with CCS deployment
in a geographic region under temporal constraints. In addi- Bachu, S., Adams, J.J., 2003. Sequestration of CO2 in geological
media in response to climate change: capacity of deep saline
tion, a grand composite curve (GCC) has been developed
aquifers to sequester CO2 in solution. Energy Convers.
for scheduling of storage capacity surplus or deficit. The
Manage. 44, 3151–3175.
required additional storage capacity can be identified quan- Chew, M.L., Foo, D.C.Y., 2009. Automated targeting for inter-plant
titatively and planned for remedial back-up in the required water integration. Chem. Eng. J. 153 (1–3), 23–36.
years to ensure that adequate CO2 storage support is pro- El-Halwagi, M.M., 2006. Process Integration. Academic Press, NY.
vided. Similarly, amount of excess CO2 storage is identified Foo, D.C.Y., 2012. Process Integration for Resource Conservation.
together with the time of availability. This will help to pro- CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Foo, D.C.Y., Manan, Z.A., Tan, Y.L., 2006. Use cascade analysis to
vide insights on the spare capacity available in the area/region
optimize water networks. Chem. Eng. Prog. 102 (7),
which can be utilised by other power plants that may be con- 45–55.
sidered for CO2 capture later, or which may be utilised by Foo, D.C.Y., Ng, D., Tan, K.S., Smith R, R.R., 2010a. Automated
neighbouring geographical regions, or in the new planning targeting technique to carbon-constrained planning for
horizon. carbon sequestration retrofit in the power sector. In:
The carbon storage cascade analysis (CSCA) method can International Conference on Applied Energy, Singapore.
then be applied to provide more precise algebraic compu- Foo, D.C.Y., Hallale, N., Tan, R.R., 2010b. Optimise Shift Scheduling
Using Pinch Analysis., pp. 48–52 (www.che.com).
tations that are equivalent to CSCC. Detailed mapping on
Heijungs, R., Suh, S., 2002. The Computational Structure of Life
the allocation can also be executed using the detailed CSCC. cycle Assessment. Kluwer, Drodrecht.
Detailed CSCC identifies possible options as roadmaps to be International Energy Agency (IEA), 2009a. World Energy Outlook
adopted during preliminary planning and feasibility assess- 2009 – executive summary., pp. 4.
ment in constructing the CCS network. These options do not International Energy Agency (IEA), 2009b. Energy Technology
consider the economic aspects of infrastructure investment essentials. www.iea.org/Textbase/techno/essentials.htm
(accessed April 2012).
as such issues are better addressed using detailed optimisa-
Koide, H., Tazaki, Y., Noguchi, Y., Nakayama, S., Iijima, M., Ito, K.,
tion models during subsequent stages of planning. Based on
Shindo, Y., 1999. Subterranean containment and long term
the options identified, further assessment shall be conducted storage of carbon dioxide in unused aquifers and in depleted
with reference to timing, resources, project economics and natural gas reservoirs. Energy Convers. Manage. 33 (5–8),
environment factor before a roadmap is selected for execution. 619–626.
 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2721–2731 2731

Lee, J.-Y., Chen, C.-L., 2012. Comments on “Continuous-Time Tan, R.R., Culaba, A.B., Aviso, K.B., 2008. A fuzzy linear
Optimization Model for Source–Sink Matching in Carbon programming extension of the general matrix-based life cycle
Capture and Storage Systems”. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51, model. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1358–1367.
11590–11591. Tan, R.R., Ng, D.K.S., Foo, D.C.Y., Aviso, K.B., 2010. A crisp and
Linnhoff, B., Townsend, D.W., Boland, D., Hewitt, G.F., Thomas, fuzzy integer programming models for optimal carbon
B.E.A., Guy, A.R., Marshall, R.H., 1982. A User Guide on Process sequestration retrofit in the power sector. Chem. Eng. Res.
Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy. IChemE, Rugby. Des. 88, 1580–1588.
Manan, Z.A., Tan, Y.L., Foo, D.C.Y., 2004. Targeting the minimum Turk, G.A., Cobb, T.B., Jankowski, D.J., Wolsky, A.M., Sparrow, F.T.,
water flowrate using water cascade analysis technique. AIChE 1987. CO2 transport: a new application of the assignment
J. 50 (12), 3169–3183. problem. Energy 12, 123–130.
Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H.C., Loos, M., Meyer, L.A. US Department of Energy, 2012. Enhanced oil recovery program.
(Eds.), 2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/index.html
and Storage. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (accessed April 2012).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Wall, T.F., Liu, Y., Spero, C., Elliot, L., Khare, S., Rathnam, R.,
Kingdom/New York, NY (442 pp). Zeenathal, F., Moghtaderi, B., Buhre, B., Sheng, C., Gupta, R.,
˛
Pekala, Ł.M., Tan, R.R., Foo, D.C.Y., Jeżowski, J.M., 2010. Optimal Yamada, T., Makino, K., Yu, J., 2009. An overview on oxy fuel
energy planning models with carbon footprint constraints. coal combustion state of the art research and technology
Appl. Energy 87 (6), 1903–1910. development. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 87, 1003–1016.
Tan, R.R., Aviso, K.B., Bandyopadhyay, S., Ng, D.K.S., 2012. A Williams, J.H., DeBenedictis, A., Ghanadan, R., Mahone, A.,
continuous-time optimization model for source–sink Moore, J., Morrow III, W.R., Price, S., Torn, M.S., 2012. The
matching in carbon capture and storage systems. Ind. Eng. Technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by
Chem. Res. 51, 10015–10020. 2050: the pivotal role of electricity. Science 335,
Tan, R.R., Aviso, K.B., Bandyopadhyay, S., Ng, D.K.S., 2013. 53.
Optimal source–sink matching in carbon capture and storage Yang, H., Xu, Z., Fan, M., Gupta, R., Slimane, R.B., Bland, A.E.,
systems with time, injection rate and capacity constraints. et al., 2008. Progress in carbon dioxide separation and
Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy, 411–416. capture: a review. J. Environ. Sci. 20, 14–27.