You are on page 1of 10

7th Pipeline Technology Conference 2012 CO2 Pipeline Transport from Germany to Algeria

David Haumann1, Dr. Gerold Gttlicher, Dr. Esad Osmancevic, Tobias Kuhn4, Christoph Konrad5, Jrg Strittmatter6

EnBW Energie Baden-Wrttemberg AG, Durlacher Allee 93, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany, phone: +49 721-63 24228 EnBW Energie Baden-Wrttemberg AG, Durlacher Allee 93, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany, phone: +49 721-63-17896 RBS wave GmbH, Langwiesenweg 23, 70327 Stuttgart, Germany, phone: +49 711-289-513-20 RBS wave GmbH, Langwiesenweg 23, 70327 Stuttgart, Germany, phone: +49 711- 289-513-24 RBS wave GmbH, Zeppelinstr. 15-19, 76275 Ettlingen, Germany, phone: +49 7243 5888-116 European Institute for Energy Research, Emmy-Noether-Strasse 11, Germany, phone: +49 721-6105-1487

The research project Solar2Fuel funded by the German Ministry of education and research (BMBF), BASF and EnBW within the Leading-Edge Cluster Forum Organic Electronic aim to develop a future solar powered CO2 to methanol conversion technology. This technology would give rise to the possibility of recycling captured CO2 from stationary sources in Northern Europe, transport CO2 in large pipelines with 50*106 tons annual capacity to regions with high solar irradiation where it can be converted into a renewable fuel via solar energy. EnBW investigated the feasibility of different CO2 pipeline routes from Germany to Algeria, North Africa, using GIS (Geographical Information System) analysis and simulation tools for pipelines including the specific gas properties. The pipeline was designed regarding pressure, pressure drop, compressor demand and wall thickness for the different topologies onshore and offshore. The cost of the total pipeline including compressor stations were analysed in simulations with different pipeline diameters. The energy need for CO2 transport as well as the specific transportation cost from Germany to Algeria were calculated. In addition the requirements for CO2 overnight storage and its specific costs are evaluated. The results CO2 transportation cost are compared with respect to its impact on solar methanol production.

Table of content: 1 Introduction. p.: 02 2 Method.... p.: 02 2.1 Identification of possible pipeline routes from Germany to Algeria.. p.: 02 2.2 Parameters and assumptions for evaluation of pipeline design and modeling.. p.: 03 2.3 Calculation of pipeline wall thickness... p.: 04 2.4 Evaluation of cost for pipeline construction, laying and operation ... p.: 05 2.5 CO2 storage in Algeria p.: 05 2.6 Influence of CO2 transportation and supply cost on methanol price p.: 06 3 Results p.: 06 3.1 Cost and data for CO2 pipeline transport. p.: 06 3.2 CO2 storage in Algeria. p.: 08 3.3 Influence of CO2 transportation and supply cost on methanol price p.: 09 4 Conclusions p.: 09

5 References. p.: 09 1. Introduction In Germany, roughly 37% of all greenhouse gas emissions are related to electricity production [01]. Thus, there is intensive research activity as well as pilot plants for carbon capture and storage (CCS). This process is based on capturing CO2 from flue gas of large fossil fuelled power plants, liquefaction of CO2 and subsequent transport and injection in appropriate geological formations (storage). Alternatively CO2 might be transported to regions with high solar irradiation where it can be recycled by conversion back into a carbon based fuel with high energy density. This paper aims to evaluate the economic and energetic impact of long distance CO2 transport with pipeline on the cost of the renewable fuel, which is produced form reused CO2. The analysis is done using the example of a 50 Mt (million tons) annual capacity CO2 pipeline from Karlsruhe, Germany, to In Salah in Algeria. 2. Method 2.1 Identification of possible pipeline routes from Germany to Algeria First step for simulation of a large scale CO2 transportation pipeline from Karlsruhe, Germany, to In Salah, Algeria, is to figure out the possible routes. Considering permission fees as well as public acceptance, detailed analysis was constrained to routes along existing or planned gas pipelines, as described in the map of European Gas Pipeline System [02]. Three possible routes are pictured in Figure 1 from which route A and B will be further analysed below.
Figure 1: Three possible pipeline routes from Karlsruhe,Germany, to In Salah, Algeria [03]

European Institute for Energy Research (EIfER) [04] supplied the geodetic profile along the routes as GIS data including the altitude. Route A is with 2,965 km the shortest followed by route C with 3,100 km and route B with 3,743 km. A difficult section of the pipeline route is the crossing of the Alps. The existing gas pipeline of Transitgas AG (Switzerland) indicates how the challenging crossing of the Alps can be realized [05,13]. The gas pipeline crosses three mountain ridges via tunneling at height of 1500, 1920 and 2400 m above sea level. Altogether, there are 14 tunnels with total length of roughly 37 km. Every tunnel has a cross-sectional area of 9 to 12 m. Each tunnel is subdivided into two sides, one side contains the pipeline, the other side of the tunnel is an inspection tunnel. The modelling of pipeline route A and B in this paper is done with tunnels at 1200 m above sea level for route A and 2000 m above sea level for route B. 2.2 Parameters and assumptions for evaluation of pipeline design and modeling Following assumptions have been applied to all calculations: The critical pressure of carbon dioxide is 73.8 bar, the critical temperature 31.1C [06]. A single-phase flow inside the pipeline needs to be ensured to avoid strong pressure fluctuation due to gas bubbles of CO2. This is avoided by keeping the pressure above 73.8 bar all along the pipeline. Thus, modelling was done with minimum pressure of 80 bar, giving a safety buffer of roughly 6 bar. Depending on the temperature, CO2 is either liquid or supercritical. The pressure within the pipeline depends on inlet pressure at the start point, the temperature and the density of the medium CO2. The pressure drop along the pipeline depends on the flow speed and the roughness of the internal surface of the pipeline wall as well as on the geodetic profile. The flow-speed depends on the density of CO2, pressure, mass flow and inner diameter of the pipeline. The roughness for pipeline operation is influenced by inner surface roughness of the pipeline, by curves because of crossings of for example rivers, welded seams between segment connections, lock valves and finally and most important by the pipeline diameter itself. Modelling parameters are summarized in Table 1. The flow speed was assumed close to the range of 1.0 and 1.5 m/s that is usually seen in water pipelines [07]. Modelling and design and the pressure drop along the pipeline was done by RBS wave GmbH [08] using the software STANET [09].

Table 1: Parameters for modelling CO2 pipelines from Karlsruhe to In Salah (Algeria)

Unit temperature of CO21 altitude of tunnelling of mountain ridges (meter above sea level) 2 total length of pipeline annual transportation capacity of CO2 average density of CO2 average flow rate Operating pipeline roughness

[C] [m] [km] [106 t] [kg/m] [m/h] [mm]

Route A (via Sardinia) 5 1,200 2,965 50 1,011.686 5,641.83 0.1

Route B (via Sicily) 5 2,000 3,743 50 976.9 5,873.81 0.1

= temperature of CO2 was set to 5 C all along the pipeline. The resulting difference in pressure loss with 10C for CO2 was evaluated and turned out to be less than 2%. 2 = cost of tunnelling is not considered

2.3 Calculation of pipeline wall thickness The pipeline wall thickness depends on the maximum applied pressure as well as the diameter of the pipeline. The wall thickness is calculated via the approach described in DIN 2413 for the steel type X70 with a tension elastic limit of 483 MPa [08]. Via the wall thickness the required amount of steel is evaluated which is an important cost factor. Since the pressure in a defined pipeline segment is different in any location along the pipeline, a different wall thickness for every segment would result. To simplify the evaluation of the wall thickness, the pressure in the equation was set to 200 bar all along the pipeline in route A and to 150 bar along the pipeline in route B. This results in a too high wall thickness in sections with lower pressure and to low wall thickness in sections with higher pressure. For route A, four different inner pipeline diameters were evaluated, 1100 mm, 1200 mm, 1300 mm and 1400 mm. Calculation for route B is done only for 1100 mm inner diameter. Table 2 shows the pipeline diameters and routes that are examined and the assumed averaged pressure for evaluation of average wall thickness.
Table 2: pipeline diameters and average pressure of route A and B


route A (via Sardinia) 1100 1200 1300 1400 200

route B (via Sicily)

inner pipeline diameter average pressure

[mm] [bar]

1100 150

2.4 Evaluation of cost for pipeline construction, laying and operation An important cost factor for the pipeline construction is the steel price and so the amount of steel, depending on pipeline diameter and wall thickness. Further factors are production of tube segments, cost for coating of inner pipe surface (passive corrosion protection) and the coating of the welded seams. The steel price is set to 600 2010/t. Pipe manufacture costs depend on the pipeline diameter. Lock valves considered every 20 km. One management system for pressure control and regulation of pumping stations is included into the calculations. For onshore pipeline laying it is assumed that underground engineering includes a ditch as deep, that the pipe is covered with 0.4 meter soil. Cost for the ditch depends on the underground as well as the depth (see Table 3).
Table 3: Underground engineering for onshore pipe laying for different pipeline diameters [08]

cost factor Underground engineering in easy terrain underground engineering in difficult terrain underground engineering in rocky terrain depth of ditch

Unit 1100 [/m] [/m] [/m] [m] 330

Route A 1200 1300 340 345

1400 350

Route B 1100 330






1,035 1.5

1,060 1.6

1,080 1.7

1,100 1.8

1,035 1.5

Operational costs were calculated from electricity consumption for pumping stations. The electricity price is set to 10 ct2010/kWhel. The efficiency of the pumps is set to 0.75. 2.5 CO2 storage in Algeria At the place of final destination in Algeria a storage buffer is required for the discrepancy between continuous transport in the pipeline and daylight dependent solar conversion of CO2. For this purpose, a pipe storage of 1.4 m diameter for 14 hours pipeline capacity is modelled. This is equivalent to about 80,000 t CO 2. The required length of the tube storage depends on the density of CO 2 which is governed by temperature and pressure. Temperature in the ground about 1.0 meter depth will be close to the monthly average temperature of the above atmosphere. Thus, to assure a storage capacity of 80,000 t CO2, the pipe storage needs to be large enough to store it at maximum temperature in summer which is about close to 40 C in In Salah [10]. The specific cost for CO2 tube storage tanks with 1400 mm inner diameter is set to 3,000 /m.

2.6 Influence of CO2 transportation and supply cost on methanol price The specific CO2 transportation cost is evaluated via cash method using the results of the analysis of total investment for pipeline installation and operating cost. The interest rate is set to 8% and the depreciation period to 35 years. Next to the transportation cost, the price of CO2 will also depend on the cost of the capture process. The capture cost is set to 32 /t CO2 including the liquefaction to 80 bar [11]. According to Formula 1, production of one kg methanol consumes 1.375 kg CO2.
Formula 1: stoichiometric reaction of CO2 and water to methanol and oxygen

3 h*v CO2 2 H 2 O CH 3 OH O2 2

Thus, the CO2 cost of one metric ton has to be multiplied with 1.375 to get the cost of CO2 in one metric ton methanol. 3. Results 3.1 Cost and data for CO2 pipeline transport
Table 4 list the results of the analysed pipelines for the two selected routes, route A

(via Sardinia) and route B (via Sicily). The required amount of steel for route B with 1100 mm inner diameter is lower compared to route A with 1100 mm which is due to the lower wall thickness in route B resulting from the assumed lower average pressure of 150 bar in route B compared to 200 bar in route A. In route A the total investment ranges from 6,026 million (1100 mm inner diameter) to 7,811 million euro (1400 mm inner diameter). The specific invest per kilometre is 2.0 to 2.6 million for 1100 mm inner diameter to 1400 mm inner diameter in route A and 1.9 /km for 1100 mm in route B while the lower value for 1100 mm inner diameter in route B is a result of lower steel requirement.
Table 4: results for cost, pressure drop, energy requirement for pipe route A and B

cost factor total steel cost1 total manufacture cost for pipeline2 total cost for civil engineering3

Unit [109 ] [109 ]

1100 2.086

route A 1200 1300 2.483 2.914

1400 3.379

route B 1100 1.920






[109 ]






cost factor total Pipeline cost4 total pipe cost per km total p of pumping stations specific electricity consumption for pumping
1 2

Unit [109 ] [106 /km] [bar]

1100 6.026 2.0 476.7

route A 1200 1300 6.574 2.2 329.4 7.171 2.4 222.2

1400 7.811 2.6 191.5

route B 1100 7.061 1.9 662.2







= cost of steel: 600 /t = includes cost for pipe manufacture, cost of pipe coating of inner & outer surface as well as the welded joints 3 = includes onshore engineering in easy terrain, difficult terrain and rocky terrain as well as pipe laying offshore 4 = includes steel cost, manufacture cost, engineering cost as well as invest for pumps, management system, lock valves and cathodic corrosion protection.

The energy consumption for the pumping to overcome the pressure drop via 2,965 and 3,743 km is very low. In route A, specific electricity consumption is with 17.11 kWh/t CO2 highest for 1100 mm inner diameter and with 6.87 kWh/t lowest for 1400 mm inner diameter. This is very little compared to the energy output of a power plant per ton CO2 emitted. Supposed a specific emission of 340 g CO2/kWh lower heating value of hard coal, a coal power plant efficiency of 37% points after carbon dioxide capture and liquefaction would yield 1,209 kWhel to feed into the grid per one ton CO2 captured (90 % capture efficiency assumed). Compared to this, 17.11 kWh for 2,965 km transport would consume 1.4% of the electricity produced from this ton CO2 (plus 100 g emitted into the atmosphere). Expressed in efficiency drop of the power plant it is 0.53% points only. Route B has a lower cost per km compared to 1100 mm inner diameter in route A. This is due to the lower average pressure used in calculation of the wall thickness for route B. Since route B is 748 km longer than route A, the latter is cheaper even it is calculated with higher wall thickness. A close look to the four diameters in route A shows, that the most important factor leading to a strong increase of cost with diameter, is the steel consumption, having a share of 35% to 43% of total cost for 1100 mm to 1400 mm inner diameter, respectively. Thus, the economic benefit of saving steel in 1100 mm inner diameter outranks the higher electricity need for pumping compared with higher pipeline diameters.
Table 5 lists the specific transportation cost per ton CO2 for 100 % pipeline capacity

utilisation in dependence of the pipeline diameter as well as the route. The table shows, that route A and the smallest pipeline diameter is the most economic with transportation cost of 11.3 /t. Calculation is done with cash method, using 8% interest rate and depreciation period of 35 years.

Table 5: Specific transportation cost for one ton CO2 from Germany to Algeria

Unit specific transportation cost [/t]

1100 11.3

route A 1200 1300 11.6 12.6

1400 13.6

route B 1100 13.7

3.2 CO2 storage in Algeria A storage capacity of 80,000 t CO2 to bridge the dark period in the night, a pipe storage was modelled with maximum operation pressure of 150 bar. Figure 2 shows, that with the highest average monthly temperature of roughly 40C in In Salah, and 150 bar, a pipe storage with 1400 mm inner diameter needs to be at least 67 km long to assure a storage capacity of 80,000 t CO2 (indicated with red arrow).
Figure 2: CO2 storage capacity of pipe storage in dependence of length as well as pressure and temperature


CO2 storage capacity [t]

70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 length of pipe storage [km] 1) 10 C, 150 bar, 948 kg/m 3) 40 C, 150 bar, 763 kg/m 2) 10 C, 80 bar, 903 kg/m 4) 40 C, 80 bar, 281 kg/m
4 1 2 3

Calculated with specific invest of 3,000 /m, the 67 km pipe storage would cost about 201 million . Evaluation with cash method, 35 years depreciation and 8% interest rate, gives rise to specific storage cost of 0.55 per ton CO 2 with 100% storage capacity utilisation. 80,000 tons are 58.4% of the daily capacity of the pipeline. Compared to the total CO2 amount, the specific storage cost is about 0.32 /t. This storage cost, however, can be drastically reduced, if this pipe storage is integrated in the last section of the transport pipeline with fluctuating operating pressure.

Total cost of CO2 supply, including capture process, liquefaction and transportation from Germany to Algeria and over night storage is listed in Table 6.
Table 6: Cost factors of CO2 supply in In Salah

CO2 capture and liquefaction at power plant site transportation from Karlsruhe to Algeria (1100 to 1400 mm) over night storage averaged to total amount of CO2 total cost of CO2 supply in In Salah

Unit [/t] [/t] [/t] [/t]

Cost 32 11.313.7 0.32 43.6246.02

3.3 Influence of CO2 transportation and supply cost on methanol price Considering the CO2 consumption per kg methanol, the cost of CO2 is 59.98-63.28 /t methanol. The market price (free on board) in Rotterdam, Netherlands, was 320 /metric ton methanol in first quarter 2012, fluctuating between 146 an d 490 /t since 2005 [12]. 4. Conclusions In this study the cost of two CO2 pipeline routes from southern Germany to Algeria with four different diameters have been evaluated. Steel cost, pipe manufacture cost and engineering cost for installation of a CO2 pipeline were determined. Steel cost, pipe manufacture cost and engineering cost contribute roughly one third to the investment, each. With increasing diameter, steel cost tends to increase its share above 40% while energy savings due to lower pressure drop do not outrange the increase in steel cost. From the investigated pipelines, route A via Sardinia with 1100 mm inner diameter is the most economic option, allowing transportation at specific cost of 11.3 /t CO2. Including CO2 capturing in power stations, liquefaction, transportation and overnight storage, cost summate to roughly 43.6 /t46.0 /t CO2. Regarding a solar conversion of CO2 to methanol, a CO2 supply cost of 43.6-46.0 /t gives rise to CO2 feed cost of 18.75%-19.77% compared to free on board methanol price in Rotterdam. 5. References [01] UBA 2010, [02] VGE 2006. VGE Verlag GmbH. European Gas Pipeline System [03] derived from and; CC-BY-SA, [04] European Institute for Energy Research (EIfER), [05], access Feb. 2011

[06], access April 2010 [07] DVGW Arbeitsblatt W 400-1, Oktober 2004, Technische Regeln Wasserverteilungsanlagen, Seite 39 [08] RBS wave GmbH, department for water engineering, Langwiesenweg 23, 70327 Stuttgart, Germany, phone: +49 711-289-513-20 [09] STANET: Network Analysis [10] http://upload.wikimedia/commons/e/e4/Klimadiagramm-In-Salah-Algerienmetrisch-deutsch.png, access February 2012 [11] Weber, C. 2011, Literraturrecherche zu technischen Daten und Kosten von CCS, EnBW Kraftwerke AG, not published [12], access February 2012 [13] Konrad, C.; Strittmatter, J.; 2011 Techno-konomische Analyse zum Pipeline CO2-Transport, CO2-Speicherung und Zwischenspeicherung, European Institute for Energy Research (EIfER), ; not published