Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

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

Economic and environmental benefit analysis of a

renewable energy supply system integrated with
carbon capture and utilization framework

Minsoo Kim a,1 , Kyobum Kim b,1 , Tae-hyun Kim c , Jiyong Kim a,∗
a Department of Energy and Chemical Engineering, Innovation Center for Chemical Engineering, Incheon National
University, Incheon 22012, Republic of Korea
b Division of Bioengineering, College of Life Sciences and Bioengineering, Incheon National University, Incheon

22012, Republic of Korea

c Organic Material Synthesis Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, Incheon National University, Incheon 22012,

Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The recent focus on energy-related environmental issues, such as the depletion of fossil fuels
Received 31 January 2019 and the climate change, has led to a pressing need for sustainable energy supply systems.
Received in revised form 11 April Existing systems may, in theory, be revamped into sustainable systems by including new
2019 components such as renewable energy sources (RES) and carbon capture and utilization
Accepted 4 May 2019 (CCU) frameworks. However, economically and environmentally optimal mechanisms for
Available online 10 May 2019 the integration of RES and CCU frameworks into existing energy systems have yet to be
determined. Therefore, this study presents a new approach to sustainable energy supply
Keywords: systems by integrating a RES-based system with existing technologies, coupled with a CCU
Renewable energy framework. To address both economic and environmental benefits of the proposed system,
Carbon capture and utilization a multi-objective optimization technique comprising two objective functions (total daily
CO2 reduction cost and the total CO2 emission) was developed using a mixed integer linear programming
Multi-objective optimization (MILP). The capability of the proposed model is illustrated by a case study of the future
Integration transportation sector in Korea. The Pareto solutions for the optimal energy supply system
were identified according to CO2 reduction targets under different energy price scenarios.
© 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction A CCU framework coupled with existing technologies has been

Increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from conventional energy
systems has become a critical environmental issue. Carbon dioxide
(CO2 ), emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels, in particular is a
prominent GHG which causes severe environmental issues including
global warming and climate change (Skorek-Osikowska et al., 2017).
To address these challenges, a number of countries are seeking ways
to make their energy systems sustainable, such as strongly encourag-
ing renewable energy sources (RES) and the implementation of carbon
capture and utilization (CCU) frameworks.
identified as one of the most powerful methods to mitigate CO2 emis-
sions while retaining current energy infrastructure (Han et al., 2012;
Wang et al., 2011) because it can be applied to any process and the
technology is highly developed (Won and Lee, 2011). Despite the many
merits of CCU, there are still barriers to achieving a completely sus-
tainable energy system as it is applied mainly to processing systems
using fossil fuels as the primary energy resource (Pettinau et al., 2012).
Renewable technologies are considered practical, and show promising
solutions for the transition to eco-friendly and sustainable energy sys-
tems, as they can substitute fossil fuel-based energy production (Dogan

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jykim77@inu.ac.kr (J. Kim).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2019.05.008
0263-8762/© 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213 201

Nomenclature NRkl Number of transportation mode k for product l

Index Abbreviation
i ∈ I Facilities CCU Carbon capture and utilization
j ∈ J Regions CO2 Carbon dioxide
k ∈ K Transportation modes H2 Hydrogen
l ∈ L Products MILP Mixed integer linear programming
m ∈ M Resources RES Renewable energy resources
SI Supplementary information
Set
IPl Energy production facility for product l
ISl Intermediate storage facility for product l
ICl Capture facility for product l
Kl Transportation mode for product l and Seker, 2016; Bhattacharya et al., 2016). However, it does not provide
Km Transportation mode for resource m an optimal solution for sustainable energy systems without any inte-
LE Electricity gration with existing systems, due to high production costs and the
LH H2 intermittency of renewable resources (Kim and Kim, 2017).
A large number of studies addressing this environmental issue have
LF Liquid fuel
been reported in the literature: improvements in performance of CCU
LC CO2
technology (Mallapragada et al., 2013; Susarla et al., 2015; Li et al.,
MB Biomass
2016); a techno-economic evaluation of CCU technology (Ampelli et al.,
MC Coal 2015; Roh et al., 2018); an integration of various renewable resources
MN Natural gas (Won et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2018; Feroldi et al., 2013; Han et al., 2017);
an analysis of the feasibility of renewable energy systems (Sanjoy
Parameter and Himangshu, 2010; Wan et al., 2016; Cho and Kim, 2015). Notably,
ˇjj Transportation distance between regions, j and there are many studies on CCU design for CO2 removal and utilization
j’ (Lee et al., 2017; Dehjalali and Avami, 2018; Mechleri et al., 2017) and
i Capital cost of facility i the design of renewable energy supply systems (Kim and Kim, 2016;
ϑi Unit operating cost of facility i Ascenso et al., 2018; Zulkafli and Kopanos, 2017). However, these studies
l Unit purchase cost of product l have focused on individual CCU technologies or renewable resource-
based energy to reduce CO2 emissions efficiently. Only a few studies
m Unit purchase cost of resource m
have identified opportunities for the integration of renewable energy
l Unit sequestration cost of product l
systems coupled with CCU frameworks (Almansoori and Betancourt-
i CO2 emission factor of facility i
Torcat, 2015; Vidal-Amaro et al., 2015).
CCF Capital charge factor In general, conventional resource-based energy production is more
economical than renewable resource-based energy production, while
Continuous variable the former emits significantly more CO2 than the latter. This means
Ajl Amount of product l suppled from outside in that in order to establish an eco-friendly sustainable energy system,
region j CCU framework should be incorporated simultaneously into renew-
Cijl Amount of product l captured by facility i in able resource-based energy production as well as into conventional
region j resource-based energy production. It is for this reason that there is
FCC Total capital cost of facility a need to establish appropriate methodologies for combining and
FOC Total operating cost of facility integrating these technology frameworks, towards achieving a cost-
effective energy supply system.
Iijl Inventory of product l in facility i in region j
Our previous study presented a new system integrating renew-
Pijl Amount of product l produced by facility i in
able resource and conventional energy production coupled with CCU
region j
framework (IRCEC) (Kim et al., 2017). To identify the optimal system
Rijlm Amount of resource m used in facility i for prod- configuration from the economic perspective, the objective function
uct l in region j was set to minimize the total expected cost subject to various prac-
Sjl Amount of product l sequestrated in region j tical and logical constraints. The previous study provided a suitable
TCC Total capital cost of transportation mode baseline approach to design the IRCEC system, which is capable of (i)
TCE Total CO2 emission identifying the cost-centric design strategy of the IRCEC system and
TDC Total daily cost (ii) analyzing the effect of different regulations for CO2 reduction on
TOC Total operating cost of transportation mode the system economics. However, the proposed approach needs to be
TOCelectricity/fuel Total operating cost of transportation improved to deal with critical issues that may arise in the design and
operation stages of the IRCEC system; for instance, (i) to determine
mode for electricity and liquid fuel
the optimal solutions for planning the IRCEC system, corresponding
TOCresources Total operating cost of transportation mode
to the implementation of environmental policy and regulation (e.g.,
for resources
the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement), and (ii) to quantify the eco-
TPC Total CO2 purchase cost nomic and environmental effects of externalities (e.g. energy price
TRC Total primary resource cost and CO2 reduction regulation) on the system structure. Accordingly,
TSC Total CO2 sequestration cost this study presents a new design and analysis approach for the IRCEC
system using a multi-objective optimization technique. The proposed
Integer variable approach is capable of (i) identifying a trade-off between cost and CO2
NFijl Number of facilities i for product l in region j reduction (namely, cost-effectiveness of CO2 reduction), (ii) quantita-
NPjj kl Number of transportation mode k for product l tively assessing the contribution of RES and CCU frameworks to CO2
that connect the regions, j and j’ reduction, (iii) analyzing the effects of different CO2 reduction targets
and energy prices on the economic and environmental benefits.
202 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213

2. Problem statement

2.1. Aims and methodology

The main purpose of this study was to develop a new

optimization-based framework for the design and analysis of
a sustainable energy supply system which integrates the RES-
based and CCU technologies into a conventional energy supply
system. Towards achieving this goal, a very complex energy
system was first generated, incorporating three different
energy supply systems to the transportation sector: con-
ventional, CCU-based and RES-based technology networks.
The proposed IRCEC system includes a wide range of energy
resources from conventional fossil fuels to renewable energy
sources, as well as CO2 as an energy source, to meet three
different energy demands in the transportation sector: liquid
fuels, hydrogen and electricity. A new network optimization
model was then developed to design and analyze the IRCEC
system from two perspectives: those of economic benefit and
environmental benefit. Thus, the developed model, which
minimizes the total daily cost and total CO2 emission, is for-
mulated as a multi-objective optimization (MOOP) using a
mixed-linear programming (MILP) technique. The capability of
the proposed model is illustrated with a case study addressing
design problems in the IRCEC system for the future trans-
portation sector of Korea, using realistic information. Finally, a
sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the effects of
important external factors (e.g., energy price and governmen-
tal policy on CO2 reduction) on the optimal solution of the
IRCEC system. The main steps in this study are summarized
in Fig. 1.

2.2. IRCEC system description

Fig. 2 shows the technology superstructure of the IRCEC sys-

tem (Kim et al., 2017). The system starts with three different
primary resources (conventional, renewable and CO2 as a new
source for energy production) and meets three types of final
energy demands (i.e. electricity, hydrogen and liquid fuels) via
the combination of a number of energy processing technolo-
gies. These three types of final energy demand are required for
fueling three types of vehicles in the road transportation sec-
tor: Electricity, hydrogen, and liquid fuels for fueling electric
vehicles (EVs), fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) and internal combus-
tion engine vehicles (ICEVs), respectively.
Conventional resources include coal, natural gas and crude
oil, while wind, solar light, solar heat, and biomass are renew-
able resources. High-purity CO2 captured from various bulk
CO2 sources (e.g., the gas flue of a coal-based power plant)
is another important energy resource. Note that three differ-
ent bulk CO2 sources are highlighted as grey-dotted boxes
in Fig. 2. These are conventional technologies (i.e. steam
methane reforming and coal gasification technologies for
hydrogen production, existing oil refineries and coal power
plants), biomass-based technologies (i.e. pyrolysis, gasifica-
tion) as well as other stationary sources (e.g., steel and cement
plants). In the IRCEC system, these resources are used to meet
the energy demand through a combination of different tech-
nologies with corresponding energy and mass flows.
In the IRCEC system, there are three types of energy
processing activities namely production, storage, and trans-
portation, and each has its own technologies. The production
technologies are classified into three subgroups: electricity,
Fig. 1 – Main steps for design and analysis of the IRCEC
system.
H2 , and liquid fuel production, from three different energy
resources. Electricity generated by the IRCEC system can be
used to satisfy the electricity demand, or as the energy source
to produce H2 via water electrolysis technology. On the other
hand, the location, size and number of water electrolysis sys-
tems for H2 production, which may be newly installed to meet
the H2 demand for HCV operation, will be determined by the
optimization according to the model criteria: for instance, the
minimum cost and/or CO2 emission. It should be noted that
a conventional technology for liquid fuels is assumed to be
employed by existing facilities (e.g., oil refineries already in
operation). Thus, new oil refineries do not need to be installed,
but existing facilities are considered as available for produc-
tion. Decision-making on the installation and operation of
the RES-based technologies will likewise be performed by the
model optimization process.
While liquid fuels for ICEVs and electricity for EVs can
be transported via the existing infrastructure (e.g., cur-
rent chemical logistics networks and electricity grids), new
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213
Fig. 2 – Technology superstructure of the IRCEC system.
transportation modes for the delivery of H2 and CO2 from
production regions to demand regions should be considered.
In this study, three different transportation modes (railcar,
tube truck, and pipeline) are assumed for H2 and CO2 deliv-
ery. Accordingly, an intermediate storage facility should be
chosen when the H2 and CO2 are transported by pipeline to
ensure continuous supply by buffering the discrete opera-
tions. Finally, the CO2 captured from stationary sources (e.g.
power plant), can either be used to produce liquid fuels via
CO2 splitting technology, or can be transported to geological
sequestration sites.
The IRCEC system design problem is summarized as fol-
lows:
Given:
• Regional data such as energy demand, availability of renew-
able and conventional resources, and the distance between
regions.
• Technical, economic, and environmental data such as con-
version efficiencies, production capacities, CO2 emission
factors, purchase price of primary resources, and capital and
operating costs.
203
To determine:
• The type, capacity, number and location of production and
storage facilities.
• The mode, direction, and volume of product and resource
transportation.
• The contributing cost and CO2 emission of each energy
activity.
• The structure of the IRCEC system of the minimum cost or
CO2 emission.
Finally, the following assumptions are made in designing
the IRCEC system.
• There are no resource and product transmission losses.
• The storage holding period of the H2 and CO2 intermediate
storage facilities is 2 days to service fluctuation in demand.
• Liquid fuel production via oil refineries and the trans-
portation of electricity, liquid fuel, and primary resources
requires only the operating costs, because these activities
use existing infrastructure.
• The CO2 capture facility is directly connected to the station-
ary bulk CO2 source (e.g. flue gas of a coal-fired power plant),
204 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213

thereby requiring no transportation cost between the CO2
source site and the CO2 capture facility.
• The lifetime and interest rate of all the facilities is assumed
to be 20 years and 8% respectively, except a railcar and truck
lifetime of 10 years and a pipeline lifetime of 15 years (Kim
et al., 2017; Ascenso et al., 2018).
3. Mathematical model
To design and analyze the IRCEC system, a superstructure-
based optimization model was developed, inspired by our
previous work (Kim et al., 2017). The proposed model is for-
mulated as using a mixed integer linear programming (MILP),
and solved using the CPLEX 12.0 solver, one of the best known
and most widely used large-scale solvers (Careri et al., 2012),
through the General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) envi-
ronment. While the full mathematical model is provided
through Eqs. (S1)–(S43) and Table S1 in Supplementary infor-
mation (SI) for the sake of brevity, the following sections
present the model structure and the method for solving MOOP.
3.1. Optimization model structure
where CCF (capital charge factor) is multiplied by FCC and
TCC to amortize the initial capital costs. Following equations
specifically describe the terms on the right-hand side of Eq.
(3).
The following equations specifically describe the terms on
the right-hand side of Eq. (3). FCC in Eq. (3) is the sum of the
capital costs of energy production, storage and CO2 capture
facilities. FCC is calculated by multiplying the number of facil-
ities by the capital cost of the corresponding facility:
FCC = NFijl i (4)
i∈{oil
/ refinery} j ∈ J l ∈ L
where NFijl represents the number of facilities i for products l
in region j and i is the capital cost of facility i. Note that Eq.
(4) does not include the capital cost of the oil refineries.
The total transportation capital cost (TCC), in Eq. (3), which
is the sum of the capital costs of each transportation mode, is
calculated using Eq. (5):
TCC = kl NRkl
k ∈ {railcar,truck}l ∈ LH ∪LC

The MOOP model for the design of the IRCEC system in this
+ kl ˇjj NPjj kl (5)
study is mathematically formulated as follows:
j ∈ J j ∈ J k ∈ {pipe}l ∈ LH ∪LC

minimize {TDC; TCE} (1)

x,y where m is the set of transportation modes that can trans-
port products. The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (5)
subject to: denotes the total capital cost of railcars and trucks, and the
second term is the total capital cost of pipelines for H2 and CO2
⎧ ⎫
⎪ Demand satisfaction ⎪ transportation. kl is the capital cost of transportation modes
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ k for products l (i.e. H2 and CO2 for Eq. (5)) delivery and ˇjj
⎪
⎪
Overall mass balance ⎪
⎪
h(x, y) = 0
⎨ Capacity limitations
⎬ represents the transportation distance between regions.
The total operating cost of facility (FOC) in Eq. (3) consists
g(x, y) ≤ 0 ⎪
⎪ Distribution network design ⎪
⎪ (2)
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
of the operating costs of production, storage and capture facil-
⎪
⎪ Site allocation ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭
ities as follows:
Non-negativity constraints
⎛ ⎞
x ∈ Rn , y ∈ Y = {0, 1}m
FOC = ⎝ Pijl + Iijl + Cijl ⎠ ϑi
The purpose of the proposed formulation is to find the j∈J i ∈ IP l ∈ LE ∪LH ∪LF i ∈ IS l ∈ LH ∪LC i ∈ I C l ∈ LC
l l l
values of the operational (x ∈ Rn ) and the strategic (y ∈ Y = (6)
{0, 1}m ) decision variables, which are restricted by the set of
equality (h(x, y) = 0) and inequality (g(x, y) ≤ 0) constraints. In
where Pijl is the amount of products l (electricity, H2 and liq-
this model, the operation variables concern decisions relating
uid fuel) produced by facility i (energy production facility) in
to the amounts of produced, stored and captured products,
regions j, Iijl represents the amount of products l (H2 and CO2 )
and the flow rates between different regions. On the other
stored in facility i (intermediate storage facility) in region j and
hand, the strategic decision variables inform investment deci-
Cijl denotes the amount of products l (CO2 ) captured by facility
sions such as selection of the location, type, capacity and
i (capture facility) in region j as well as ϑi is the unit operating
number of energy-producing facilities and transportation net-
cost of the corresponding facility i.
works.
The total operating cost of the transportation modes (TOC)
in Eq. (3) includes the operating cost of railcars and trucks
3.2. Objective functions (TOCrailcar/truck ) and pipelines (TOCpipe ) for the transporta-
tion of H2 and CO2 , and the operating cost of transportation
3.2.1. Total daily cost of the existing transportation modes for the transportation
The first objective function is an economic criterion that min- of electricity, liquid fuel, and resources (TOCelectricity/fuel and
imizes the total daily cost (TDC) of the IRCEC system. TDC TOCresources ).
includes FCC (facility capital cost), TCC (transportation capital
cost), FOC (facility operating cost), TOC (transportation operat-
TOC = TOCrailcar/truck + TOCpipe + TOCelectricity/fuel + TOCresources
ing cost), TRC (primary resource cost), TPC (CO2 purchase cost),
and TSC (CO2 sequestration cost): (7)

min TDC = CCF(FCC + TCC) + FOC + TOC + TRC + TPC + TSC (3)
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213 205

TRC in Eq. (3) is calculated from the amount of resource m

used by facility i for producing electricity, H2 , and liquid fuel
in region j (Rijlm ), and the unit purchase cost of resource m (m ):

TRC = Rijlm m (8)
/ C m∈M
i ∈ I j ∈ J l∈L

TSC and TPC in Eq. (3) are calculated as follows:

TSC = Sjl l (9)
j ∈ J l ∈ LC

TPC = Ajl l (10)
j ∈ J l ∈ LC

where Sjl denotes the amount of CO2 sequestrated in region j

and Ajl is the amount of CO2 supplied from outside in region j.
l and l denote the unit sequestration and purchase costs of
CO2 , respectively.

3.2.2. Total CO2 emission

The second criterion to be optimized is the environmental
impact, by minimizing the total CO2 emission (TCE) of the
IRCEC system. Notably, it is assumed that CO2 is emitted in
the energy production process. Therefore, TCE is calculated
as the combination of the amount of produced energy (elec-
tricity, H2 and liquid fuel), and the CO2 emission factor of the
corresponding facility ( i ):

ijl
min TCE = iP (11)
i ∈ IP j ∈ J l∈L
/ C
l
Fig. 3 – Expected energy demand in the transportation
3.3. Multi-objective problem sector of Korea in 2040.

In this study, the multi-objective problem is implemented
using the ε-constraint method to ensure a Pareto solution
set from the multi-objective optimization framework. This
method is based on optimizing one objective function while
taking into account the other objectives as a new constraint
restricted by the allowable level εn in each iteration i. Then, the
value of the bounding level εn would be changed to obtain the
Pareto curve. Using the multi-objective optimization model,
we can expect that a trade-off between the two objectives
(the total daily cost and the total CO2 emission) will occur
since the lowest-cost solution is not the one with the least
CO2 emission: There is no simultaneous optimal solution of
the cost-minimizing objective with the least CO2 emission.
Therefore, Eq. (13) is applied to the Pareto solutions:
minimize {TDC}
x,y
subject to:
h(x, y) = 0
g(x, y) ≤ 0
x ∈ Rn , y ∈ Y = {0, 1}m , and
TCE ≤ εi (i = 0, 1, 2, · · ·, I)
The obtained Pareto solutions would be represented in a
two-dimensional figure (TDC, TCE). Each point on the Pareto
curve corresponds to the optimal solution of the IRCEC system
for different CO2 emission constraints.
4. Application to the Korean energy supply
system
To demonstrate the effectiveness and capability of the opti-
mization model presented in Section 3, the proposed model is
applied to the design problem of the IRCEC system for Korea’s
future transportation sector. With the case study, we will be
able to determine the optimal configuration and analyze the
techno-economic evaluation of the IRCEC system. In addition,
we identify the effect of different objective functions on the
optimal result of the IRCEC system.
4.1. Energy demand and primary resource data
To estimate demand for each of the three energy types namely
(12) electricity, H2 and liquid fuel, the total future demand for
energy in the transportation sector is first calculated based
on the assumptions and data used in previous work (Kim and
Moon, 2008). The total energy demand for the transportation
sector in Korea in 2040 is estimated to be 4.0 × 107 tonnage of
oil equivalent energy (TOE) per year.
(13) Then, the demand for electricity, H2 and liquid fuel is esti-
mated using the future market shares of electric vehicles
(19.5%), fuel cell vehicles (32.4%), and internal combustion
engine vehicles (48.1%), respectively (Kim and Moon, 2008).
Finally, regional demand for the three types of energy is cal-
culated based on the population ratio of each region and the
demand share of the transportation sector, as shown in Fig. 3
(Kim and Kim, 2016).
206 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213

Table 1 – Daily primary resource potentials per region.

Conventional resources Renewable resources
Region
3
Coal (ton) Natural gas (ton) Crude oil (10 barrel) Biomass (ton) Solar light (kWh/m2 ) Solar heat (kWh/m2 ) Wind speed (m/s)

1 27,967 20,093 96 8 3.4 5.3 2.9

2 – 718 – – 2.3 5.2 2.3
3 – 6296 – 5335 1.7 5.5 1.7
4 4808 1682 – 15,516 4.3 6.0 4.3
5 110,384 5274 140 4855 2.4 5.0 2.4
6 – – – 101 1.9 6.8 1.9
7 – – – 5481 1.8 5.6 1.8
8 – – – 15,991 1.6 6.2 1.6
9 – 1904 – 4607 1.6 6.0 1.6
10 8296 4134 275 7069 1.8 4.0 1.8
11 – – – 20 2.1 5.9 2.1
12 66,877 299 – 8243 1.8 5.7 1.8
13 – – – 97 2.7 5.0 2.7
14 – 5164 – 52 3.7 5.8 3.7
15 – 2584 528 547 2.0 5.6 2.0

In this study, meteorological and topographical data were
used to estimate the potential amounts of conventional and
renewable resources in a specific region. The regional avail-
able volumes of coal, natural gas and crude oil are shown in
Table 1. In this study, the amounts of coal and natural gas
available were estimated based on the supply of coal and nat-
ural gas for power generation in each region (KEEI, 2014). The
amount of crude oil available for liquid fuel production is cal-
culated based on the production rate of existing oil refineries
and the energy consumption ratio for the transportation sec-
tor, which accounts for 35.1% of total crude oil consumptions
(KEEI, 2014; EIA, 2015). Table 1 also shows the daily poten-
tial of renewable resources in different regions. Regional solar
light, solar heat and wind speeds are estimated based on the
average global horizontal irradiance, direct normal irradiance
and wind speed measured at a height of 50 m in each region,
respectively (KIER, 2016; SAM, 2019). The amount of biomass
available for energy production is calculated by multiplying
an availability factor by the total amount of biomass residue
in each region due to the conservation of the ecosystem and
the utilization of biomass for other purposes (Son et al., 2014;
Ahn et al., 2015).
4.2. Technical and economic data
In this section, most technical and economic data for the facil-
ities described in the IRCEC system are obtained from the
literature. Some unknown parameters are estimated using the
power law rule based on the known capital cost of the facility
and capacity data from an existing technology (Wittholz et al.,
2008). The unknown parameter of a facility is calculated using
Eq. (14):
 ˛
Capanew
FICnew = FICexisting
Capaexisting
where FICexisting and Capaexisting are the capital cost and capac-
ity of a facility obtained from existing data, respectively.
Capanew is the desired capacity of a new facility. Accordingly,
the capital cost of the new facility, FICnew , can be obtained.
The value of the exponent ˛ in Eq. (14) is assumed to be 0.76,
0.73, 0.72, 0.84 and 0.71 for coal gasification, steam methane
reforming, bio gasification, water electrolysis, and H2 inter-
mediate storage facilities respectively (Murthy et al., 2011),
while for the other facilities the exponent is assumed to be
0.6 (Michelle et al., 2008; Ortiz-Espinoza et al., 2017). The eco-
nomic, technical and environmental parameters of energy
production, storage, and CO2 capture facilities are summa-
rized in Tables S2–S6 in SI. In this paper, the purchase prices of
primary resources are not included in the operating costs of
energy production facilities. Different production capacities
are considered for all facilities except oil refineries and CO2
splitting facilities.
Four types of electricity generation facility are considered
and their parameters are shown in Table S2. The conversion
efficiency of a wind turbine is altered by regional charac-
teristics such as wind speed and shear exponent. Thus,
the power output of a wind turbine is calculated using the
method developed by the System Advisor Model (SAM) of
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the
estimated power outputs of the wind turbine are listed in
Table S3 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2006). H2 production
facilities and their parameters are listed in Table S4. Coal
gasification and steam methane reforming facilities would
yield high CO2 emissions for producing 1 ton of liquid H2
(LH2 ), but these facilities are cheaper than other H2 produc-
tion facilities (bio gasification and water electrolysis facilities).
Compressed gaseous H2 (CH2 ) is not considered because the
storage and transportation of LH2 are cheaper than that of
CH2 due to the high energy density of LH2 (Kim and Kim,
2016). Producing 1 kg of H2 consumes 33.3 kW h of electricity.
The technical and economic parameters of liquid fuel pro-
duction facilities with respect to capacity are given in Table
S5. As mentioned in Section 2, the capacity of oil refinery
facilities corresponds to the amount of crude oil available
regionally (see Fig. 2) and the capital cost is not required.
The CO2 splitting system has an especially high capital cost
and a low conversion efficiency because it includes various
complex processes such as solar heat collection, CO/CO2 sep-
(14)
aration, and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. 2.8 tons of CO2 are
required to produce 1 barrel of liquid fuel. For more detail on
the CO2 splitting system, please refer to previous publications
(Kim et al., 2011, 2012).
The H2 and CO2 intermediate storage and CO2 capture facil-
ities parameters are summarized in Table S6. For CO2 capture,
monoethanolamine (MEA)-based CO2 adsorption is consid-
ered as the base CO2 capture technology due to its availability
and low costs (Kim et al., 2012). The sequestration cost and
purchase cost of a ton of CO2 are 3.7$ and 39$, respectively
(McCoy and Rubin, 2005). The higher heating value, purchase
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213
Fig. 4 – Optimal Pareto solutions for design and operation of the IRCEC system.
price and transportation cost of primary resources are shown
in Table S7. Furthermore, transportation costs for electricity
and liquid fuel, which depend on the delivery distance and vol-
ume, are $0.051/MWh/km and $0.027/barrel/km for electricity
and liquid fuel respectively (Almansoori and Shah, 2012).
Three H2 and CO2 transportation modes and their param-
eters are summarized in Table S8. Note that losses during
storing and transporting products or primary resources are
small compared with the volumes involved in other pro-
duction activities are therefore not considered. Finally, the
delivery distances for the fifteen regions of the study area
are measured from the center of each region. The distances
between regions are summarized in Table S9.
5. Optimization results
In the case study, an IRCEC system for Korea’s future
transportation sector was designed and analyzed using the
proposed model.
5.1. Pareto solutions
In the previous study, a MILP optimization model was pro-
posed to discuss two very different structures of Korean IRCEC
system: the lowest cost and lowest CO2 -emission structures.
These two extreme structures are used as each end-point of
the Pareto curve of the proposed MOOP model (i.e., the min-
imum cost and minimum CO2 solutions). Different optimal
solutions between two end points on the Pareto curve are
then identified using the ε-constraint method. Accordingly,
the Pareto solutions would be in a two-dimensional curve con-
sisting of 101 ε points, where both end-points correspond to
the optimal solution of two respective mono-objective opti-
mizations. Each ε point on the Pareto curve corresponds to the
optimal solution (minimum TDC) of the IRCEC system under
a new ε constraint to limit CO2 emission at different levels.
As shown in Fig. 4, the trade-off between the minimum
cost and the minimum CO2 solutions is clearly observed.
Moving along the curve line from the leftmost point to the
other extreme point involves a series of different optimal solu-
tions, i.e., sets of the total required cost and total emitted CO2
amount. The curve which is close to a straight line means that
two objectives clearly conflict with each other. Since an invest-
ment cost and CO2 reduction are directly proportional to each
other except a few points in the left side, the cost effective-
ness for CO2 reduction in the IRCEC system is nearly identical
across all the optimal solutions.
Each solution of the Pareto curve is equivalent to an opti-
mal design of the IRCEC system. Point A in Fig. 4 corresponds to
207
the optimal configuration that minimizes the total daily cost
(i.e. the minimum cost solution), while the configuration of
the minimum CO2 solution corresponds to Point B in Fig. 4.
All of the design and operation strategies of the IRCEC sys-
tems captured within the optimal trade-off curve show lower
CO2 emission and lower daily cost than the business-as-usual
(BAU; Point C in Fig. 4) case. The BAU case is the energy sys-
tem meeting all the demands using existing infrastructure
without the installation of new renewable technologies or the
CCU framework. Moving along the trade-off curve from one
extreme to the other extreme involves a series of different
optimal solutions.
Using the Pareto solutions, a variety of practical strate-
gies for planning the IRCEC system corresponding to the
implementation of different environmental policies and reg-
ulations. For instance, the optimal IRCEC system, which
requires the minimum cost, while meeting CO2 mitigation tar-
gets by the Paris Agreement, can be simply identified using the
Pareto curve. Fig. 4 shows the CO2 reduction by 37% compared
to the BAU case (1,221 × 103 ton/day) to satisfy a nationally
determined contributions (NDCs) of Korea (Min. TMP or Point D
in Fig. 4). Accordingly, Fig. 4 also shows that the total required
cost to build the IRCEC system to meet CO2 mitigation tar-
gets by the Paris Agreement (namely, Paris-Agreement solution)
is approximately $109.5 × 106 /day, which is up by 10.6% from
$99 × 106 /day of the minimum cost solution. Therefore, using
Fig. 4, the extent of the compromise between achieving the
minimum cost and the minimum CO2 emissions can be explic-
itly quantified.
Fig. 5(a) shows the cost breakdown of the optimal config-
uration of the IRCEC system in three different solutions. The
capital costs relating to facilities and transportation modes are
represented as a daily cost by multiplying the capital charge
factor by the estimated capital cost, as shown in Eq. (3) in Sec-
tion 3. In the minimum cost solution, the primary resource
cost for crude oil is the main cost component of the IRCEC
system, accounting for 54.4% of the total daily cost. This is
because liquid fuel is mainly produced by oil refineries and
demand for liquid fuels is the largest demand share in the
transportation sector (48.0%). The second cost driver is the
capital cost of the installation of energy production facilities.
The cost of a coal-based energy production facility is signifi-
cant: 29.8% of the total daily cost. On the other hand, the cost
associated with renewable resource-based energy production
is about 4.0% of the total daily cost due to their small contribu-
tion to energy supply compared to conventional production.
In the Paris-Agreement and the minimum CO2 solutions, the
total daily cost of the IRCEC system increases by 10.6% and
40.2% compared to the minimum cost solution, respectively.
208 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213
Fig. 5 – Comparison of different solutions: (a) Breakdown of the total daily cost of the IRCEC system, and (b) the amount of
CO2 generated by the IRCEC system.
This is because of a huge increase in additional costs for the
RES and CCU technologies. While the Paris-Agreement solu-
tion emits 706.9 ton × 103 ton/day, the minimum CO2 solution
installs additional CO2 capture and sequestration facilities not
to emit any CO2 . This brought about the difference of the costs
related to CO2 capture and sequestration between the Paris-
Agreement and the minimum CO2 solutions, thereby leading
to different total daily costs; the costs for CCU installation
and operation in the Paris-Agreement solution is 4.9% of the
total daily cost, whereas that of the minimum CO2 solution
is 24.5% of the total daily cost. Fig. 5(b) compares the amount
of CO2 generated during the operation of the IRCEC system
in three solutions. As discussed above, the generated CO2
in both the Paris-Agreement and the minimum CO2 solutions
are 837.1 ton × 103 ton/day, which is 25.3% lower than that
in the minimum cost solution. While 15.6% of the generated
CO2 (approximately 131.1 ton × 103 ton/day) is captured in the
Paris-Agreement solution, all the generated CO2 are captured
and reutilized in the minimum CO2 solution.
5.2. Optimal configurations of the IRCEC system
5.2.1. IRCEC system with the minimum TDC
Fig. 6 shows the optimal configuration along with the prod-
uct and primary resource flows of the IRCEC system, for the
minimum cost solution. 96.8% of the total demand of the
IRCEC system is satisfied by the conventional resource-based
energy production system, and the renewable resource-based
energy production system is needed to cover 3.2% of the total
demand. Notably, all electricity and H2 demands are self-
satisfied by coal power and coal gasification facilities. It is
interesting that coal, as a main source of electricity and H2,
is transported to neighboring regions for local production of
electricity and H2 , since the transportation cost of coal is lower
than that of electricity and H2 . For example, regions 2 and 3,
with relatively low coal potential, import coal from contigu-
ous regions 1 and 5 which have high coal potential, to produce
electricity and H2 locally, as shown in Fig. 6.
Unlike electricity and H2 supply, liquid fuels are produced
in specific regions where oil refinery facilities are already
installed (i.e. regions 1, 5, 10, and 15), and then delivered to
neighboring regions. The reason for this is the assumption
that new oil refineries cannot be installed, as mentioned in
Section 2. However, regions 4 and 8 can produce 26,000 bar-
rel/day of liquid fuel via biomass pyrolysis facilities since these
regions have the highest biomass potential. Especially, region
4 can fulfill its own liquid fuel demand by local production
from biomass pyrolysis facilities, since the total cost of local
production (i.e. installation of pyrolysis facilities) is more eco-
nomically strategic than importing liquid fuel from the mass
production regions which are relatively far away.
5.2.2. IRCEC system with the minimum TMP and TCE
Fig. 7(a) and (b) shows the optimal configuration of the IRCEC
system for the Paris-Agreement solution and the minimum CO2
solution, respectively. These IRCEC system designs are clearly
different from the minimum cost solution. Firstly, CO2 cap-
ture facilities are installed to reduce the total CO2 emissions.
Compared to the Paris-Agreement solution, there is a number of
CO2 capture facilities to minimize the total CO2 emissions in
the minimum CO2 solution. For example, region 1 captures all
CO2 in the minimum CO2 solution even though the amount of
generated CO2 is similar to that of the Paris-Agreement solution.
Moreover, it is evident that these configurations of the IRCEC
system, similar to that of the minimum cost solution, are sort
of decentralized energy system rather than one of centralized
production and distribution. Thus, regions with high energy
demand generate a lot of CO2 (e.g., regions 2 and 3), except for
some regions which already have oil refinery facilities.
Secondly, the selection of H2 production facilities is con-
siderably different from the minimum cost solution. Two
types of H2 production facilities (namely steam methane
reforming and biomass gasification) are selected to satisfy
H2 demand while minimizing CO2 emissions, despite their
high production costs. The energy produced from the renew-
able resource-based system increases from 3.6% to 16.8% (in
the Paris-Agreement solution) and 17.0% (in the minimum CO2
solution) of the total energy production, whereas most energy
demands are still satisfied by energy supplied by conventional
resource-based energy production. For example, in the mini-
mum CO2 solution, although some electricity is produced from
renewable energy sources (wind and solar), 96.9% of the elec-
tricity demand is still met by coal power facilities, due to the
low regional availability of renewable resources and the high
capital costs of renewable energy-based facilities.
Finally, it can be observed from Fig. 7 that all liquid fuels
are produced by existing oil refineries. While biomass can be
a source of liquid fuel, most biomass is used preferentially for
H2 production through bio gasification facilities. Note that in
the minimum cost solution, the amount of utilized biomass
is approximately 29.6 × 103 ton/day (43.6% of the total amount
of available biomass potential), while in the Paris-Agreement
and the minimum CO2 solutions, 100% of the total available
biomass is utilized for H2 production. This means that the
biomass-based H2 production system is more economically
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213 209

Fig. 6 – Optimal configuration of the IRCEC system for the minimum cost solution.

strategic than other renewable resource-based energy produc-
tion systems despite the additional expense for CO2 capture.
6. Extended analysis
regulations, and the effects of primary energy prices on the
system’s structure and economics. To analyze the effects of
two major external factors to the IRCEC system, a sensitivity
analysis was performed by assuming different CO2 mitigation
targets and energy prices.

In the previous section, we investigated the required cost and

the amount of emitted CO2 of 101 different IRCEC systems.
In particular, it was clearly identified that all the IRCEC sys-
tems showed reduced CO2 emissions compared to the BAU
case. While the Pareto curve provides a useful guide to design
the IRCEC system, there are some limitations such as quanti-
fying the effects of external factors (e.g., energy prices and
governmental regulation for CO2 mitigation) on the design
and operation of the IRCEC system. For instance, it is critical
to identify economically preferable options between RES uti-
lization and CCU framework under different CO2 mitigating
6.1. Effects of CO2 mitigation targets to the IRCEC
system
Fig. 8(a) shows the share of RES-based energy as a propor-
tion of the total energy production, according to different
CO2 reduction targets. Here the CO2 reduction target is the
percentage between the minimum and maximum amount of
emitted CO2 of 101 different IRCEC systems; thus, 100% means
the minimum amount of emitted CO2 of the Min. TCE sys-
tem (the minimum CO2 solution; Point B in Fig. 8), while 0%
210 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213

Fig. 7 – Optimal configuration of the IRCEC system for (a) the Paris-Agreement solution and (b) the minimum CO2 solution.
The legend is given in Fig. 6.

Fig. 8 – (a) Contribution of renewable energy sources and (b) the amount of captured CO2 in the examined IRCEC system
according to different CO2 reduction targets. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

is the maximum CO2 amount (1.1 × 106 ton/day) of the Min.
TDC system (the minimum cost solution; Point A in Fig. 8).
When the CO2 reduction target is relatively low, the portion
of energy produced by renewable resources increases rapidly
with as the target level increases. But after a certain target
level (approximately 15%), the portion of RES-based energy
cannot be increased and remains constant at 17.4%. In the
range between 17% and 100%, the additional CO2 generated is
mitigated by the CCU framework.
This sequential selection of strategy, (i.e. RES utilization
as the base option followed by CCU for additional CO2 mit-
igation), is observed in Fig. 8(b) which shows the amount of
captured CO2 according to different CO2 reduction targets. For
relatively low CO2 reduction targets (green region in Fig. 8(b)),
CO2 emissions are primarily mitigated by substituting renew-
able resources for conventional resources. On the other hand,
above a CO2 reduction target of 25%, the RES utilization strat-
egy by itself is not sufficient to meet the targets. Thus, the
IRCEC system requires additional CO2 reduction by capturing
CO2 . Eventually, in the IRCEC system with a CO2 reduction tar-
get of 100% (i.e. the minimum CO2 solution), a number of CCU
technologies should be installed along with renewable energy
technologies.
Fig. 8 clearly shows that the preferred technology for mit-
igating CO2 emissions varies according to the CO2 reduction
target level. When the CO2 reduction target is relatively low,
energy production using renewable resources is more effec-
tive than the CCU strategy. However, when the CO2 reduction
target is high, it is more economical to establish CCU facilities
coupled with conventional energy production systems com-
pared to the RES-based energy production systems. This may
be attributable to the fact that the cost of energy production
from conventional resources is significantly lower than that
of renewable resources despite the additional expenditure on
the installation of CCU facilities.
6.2. Effects of primary energy prices to the IRCEC
system
The resource purchase cost was identified as one of the major
cost drivers, which determines the economics of the IRCEC
system, as shown in Fig. 5. Furthermore, the expenditure
for the resource purchase has a huge effect on the system
configuration such as the type, number and location of the
facilities as well as the use share of RES and CO2 as alternative
energy resources. Therefore, sensitivity analyses are carried
out to investigate the impact of the pricing of primary energy
resources on the optimal solutions of the IRCEC system. Three
different scenarios are considered for conventional resources
(i.e., crude oil and natural gas) price: low, base, and high price
scenarios, which means that -100% and +100% changes are
taken into account based on the base cost: $150/barrel and
$424/ton of crude oil and natural gas respectively, as given
in Section 4. Accordingly, the multi-objective optimization
model is employed, using the ε-constraint method for the
three scenarios (101 execution for each scenario and total 303
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213
Fig. 9 – (a) Pareto solutions and (b) the share of renewable energy source of the IRCEC system according to different crude oil
and natural gas prices.
Fig. 10 – Contribution to the CO2 reduction of the RES and CCU framework under (a) low price (b) base price, and (c) high price
scenarios.
iterations) to obtain the optimal Pareto curves and contribu-
tion to the CO2 reduction of the RES and CCU frameworks
for different resource prices according to changes in the CO2
reduction target.
Fig. 9(a) shows the Pareto curves of the IRCEC system under
three different price scenarios. It is clear that the change
in resource price has a significant effect on the total daily
cost of the IRCEC system. This can be seen by comparing
the minimum cost solutions of three scenarios: 67.2, 99.0 and
147.5 × 106 $/day in the low price, base price and high price sce-
narios, respectively. It is also observed from Fig. 9(b) that the
share of renewable energy resources for energy production
is also very sensitive to the change of the resource price. In
the high price scenario, the renewable energy share increases
significantly up to 48.5% of the total primary energy consump-
tion. This is because the IRCEC system utilizes CO2 as an
energy source for producing liquid fuels due to the high crude
oil price. For example, the IRCEC system with 100% CO2 reduc-
tion targets (the minimum CO2 solution) installs a number of
CCU technologies to replace the oil refinery plants. 98.2% of
the total amount of captured CO2 (7.2 × 105 ton/day) is used to
produce liquid fuels (approximately 256,800 barrel/day) via the
CCU framework, and the rest of the captured CO2 is seques-
trated. As a result, it is evident that the price of primary energy
resources (e.g., crude oil and natural gas) is one of the crucial
factors determining the economic and environmental perfor-
mance, as well as the configuration, of the IRCEC system.
Finally, the contribution of the renewable resource and
the CCU framework to the reduction of CO2 emission in the
IRCEC system is compared under different energy resource
price scenarios. Fig. 10 shows the change in contribution of
two different technologies: RES technology and CCU technol-
ogy. In the low price and base price scenarios, when the CO2
reduction target is relatively low, the contribution of RES tech-
211
nologies to CO2 emission reduction is dominant. However, the
reduction of CO2 emission through CCU technology is gradu-
ally increased as the CO2 reduction target increases, When the
CO2 reduction target is 100% (i.e. nearly zero CO2 emission),
the reduced CO2 through the CCU framework accounts for
76.8% and 65.5% of the total CO2 reduction in the low and base
price scenarios, respectively. This means that the CCU frame-
work is economically more viable than the utilization of RES
when a strong governmental policy for high-level CO2 mitiga-
tion is implemented, and while conventional energy prices are
relatively inexpensive. On the other hand, in the high price sce-
nario, the RES technology shows a considerable contribution
to CO2 mitigation even in high reduction target ranges. For
instance, the contribution of RES technologies still accounts
for 42.5% of total CO2 reduction when the CO2 reduction tar-
get is 100%. This means that if conventional energy prices
increase, a policy-maker should encourage both the RES tech-
nologies and the CCU framework in parallel to ensure the most
economically promising energy supply system.
7. Conclusions
This study proposed a new systematic framework for the
design and analysis of sustainable energy supply systems
considering cost efficiency and environmental performance.
We generated an integrated renewable and conventional
resource-based energy supply coupled with carbon capture
and utilization technology (IRCEC) system, which consists of
different types of renewable and conventional resources and a
combination of energy processing technologies. A MILP opti-
mization model was developed based on the IRCEC system
using a multi-objective concept which accounts for the mini-
mization of the total daily cost and total CO2 emissions. The
multi-objective optimization problem was solved using the
212 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213
ε-constraint method by defining the total daily cost as the
objective function and varying the limit of CO2 emissions as
a new constraint. The model was then applied to the design
problem of the future transportation sector in Korea. The sen-
sitivity of the model to the purchase price of primary energy
resources was also analyzed.
As the results show, most of the energy demand in the Paris-
Agreement solution and the minimum cost solution is satisfied
by energy produced from conventional resources rather than
from renewable resources. The resulting IRCEC system is a sort
of sprawling energy supply configuration, except for the liq-
uid fuel supply, owing to the high transportation costs of the
final products. On the other hand, in the IRCEC solution with
the minimum CO2 emissions, it is more economically effective
to couple the CCU framework with existing energy facilities
rather than to renewable resource-based energy production,
due to huge capital expenditure required for a new installa-
tion of RES technology. It was also noted that when the CO2
reduction target is relatively low, the utilization of renewable
resources is a suitable option from both economic and envi-
ronmental perspectives. However, when the CO2 reduction
target becomes high, the largest parts of energy production
and CO2 reduction were transferred to the CCU framework
along with conventional resource-based energy production.
The model described in this study could provide a useful
approach to designing comprehensive solutions for sustain-
able energy supply systems considering cost efficiency and
environmental aspects simultaneously. Moreover, the pro-
posed model was able to analyze the effect of a specific
CO2 reductions goal on the design and operation of the
IRCEC system. The major findings from the case study are
useful to energy industry stakeholders for business plan-
ning or informing policymakers and national authorities on
the strategic establishment of sustainable energy structures.
Future research may focus on the temporally intermittent
availability of renewable resources, regional limitations of
land use for energy production, considering the international
energy trade, and addressing taxation and subsidization poli-
cies for CO2 reduction.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the Incheon National Univer-
sity Institute of Convergence Science & Technology in 2015.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cherd.2019.05.008.
References
Ahn, Y.C., Lee, I.B., Lee, K.H., Han, J.H., 2015. Strategic planning
design of microalgae biomass-to-biodiesel supply chain
network: multi-period deterministic model. Appl. Energy 154,
528–542.
Almansoori, A., Betancourt-Torcat, A., 2015. Design optimization
model for the integration of renewable and nuclear energy in
the United Arab Emirates’ power system. Appl. Energy 148,
234–251.
Almansoori, A., Shah, N., 2012. Design and operation of a
stochastic hydrogen supply chain network under demand
uncertainty. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37, 3965–3977.
Ampelli, C., Perathoner, S., Centi, G., 2015. CO2 utilization: an
enabling element to move to a resource-and energy-efficient
chemical and fuel production. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 373,
1–35.
Ascenso, L., d’Amore, F., Carvalho, A., Bezzo, F., 2018. Assessing
multiple biomass-feedstock in the optimization of power and
fuel supply chains for sustainable mobility. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 131, 127–143.
Bhattacharya, M., Paramati, S.R., Ozturk, I., Bhattacharya, S., 2016.
The effect of renewable energy consumption on economic
growth: evidence from top 38 countries. Appl. Energy 162,
733–741.
Careri, F., Genesi, C., Montagna, M., Rossi, S., 2012. The role of
energy storage systems to manage RES volatility in day-ahead
scheduling. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Energy
Conference and Exhibition.
Cho, S., Kim, J., 2015. Feasibility and impact analysis of a
renewable energy source (RES)-based energy system in Korea.
Energy 85, 317–328.
Dehjalali, F.R., Avami, A., 2018. A design procedure for the
assessment of carbon capturing and utilization of flue gas
from power plant using experimental data. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 131, 393–405.
Dogan, E., Seker, F., 2016. Determinants of CO2 emissions in the
European Union: the role of renewable and non-renewable
energy. Renew. Energy 94, 429–439.
EIA, 2015. South Korea: International Energy and Data Analysis.
U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Feroldi, D., Degliuomini, L., Basualdo, M., 2013. Energy
management of a hybrid system based on wind-solar power
sources and bioethanol. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 91, 1440–1455.
Han, J.H., Ahn, Y.C., Lee, I.B., 2012. A multi-objective optimization
model for sustainable electricity generation and CO2
mitigation (EGCM) infrastructure design considering
economic profit and financial risk. Appl. Energy 95, 186–195.
Han, S., Won, W., Kim, J., 2017. Scenario-based approach for
design and comparatively analysis of conventional and
renewable energy systems. Energy 129, 86–100.
KEEI, 2014. Yearbook of Regional Energy Statistics in South Korea.
Korea Energy Economics Institute.
KIER. http://kredc.kier.re.kr/kier/. (Last accessed 7 January 2019).
Kim, M., Kim, J., 2016. Optimization model for the design and
analysis of an integrated renewable hydrogen supply (IRHS)
system: application to Korea’s hydrogen economy. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 41, 16613–16626.
Kim, M., Kim, J., 2017. An integrated decision support model for
design and operation of a wind-based hydrogen supply
system. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42, 3899–3915.
Kim, J., Moon, I., 2008. The role of hydrogen in the road
transportation sector for a sustainable energy system: a case
study of Korea. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33, 7326–7337.
Kim, J., Henao, C.A., Johnson, T.A., Dedrick, D.E., Miller, J.E.,
Stechel, E.B., Maravelias, C.T., 2011. Methanol production from
CO2 using solar-thermal energy: process development and
techno-economic analysis. Energy Environ. Sci. 4, 3122–3132.
Kim, J., Johnson, T.A., Miller, J.E., Stechel, E.B., Maravelias, C.T.,
2012. Fuel production from CO2 using solar-thermal energy:
system level analysis. Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 8417–8429.
Kim, M., Won, W., Kim, J., 2017. Integration of carbon capture and
sequestration and renewable resource technologies for
sustainable energy supply in the transportation sector. Energy
Convers. Manage. 143, 227–240.
Lee, S.Y., Lee, J.U., Lee, I.B., Han, J., 2017. Design under uncertainty
of carbon capture and storage infrastructure considering cost,
environmental impact, and preference on risk. Appl. Energy
189, 725–738.
Li, K., Leigh, W., Feron, P., Yu, H., Tade, M., 2016. Systematic study
of aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA)-based CO2 capture
process: techno-economic assessment of the MEA process
and its improvements. Appl. Energy 165, 648–659.
Mallapragada, D.S., Singh, N.R., Curteanu, V., Agrawal, R., 2013.
Sun-to-fuel assessment of routes for fixing CO2 as liquid fuel.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52, 5136–5144.
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 200–213
McCoy, S.T., Rubin, E.S., 2005. Models of CO2 transport and
storage costs and their importance in CCS cost estimates. In:
Proceedings of Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture
and Sequestration, 2–5 May 2005. Arlington, USA.
Mechleri, E., Brown, S., Fennell, P.S., Dowell, N.M., 2017. CO2
capture and storage (CCS) cost reduction via infrastructure
right-sizing. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 119, 130–139.
Michelle, K.W., Brian, K.O., Chris, B.C., David, L., 2008. Estimating
the cost of desalination plants using a cost database.
Desalination 229, 10–20.
Murthy, Konda, N.V.S.N., Shah, N., Brandon, N.P., 2011. Optimal
transition towards a large-scale hydrogen infrastructure for
the transport sector: the case for the Netherlands. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 36, 4619–4635.
Ortiz-Espinoza, A.P., Noureldin, M.M.B., El-Halwagi, M.M.,
Jiménez-Gutiérrez, A., 2017. Design, simulation and
techno-economic analysis of two processes for the conversion
of shale gas to ethylene. Comput. Chem. Eng. 107, 237–246.
Pettinau, A., Ferrara, F., Amorino, C., 2012. Techno-economic
comparison between different technologies for a CCS power
generation plant integrated with a sub-bituminous coal mine
in Italy. Appl. Energy 99, 32–39.
Roh, K., Lim, H., Chung, W., Oh, J., Yoo, H., Al-Hunaidy, A.S.,
Imran, H., Lee, J.H., 2018. Sustainability analysis of CO2
capture and utilization processes using a computer-aided
tool. J. CO2 Utili. 26, 60–69.
SAM. https://sam.nrel.gov/. (Last accessed 7 January 2019).
Sanjoy, K., Himangshu, R., 2010. Prospect of wind-PV-battery
hybrid power system as an alternative to grid extension in
Bangladesh. Energy 35, 3040–3047.
Skorek-Osikowska, A., Bartela, Ł, Kotowicz, J., 2017.
Thermodynamic and ecological assessment of selected
coal-fired power plants integrated with carbon dioxide
capture. Appl. Energy 200, 73–88.
Son, Y.M., Lee, S.J., Kim, S., Hwang, J.S., Kim, R., Park, H., (in
Korean) 2014. Mapping and assessment of forest biomass
resources in Korea. J. Korean For. Soc. 103, 431–438.
213
Susarla, N., Haghpanah, R., Karimi, I.A., Farooq, S., Rajendran, A.,
Tan, L.S.C., Lim, J.S.T., 2015. Energy and cost estimates for
capturing CO2 from a dry flue gas using pressure/vacuum
swing adsorption. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 102, 354–367.
U.S. Department of Energy, NREL report 2006. TP-500-40566 2006.
Wind Turbine Design Cost and Scaling Model.
Vidal-Amaro, J.J., Østergaard, P.A., Sheinbaum-Pardo, C., 2015.
Optimal energy mix for transitioning from fossil fuels to
renewable energy sources–the case of the Mexican electricity
system. Appl. Energy 150, 80–96.
Wan, Y.K., Sadhukhan, J., Ng, K.S., Ng, D.K.S., 2016.
Techno-economic evaluations for feasibility of sago-based
biorefinery, Part 1: alternative energy systems. Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 107, 263–279.
Wang, M., Lawal, A., Stephenson, P., Sidders, J., Ramshaw, C.,
2011. Post-combustion CO2 capture with chemical absorption:
a state-of-art review. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 89, 1609–1624.
Wittholz, M.K., O’Neill, B.K., Colby, C.B., Lewis, D., 2008.
Estimating the cost of desalination plants using a cost
database. Desalination 229, 10–20.
Won, W., Lee, K.S., 2011. Adaptive predictive collocation with a
cubic spline interpolation function for convection-dominant
fixed-bed processes: application to a fixed-bed adsorption
process. Chem. Eng. J. 166, 240–248.
Won, W., Kwon, H., Han, J., Kim, J., 2017. Design and operation of
renewable energy sources based hydrogen supply system:
technology integration and optimization. Renew. Energy 103,
226–238.
Xu, J., Wang, F., Lv, C., Xie, H., 2018. Carbon emission reduction
and reliable power supply equilibrium based daily scheduling
towards hydro-thermal-wind generation system: a
perspective from China. Energy Convers. Manage. 164, 1–14.
Zulkafli, N.J., Kopanos, G.M., 2017. A general optimization
framework for the design and planning of energy supply
chain networks: techno-economic and environmental
analysis. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 131, 214–233.