4.6 Review

A Hierarchical Framework for CO2 Storage Capacity in Deep Saline Aquifer Formations

Journal

FRONTIERS IN EARTH SCIENCE
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/feart.2021.777323

Keywords

CO2 aquifer storage; capacity types; capacity methods; algorithms; data quality

Funding

  1. Chinas National Key RD Program [2019YFE0100100, 2016YFE0102500]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses the importance of CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers and highlights the inconsistencies and uncertainties in current capacity assessments. It proposes a hierarchical framework to define capacity types and addresses the need for a consensus approach in assessing storage capacity.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) storage in deep saline aquifers is a vital option for CO2 mitigation at a large scale. Determining storage capacity is one of the crucial steps toward large-scale deployment of CO2 storage. Results of capacity assessments tend toward a consensus that sufficient resources are available in saline aquifers in many parts of the world. However, current CO2 capacity assessments involve significant inconsistencies and uncertainties caused by various technical assumptions, storage mechanisms considered, algorithms, and data types and resolutions. Furthermore, other constraint factors (such as techno-economic features, site suitability, risk, regulation, social-economic situation, and policies) significantly affect the storage capacity assessment results. Consequently, a consensus capacity classification system and assessment method should be capable of classifying the capacity type or even more related uncertainties. We present a hierarchical framework of CO2 capacity to define the capacity types based on the various factors, algorithms, and datasets. Finally, a review of onshore CO2 aquifer storage capacity assessments in China is presented as examples to illustrate the feasibility of the proposed hierarchical framework.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available