二氧化碳储存地点的选择:当前方法的综合回顾

IF 2.8 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS
Shahryar Rashidi, Seyed Shariatipour, Mohammadreza Bagheri
{"title":"二氧化碳储存地点的选择:当前方法的综合回顾","authors":"Shahryar Rashidi,&nbsp;Seyed Shariatipour,&nbsp;Mohammadreza Bagheri","doi":"10.1002/ghg.2349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Global warming, driven by increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, has emerged as a critical environmental concern. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology offers a promising solution for reducing CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, but its effectiveness depends on identifying suitable candidates that can ensure safe, long-term storage of CO<sub>2</sub>. This study proposes a systematic four-stage workflow for selecting optimal CO<sub>2</sub> storage sites, developed through a comprehensive review of existing approaches. The workflow begins with preliminary, large-scale assessments of broad geographic areas, such as sedimentary basins, using geological, technical, environmental, and economic criteria. Although these assessments provide valuable regional insights, they often lack the resolution required for precise evaluations. Site-specific frameworks bridge this gap by examining individual candidates, such as saline aquifers and depleted reservoirs. However, basic frameworks frequently oversimplify suitability evaluation by neglecting the interdependencies and uncertainties inherent in real-world conditions. To address these challenges, advanced frameworks are incorporated to apply multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and optimization techniques, such as pinch analysis and process graphs. MCDM-based frameworks weigh conflicting criteria, whereas optimization-based frameworks ensure the technical and economic feasibility of CO<sub>2</sub> allocation in the source-to-sink matching problem. Applying this workflow to the UK context reveals the need for advanced assessments of storage candidates such as the Bunter Sandstone Formation, demonstrating that relying solely on basic frameworks is insufficient. The findings underscore the importance of integrated approaches that combine both basic and advanced suitability evaluations to enhance the robustness of site-selection practices. © 2025 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p>","PeriodicalId":12796,"journal":{"name":"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology","volume":"15 4","pages":"487-510"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ghg.2349","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CO2 Storage Site Selection: A Comprehensive Review of Current Approaches\",\"authors\":\"Shahryar Rashidi,&nbsp;Seyed Shariatipour,&nbsp;Mohammadreza Bagheri\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ghg.2349\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Global warming, driven by increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, has emerged as a critical environmental concern. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology offers a promising solution for reducing CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, but its effectiveness depends on identifying suitable candidates that can ensure safe, long-term storage of CO<sub>2</sub>. This study proposes a systematic four-stage workflow for selecting optimal CO<sub>2</sub> storage sites, developed through a comprehensive review of existing approaches. The workflow begins with preliminary, large-scale assessments of broad geographic areas, such as sedimentary basins, using geological, technical, environmental, and economic criteria. Although these assessments provide valuable regional insights, they often lack the resolution required for precise evaluations. Site-specific frameworks bridge this gap by examining individual candidates, such as saline aquifers and depleted reservoirs. However, basic frameworks frequently oversimplify suitability evaluation by neglecting the interdependencies and uncertainties inherent in real-world conditions. To address these challenges, advanced frameworks are incorporated to apply multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and optimization techniques, such as pinch analysis and process graphs. MCDM-based frameworks weigh conflicting criteria, whereas optimization-based frameworks ensure the technical and economic feasibility of CO<sub>2</sub> allocation in the source-to-sink matching problem. Applying this workflow to the UK context reveals the need for advanced assessments of storage candidates such as the Bunter Sandstone Formation, demonstrating that relying solely on basic frameworks is insufficient. The findings underscore the importance of integrated approaches that combine both basic and advanced suitability evaluations to enhance the robustness of site-selection practices. © 2025 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\"15 4\",\"pages\":\"487-510\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ghg.2349\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg.2349\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg.2349","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于人为温室气体排放的增加,全球变暖已经成为一个严重的环境问题。碳捕获与封存(CCS)技术为减少二氧化碳排放提供了一个很有前途的解决方案,但其有效性取决于确定合适的候选方案,以确保安全、长期储存二氧化碳。本研究提出了一个系统的四阶段工作流程,通过对现有方法的全面审查来选择最佳的二氧化碳储存地点。该工作流程首先使用地质、技术、环境和经济标准,对广泛的地理区域(如沉积盆地)进行初步、大规模的评估。虽然这些评估提供了有价值的区域见解,但它们往往缺乏精确评估所需的解决方案。具体地点框架通过检查个别候选含水层和枯竭水库等来弥补这一差距。然而,基本框架往往忽略了现实世界条件中固有的相互依赖性和不确定性,从而过度简化了适用性评估。为了应对这些挑战,采用了先进的框架来应用多标准决策(MCDM)方法和优化技术,如夹点分析和过程图。基于mcdm的框架权衡了相互冲突的标准,而基于优化的框架确保了源-汇匹配问题中CO2分配的技术和经济可行性。将此工作流程应用到英国的环境中,表明需要对诸如Bunter砂岩地层等候选储层进行高级评估,这表明仅依赖基本框架是不够的。研究结果强调了综合方法的重要性,即结合基本和高级适宜性评估来增强选址实践的稳健性。©2025化学工业协会和John Wiley &;儿子,有限公司
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

CO2 Storage Site Selection: A Comprehensive Review of Current Approaches

CO2 Storage Site Selection: A Comprehensive Review of Current Approaches

CO2 Storage Site Selection: A Comprehensive Review of Current Approaches

CO2 Storage Site Selection: A Comprehensive Review of Current Approaches

CO2 Storage Site Selection: A Comprehensive Review of Current Approaches

Global warming, driven by increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, has emerged as a critical environmental concern. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology offers a promising solution for reducing CO2 emissions, but its effectiveness depends on identifying suitable candidates that can ensure safe, long-term storage of CO2. This study proposes a systematic four-stage workflow for selecting optimal CO2 storage sites, developed through a comprehensive review of existing approaches. The workflow begins with preliminary, large-scale assessments of broad geographic areas, such as sedimentary basins, using geological, technical, environmental, and economic criteria. Although these assessments provide valuable regional insights, they often lack the resolution required for precise evaluations. Site-specific frameworks bridge this gap by examining individual candidates, such as saline aquifers and depleted reservoirs. However, basic frameworks frequently oversimplify suitability evaluation by neglecting the interdependencies and uncertainties inherent in real-world conditions. To address these challenges, advanced frameworks are incorporated to apply multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and optimization techniques, such as pinch analysis and process graphs. MCDM-based frameworks weigh conflicting criteria, whereas optimization-based frameworks ensure the technical and economic feasibility of CO2 allocation in the source-to-sink matching problem. Applying this workflow to the UK context reveals the need for advanced assessments of storage candidates such as the Bunter Sandstone Formation, demonstrating that relying solely on basic frameworks is insufficient. The findings underscore the importance of integrated approaches that combine both basic and advanced suitability evaluations to enhance the robustness of site-selection practices. © 2025 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology
Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology ENERGY & FUELS-ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
55
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology is a new online-only scientific journal dedicated to the management of greenhouse gases. The journal will focus on methods for carbon capture and storage (CCS), as well as utilization of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a feedstock for fuels and chemicals. GHG will also provide insight into strategies to mitigate emissions of other greenhouse gases. Significant advances will be explored in critical reviews, commentary articles and short communications of broad interest. In addition, the journal will offer analyses of relevant economic and political issues, industry developments and case studies. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology is an exciting new online-only journal published as a co-operative venture of the SCI (Society of Chemical Industry) and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信