4.5 Article

Stochastic injection-strategy optimization for the preliminary assessment of candidate geological storage sites

Journal

HYDROGEOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 1229-1245

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10040-015-1250-5

Keywords

Climate change; Analytical models; Optimization; Carbon sequestration

Funding

  1. United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Office

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Geological carbon sequestration (GCS) has been identified as having the potential to reduce increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). However, a global impact will only be achieved if GCS is cost-effectively and safely implemented on a massive scale. This work presents a computationally efficient methodology for identifying optimal injection strategies at candidate GCS sites having uncertainty associated with caprock permeability, effective compressibility, and aquifer permeability. A multi-objective evolutionary optimization algorithm is used to heuristically determine non-dominated solutions between the following two competing objectives: (1) maximize mass of CO2 sequestered and (2) minimize project cost. A semi-analytical algorithm is used to estimate CO2 leakage mass rather than a numerical model, enabling the study of GCS sites having vastly different domain characteristics. The stochastic optimization framework presented herein is applied to a feasibility study of GCS in a brine aquifer in the Michigan Basin (MB), USA. Eight optimization test cases are performed to investigate the impact of decision-maker (DM) preferences on Pareto-optimal objective-function values and carbon-injection strategies. This analysis shows that the feasibility of GCS at the MB test site is highly dependent upon the DM's risk-adversity preference and degree of uncertainty associated with caprock integrity. Finally, large gains in computational efficiency achieved using parallel processing and archiving are discussed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available