Uncertainties in risk assessment of CO2 pipelines

Energy Procedia

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1587-1594

  Koornneef, J ^a   Spruijt, M ^b   Molag, M ^b   Ramirez, A ^a   Faaij, A ^a   Turkenburg, W ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b TNO   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

CCS; CO2 pipeline; Infrastructure; Quantitative risk assessment

Indexed keywords

CCS; CO2 PIPELINE; DISPERSION MODELS; DOSE EFFECTS; EFFECT MODEL; FAILURE RATE; INFRASTRUCTURE; INPUT PARAMETER; KNOWLEDGE GAPS; LARGE-SCALE IMPACTS; LITERATURE REVIEWS; QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT;

DISPERSIONS; PIPELINES; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 67650459979     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18766102     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.208     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. 2 Transport, Health and Safety Issues. 2008, Internation Energy Agency: Paris
2. IPCC. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. In: Metz B., et al. (Ed). Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA 442
3. 2 and their environmental effects. Energy Conversion and Management 38 Supplement 1 (1997) S279
4. TetraTech, Final Risk Assessment Report for the FutureGen Project Environmental Impact Statement. 2007: Lafayette, CA, USA
5. 2CRC.: Melbourne, Australia
6. 2-pipeline rupture. Energy Conversion and Management 37 6-8 (1996) 1013
7. 2 Sequestration Pipeline: A Methodology & Case Study. abstract. in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 8. 2006. Trondheim
8. M. Vendrig, J. Spouge, A. Bird, J. Daycock, O. Johnsen, Risk analysis of the geological sequestration of carbon dioxide, DNV consulting, Editor. 2003, Department of Trade and Industry, London, UK
9. National Energy Board, Reasons for Decision Souris Valley Pipeline Limited. 1998
10. 2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Project: Salt Creek Oil Field, RETEC, et al., Editors. 2005, U.S. Department of the Interior; Bureau of Land Management Casper Field Office
11. 2 GREENGAS PROJECT Risico analyse NPM-leiding document 042282 rev. 3. 2005, Raadgevend Ingenieursbureau Lievense B.V: Breda
12. 2 buisleiding bij Zoetermeer. 2006, TNO: Apeldoorn. p. 46
13. 2. 2004, MIT LFEE Report
14. J. Barrie, K. Brown, P.R. Hatcher, H.U. Schellhase, Carbon dioxide pipelines: A preliminary review of design and risk. in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 7. 2004. Vancouver, Canada
15. 2-safety and economic considerations. Energy 29 9-10 (2004) 1319
16. Morrow T.B., Bass R.L., and Lock J.A. A LPG Pipeline Break Flow Model. Journal of Energy Resources Technology (1983) 105
17. J. Kukkonen, Modelling source terms for the atmospheric dispersion of hazardous substances. in Commentationes Physico-Mathematicae 115/1990. 1990: Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters, Helsinki
18. NEB, Reasons for Decision in the matter of Souris Valley Pipeline Limited. 1998, National Energy Board: Calgary, Canada