A Geospatial Cost Comparison of CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) Power and Geologic CO2 Storage

3Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) power plants can use gigatonne-levels of CO2 sequestration to generate electricity, but it is unknown if the resources that support low-cost CPG power align with the resources that support low-cost CO2 sequestration. Here, we estimate and compare the geospatially-distributed cost of CPG and CO2 storage across a portion of North America. We find that the locations with lowest-cost CO2 storage are different than the locations with lowest-cost CPG. There are also locations with low-cost CO2 storage (

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ogland-Hand, J. D., Adams, B. M., Bennett, J. A., & Middleton, R. S. (2022). A Geospatial Cost Comparison of CO2 Plume Geothermal (CPG) Power and Geologic CO2 Storage. Frontiers in Energy Research, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.855120

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free