All Issue

2026 Vol.63, Issue 1S Preview Page

Research Paper (Special Issue)

Probabilistic Estimation of CCS Costs Using Monte Carlo Simulation

몬테카를로 시뮬레이션 기반 CCS 비용의 확률론적 추정

Jiin Lee1
,
Minchul Jang2
,
Youngbin Ahn2
,
Chaeyun Kim1
,
Minkyung Chae1
,
Minchae Kim1
,
Baehyun Min12*
이 지인1
,
장 민철2
,
안 영빈2
,
김 채연1
,
채 민경1
,
김 민채1
,
민 배현12*
1Department of Climate and Energy Systems Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea
2Center for Climate/Environment Change Prediction Research, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea
1이화여자대학교 기후에너지시스템공학과
2이화여자대학교 기후·환경변화예측연구센터
*Corresponding Author
28 February 2026. pp. 31-41
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

This study estimates unit costs (USD/tCO2) across the carbon capture, transport, and storage (CCS) value chain using probabilistic distributions. Cost data from the literature and technical reports are systematically compiled by capture (refinery, cement, iron, hydrogen, and natural gas), transport (shipping and pipelines), and storage (depleted oil and gas reservoirs and saline aquifers) categories. Mixed interval and point-valued data are treated using a symbolic data analysis approach to generate virtual samples, and candidate distributions are fitted using maximum likelihood estimation. Monte Carlo simulations are then performed to derive mean and percentile cost estimates. When applied to a case in which CO2 captured from natural gas processing is transported via a 500 km-long pipeline and stored in a depleted gas reservoir, the total CCS cost is estimated at a mean of 94.78 USD/tCO2 (P10 69.66, P50 84.33, P90 129.81 USD/tCO2). This study provides probabilistic cost benchmarks to support investment decision-making in early-stage CCS planning.

Keywords
CCS value chain
monte carlo simulation
probabilistic cost estimation

본 연구는 CCS(탄소 포집·수송·저장) 가치사슬 전 단계의 단위비용(USD/tCO2)을 확률분포로 추정하였다. 문헌·보고서에 산재한 비용 자료를 포집(정유·시멘트·철강·수소·천연가스), 수송(선박·수송관), 저장(폐유·가스전·대염수층) 옵션별로 체계화하고, 구간값과 단일값이 혼재된 값에 상징적 데이터 분석을 적용해 가상 표본을 생성하였다. 후보 분포를 최대우도추정으로 적합한 뒤 몬테카를로 시뮬레이션을 통해 평균과 분위수를 도출하였다. 이를 천연가스 공정에서 포집한 CO2를 길이 500 km 수송관으로 폐가스전에 저장하는 사례에 적용한 결과, 총 CCS 비용은 평균 94.78 USD/tCO2(P10 69.66, P50 84.33, P90 129.81 USD/tCO2)로 추정되었다. 본 연구는 확률분포 기반 비용 벤치마크로 초기 CCS 기획 단계에서 비용 변동 범위를 포함한 투자 의사결정을 지원할 수 있다.

키워드
CCS 가치사슬
몬테카를로 시뮬레이션
확률론적 비용 추정
References
1

Badgett, A., Cooney, G., Hoffmann, J., and Milbrandt, A., 2024. Appendix F. Appendix to Chapter 7.3: CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources, In 2023 Billion‐Ton Report. M. H. Langholtz (Lead). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA, 7p.

2

Bank of Canada, 2026. Annual Average Exchange Rates, Bank of Canada.

3

Billard, L. and Diday, E., 2003. From the statistics of data to the statistics of knowledge: Symbolic data analysis, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 98(462), p.470-487.

10.1198/016214503000242
4

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2026. U.S. / Euro Foreign Exchange Rate (AEXUSEU), Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED).

5

Fetisov, V., Gonopolsky, A.M., Zemenkova, M.Y., Andrey, S., Davardoost, H., Mohammadi, A.H., and Riazi, M., 2023. On the integration of CO2 capture technologies for an oil refinery, Energies, 16(2), 865, p.1-19.

10.3390/en16020865
6

Global CCS Institute, 2021. Technology readiness and costs of CCS, Melbourne, Australia, 50p.

7

Global CCS Institute, 2025a. Advancements in CCS technologies and costs, Melbourne, Australia, 66p.

8

Global CCS Institute, 2025b. State of the art: CCS technologies 2025, Melbourne, Australia, 268p.

9

Hägg, M.-B., Lindbråthen, A., He, X., Nodeland, S.G., and Cantero, T., 2017. Pilot demonstration-reporting on CO2 capture from a cement plant using hollow fiber process, Energy Procedia, 114, p.6150-6165.

10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1752
10

Han, Z., Liu, H., Zhao, D., Chen, Y., Xing, Y., and Zhang, Z., 2025. Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for a carbon capture, utilization, and storage whole-process system, Processes, 13(5), 1356, p.1-27.

10.3390/pr13051356
11

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), 2021. How to save the Barossa project from itself: Carbon capture and storage will not help as Barossa gas is high-CO2 gas, Sydney, Australia, 8p.

12

International Energy Agency (IEA), 2019. Putting CO2 to use: Creating value from emissions, Paris, France, 86p.

13

International Energy Agency (IEA), 2020a. Energy technology perspectives 2020: Special report on carbon capture utilisation and storage, Paris, France, p.101.

14

International Energy Agency (IEA), 2020b. CCUS in clean energy transitions, Paris, France, 171p.

15

International Energy Agency (IEA), 2020c. Energy technology perspectives 2020: Special report on carbon capture utilization and storage, Paris, France, p.108.

16

International Energy Agency (IEA), 2025.11.20., https://www.iea.org/commentaries/is-carbon-capture-too-expensive

17

International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG), 2017. CO2 Capture in natural gas production by adsorption processes for CO2 storage, EOR and EGR, IEAGHG Technical Report 2017-04, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 69p.

18

International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG), 2018. Cost of CO2 capture in the industrial sector: Cement and iron and steel industries, IEAGHG Technical Report 2018-TR03, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 65p.

19

International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG), 2019a. Techno-economic evaluation of CO2 eapture in LNG plants, IEAGHG Technical Report 2019-07, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 48p.

20

International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG), 2019b. CO2StCap (Cutting cost of CO2 capture in process industry), IEAGHG Technical Report 2019-TR02, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 28p.

21

International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG), 2020. The status and challenges of CO2 shipping infrastructures, IEAGHG Report 2020-10, July 2020, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 127p.

22

International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG), 2021. Towards Improved Guidelines for cost evaluation of carbon capture and storage, IEAGHG Technical Report 2021-TR05, Cheltenham, United Kingdom. 151p.

23

International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG), 2025a. Proceedings: CCS cost network 2025 workshop, IEAGHG Technical Report 2025-TR03, Cheltenham, United Kingdom.

24

International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG), 2025b. CO2 transport and storage cost review, IEAGHG Technical Report 2025-TR08, Cheltenham, United Kingdom.

25

Malz, N., Oei, P.-Y., and Herpich, P., 2025. Assessing the prospects, costs, and risks of carbon capture and storage implementation in Germany, Carbon Capture Science & Technology, 100418, 13p.

10.1016/j.ccst.2025.100418
26

Martinez, C.G., Tumara, D., Mountraki, A., Letout, S., Jaxa-Rozen, M., Schmitz, A., Ince, E., and Georgakaki, A., 2024. Clean Energy Technology Observatory: Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage in the European Union – 2024 Status Report on Technology Development, Trends, Value Chains and Markets, JRC 139285, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 68p.

27

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 2023. Cost of capturing CO2 from industrial sources, DOE/NETL-2023/3907, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 194p.

28

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 2024. The 8RH2 process for producing clean hydrogen with autothermal reforming and carbon capture, DE-FE0032127, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 21p.

29

Nelson, T.O., Kataria, A., Mobley, P., Soukri, M., and Tanthana, J., 2017. RTI’s solid sorbent-based CO2 capture process: Technical and economic lessons learned for application in coal-fired, NGCC, and cement plants, Energy Procedia, 114, p.2506-2524.

10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1409
30

Rodriguez Calzado, E., Bump, A., and Hovorka, S., 2024. Estimating CO2 storage capacity, injectivity, and storage costs for large-scale CCS deployment and carbon dioxide removal goals, Proceedings of the 17th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference (GHGT-17), Calgary, Canada, 11p.

10.2139/ssrn.5022393
31

Roussanaly, S. and Grimstaed, A.-A., 2014. The economic value of CO2 for EOR applications, Energy Procedia, 63, p.7386-7843.

10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.818
32

Rubin, E.S., Davison, J.E., and Herzog, H.J., 2015. The cost of CO2 capture and storage, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40, p.378-400.

10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.018
33

Schmelz, W.J., Hochman, G., and Miller, K.G., 2020. Total cost of carbon capture and storage implemented at a regional scale: Northeastern and midwestern United States, Interface Focus, 10(5), 20190065.

10.1098/rsfs.2019.006532832064PMC7435045
34

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026. Producer Price Index by Commodity: Final Demand (PPIFIS), retrieved from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

35

Van der Spek, M., Fout, T., Garcia, M., Kuncheekanna, V.N., Matuszewski, M., McCoy, S., Morgan, J., Nazir, S.M., Ramirez, A., Roussanaly, S., and Rubin, E.S., 2020. Uncertainty analysis in the techno-economic assessment of CO2 capture and storage technologies: Critical review and guidelines for use, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 100, 103113.

10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103113
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국자원공학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국자원공학회지
  • Volume : 63
  • No :1
  • Pages :31-41
  • Received Date : 2025-12-30
  • Revised Date : 2026-01-16
  • Accepted Date : 2026-01-16
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.32390/ksmer.2026.63.1.031
Journal Informaiton Journal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers Journal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers
Online Submission
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • crossref crossmark
  • crossref cited-by
  • KCI 문헌 유사도 검사
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close