Subtopic Deep Dive
Carbon Capture and Storage in UCG
Research Guide
What is Carbon Capture and Storage in UCG?
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) integrates CO2 capture from syngas with sequestration in depleted coal seams to enable low-carbon energy production from unmineable coal reserves.
This subtopic examines techno-economic models, capture efficiencies, and storage integrity for UCG-CCS systems. Key studies include Olateju and Kumar (2013) with 134 citations on hydrogen production in Western Canada, and Roddy and Younger (2010) with 124 citations on industrial decarbonization pathways. Over 10 major papers since 2009 analyze costs, emissions, and pilot-scale feasibility.
Why It Matters
UCG-CCS enables access to trillions of tonnes of unmineable coal while sequestering CO2, supporting climate goals for fossil fuel transition (Roddy and Younger, 2010). Olateju and Kumar (2013) demonstrate its use in oil sands bitumen upgrading, reducing emissions in heavy oil production. Feng et al. (2024) quantify life cycle costs for power generation, showing economic viability under carbon pricing, with applications in hydrogen production (Verma et al., 2015) and coalbed methane recovery (Vairakannu and Mallick, 2015).
Key Research Challenges
Techno-economic viability
High capital costs and uncertain CO2 injection protocols challenge UCG-CCS commercialization. Nakaten et al. (2014) developed dynamic models showing energy demands exceed surface gasification in some scenarios. Olateju and Kumar (2013) report levelized costs 20-30% higher without subsidies.
Storage integrity risks
Permeability changes from thermo-mechanical effects threaten long-term CO2 containment in UCG cavities. Otto and Kempka (2015) simulations indicate negligible temperature impacts but highlight excavation-induced fractures. Friedmann et al. (2009) note leakage risks in carbon-constrained economics.
Syngas purification efficiency
Capturing CO2 from high-ash UCG syngas requires optimized sorbents and processes. Vairakannu and Jayanti (2012) lab studies on high-ash coals show 85-90% capture rates but scaling issues. Liu et al. (2022) compare UCG to surface methods, finding 15% lower H2 yields.
Essential Papers
Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production from underground coal gasification (UCG) in Western Canada with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for upgrading bitumen from oil sands
Babatunde Olateju, Amit Kumar · 2013 · Applied Energy · 134 citations
Underground coal gasification with CCS: a pathway to decarbonising industry
Dermot Roddy, Paul L. Younger · 2010 · Energy & Environmental Science · 124 citations
Underground coal gasification (UCG) opens up the prospect of accessing trillions of tonnes of otherwise unmineable coal. When combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS), UCG offers some attract...
Prospects for underground coal gasification in carbon-constrained world
S. Julio Friedmann, Ravi Upadhye, Fung-Ming Kong · 2009 · Energy Procedia · 111 citations
Underground coal gasification (UCG) has re-emerged as an energy technology for coal conversion and utilization given its attractive economics, ability to access inaccessible coals, and versatility ...
Life cycle cost analysis of power generation from underground coal gasification with carbon capture and storage (CCS) to measure the economic feasibility
Ye Feng, Jinglong Chen, Ji Luo · 2024 · Resources Policy · 104 citations
Development of a techno-economic model for dynamic calculation of cost of electricity, energy demand and CO2 emissions of an integrated UCG–CCS process
Natalie Nakaten, Ralf Schlüter, Rafig Azzam et al. · 2014 · Energy · 96 citations
Underground coal gasification (UCG) allows for the utilization of coal reserves not exploitable due to unfavorable geology and economic boundary conditions. The present study examines underground c...
Coalbed methane with CO2 sequestration: An emerging clean coal technology in India
Prabu Vairakannu, Nirmal Mallick · 2015 · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · 65 citations
Thermo-Mechanical Simulations of Rock Behavior in Underground Coal Gasification Show Negligible Impact of Temperature-Dependent Parameters on Permeability Changes
Christopher Otto, Thomas Kempka · 2015 · Energies · 58 citations
A coupled thermo-mechanical model has been developed to assess permeability changes in the vicinity of an underground coal gasification (UCG) reactor resulting from excavation and thermo-mechanical...
Reading Guide
Foundational Papers
Start with Roddy and Younger (2010, 124 citations) for UCG-CCS concept and scale, then Olateju and Kumar (2013, 134 citations) for techno-economics, and Friedmann et al. (2009, 111 citations) for carbon-constrained viability.
Recent Advances
Study Feng et al. (2024, 104 citations) for life cycle costs, Liu et al. (2022, 50 citations) for H2 comparisons, and Verma et al. (2015, 52 citations) for abatement economics.
Core Methods
Core techniques are dynamic techno-economic modeling (Nakaten et al., 2014), lab simulations of high-ash gasification (Vairakannu and Jayanti, 2012), and coupled thermo-mechanical finite element analysis (Otto and Kempka, 2015).
How PapersFlow Helps You Research Carbon Capture and Storage in UCG
Discover & Search
Research Agent uses searchPapers('UCG CCS techno-economic') to find Olateju and Kumar (2013), then citationGraph reveals 134 citing papers on hydrogen costs, while findSimilarPapers expands to Nakaten et al. (2014) models and exaSearch uncovers Roddy and Younger (2010) for industrial pathways.
Analyze & Verify
Analysis Agent applies readPaperContent on Feng et al. (2024) to extract life cycle costs, verifyResponse with CoVe checks emission claims against Otto and Kempka (2015) simulations, and runPythonAnalysis replots CO2 abatement curves from Verma et al. (2015) using pandas for sensitivity analysis with GRADE scoring model accuracy.
Synthesize & Write
Synthesis Agent detects gaps in storage integrity across Friedmann et al. (2009) and Vairakannu and Mallick (2015), flags contradictions in cost estimates, then Writing Agent uses latexEditText for techno-economic tables, latexSyncCitations for 10+ papers, latexCompile for full report, and exportMermaid diagrams UCG-CCS process flows.
Use Cases
"Plot CO2 capture efficiency vs cost from UCG-CCS papers using Python"
Research Agent → searchPapers('UCG CCS efficiency') → Analysis Agent → readPaperContent(Vairakannu and Jayanti 2012) → runPythonAnalysis(pandas plot of 85-90% rates vs Olateju costs) → matplotlib figure exported.
"Write LaTeX review of UCG-CCS techno-economics with citations"
Synthesis Agent → gap detection(Olateju 2013, Feng 2024) → Writing Agent → latexEditText(intro), latexSyncCitations(10 papers), latexCompile → PDF with tables and Roddy 2010 process diagram.
"Find GitHub repos simulating UCG thermo-mechanics"
Research Agent → searchPapers('UCG thermo-mechanical') → Code Discovery → paperExtractUrls(Otto and Kempka 2015) → paperFindGithubRepo → githubRepoInspect → verified simulation codes for permeability models.
Automated Workflows
Deep Research workflow conducts systematic review of 50+ UCG-CCS papers: searchPapers → citationGraph(Olateju 2013 cluster) → structured report with GRADE scores. DeepScan applies 7-step analysis to Nakaten et al. (2014): readPaperContent → CoVe verification → Python cost replots. Theorizer generates sequestration theory from Roddy and Younger (2010) + Friedmann et al. (2009) for novel injection protocols.
Frequently Asked Questions
What defines Carbon Capture and Storage in UCG?
CCS in UCG captures CO2 from syngas produced by in-situ coal gasification and stores it in depleted seams, as defined by Roddy and Younger (2010).
What are key methods in UCG-CCS research?
Methods include techno-economic modeling (Olateju and Kumar, 2013; Nakaten et al., 2014), lab-scale gasification (Vairakannu and Jayanti, 2012), and thermo-mechanical simulations (Otto and Kempka, 2015).
What are the most cited papers?
Top papers are Olateju and Kumar (2013, 134 citations) on hydrogen production, Roddy and Younger (2010, 124 citations) on decarbonization, and Friedmann et al. (2009, 111 citations) on prospects.
What open problems remain?
Challenges include scaling capture efficiencies for high-ash coals (Vairakannu and Jayanti, 2012), long-term storage integrity (Otto and Kempka, 2015), and cost reduction under carbon pricing (Feng et al., 2024).
Research Mining and Gasification Technologies with AI
PapersFlow provides specialized AI tools for Engineering researchers. Here are the most relevant for this topic:
AI Literature Review
Automate paper discovery and synthesis across 474M+ papers
Paper Summarizer
Get structured summaries of any paper in seconds
Code & Data Discovery
Find datasets, code repositories, and computational tools
AI Academic Writing
Write research papers with AI assistance and LaTeX support
See how researchers in Engineering use PapersFlow
Field-specific workflows, example queries, and use cases.
Start Researching Carbon Capture and Storage in UCG with AI
Search 474M+ papers, run AI-powered literature reviews, and write with integrated citations — all in one workspace.
See how PapersFlow works for Engineering researchers