Techno-economic assessment of flexible combined heat and power plant with Carbon Capture and Storage

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrien Saint-Pierre ◽  
Pierluigi Mancarella
Keyword(s):  
Power Plant ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Economic Assessment ◽  
Combined Heat And Power ◽  
And Storage

Financing coal-fired power plant to demonstrate CCS (carbon capture and storage) through an innovative policy incentive in China

Energy Policy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 158 ◽  
pp. 112562
Author(s):  
Lin Yang ◽  
Mao Xu ◽  
Jingli Fan ◽  
Xi Liang ◽  
Xian Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Power Plant ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
And Storage

scholarly journals Economic Conditions for Developing Hydrogen Production Based on Coal Gasification with Carbon Capture and Storage in Poland

Energies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (19) ◽  
pp. 5074
Author(s):  
Radosław Kaplan ◽  
Michał Kopacz
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Net Present Value ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Economic Assessment ◽  
Free Cash Flow ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Capital Expenditures ◽  
Hard Coal ◽  
And Storage

This study documents the results of economic assessment concerning four variants of coal gasification to hydrogen in a shell reactor. That assessment has been made using discounting methods (NPV: net present value, IRR: internal rate of return), as well as indicators based on a free cash flow to firm (FCFF) approach. Additionally, sensitivity analysis has been carried out, along with scenario analysis in current market conditions concerning prices of hard coal, lignite, hydrogen and CO2 allowances, as well as capital expenditures and costs related to carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems. Based on NPV results, a negative economic assessment has been obtained for all the analyzed variants varying within the range of EUR −903 to −142 million, although the variants based on hard coal achieved a positive IRR (5.1–5.7%) but lower than the assumed discount rates. In Polish conditions, the gasification of lignite seems to be unprofitable, in the assumed scale of total investment outlays and the current price of coal feedstock. The sensitivity analyses indicate that at least a 20% increase of hydrogen price would be required, or a similar reduction of capital expenditures (CAPEX) and costs of operation, for the best variant to make NPV positive. Analyses have also indicated that on the economic basis, only the prices of CO2 allowances exceeding EUR 40/Mg (EUR 52/Mg for lignite) would generate savings due to the availability of CCS systems.

scholarly journals Environmental Performance Analysis of Cement Production with CO2 Capture and Storage Technology in a Life-Cycle Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 2626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing An ◽  
Richard S. Middleton ◽  
Yingnan Li
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Combined Heat And Power ◽  
Cement Industry ◽  
Cement Production ◽  
Storage Technology ◽  
And Storage

Cement manufacturing is one of the most energy and CO2 intensive industries. With the growth of cement production, CO2 emissions are increasing rapidly too. Carbon capture and storage is the most feasible new technology option to reduce CO2 emissions in the cement industry. More research on environmental impacts is required to provide the theoretical basis for the implementation of carbon capture and storage in cement production. In this paper, GaBi software and scenario analysis were employed to quantitatively analyze and compare the environmental impacts of cement production with and without carbon capture and storage technology, from the perspective of a life-cycle assessment; aiming to promote sustainable development of the cement industry. Results of two carbon capture and storage scenarios show decreases in the impacts of global warming potential and some environmental impacts. However, other scenarios show a significant increase in other environmental impacts. In particular, post-combustion carbon capture technology can bring a more pronounced increase in toxicity potential. Therefore, effective measures must be taken into account to reduce the impact of toxicity when carbon capture and storage is employed in cement production. CO2 transport and storage account for only a small proportion of environmental impacts. For post-combustion carbon capture, most of the environmental impacts come from the unit of combined heat and power and carbon capture, with the background production of MonoEthanolAmine contributing significantly. In combined heat and power plants, natural gas is more advantageous than a 10% coal-saving, and thermal efficiency is a key parameter affecting the environmental impacts. Future research should focus on exploring cleaner and effective absorbents or seeking the alternative fuel in combined heat and power plants for post-combustion carbon capture. If the power industry is the first to deploy carbon capture and storage, oxy-combustion carbon capture is an excellent choice for the cement industry.

Life Cycle Assessment of Future Fossil Technologies with and without Carbon Capture and Storage

2007 ◽  
Vol 1041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Dones ◽  
Christian Bauer ◽  
Thomas Heck ◽  
Oliver Mayer-Spohn ◽  
Markus Blesl
Keyword(s):  
Power Plant ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Hard Coal ◽  
Ghg Reduction ◽  
Entire Energy ◽  
Energy Chain ◽  
And Storage

AbstractThe NEEDS project of the European Commission (2004-2008) continues the ExternE series, aiming at improving and integrating external cost assessment, LCA, and energy-economy modeling, using multi-criteria decision analysis for technology roadmap up to year 2050. The LCA covers power systems suitable for Europe. The paper presents environmental inventories and cumulative results for selected representative evolutionary hard coal and lignite power technologies, namely the Ultra-Supercritical Pulverized Combustion (USC-PC) and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technologies. The power units are modeled with and without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The three main technology paths for CO2 capture are represented, namely pre-combustion, post-combustion, and oxy-fuel combustion. Pipeline transport and storage in geological formations like saline aquifers and depleted gas reservoirs, which are the most likely solutions to be implemented in Europe, are modeled for assumed average conditions. The entire energy chains from fuel extraction through, when applicable, the ultimate sequestration of CO2, are assessed, using ecoinvent as background LCA database.The results show that adding CCS to fossil power plants, although resulting in a large net decrease of the CO2 effluents to the atmosphere per unit of electricity, is likely to produce substantially more GHG than claimed by near-zero emission power plant promoters when the entire energy chain is accounted for, especially for post-combustion capture technologies and hard coal as a fuel. Besides, the lower net power plant efficiencies lead to higher consumption rate of non-renewable fossil fuel. Furthermore, consideration of the full spectrum of environmental burdens besides greenhouse gas (GHG) results in a less definite picture of the energy chain with CCS than obtained by just focusing on GHG reduction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document