Assessment of Future Sustainable Power Technologies with Carbon Capture and Storage

Abstract

In this work, a technical, economic and environmental analysis concerning the use of three major power generation plant types including pulverized coal, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and natural gas combined cycle, with or without carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) integration, is carried out. For the analysis, the IPP optimization software is used in which the electricity unit cost and the CO2 avoidance cost from the various candidate power generation technologies is calculated. The analysis indicates that the electricity unit cost of IGCC technology with CCS integration is the least cost option with the lowest CO2 avoidance cost of all candidate technologies with CCS integration. Further investigation concerning the effect of the loan interest rate on the economic performance of the candidate plants revealed that up to a value of loan interest of approximately 5.7%, the IGCC plant with CCS retains the lowest electricity unit cost. Above this level, the natural gas combined cycle plant with post-combustion CCS becomes more economically attractive.

Combustion of Coal Chars in O2/CO2 and O2/N2 Mixtures: A Comparative Study with Non-isothermal Thermogravimetric Analyzer (TGA) Tests

“…Postcombustion CO 2 capture can incur significant economic and energy penalties to the coal-fired power plants. 3 Oxy-coal combustion uses oxygen instead of air for the combustion of coal to produce a flue gas that is mainly CO 2 (greater than 80% by volume) and water vapor. The water vapor can be easily removed by condensation, and the remaining CO 2 can be purified relatively inexpensively.…”

“…14−15% by volume), have to be captured by a postcombustion method using an organic sorbent, such as monoethanolamine (MEA). Postcombustion CO 2 capture can incur significant economic and energy penalties to the coal-fired power plants . Oxy-coal combustion uses oxygen instead of air for the combustion of coal to produce a flue gas that is mainly CO 2 (greater than 80% by volume) and water vapor.…”

Embedding CCS infrastructure into the European electricity system: a policy coordination problem

“…Over the past years a number of CCS cost studies have been conducted (e.g. Anderson and Newell, 2004;IPCC, 2005;Davison, 2007;Rubin et al, 2007;Hadjipaschalis et al, 2008;Giovanni and Richards, 2010). Most of the cost studies focus solely on capture, excluding transport and storage costs from their calculations, although these components should be added to the total costs of a CCS system.…”