Comparative potential of natural gas, coal and biomass fired power plant with post - combustion CO 2 capture and compression

Ali, Usman; Font-Palma, Carolina; Akram, Muhammad; Agbonghae, Elvis O.; Ingham, D.B.; Pourkashanian, Mohamed

doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.05.022

Cited by 53 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The efficiency penalty is usually calculated as an index for evaluating the difference in power plant efficiency between a plant without CCS and a plant coupled with CCS. Figure shows the following efficiency penalties: 8.1 and 7.5 % for the coal‐fired plant and NGCC, respectively, provided by Ali et al; 8.2 and 10.4 % for coal and NGCC, respectively, provided by Tola; 10.6 and 7.1 % for coal and NGCC, respectively, provided by Ystad et al; 9.3 and 7.3 % for coal and NGCC, respectively, provided by Berstad et al; and 11.4 and 8.2 % for coal and NGCC, respectively, reported in NETL . Generally, the reported values indicate that the net efficiency penalties for coal plants and NGCC plants with advanced post‐combustion capture CCS technologies ranges from 8.1–11.4 % and 7.1–10.4 %.…”

Section: Co2 Capturementioning

confidence: 97%

“…The results emphasize the fact that without CCS, even the most efficient natural gas power plants cannot achieve deep reductions that would be needed to avoid global warming. Ali et al investigated the comparative potential of different power generation systems, including natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) with and without exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), pulverized supercritical coal (PC), and biomass‐fired power plants for constant heat input and constant fuel flowrate cases. They concluded that the NGCC plants have higher net efficiencies and the least efficiency penalty reduction than coal.…”

Section: Co2 Capturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Current situation of carbon dioxide capture, storage, and enhanced oil recovery in the oil and gas industry

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an important low-carbon management technology used to reduce CO 2 emissions with the captured anthropogenic CO 2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). This paper provides an overview and analysis of current issues related to CCS projects and CCS technologies. The paper also assesses risks and costs as well as policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks relevant for CCS and the major countries with CCS deployment. Currently, the few CCS projects in operation are mostly for EOR purposes. However, miscible CO 2 -EOR in depleted oil and gas reservoirs appears to be the industry's first choice for CO 2 sequestration and increasing oil production. Potential CO 2 leakage is a major risk for pipelines and geological storage and a comprehensive monitoring program needs to be developed to ascertain its impact on pipeline material integrity, humans, and the environment. The cost of the CCS chain largely depends on the compression solvent for the synthesis gas or flue gas treatment for separation, heat rate, energy required for capture, capital costs of capture equipment, pipeline diameter, and flow capacity, and the homogeneity and permeability of the geological formations. An effective carbon pricing and cap-and-trade system as a part of national carbon policy is needed to achieve the goal of CCS. This paper finally discusses China's carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) systems and proposes a new CCUS-LNG transportation process system for the coastal areas of China. Special attention was focused on CO 2 transportation, CCUS-EOR, and a new CCUS-LNG process system for China.

show abstract

Section: Co2 Capturementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Co2 Capturementioning

confidence: 99%

Current situation of carbon dioxide capture, storage, and enhanced oil recovery in the oil and gas industry

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, the power plant is equipped with flue gas treatment units, including the selective catalytic reduction unit for the NOx removal using ammonia and catalyst; fabric filters for the particulates removal; the flue gas desulphurization unit for the removal of the SO2 using the wet limestone forced oxidation process and the CO2 capture plant for the removal of the CO2 using MEA-based reactive absorption and desorption. More details of the flue gas treatment can be found in Ali et al (2017).…”

Section: Process Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Part-load performance of direct-firing and co-firing of coal and biomass in a power generation system integrated with a CO2 capture and compression system

Ali

Akram

Font-Palma

et al. 2017

Fuel

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is recognised as a key technology to mitigate CO2 emissions and achieve stringent climate targets due to its potential for negative emissions. However, the cost for its deployment is expected to be higher than for fossil-based power plants with CCS. To help in the transition to fully replace fossil fuels, co-firing of coal and biomass provide a less expensive means. Therefore, this work examines the co-firing at various levels in a pulverised supercritical power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture, using a fully integrated model developed in Aspen Plus. Co-firing offers flexibility in terms of the biomass resources needed. This work also investigates flexibility within operation. As a result, the performance of the power plant at various part-loads (40%, 60% and 80%) is studied and compared to the baseline at 100%, using a constant fuel flowrate. It was found that the net power output and net efficiency decrease when the biomass fraction increases for constant heat input and constant fuel flow rate cases. At constant heat input, more fuel is required as the biomass fraction is increased; whilst at constant fuel input, derating occurs, e.g. 30% derating of the power output capacity at firing 100% biomass compared to 100% coal. Co-firing of coal and biomass resulted in substantial power derating at each part-load operation.

show abstract

“…Variation of absorber pressure saw a decrease in SRD due to the increased partial pressure of the CO 2 ; 4.56 GJ/tCO 2 to 4.38 GJ/tCO 2 with an increase in absorber pressure of 0.9 to 1.2 bar. The effect of implementing EGR on the integrated MEA-based CO 2 capture plant when coupled to an 800 MW NGCC was studied exclusively by Ali et al [18], something not considered comprehensively in other studies [12,13,15]. The use of EGR resulted in a 57% increase in CO 2 molar composition in the flue gas stream (4.16-6.53 mol%), resulting in a 2.3% reduction in SRD; they also identified that the NGCC case with EGR is the most attractive for use with CCS due to its lowest reduction in plant net efficiency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of Post Combustion CO2 Capture from a Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plant via Taguchi Design of Experiment

Petrovic

Soltani

2019

Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potential of carbon capture and storage to provide a low carbon fossil-fueled power generation sector that complements the continuously growing renewable sector is becoming ever more apparent. An optimization of a post combustion capture unit employing the solvent monoethanolamine (MEA) was carried out using a Taguchi design of experiment to mitigate the parasitic energy demands of the system. An equilibrium-based approach was employed in Aspen Plus to simulate 90% capture of the CO2 emitted from a 600 MW natural gas combined-cycle gas turbine power plant. The effects of varying the inlet flue gas temperature, absorber column operating pressure, amount of exhaust gas recycle, and amine concentration were evaluated using signal to noise ratios and analysis of variance. The optimum levels that minimized the specific energy requirements were a: flue gas temperature = 50 °C; absorber pressure = 1 bar; exhaust gas recirculation = 20% and; amine concentration = 35 wt%, with a relative importance of: amine concentration > absorber column pressure > exhaust gas recirculation > flue gas temperature. This configuration gave a total capture unit energy requirement of 5.05 GJ/tonneCO2, with an energy requirement in the reboiler of 3.94 GJ/tonneCO2. All the studied factors except the flue gas temperature, demonstrated a statistically significant association to the response.

show abstract

Comparative potential of natural gas, coal and biomass fired power plant with post - combustion CO 2 capture and compression

Cited by 53 publications

References 47 publications

Current situation of carbon dioxide capture, storage, and enhanced oil recovery in the oil and gas industry

Current situation of carbon dioxide capture, storage, and enhanced oil recovery in the oil and gas industry

Part-load performance of direct-firing and co-firing of coal and biomass in a power generation system integrated with a CO2 capture and compression system

Optimization of Post Combustion CO2 Capture from a Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plant via Taguchi Design of Experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About