Environmental assessment of German electricity generation from coal-fired power plants with amine-based carbon capture

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope One of the most important sources of global carbon dioxide emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels for power generation. Power plants contribute more than 40% of the worldwide anthropogenic CO 2 emissions. Therefore, the increased requirements for climate protection are a great challenge for the power producers. In this context a significant increase in power plant efficiency will contribute to reduce specific CO 2 emissions. Additionally, CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) is receiving considerable attention as a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation option. CCS allows continued use of fossil fuels with no or little CO 2 emissions given to the atmosphere. This could approve a moderate transition to a low-carbon energy generation over the next decades. Currently, R&D activities in the field of CCS are mainly concentrated on the development of capture techniques, the geological assessment of CO 2 storage reservoirs, and on economic aspects. Although first studies on material and energy flows caused by CCS are available, a broader environmental analysis is necessary to show the overall environmental impacts of CCS. The objectives in this paper are coal-based power plants with and without CO 2 capture via monoethanolamine (MEA) and the comparison of their environmental effects based on life cycle assessment methodology (LCA). Methods This LCA study examines the environmental and human health effects of power generation of five coal-based steam power plants, which differ in the year of installation (2005, 2010, 2020), the conversion efficiency, and in the ability and efficiency to capture CO 2 . For the removal of CO 2 from combustion and gasification processes in power plants, three main technology concepts exist: (1) precombustion technology, (2) oxyfuel combustion systems, and (3) post-combustion separation. As post-combustion technology shows the highest level of maturity, this study concentrates on this route, focusing on capture using monoethanolamine (MEA). The analysis regards the postcombustion retrofit of coal power plants with MEA to be a general option in 2020. Results Material and energy flows are balanced on the level of single processes as well as for the whole process chains.The life cycle inventory clearly shows decreasing inputs and outputs according to the efficiency increase from 43% to 49% in case of the power plants without CO 2 capture. In case of the MEA plants, all inputs and emissions raise, according to the additional energy consumption, except CO 2 and sulphur dioxide. The strong decrease of SO 2 partly results from the necessary improvement of desulphurisation if MEA wash is used. The influence of up and downstream activities on the results is determined. For the MEA plants, a considerable effect of up and downstream activities on the overall results is observed. Finally, the inventory results are assigned to selected impact categories. Global warming (GWP), human toxicity (HTP), acidification (AP), photooxidant formation (POCP), eutrophication (EP), and primary energ...

Worldwide innovations in the development of carbon capture technologies and the utilization of CO2

“…[129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137]. Most studies consider the post-combustion capture route with coal as fuel and MEA scrubbing.…”

“…This follows from heavy metal and organic emissions into air and water, mainly ethylene oxide emissions from the MEA supply, 130,135 and heavy metal and phosphate emissions into water from landfilling coal ash.…”

Post-combustion carbon capture technologies: Energetic analysis and life cycle assessment

“…CO2 capture and storage (CCS) has been regarded as one of the most promising options to utilize fossil fuels continuously without the significant influence to the climate change. Till now, a large number of studies have focused on the assessment of energy consumption, capture cost and environmental impacts in CCS, while most of them analysed MEA-based capture systems which have been proven in chemical production industries, for example, process analysis and techno-economic assessment (Abu-Zahra et al, 2007;Huang et al, 2010;Husebye et al, 2011;IEA, 2006;Sanpasertparnich et al, 2010;Schach et al, 2010;Sipocz and Tobiesen, 2012) and environmental impact assessment (Nie et al, 2013) ( Koornneef et al, 2011;Koornneef et al, 2012;Korre et al, 2010;Pehnt and Henkel, 2009;Schreiber et al, 2009;Singh et al, 2011a;Singh et al, 2011b). Research on some emerging capture technologies such as membranes, ionic liquids and metal organic frameworks (MOFs) is in progress with the aim of reducing capture energy consumption and capital investment (Favre, 2011;Figueroa et al, 2008;MacDowell et al, 2010;Zhang et al, 2012b), and shows a promising application in CO2 capture.…”

“…As for environmental issues, it has been shown in literature that a CCS system with an MEA-based capture method though can achieve a significant reduction of CO2 emissions but have multiple environmental trade-offs (Koornneef et al, 2011;Koornneef et al, 2012;Korre et al, 2010;Pehnt and Henkel, 2009;Schreiber et al, 2009;Singh et al, 2011a;Singh et al, 2011b). Although there are no MEA degradation and solvent losses in a membrane process, the preparation and replacement of membrane might cause additional environmental impacts.…”

Measurement of gas-phase ammonia and amines in air by collection onto an ion exchange resin and analysis by ion chromatography

“…In addition to agricultural sources, humans, animals (both wild and domestic), sewage, industry and transportation are important sources of ammonia in urban areas (Li et al, 2006;Perrino et al, 2002;Sutton et al, 2000;Whitehead et al, 2007). Other sources of amines and ammonia include ocean biota (Ge et al, 2011a;Gibb et al, 1999), biomass burning (Ge et al, 2011a;Lobert et al, 1990), and release from carbon capture and storage devices that use amines to trap CO 2 , which could be a more important source of atmospheric amines and ammonia as the technol-ogy becomes more widely adopted (Borduas et al, 2013;Ge et al, 2011a;Nielsen et al, 2012;Rochelle, 2009;Schreiber et al, 2009).…”