Life Cycle Analysis: Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Power Plants

Skone, Timothy J; Schivley, Greg; Jamieson, Matt; Marriott, Joe; Cooney, Greg; Littlefield, James; Mutchek, Michele; Krynock, Michelle; Shih, Chung Yan

doi:10.2172/1562914

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This makes it difficult to assign a static value to CO 2 resold for use in EOR. In their analysis, Skone et al use a range of $20–50/tCO 2 for CO 2 provided for the purpose of EOR . While this study does not include within the cost model revenue generated from the sale of CO 2 for the purpose of EOR, the reader can infer cost adjustments using this cost range as a guide.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Robust cost predictions for CCS are invaluable to the scientific community to inform research targets as well as for policymakers who are charged with developing mechanisms for increased CCS deployment. Other studies have examined the cost of CCS on natural gas plants, but assume a single value for transportation and sequestration costs, typically between $7 and $10/tCO 2 . − This study identifies case-specific capture, compression, transport, and sequestration costs and considers recent tax code as a mechanism for cost reduction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cost Analysis of Carbon Capture and Sequestration from U.S. Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants

Psarras

Pilorgé

et al. 2020

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite increasing efforts to decarbonize the power sector, the utilization of natural gas-fired power plants is anticipated to continue. This study models existing solvent-based carbon capture technologies on natural gas-fired power plants, using site-specific emissions and regionally defined cost parameters to calculate the cost of CO2 avoided for two scenarios: delivery to and injection within reliable sequestration sites, and delivery and injection for the purpose of CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Despite the application of credits from the existing federal tax code 45Q, a minimum incentive gap of roughly $38/tCO2 remains for the geologic sequestration of CO2 and $56/tCO2 for CO2-EOR (before consideration of revenue generated from delivered CO2 contracts). At full escalation of 45Q, delivered CO2 costs from this sector for geologic sequestration could reach as low as $22/tCO2. However, given the capital investment required in the near-term, it would be beneficial if the credit provided the greatest economic benefit early on and decreasing over time as deployment continues to ramp up. Additionally, due to the high qualifying limit of 45Q for the power sector, e.g., 500 ktCO2/yr, the tax credit incentivizes the capture of roughly 397 MtCO2/yr at a 90% capture efficiency or 75% of the emissions in this sector, with missed opportunities equating to roughly 118 MtCO2. Advancing the scale of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) will require both technological advances in the capture technology, cost reductions through the leveraging of existing infrastructure, and increased policy incentives in terms of cost along with the reduction of qualifying limits.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost Analysis of Carbon Capture and Sequestration from U.S. Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants

Psarras

Pilorgé

et al. 2020

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The evaluation of the environmental impacts of technologies was performed by means of a selected impact assessment method. Although the main aim of CCUS technologies is the reduction of GHG emissions [66,67], their introduction into the energy sector might lead to adverse effects on other environmental compartments and impact categories. According to Müller et al [47], it is important to include other impact categories apart from Global Warming Potential (GWP) to avoid misinformed decision making, especially if these categories are considered relevant and assessable.…”

Section: Impact Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Environmental Impacts of Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage on the Electricity Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment Comparison between Italy and Poland

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) is a set of technologies aimed at capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from point-source emitters to either store permanently or use as a feedstock to produce chemicals and fuels. In this paper, the potential benefits of CCUS integration into the energy supply sector are evaluated from a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) perspective by comparing two different routes for the CO2 captured from a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC). Both the complete storage of the captured CO2 and its partial utilization to produce dimethyl ether are investigated. Moreover, the assessment is performed considering the region-specific features of two of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, namely Italy and Poland. Results shows that the complete storage of the captured CO2 reduces Global Warming Potential (GWP) by ~89% in Italy and ~97%, in Poland. On the other hand, the partial utilization of CO2 to produce dimethyl ether leads to a decrease of ~58% in Italy and ~68% in Poland with respect to a comparable reference entailing conventional dimethyl ether production. A series of environmental trade-offs was determined, with all the investigated categories apart from GWP showing an increase, mainly connected with the higher energy requirements of CCUS processes. These outcomes highlight the need for a holistic-oriented approach in the design of novel implemented configurations to avoid burden shifts throughout the value chain.

show abstract

“…The GWP of NRES, as well as their capacity estimations are based on Refs. [60][61][62][63][64]. The analysis includes two scenarios: the equivalent power generation and the equivalent environmental impact.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter includes the impacts of conventional natural gas and coal-fired power plants based on Refs. [60][61][62][63][64]. The technologies included have a power output between 500 and 550 MW and are: a natural gas combined cycle (ngcc), a subcritical coal plant (sub coal), a supercritical coal plant (sc coal), and an integrated gasification combined cycle (igcc).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Closer Look at the Environmental Impact of Solar and Wind Energy

Torres

Petrakopoulou

2022

Global Challenges

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moving towards a sustainable society implies constant improvement in the way energy is supplied and consumed, with wider implementation of solar and wind energy facilities in stand‐alone or hybrid configurations. The goal of this work is to evaluate the lifecycle performance (construction and operation‐related impact) of large‐scale solar and wind energy systems and to compare it with conventional coal and natural gas fossil fuel plants under similar conditions. Environmental analyses of energy conversion systems today usually neglect the construction‐related environmental impact of fossil fuel plants, because it is significantly smaller than the impact related to the operation of the plant. However, the construction of large‐scale renewable plants implies the use of rare materials, transport‐related emissions, and other environmentally impactful activities. The plants evaluated here are configured and compared for similar emissions and similar power output. It is found that the life‐cycle environmental impact of the renewable plants could, in some specific cases, exceed that of the fossil fuel plants. Understanding the reasons behind this and the possible limitations of the different technologies can help plan for sustainable energy systems in the future. Finally, solutions to minimize the impact of renewable energy are proposed for more environmentally friendly implementation and future research.

show abstract

Life Cycle Analysis: Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Power Plants

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Cost Analysis of Carbon Capture and Sequestration from U.S. Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants

Cost Analysis of Carbon Capture and Sequestration from U.S. Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants

The Environmental Impacts of Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage on the Electricity Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment Comparison between Italy and Poland

A Closer Look at the Environmental Impact of Solar and Wind Energy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About