Life cycle analysis of fossil power plant with CO2 recovery and sequestering system

Waku, Hideki

doi:10.1016/0140-6701(96)88940-5

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are not standard terms corresponding to the definitions in Table 33. However, many studies have used these same definitions with their own terminology (Colorado Energy Research Institute, April 1976;Keoleian, 1997;and Waku et al, 1995.) The net energy ratio is a more accurate and rigorous measure of the net energy yield from the system than the external energy ratio because it accounts for all of the fossil energy inputs.…”

Section: Energy Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-fired Power Production

Spath¹,

Mann²,

Kerr³

1999

201

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prepared under Task No. BP911030 Excluding the consumption of fossil fuels by the power plant, the external energy efficiency and external energy ratio indicate that upstream processes are large consumers of energy. In fact, two operations, those related to flue gas clean-up and coal transportation, account for between 3.8% and 4.2% of the total system energy consumption, and between 67.4% and 70.5% of the non-coal energy. Processes involved in the gas clean-up operations include the production, transport, and use of limestone and lime in the Average and NSPS systems, and the production, distribution, and combustion of natural gas in the LEBS system. These operations consume between 35.3% and 38.5% of the non-coal energy, and between 2.0% and 2.4% of the total energy of the systems. Transportation of the coal uses similar amounts: between 30.1% and 32.2% of non-coal, and 1.8% of total system energy. As expected, the amount of resources consumed, emissions produced, and energy used, are small for the mine mouth transportation case. It was found that the transportation distance has a significant effect on the oil consumption, a few of the systems emissions, and the energy consumption, whereas the mode of transportation has virtually no effect on the results. Although energy consumption is significant, transportation required fewer resources and had lower air, water, and solid waste emissions than either the mining or electricity generation subsystems. Appendices Appendix A: Graphical Representation of the LCA System in TEAM ® Appendix B: Additional Results Tables Appendix C: Additional Figures Units of Measure Metric units of measure are used in this report. Therefore, material consumption is reported in units based on the gram (e.g., kilogram or megagram), energy consumption based on the joule (e.g., kilojoule or megajoule), and distance based on the meter (e.g., kilometer). When it can contribute to the understanding of the analysis, the English system equivalent is stated in parenthesis. The metric units used for each parameter are given below, with the corresponding conversion to English units. Mass: kilogram (kg) = 2.205 pounds megagram (Mg) = metric tonne (T) = 1 x 10 g = 1.102 ton (t) 6 Distance: kilometer (km) = 0.62 mile = 3,281 feet Area: hectare (ha) = 10,000 m = 2.47 acres 2 Volume: cubic meter (m) = 264.17 gallons 3 Pressure: kilopascals (kPa) = 0.145 pounds per square inch Energy: gigajoule (GJ) = 0.9488 MMBtu (million Btu) kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3,414.7 Btu gigawatt-hour (GWh) = 3.4 x 10 Btu 9

show abstract

Section: Energy Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results of the life-cycle studies are being reviewed by Chalmers Contract Research Organization and the Swedish Environmental Research Institute. Waku et al (1995). Energy and CO emissions were examined in a cradle-to-grave LCA for LNG combined cycle and coal 2 IGCC systems incorporating CO recovery and sequestration.…”

Section: Related Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-fired Power Production

Spath¹,

Mann²,

Kerr³

1999

201

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Waku et al (32) found that emission control potential for LNG C/C and IGCC were in the range of 61-69% and 65-76%, respectively. Aycaguer et al (2) suggested that the EOR process was not only a major CO 2 user but could also provide a significant means to store it underground.…”

Section: Table 2: Aspects Covered By 'Ccs System Assessments'-literatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life-cycle Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Capture for Enhanced Oil Recovery

Hertwich

Aaberg

Singh

et al. 2008

Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development and deployment of Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) technology is a cornerstone of the Norwegian government's climate strategy. A number of projects are currently evaluated/planned along the Norwegian West Coast, one at Tjeldbergodden. CO 2 from this project will be utilized in part for enhanced oil recovery in the Halten oil field, in the Norwegian Sea.We study a potential design of such a system. A combined cycle power plant with a gross power output of 832 MW is combined with CO 2 capture plant based on a post-combustion capture using amines as a solvent. The captured CO 2 is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). We employ a hybrid LCA method to assess the environmental impacts of the system. The study focuses on the modifications and operations of the platform during EOR. We allocate the impacts connected to the capture of the CO 2 to electricity production, and the impacts connected to the transport and storage of

show abstract

“…This view is supported by a large body of evidence, mainly associated with national energy security. The technique of sequestration has generated much interest, and there is a rich literature on the environmental impact of the process of CO 2 sequestration from the perspective of the whole life cycle of power systems [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. The increase in carbon tax, as well as the lowering of emission limits, could encourage energy producers to implement new technologies of CO 2 sequestration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing life-cycle environmental impacts of coal-power by using coal-mine methane

Śliwińska

Czaplicka-Kolarz

2012

Int. J. Energy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY The exploitation of coal‐mine methane is analysed to reduce the environmental impact from coal power systems. The analyses are based on a life cycle assessment, and the results were compared with carbon‐capture and storage technologies. The results suggest that by increasing the use of coalmine methane, the environmental impacts of coal power plants could be clearly reduced. Although the CO2 reduction is much less than through sequestration of CO2, increased use of coal‐mine methane in Poland could potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions up to 9 million tonnes of CO2 per year, which corresponds to about 2.5% of the emissions of Poland. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Life cycle analysis of fossil power plant with CO2 recovery and sequestering system

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-fired Power Production

Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-fired Power Production

Life-cycle Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Capture for Enhanced Oil Recovery

Reducing life-cycle environmental impacts of coal-power by using coal-mine methane

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About