2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.02.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimizing post-combustion CO2 capture in response to volatile electricity prices

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
50
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even though the porosity increase of the rock cores occurred at the early stage of the reaction because of crack extension and perforation dominated by the dissolution, this was moderated within a few months, showing a logarithmic increase vs. reaction time (Figure 10a). The average dry density of the sandstone cores decreased from 2.390 to 2.384 g/cm 3 for 120 reaction days (0.25% decrease from the initial value) ( Table 5). The average seismic wave velocities of the sandstones also decreased in a logarithmic manner to 5.67% for P-wave and to 5.75% for S-wave from the initial values for 150 reaction days (Figure 10b and Table 5).…”
Section: Measurement Of the Surface Roughness Value For The Sandstonementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Even though the porosity increase of the rock cores occurred at the early stage of the reaction because of crack extension and perforation dominated by the dissolution, this was moderated within a few months, showing a logarithmic increase vs. reaction time (Figure 10a). The average dry density of the sandstone cores decreased from 2.390 to 2.384 g/cm 3 for 120 reaction days (0.25% decrease from the initial value) ( Table 5). The average seismic wave velocities of the sandstones also decreased in a logarithmic manner to 5.67% for P-wave and to 5.75% for S-wave from the initial values for 150 reaction days (Figure 10b and Table 5).…”
Section: Measurement Of the Surface Roughness Value For The Sandstonementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various CO 2 capture and sequestration technologies have been developed to reduce CO 2 emissions and the International Energy Agency (IEA) has announced that CO 2 capture and sequestration (CCS) technology will cover 19% of the total CO 2 reductions by 2050 [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Among them, geological sequestration will be deeply considered to reduce CO 2 emissions at low cost [7][8][9][10][11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, existing studies have not carefully addressed the water impacts on a lifecycle basis; existing low-carbon studies do not broaden their outlook for new-generation CCS technologies [26,27]; the implementation of CCS may start with partial CO 2 capture in response to the EPA's proposed CO 2 emission regulations. In addition, flexibly operating CO 2 capture at partial load in response to volatile electricity prices could help maintain grid reliability and meet peak demand [28]. However, many studies look into the full CO 2 capture (90 %) via CCS for fossil-fuel-fired power plants rather than partial carbon capture; the feasibility of highly aggressive penetration (50-80 % of the fleet) of renewable energy in the future generation fleet needs further technical and economic assessments.…”
Section: Water Impacts Of Low-carbon Electricity Generationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CO 2 is one of the main gases that cause the greenhouse effect. Carbon capture and storage is the process of capturing and storing the CO 2 in industrial production by various means, such as cryogenic carbon capture [1,2], chemical absorption [3], oxyfuel combustion [4] and so on. Carbon capture technologies that result in significant reduction in energy-related CO 2 emissions, specifically from coal-fired power plants, can relieve the greenhouse effect.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%