Costperf Ccs Powergen

8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen

1/51

Cost and Performance ofCarbon Dioxide Capturefrom Power Generation

INTERNATIONALENERGYAGENCY

MATTHIASFINKENRATH

W OR KIN G PA PE R

2011


2/51


3/51

The views expressed in this working paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views or policy of the International Energy Agency (IEA) Secretariat or of its

individual member countries. This paper is a work in progress, designed to elicit commentsand further debate; thus, comments are welcome, directed to the author at:

[email protected]

Cost and Performance ofCarbon Dioxide Capturefrom Power Generation

INTERNATIONALENERGYAGENCY

MATTHIASFINKENRATH

2011


4/51

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

The International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous agency, was established inNovember 1974. Its mandate is two-fold: to promote energy security amongst its membercountries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply and to advise member

countries on sound energy policy.The IEA carries out a comprehensive programme of energy co-operation among 28 advancedeconomies, each of which is obliged to hold oil stocks equivalent to 90 days of its net imports.The Agency aims to:

n Secure member countries access to reliable and ample supplies of all forms of energy; in particular,through maintaining effective emergency response capabilities in case of oil supply disruptions.

n Promote sustainable energy policies that spur economic growth and environmental protectionin a global context particularly in terms of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions that contributeto climate change.

n Improve transparency of international markets through collection and analysis ofenergy data.

nSupport global collaboration on energy technology to secure future energy suppliesand mitigate their environmental impact, including through improved energy

efficiency and development and deployment of low-carbon technologies.

n Find solutions to global energy challenges through engagementand dialogue with non-member countries, industry,

international organisations and other stakeholders. IEA member countries:

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Japan

Korea (Republic of)

Luxembourg

NetherlandsNew Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

The European Commission

also participates in

the work of the IEA.

Please note that this publication

is subject to specific restrictions

that limit its use and distribution.

The terms and conditions are available

online at www.iea.org/about/copyright.asp

OECD/IEA, 2010

International Energy Agency9 rue de la Fdration

75739 Paris Cedex 15, France

www.iea.org


5/51

OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration

Page|3

Tableofcontents

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................5

Executivesummary

........................................................................................................................

7

Introduction....................................................................................................................................9

Scopeofanalysis...........................................................................................................................11

Analysedtechnoeconomicdataandkeytargetmetrics...........................................................11

EvaluatedCO2captureprocesses...............................................................................................12

Dataselectedforanalysis...........................................................................................................12

Approachandmethodology.........................................................................................................15

Costofgeneratingelectricitycalculation...................................................................................15

Conversionand

calibration

of

cost

data

.....................................................................................

16

Conversionandcalibrationofperformancedata.......................................................................18

Boundaryconditionsandassumptions......................................................................................19

Costandperformanceresultsanddiscussion.............................................................................22

Maincasestudies..........................................................................................................................22

PostcombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines.......................23

PrecombustionCO2capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles.......................27

OxycombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration.........................................30

PostcombustionCO2capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles........................................34

Summaryof

results

.....................................................................................................................

37

Futurecostandperformancepotential.....................................................................................38

Uncertaintyandsensitivityofresults.........................................................................................39

Conclusionsandrecommendations.............................................................................................41

References....................................................................................................................................43

Annex:Studycaseswithlimitedavailabledata............................................................................45

PostcombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia...................45

Acronyms,abbreviationsandunitsofmeasure..........................................................................47

Listoffigures

Figure1.Illustrationofthemethodologyfordataanalysis..........................................................15

Figure2.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration

byamines:CO2captureimpact.....................................................................................................25

Figure3.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombined

cycles:CO2captureimpact............................................................................................................28

Figure4.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration:CO2captureimpact.......32


6/51

CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011

Page|4

Figure5.Postcombustioncapturefromnaturalgasfiredpower

generation:CO2captureimpact....................................................................................................35

Figure6.Impactofa50%variationinkeyassumptionsonLCOE..............................................40

Figure7.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration

byammonia:

CO2

capture

impact

.................................................................................................

46

Listoftables

Table1.Overviewofgeneralboundaryconditionsofreviewedstudies.....................................18

Table2.Technoeconomicassumptionstypicallyusedbydifferentorganisations,

andinthisanalysis........................................................................................................................20

Table3.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines........................24

Table4.Postcombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes............................26

Table5.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles........................27

Table6.

Pre

combustion

capture:

influence

of

coals

...................................................................

30

Table7.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration..........................................31

Table8.Oxycombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes.............................33

Table9.Postcombustioncapturefromnaturalgasfiredpowergeneration..............................34

Table10.AveragecostandperformancedatabyCO2captureroute..........................................38

Table11.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia..................45

Listofboxes

Box1.

Fuel

price

assumptions

.......................................................................................................

20


7/51


Page|5

Acknowledgements

This paper was prepared by Matthias Finkenrath, Energy Analyst in the Carbon Capture and

Storage (CCS) Unit under the Directorate of Sustainable Energy Policy and Technology at the

InternationalEnergy

Agency

(IEA).

Theauthorwouldliketothankseveralindividualsforreviewingthemanuscriptofthisworking

paper and for providing invaluable feedback: John Davison and Mike Haines from the IEA

Implementing Agreement for a Cooperative Programme on Technologies Relating to

Greenhouse Gases Derived from Fossil Fuel Use (Greenhouse Gas Implementing Agreement);

John Kessels from the Implementing Agreement for the IEA Clean Coal Centre; Christopher

Short from the Global CCS Institute; Clas Ekstrm from Vattenfall; John Chamberlain from

gasNatural fenosa; Trygve Utheim Riis and Aage Stangeland from the Research Council of

Norway; Tore Hatlen from Gassnova; Howard Herzog from the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology;andJeffreyPhillipsandGeorgeBoorasfromtheElectricPowerResearchInstitute

(EPRI).SpecialthankstoEPRIsCoalFleetforTomorrowR&Dprogrammeforsharingdatafrom

theirpublication.

The author would also like to thank his colleagues at the IEA, in particular Juho Lipponen for

overarching guidance and support, and also Uwe Remme, Dennis Volk, Brendan Beck, Justine

GarrettandJulianSmithforreviewingthedraftandprovidingveryhelpfulcomments.Additional

thankstoMarilynSmithforhereditorialsupportandBertrandSadinandAnneMayneofthe

IEACommunicationandInformationOfficeforcoverdesignandfinallayout.

Formoreinformationonthisdocument,contact:

MatthiasFinkenrath,IEASecretariat

Tel.+33(0)140576779

Email:

[email protected]


8/51


9/51


Page|7

Executivesummary

Energy scenarios developed by the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggest that carbon

captureandstorage (CCS) frompowerplantsmightcontributeby2050toaround10%ofthe

energyrelated

carbon

dioxide

(CO2)

emission

reduction

required

to

stabilise

global

warming

(IEA,2010).SinceCO2capture frompowergeneration isanemergingtechnologythathasnot

beendemonstratedonacommercialscale,relatedcostandperformanceinformation isbased

onfeasibilitystudiesandpilotprojectsandisstilluncertain.

This paper analyses technoeconomic data for CO2 capture from power generation, including

CO2 conditioning and compression, in order to support energy scenario modelling and policy

making.Costandperformancetrendsareshownbasedonestimatespublishedoverthelastfive

years in major engineering studies for about 50 CO2 capture installations at power plants.

Capitalcostand levelisedcostofelectricity (LCOE)arereevaluatedandupdatedto2010cost

levels to allow for a consistent comparison. Presented data account for CO2 capture but not

transportation and storage of CO2. They are estimates for generic, early commercial plants

basedon

feasibility

studies,

which

have

an

accuracy

of

on

average

30%.

The

data

do

not

reflect

projectspecificcostorcostforfirstlargescaledemonstrationplants,whicharelikelyhigher.

For coalfired power generation, no single CO2 capture technology outperforms available

alternative capture processes in terms of cost and performance. Average net efficiency

penalties for post and oxycombustion capture are 10 percentage points relative to a

pulverisedcoalplantwithoutcapture,andeightpercentagepointsforprecombustioncapture

compared to an integrated gasification combined cycle. Overnight costsof power plants with

CO2captureinregionsoftheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)

are about USD3800 per kW (/kW) across capture routes, which is 74% higher than the

referencecostswithoutcapture.Costfiguresvarysubstantiallydependingonthetypeofpower

plant

type

and

fuel

used.

The

relative

increase

in

overnight

costs

compared

to

a

reference

plant

withoutCO2capture isacomparablystablemetricacrossstudies. It isthusrecommended for

estimating cost if limited data are available. Projected LCOE is on average USD105 per

megawatthour(/MWh).AveragecostsofCO2avoidedareUSD55pertonneofCO2(/tCO2)ifa

pulverisedcoalpowerplantwithoutCO2captureisusedasareference.

For natural gasfired power generation, postcombustion CO2 capture is most often analysed

andappears themostattractiveneartermoption.Averagecostandperformanceprojections

include net efficiency penalties of eight percentage points for postcombustion CO2 capture

fromnaturalgascombinedcycles.OvernightcostsareUSD1700/kWincludingCO2capture,or

82%higherthanthereferenceplantwithoutcapture.LCOE isUSD102/MWhandcostsofCO2

avoidedareUSD80/tCO2ifanaturalgascombinedcycleisusedasareference.

CostestimatesstatedaboveareaveragefiguresforOECDregions.CostdataforinstallationsinChinaindicatesignificantlylowercostscomparedtotheabovementionedfigures.Allovernight

costs include a contingency for CCS plants to account for unforeseen technical or regulatory

difficulties.LCOEandcostsofCO2avoideddonotincludeaCO2emissionprice.

Harmonisationofcostingmethodologiesisneededinordertosimplifytechnologycomparisons.

Thoughasimilarapproachisusedforestimatingcostandperformanceacrossstudies,specific

methodologies,terminologiesandunderlyingassumptionsareinconsistent.

Broader assessments of CO2 capture from power generation in nonOECD countries are still

underrepresented, though according to global energy scenarios deployment of CCS in these

regionsmighthavetoexceedexpectedlevelsinOECDcountries.


10/51


11/51


Page|9

Introduction

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes a significant reduction of

worldwidegreenhousegas(GHG)emissions isrequired inordertostabilisetheglobalaverage

temperature

increase

at

2.0C

to

2.4C

above

preindustrial

levels.

Equivalent

CO2

emissions

needtobecutbyatleast50%by2050comparedtotheyear2000(IPCC,2007).

TheIEAregularlyanalysespathwaysforreducingenergyrelatedCO2emissions.Comparedtoa

businessasusualBaselineScenario,carboncaptureandstorage (CCS) frompowergeneration

could contribute in 2050 to 10% of the required global reduction in energyrelated CO2

emissions (IEA,2010).Apart fromCCS inpowergeneration,CCS from industrialandupstream

applications is expected to provide a similar emission reduction. CCS is thus a potential key

contributortoCO2emissionmitigation, inadditiontoother importantaimssuchas improving

energyefficiencyandincreasingrenewablepowergeneration.

CCShasbeenappliedcommerciallyintheoilandgasindustryforseveraldecades.Thisincludes

technologies

along

the

CCS

value

chain

such

as

solvent

based

separation

of

CO2

from

gas

streams,transportationofCO2bypipelineandstorageofCO2 inaquifers.CO2 isalsousedfor

enhancedoilrecovery(EOR).

CCS is however still an emerging technology in the power sector, where it has not yet been

demonstrated at large scale. Applying CCS to fullsize power plants requires scaleup of

commercially available CO2 capture processes. Consequently, current cost and performance

information related to CCS from power generation is limited to estimates from engineering

studiesandpilotprojects.Thisisdifferenttoestablishedpowertechnologiesforwhichcostand

performancedataofcommercialunitsarewellknownandregularlysummarised(OECD,2010).

AdedicatedreviewofpublisheddataisneededtotracklatestCCSdevelopments.Thequalityof

technoeconomic data for CCS will likely improve once additional information from the first

commercialscale demonstration plants, which are currently in planning, become available.

Meanwhile, bestpossible estimates of cost and performance of power plants with CCS are

requiredasinputforenergyscenariosandasabasisforcleanenergypolicymaking.Againstthis

background, this paper summarises and analyses technoeconomic data on CO2 capture from

powergenerationthatwerepublishedoverthelastfiveyears.


12/51


13/51


Page|11

Scopeofanalysis

CCS applied to power generation is an emerging technology. Technoeconomic data for CO2

capturefrompowergenerationthusremainuncertain;afactthatisfurtheramplifiedbycurrent

unprecedentedeconomic

uncertainties

resulting

from

the

recent

global

financial

crisis.

MostenergyscenariosthatanalyseclimatechangemitigationpathsexpectthatCO2capturewill

contributesubstantiallytoglobalCO2emissionreductioninthecomingdecades.TheIEAEnergy

TechnologyPerspectives2010(ETP2010)publicationestimatesthatby2050around10%ofthe

emission reduction will stem from CO2 capture from power generation alone compared to a

businessasusualBaselineScenario(IEA,2010).

This analysis aims to illustrate cost and performance trends related to CO2 capture from

powergenerationoverthelastfiveyears.Thischaptergivesanoverviewabouttypesofdata

thatareanalysedanddescribeswhichspecificcapturecasesandpublicationsareconsidered

inthisstudy.

Analysedtechnoeconomicdataandkeytargetmetrics

Thisworkingpaperevaluateskeydatathatarecommonlyrequiredasinputforenergyscenario

modellingandgeneralenergypolicysupport,suchas:

powerplanttype

fueltype

capacityfactor

netpoweroutput

netefficiency

overallCO2capturerate

netCO2emissions

capitalcost

operationandmaintenance(O&M)cost

yearofcostdata

locationof

power

plant

Publishedtechnoeconomicinformationisreviewedandreevaluatedinordertocompareresults

ofdifferentstudies.Updateddataareprovidedforthefollowingkeymetrics:

overnightcosts

levelisedcostofelectricity(LCOE)

costofCO2avoided

Costandperformancedataarerequiredforboththepowerplantwithoutcapture(alsoreferred

toas

reference

plant)

and

for

the

power

plant

with

capture.

This analysis focuses on fundamental technoeconomic information typically used for cross

technology comparisons under consistent boundary conditions. Cost data presented in this

studyaregenericinnatureandnotmeanttorepresentcostsofspecificCO2captureprojects,

whichare likelytobedifferent. Investmentdecisionsabout individualCCSplantswilldepend

on numerous casespecific boundary conditions such as (among others): national or regional

policyandregulatoryframeworks;emissionandpowermarkets;theexperienceandriskprofile

of the investor; or available incentive and financing structures. In addition, local ambient

conditions and available fuel qualities can have a strong impact on the capture technology

choiceanditsviability.


14/51


Page|12

Cost and performance information for the transport and storage of captured CO2 will need to

complement data for CO2 capture. Transportation and storage data are even more difficult to

generalisecomparedtoCO2captureprocessdata,giventhattheyareverysitespecificoreven

unique for every single project. Because of this complexity, available storage capacities and

associatedcostsstillremainsubjecttosignificantresearch inmanyregionsoftheworld.Unlike

CO2capturefrompowergeneration,anumberoflargescaleCO2transportandstorageprojectshoweverexiststhatareoperatingtodayandwhichcanprovidesome,albeitlimited,dataonthe

associatedcosts.TechnoeconomicdatarelatedtothetransportandstorageofCO2,inparticular

relatedtoCO2storagecapacities,arenotcoveredinthispaper,butimprovingrelatedknowledge

is essential. Consequently, the IEA and other organisations are addressing this challenge in

separate,dedicatedworkstreams.

EvaluatedCO2captureprocesses

This working paper analyses CO2 capture from power generation. CO2 capture from industrial

applications

is

evaluated

through

the

forthcoming

United

Nations

Industrial

DevelopmentOrganisation(UNIDO)roadmap,andisthusnotdiscussed(UNIDO,2010).

The study focuses on CO2 capture from newbuild coal and natural gasfired power

generationplantswithatleast80%overallcapturerate.Onlycommercialscalepowerplants

over 300MW net power output are considered. Data forbiomassfired installations are still

scarce in comparison to coal and natural gasfired power plants. They are thus not

systematically evaluated in this working paper, but a case study with biomass cofiring is

includedforcomparison.

ThispaperfocusesonearlycommercialinstallationsofCO2capturefrompowergenerationand

does not cover demonstration plants. Cost and performance information related to firstofa

kind

CO2

capture

demonstration

plants

is

often

not

representative

of

commercial

units

that

are

installed later, forexamplesincetheyaresuboptimallyoroverdesigned.Significant largescale

commercialdeploymentofCCStechnologyforpowergenerationapplicationsisnotexpectedto

takeplacepriortotheyear2020.Therefore,costandperformancedataconsideredinthisstudy

are primarily estimates for early commercial CO2 capture processes from power plants that

wouldbeinservicearound2020.1

Onlycapturetechnologiesthathavebeendemonstratedonasignificantpilotscale(orevenata

commercialsize inother industries)areconsidered in thisanalysis.Novel technologies forCO2

capturefrompowergenerationthatare inanearlyphaseofdevelopment,suchasmembrane

based processes, are not covered. The general improvement potential for CO2 capture from

powergenerationinthefuturebytechnologicallearningisdiscussedinChapter4.

Dataselectedforanalysis

Technoeconomic studies on CO2 capture from power generation are numerous. In this paper,

CO2 capture cost and performance data of selected studies are reviewed, reevaluated and

updatedtocurrentcostlevels.Onlystudiesbyorganisationsthatperformedbroadcomparisons

acrossallcaptureroutesareconsidered.Publicationsbyauthorsthatarefocusingtheiranalyses

onindividualoraverylimitednumberofcapturetechnologiesarenotincluded.Inordertolimit

the reevaluationof older data toa reasonable timehorizon,onlystudies thatwerepublished

1 Not all of the reviewed studies provide explicit timelines or a definition of the level of commercial deployment

associatedto

their

performance

and

cost

estimates,

and

some

reports

envision

full

scale

commercial

deployment

alreadyearlier.


15/51


Page|13

over the last five years (between 2006 and 2010) are covered. In rare cases, the underlying

originaldatamightstemfromearlieryears.

Reevaluating and comparing cost and performance data across studies presents a major

challenge. There are differences in the types of data published, and in the cost estimation

methodologiesused.

In

addition,

there

is

often

limited

transparency

with

respect

to

underlying

boundaryconditionsandassumptions.

The studies selected for further analysis in this working paper exhibit a broad coverage of

evaluated capture routes and used a consistent evaluation methodology for assessing their

individualcapturecases.Inaddition,theyaretypicallybasedonanengineeringlevelanalysisand

providedetailedcostandperformanceestimatesand informationonkeyboundaryconditions,

which allow for further processing and analysis.2 Technoeconomic data from studies by the

followingorganisationsareincludedinthisworkingpaper:

CarnegieMellonUniversityCMU(Rubin,2007;Chen,2009;Versteeg,2010)

ChinaUKNearZeroEmissionsCoalInitiativeNZEC(NZEC,2009)

CO2CaptureProjectCCP(Melien,2009)

ElectricPowerResearchInstituteEPRI(EPRI,2009)

GlobalCCSInstituteGCCSI(GCCSI,2009)

GreenhouseGasImplementingAgreementGHGIA(Davison,2007;GHGIA,2009)

NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratoryNETL(NETL,2008;NETL,2010af)

MassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyMIT(MIT,2007;Hamilton,2009)

Intheeventseveralevaluationsweremadebyorganisationsonthesamecaptureprocessover

thelastfiveyears,onlythemostrecentlypublisheddataareincludedinthisanalysis.

Itis

likely

there

are

additional

studies

that

should

be

considered

in

future

analysis.

The

author

wouldappreciatesuggestionsofadditionalstudiesthatmatchthegeneralselectioncriteriaand

should be considered in potential updates of this review. Since similarly broad and detailed

studies were not found for other regions, the analysed studies are limited to CO2 capture

installationsintheUnitedStates,theEuropeanUnionandChina.

Theselectedstudiesarebasedondatafrombottomupengineeringstudies,whichperformcost

and performance estimates based on detailed process flow sheet data that account for main

equipmentorprocessunitislands.Theyprovide,ataminimum,themaincostandperformance

data for the base power plant, the CO2 capture process and a CO2 compression unit for

compressing and pumping the separated CO2 to a supercritical pressure for transportation.

Besides

the

core

CO2

capture

and

compression

units,

other

additional

major

equipment

and

utility systems are required. This includes equipment for oxygen generation, fluid handling,

exhaust pretreatment for drying or purification, and compression and pumping, which is

accountedforinalltheselectedstudies.

CO2 transportandstorage arenotevaluated in most of the publications, and any data on CO2

transportandstorageisnotconsideredinthispaper.Mostcostestimatesusedinthisstudyare

basedontheassumptionthatprocessesandprocessequipmentareproventechnologiesor,at

least, have been demonstrated on a commercial scale. Thus costs required for research,

developmentandinitialdeploymentindemonstrationplantsarenotincluded.

2

Severalstudies

are

not

considered

as

the

level

of

detail

regarding

costs

or

boundary

conditions

is

insufficient

for

furtheranalysisunderthisstudy(e.g.ENCAP,2009;McKinsey,2007).


16/51


Page|14

Thoughitisoftennotexplicitlystated,thegroupofanalysedstudiesgenerallyassumesthatCO2

capture and compression is integrated into a new power plant and benefits from at least a

minimum infrastructure, which is typical for an industrial site. This includes availability of

engineeringand localhumanresources,equipment,utilityandfuelsupply,accesstothepower

grid and appropriate options for transporting and storing separated CO2. In addition, for such

newbuild,

brown

field

installations,

the

study

assumes

full

flexibility

in

terms

of

plant

integration

andoptimisation.

This working paper does not analyse the impact of retrofitting CO2 capture to existing power

plants. Incremental costs of adding CO2 capture to those plants could be higher than the

incrementalcostsshowninthereviewedstudies,sincetheseexistingplantsweredesignedwith

noconsiderationsforfutureCO2capture.


17/51


Page|15

Approachandmethodology

Thefundamentalapproachusedinthisstudytoreviewandanalysepublishedtechnoeconomic

informationonCO2capture is illustrated inFigure1. Ina firststep,applicable literatureonthe

subjectis

researched

and

reviewed.

In

order

to

allow

acomparison

of

cost

data

from

different

years, economic data of the selected studies are calibrated by aligning their scope and by

updatingtheircostto2010USDcostlevelsusingmarketexchangeratesandprocessequipment

costindices.Performancerelateddataarenotrecalibratedforreasonsthatareoutlinedinmore

detailfurtherbelow.

Subsequently, updated costdataareused to reevaluateLCOE and costofCO2 avoided of the

different capture cases. To provide consistency with previous work by the OECD, the

methodologyandunderlyingassumptionsarebasedonthesameapproachthatwastakenbythe

OECD Projected Costs ofGenerating Electricity 2010 analysis, which for simplicity is hereafter

referredtoasPCGE2010(OECD,2010).

Common

financial

and

operating

boundary

conditions

and

fuel

prices

are

applied

for

all

cases.

Cost and performance trendsacrossstudies are identified basedon the updateddata.Further

detailsofthecalibrationmethodology, includingadescriptionof limitationsoftheanalysis,are

providedinthischapter.

Figure1.Illustrationofthemethodologyfordataanalysis

Calibrationof

economic

data

of

major

studies

Reviewofindividualtechnoeconomicstudies

Coversonlymajorstudiesacrosscaptureroutespublishedwithinthelastfiveyears(200610) Focusonlargescale(>300MWnetpower)coalandnaturalgasfiredpowergeneration Limitedtonewbuilt,earlycommercialtechnologieswithmorethan80%overallCO2capture

Costingscopealignedacrossstudies(totalcapitalrequirement, overnightcosts,etc.) CurrenciesofstudiesupdatedtoUSD Costsupdatedto2010costlevelusingcostindices

1

2

ReevaluationofcostofelectricityandCO2avoidance3

Dataanalysisanddiscussionofresults4

Originalandrecalibratedcostdatareported Comparisonofresults Discussionofkeycosttrends

Conclusionsandrecommendations5

BasedonOECDProjectedCostofGeneratingElectricity2010methodology Standardised financialandfuelcostassumptions used Commonsetofoperationandmaintenancecostdata

Costofgeneratingelectricitycalculation

LCOE is commonly used as a measure of comparing generating costs of different power

generationandcapture technologiesoveraplantseconomic life.LCOE isequaltothepresent

valueofthesumofdiscountedcostsdividedbythetotalelectricityproduction.

This study uses a LCOE model that wasjointly developed by the IEA and the Nuclear Energy

Agency(NEA)

with

support

of

adiverse

group

of

international

experts

and

organisations

for

the


18/51


Page|16

PCGE2010 publication. The underlying philosophy and methodology behind the calculation is

discussedindetailintheOECDpublicationandnotrepeatedinthispaper.

Basedon IEAandNEAconvention,akeyassumptionof theLCOEapproach isthat the interest

rateusedfordiscountingcostsdoesnotvaryoverthelifetimeoftheprojectunderconsideration.

Areal

discount

rate

of

10%

is

used

for

all

cases

in

this

study,

which

is

the

higher

of

two

discount

rates defined in the PCGE 2010 study. This figure is chosen for this study because of an

anticipatedhighertechnicalandfinancialriskassociatedwithinvestmentsinCCStechnologiesin

the early phase of commercialisation. It should be noted that apart from considerations about

technology maturity, other factors (such as the type of plant ownership) influence the cost of

financingaproject.Thiswouldbereflectedintheapplicablediscountrates.

LCOE is also used as a basis for providing estimates of costs of CO2 avoidance for different

capture technologies. Further background on the terminology, including how to derive CO2

avoidance costs are extensively discussed in previous publications. This includes important

considerationsrelatedtoselectingameaningfulreferencepowerplantwithoutCCSforcalcula

tingcostofCO2avoided(IPCC,2005;GCCSI,2009).

ItisimportanttonotethatincontrasttotheOECDPCGE2010publication,reportedLCOEdata

do not include a USD30/tCO2 emission price, since this approach is less common for CCS

related cost comparisons. Hence in this working paper no CO2 emission price is added for

calculatingLCOE.

Conversionandcalibrationofcostdata

Several methodologies are used to estimate economic data, in particular capital costs, of CO2

capture from power generation. There is neither a standardised methodology nor a set of

commonlyagreedonboundaryconditions,whichaddstothecomplexityofcomparingdatafrom

different

studies.

Moreover,

some

factors

are

often

not

fully

transparent,

such

as

costing

methodologies, sources of costs, the exact scope of data as well as assumptions on individual

cost parameters. As a consequence, it is not straightforward to transform technoeconomic

informationfromdifferentstudiesintoacomparablesetofdata.

Though there is no consistently applied approach for cost evaluation, similarities exist

throughoutstudiesintermsofhowCO2capturecostsareconceptuallyassessed.Costdataare

usuallysplit intocapitalcosts(relatedtotheconstructionofequipment),fuelcosts,andnon

fueloperatingandmaintenancecosts(relatedtotheprocessand itsequipment).Thesecosts

arecommonlyused together tocalculate the firstyearcostofelectricity (COE)orLCOEover

thelifetimeoftheplant.

Sourcesof

capital

costs

are

often

not

clearly

stated

in

publications.

Typically,

costs

are

based

on

estimates for main equipment or process islands that are provided by vendors or taken from

equipment cost databases. Often equipment costs are readjusted (using scaling laws) to the

specific processconditions,andcostsareadded for installation and indirectexpensesrequired

forthecompleteconstructionoftheplant.

Assumptions about additional capital expenses vary across studies or are not clearly reported.

Examplesoftheseadditionalcapitalcostsincludeengineeringandoverhead,commissioningexpenses,

orprocessandequipmentcontingencies.Insomeinstances,thesametermsareuseddifferently.

For consistency with previous OECD studies and in order to reduce the impact of project

specificcostelementsthisstudyusesovernightcostsasthekeymetricforquantifyingcapital

cost.According

to

OECD

terminology,

overnight

costs

include:


19/51


Page|17

preconstructionorownerscosts;

engineering,procurementandconstruction(EPC)costs;and

contingencycosts.

Overnight costs assume a power plant could be constructed in a single day. They reflect

technological

and

engineering

costs

in

a

particular

country

but

avoid

impacts

of

the

specific

financialstructurethatisinplacetorealiseconstruction.Whileforrealprojectsinvestorsneedto

pay close attention to total capital requirements, overnight costs are useful in particular for

energyscenariomodellers,policymakersandutilitiesforcomparisonsofcostsatanearlystage

ofassessment.

Overnightcostsexcludeinterestduringconstruction(IDC).IDCisaddedforLCOEcalculationsin

order to account for the actual time it takes to construct the power plant. This also includes

relatedequipmentoutside thepowerplantboundary (suchas transmission linesor railroads

for coal transportation), and the costs of financing construction before the power plant

becomesoperational.

Preconstruction

or

owners

costs

are

miscellaneous

additional

costs

directly

incurred

by

the

ownerofaprojectsuchasownersstaff,land,permitting,environmentalreportingandfacilities.

Ownerscostsaresubjecttomuchconfusion.MostCCSrelatedcoststudiesdonotprovidethe

precisescopeandcontentofownerscosts.Or,sometimesothercostelementssuchasstartup

costs, contingencies or fees are lumped into a single owners cost factor on top of EPC costs.

Owners costs can vary widely from project to project depending on whether it is publicly or

privatelyowned.Theyremainamajoruncertaintyacrossallstudies.

Engineering, procurement and construction costs typically cover the required total process

capital. This includes direct and indirect costs for equipment and labour, general supporting

facilities,butalsocostsrelatedtoengineeringandprojectmanagement,homeoffice,overhead

or

technology

fees.

Contingency costs are included in order to reflect cost uncertainties due to the level of

project definition, the risk related to technology maturity and performance, or unforeseen

regulatorydifficulties.

Overnight costs are used as a basis for LCOE calculations in this working paper. Several

studiesreviewedusealternativeterminologies orhaveadifferentscopewithrespecttokey

capitalcostfigures.

CapitalcostdatapublishedbyMITandGCCSIalreadyincludeIDC;thesecostsarerecalculatedin

this paper to represent overnight costs without IDC. If originally published cost data do not

include owners costs, these are added to capital cost. This applies to data by MIT and NETL.3

Totalcapital

requirement

and

total

plant

costs

are

published

by

EPRI.

Total

plant

costs

without

ownerscostsareusedfromEPRIasabasisfortheanalysisperformedunderthisstudy.Owners

costareaddedinthiscase.

The currency for reporting economic data used in this report is US dollar (USD). Cost data

reported inothercurrenciesareconvertedtoUSDusingtheconversionrateoftheyearofthe

costsaspublished,unlessaconversionrateisprovidedintheoriginalpublication.4

Apart from a currency conversion, it is also necessary to account for changes in installed

equipmentcostovertime.Sincepublished informationdoesnotallowforadetailedescalation

onacomponentbycomponentbasis,generalcostindicesareusedtorecalibratecosttocurrent

3

Apartfrom

data

from

NETL

(2010a),

which

already

include

owners

cost.

4 Resultingexchangerates:USD0.146perCNY(NZEC,2009)andUSD1.35perEUR(GHGIA,2009).


20/51


Page|18

levels. In this study, published cost data are updated to 2010 cost levels using the Chemical

EngineeringPlantCostIndex,CEPCI(CE,2010).

Insummary,calibrationofcapitalcostdataincludes:

Calibrationtoovernightcostsestimates(byaddingownerscostsorsubtractingIDC);

ConversionoftheoriginalcurrencytoUSD;and

Calibrationofcostsasquotedto2010costlevelsbyusingcostindices.

Unless otherwise stated (e.g. with respect to fuel cost assumptions), the same boundary

conditionsareappliedtoalldataregardlessofthe locationofthepowerplantforeseenbythe

authorsofthestudies.Publicationyears,projectlocationsandcurrenciesofthereviewedstudies

areshowninTable1.

Table1.Overviewofgeneralboundaryconditionsofreviewedstudies

Organisation CCP CMU EPRI GCCSI GHGIA NETL NZEC MIT

Publicationyear(s) 2009

2007,

2009,

2010

2009 2009 2007,

2009

2008,

2010 2009

2007,

2009

Projectlocation EU US US US EU US CHN US

Currency USD USD USD USD USD,EUR USD CNY USD

Cost location factors are not applied in this study. Instead, for each data point shown in this

workingpaperthelocationofthepowerplantisprovidedasspecifiedintheoriginalstudy.Thisis

helpfulsincedifferencesinlocalcostlevels,inparticularrelatedtolabourcostandproductivity,

are expected for different locations. A sensitivity analysis of locationspecific costs for CO2

captureinstallations

can

be

found

in

the

literature

(GCCSI,

2009).

Conversionandcalibrationofperformancedata

ThetechnicalperformanceofpowerplantswithCO2captureistypicallysummarisedintermsof

plant efficiencies, power output and CO2 emissions. Terminology related to performance

evaluation is used consistently throughout technoeconomic studies. Key performance and

operationalparametersreported includethenetefficiencyorheatrate,thenetpoweroutput,

specificCO2emissions,andtheplantcapacityfactororloadfactor.

Performanceestimates inpublishedstudiesareusuallybasedonfundamentalmassandenergy

balances from process flow sheets of the power plant and the CO2 capture and compression

process. Analyses are commonly based on process simulation as it is typically performed to

assess general feasibility or for frontend engineering and design (FEED) studies. Standardised

(ISO)ambientconditionsareusuallyassumedforthestudies.

Nonetheless, importantdifferences inrelevanttechnicalassumptionscanapply, forexample in

terms of fuel types or qualities, CO2 compression and pumping discharge pressures, or

assumptions regardingcoolingwatercharacteristics (e.g.Zhai,2010).Due to thecomplexityof

theprocessesorlimiteddetailprovidedinpublishedinformation,itwasimpossibletorecalibrate

performance results across the breadth of studies under consideration. Though performance

related data are not reevaluated in this analysis, it is important to note that differences in

performanceassumptions

can

have

asubstantial

impact

on

results.

The

potential

impact

varies


21/51


Page|19

across capture and power plant technologies, and is discussed in more detail in the scientific

literature(e.g.Rubin,2007).

Published overall CO2 capture rates are between 85% and 100%. Data are not scaled to a

standardised capture rate, since reported cases likely represent the most costeffective or

advantageous

operating

conditions.

Furthermore,

some

capture

processes

would

be

limited

intheir flexibility in terms of achievable capture rates. To enable a comparison (on a consistent

level)ofcostdataacrosstechnologiesatslightlydifferentcapturerates,costsofCO2avoidedare

includedinthispaper.

CO2purity isabove99.9% forsolventbasedpost andprecombustioncaptureprocesses.Oxy

combustion can achieve a similar purity level. However, some oxycombustion capture plants

result in a higher level of noncondensablegases and contaminants in theseparated CO2. This

dependsonthepurityofsuppliedoxygenandfuel,thelevelofairinleakageintotheboiler,the

process design and intensity of purification. This study does not calibrate cost or performance

data with respect to CO2 purity. However, oxycombustion data with CO2 purities lower than

99.9%aremarkedaccordinglywhenresultsarepresented.

Rescalingofcostandperformancedatatoacommonnetpowerplantoutput, forexampleby

using powerscaling laws, was considered even though reported net power outputs show a

relativelymoderatespreadacrossdatapoints.However,itisnotappliedsincescalingcanleadto

misleadingresults forcaptureprocessesthatrelyonusingmultipletrainsofequipmentdueto

currentsizelimitations.

Boundaryconditionsandassumptions

Financialandoperationalboundaryconditions,suchasconstructiontimes,projectlifetimesand

capacityfactorsareadoptedfromtheOECDPCGE2010publication.Theparametersusedinthis

working

paper

are

listed

in

Table

2,

together

with

assumptions

typically

used

by

different

organisations.

Contributionsofownerscostsrangebetween5%and25%across individualstudies.Thisstudy

assumesan averagecontribution ofownerscosts toovernight costs of15%. For reevaluating

LCOE,IDCiscalculatedseparatelyforeachcase.

ThePCGE2010studyassumesa15%contingencycostforpowerplantswithonlyasmallnumber

ofinstalledfacilities.Thiscontingencyaccountsforunforeseentechnicalorregulatorydifficulties,

andisaddedtotheLCOEcalculationinthelastyearofconstruction.InthePCGE2010study,itis

applied for nuclear power plants, offshore wind and CCS.5 For all other technologies, a 5%

contingency is added. This working paper follows the same approach. Contingency cost

calculationsare

based

on

EPC

cost.

5

Thisdoes

however

not

apply

to

data

for

nuclear

power

plants

in

France,

Japan,

Korea

and

the

United

States,

where

a

largenumberofnuclearplantsarealreadyinstalled.


22/51


Page|20

Table2.Technoeconomicassumptionstypicallyusedbydifferentorganisations,andinthisanalysis

Organisation CCP CMU EPRI GCCSI GHGIA N ETL NZEC MIT

Thisstudy

(basedon

OECD,2010)

Discountrates 10% 9

10% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Owner'scost 57% 15% 7% 1525% 7% 10% 15%

Capacityfactor,coal 75% 80% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%

Capacityfactor,naturalgas 95% 75% 85% 85% 85%

Economiclife,coal 30yrs 30yrs 30yrs 25yrs 30yrs 25yrs 20yrs 40yrs

Economiclife,naturalgas 25yrs 30yrs 30yrs 25yrs 30yrs 30yrs

Construction time,coal 4yrs 4yrs 3yrs 3yrs 3yrs 4yrs

Construction time,naturalgas 3yrs 2yrs

ContingencieswithCCS 20% 530% 1314% 520% 10% 1520% 10% 15%

Valuesofbyproductsorwastegeneratedinthepowerplants,suchassulphur,gypsumandslag

orash,areassumedazeronetcost.Attheendoftheproject lifetime,5%ofovernightcosts is

appliedincostcalculationsfordecommissioning.Assumptionsonfuelpricesvaryacrossregions

andaresummarisedinBox1.

Box1.Fuelpriceassumptions

Common fuel prices that remain constant over the entire lifetime of the plant are assumed for

evaluatingelectricitygenerationcosts.Thisstudyusesforconsistencyfuelpricesforbituminouscoals

andnaturalgasasdefinedintheOECDPCGE2010publication(eventhoughinparticularnaturalgas

prices

are

currently

lower).

Sub

bituminous

coals

and

lignite

are

typically

not

traded

on

an

international level.Henceforthesecoalsnationalfuelpriceassumptionsareused.Sinceacrossthe

datacoveredbythisreviewsubbituminouscoalsandligniteareonlyusedinUSplants,fuelpricesas

reportedbyDOE/NETLareassumed(NETL,2010e).Followingsimilarconsiderations,thefuelpricefor

biomass,whichisonlyusedinasinglecaseforcofiring,isbasedonassumptionsfromtheunderlying

study(GHGIA,2009).

Insummary,thefollowingfuelpricesareassumedinthisstudy:

OECDEurope

Bituminouscoal:USD3.60pergigajoule(/GJ)(USD90/tonne)

Naturalgas:USD9.76/GJ(USD10.30/MBtu)

Biomass:USD11.32/GJ

UnitedStates

Bituminouscoal:USD2.12/GJ(USD47.60/tonne)


Subbituminouscoal:USD0.72/GJ(USD14.28/tonne)

Lignite:USD0.86/GJ(USD13.19/tonne)

China

Bituminouscoal:USD2.95/GJ(USD86.34/tonne)


Conversion between lower (LHV) and higher heating value (HHV) thermal plant efficiencies is

simplifiedbased

on

IEA

conventions,

with

a5%

difference

for

coal

and

10%

for

natural

gas.


23/51


Page|21

LCOEalsoaccounts for variableand fixedO&Mcosts. Incontrast to fixed O&Mcosts,variable

O&M costs include all consumable items, spare parts, and labour that are dependent on the

outputlevelatagivenplant.Forprocessesthatarenotyetcommerciallyavailable,itiscommon

to approximate both variable and fixed O&M costs by a using a percentage estimate of the

capital cost. This approach was also taken in the abovementioned OECDstudy. O&M costsof

largescale,

commercial

CO2captureinstallationsatpowerplantsstillremainuncertain.Hencea

constantfractionof4%oftheinstalledcapitalcostsforreferenceplantswithoutCO2captureand

forplantswithcaptureisappliedasthebasisforO&Mcostassumptionsacrossallcasestudies.

Since the impact of individual O&M assumptions is reduced, this approach also simplifies

comparisonsbetweenLCOEresults.

ReportedCO2emissions includeonlyemissionsrelatedtothepowerplantcombustionprocess.

Equivalent lifecycle CO2emissionsarehigher due to additional emissions from theacquisition

and transport of raw materials, power transmission and depending on the specific enduse.

Recentlifecycleanalysesofcoal andnaturalgasfiredpowerplantshavebeenpublishedbythe

USDepartmentofEnergy(NETL,2010be).

Inaddition,

LCOE

figures

provided

in

this

report

reflect

private

costs

only,

without

considering

externalcostswithrespecttoenvironmentalandhealthrelatedimpactswhichareparticularly

difficulttoquantify.Externalcostscoverexternalitiesatallstagesoftheproductionprocesssuch

as construction, dismantling, the fuel cycle and operation, which are converted into monetary

value. A recent European study provides estimates of external LCOE associated with power

generationtechnologies.Theimpactassessmentfocusesonpotentialdamageonhumanhealth,

buildingmaterials,cropsandecosystems,andduetoclimatechange.ForGermanyexternalcosts

of fossilfuelledpowergenerationwithCCSareestimated in theorderofUSD1.8/MWh in the

year2025(usingyear2000cost levels),comparedtoaboutUSD4.6/MWh forfossil fuelpower

generationwithoutCCS(NEEDS,2009).


24/51


Page|22

Costandperformanceresultsanddiscussion

In this working paper cost and performance data for CO2 capture from power generation are

reviewed,recalibratedandupdatedto2010costlevels.Theresultsofthisanalysisarepresented

anddiscussed

in

this

chapter.

Maincasestudies

Only CO2 capture cases that are covered by several studies are included in this report. The

evaluationofcoalfiredpowergenerationfocusesonpost andoxycombustionCO2capturefrom

supercritical (SCPC) and ultrasupercritical pulverised coal (USCPC) boilers as well as pre

combustion CO2 capture from integrated gasification combined cycles (IGCC). Postcombustion

CO2captureisalsoanalysedfornaturalgascombinedcycles(NGCC).6

Hence,resultsforfourmainCO2capturecasesarepresented:

Postcombustion

CO2

capture

from

coal

fired

power

generation

using

amines

PrecombustionCO2capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles

OxycombustionCO2capturefrompulverisedcoalpowergeneration

PostcombustionCO2capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles

PostcombustionCO2captureusingammoniaisapotentialneartermalternativetoaminebased

solvents.Asimilarlydetailedanalysis isnotpossibleforammoniabasedsolventssinceonlyfew

relateddataarepresented intheanalysedstudies.Availabledataarenonetheless listed inthe

Annexofthisworkingpaperforreference.

BiomassfiredpowergenerationwithCO2capture isnotevaluated indepthsince information is

rare

compared

to

coal

and

natural

gasfired

plants.

A

single

data

point

for

post

combustion

capture from coalfired power plants with 10% cofiring of biomass is however added in the

resultspresentedinthischapterforcomparison.

As outlined above, results report cost and performance estimates for newbuild, early

commercialplants.Allcostdata, includingLCOEandcostofCO2avoided,covercostsrelatedto

thecaptureandcompressionofCO2tosupercriticalpressures,aswellastheconditioningofCO2

for transportation (but not for CO2 transport and storage). Generally, CO2 capture costs are

considered to represent the bulk of the costs of integrated CCS projects. CO2 transport and

storage costs can still be significant depending on the local availability and characteristics of

storagesites,andarethuscrucialadditionaleconomicfactorstoconsiderinanyprojectspecific

evaluationorenergyscenariomodellingwork.

To illustratecostandtechnologydevelopmenttrends,CO2capturedatashown inthefollowing

tables and figures are sorted by the year of the cost information as provided in the original

publication.Keydataareshownforreferencecaseswith(w/)CO2captureandwithout(w/o)CO2

capture.CostofCO2avoidedisausefulmetricforcomparingeconomicsofaspecificCO2capture

processagainstalternativeCO2capturetechnologies.AnappropriatereferencecasewithoutCO2

capture needs to be chosen for specific assessments. In a specific newbuild CCS project, this

referencewouldbethemosteconomicalpowergenerationalternativewithoutCCSthatmeets

all projectspecific requirements (e.g. regarding plant availability or operating flexibility). This

6

Acrossreviewed

studies,

only

asingle

case

is

available

for

each

pre

and

oxy

combustion

capture

from

NGCC;

thus,

thesecaptureroutesarenotincludedinthisreview.


25/51


Page|23

referenceplantdoesnotnecessarilyhavetobebasedonthesamepowergenerationtechnology

orusethesamefuel.

Sinceitisdifficulttodefineauniversallyapplicablereferencetechnology,costofCO2avoidedin

thisstudyiscalculatedusingthesamepowerplanttypewithandwithoutcapture.ForIGCCwith

CO2capture,

cost

of

CO2

avoided

is

also

presented

using

aPC

reference

based

on

data

published

bythesameorganisation.CostofCO2avoidedforcoalbasedoxycombustioncaptureisbasedon

aPCreferencecasewithoutCO2capture,withdatafromthesameorganisation.

Mosttechnoeconomicdataavailablefromthereviewedstudiesdescribecaptureinstallationsin

the United States, followed by studies on European power plants.7 An analysis of CO2 capture

costandperformanceinChinaisincludedinthisanalysis.BroadassessmentsacrossCO2capture

routesarehoweverscarceforinstallationsinnonOECDcountries.

In some of the following tables, different power plant and coal types are shown next to each

otherforthesamecaptureroute.Whilethedifferenttypesarelistedexplicitly,thisisimportant

tonotesincecoaltypescanvarywidelyfromthepredominantlyanalysedbituminouscoalstothe

less

common

sub

bituminous

coals

or

lignite.

In

addition,

some

organisations

published

several

setsoftechnoeconomicdataforthesamefueltypeandcaptureroute.Averagedataprovidedin

thefarrightcolumnofthetablesareaddedtoguidethereader,butshouldbeinterpretedwith

somecareagainst thisbackground.Additional tables illustrate the influence of the typeof the

powerplantandthespecificfuelusedforeachcaptureroute.

PostcombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines

Costandperformancedata forpostcombustionCO2capture fromcoalfiredpowergeneration

are shown in Table3. Technoeconomic data for 14 different cases from 7 organisations are

analysed,includingacasestudyforaninstallationinChina.

All

postcombustion

capture

cases

are

using

amine

based

solvents

for

CO2 capture, typically

monoethanolamine (MEA). Data for aqueous ammoniabased processes are provided in the

Annex. Postcombustion CO2 capture from SCPC or USCPC boilers that operate on bituminous

coals(labelledasBitcoal)areanalysedmostoften.Additionaldatacoversubcritical(SubPC)

orcirculatingfluidisedbed(CFB)boilers,andplantsthatoperateonsubbituminouscoals,lignite

orwith10%cofiringofbiomassinadditiontobituminouscoal.8

Averagepublishedcapacityfactorsare83%forthecasesshown;CO2captureratesare87%.Net

power outputs including CO2 capture range from 399MW to 676 MW, at an average net

efficiencyof30.9%(LHV)acrossOECDregions.Thecostandperformanceimpactofaddingpost

combustionCO2capturetoacoalfiredreferenceplantwithoutCO2captureisgiveninFigure2.

Netefficiency

penalties

between

8.7

and

12.0

percentage

points

(LHV)

are

estimated

for

post

combustionCO2captureinOECDregions,whichisonaveragea25%reductioninefficiency.The

netefficiencypenaltyestimatedforaninstallationinChinais10.8percentagepoints.

7 Another study on CCS performance and cost by the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel

PowerPlants

(ZEP)

is

announced

for

2011,

but

was

not

yet

available

at

the

time

of

this

publication.

8 Forbiomasscofiring,actualCO2emissionsarestatedinTable3.Nopriceforagreencertificateisassumed.


26/51


Page|24

Table3.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines

Regionalfocus

Average

(OECD)

Yearofcostdata

2005

2005

2005

2005

2007

2007

2007

2007

2007

2007

2009

2009

2009

2009

Yearofpub

lication

2007

2007

2007

2007

2009

2009

2009

2009

2010

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

Organisatio

n

CMU

MIT

GHGIAGHGIA

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

MIT

NETL

NETL

GCCSI

GCCSIGHGIA

NZEC

ORIGINAL

DATAASPUBLISHED(convertedtoUSD)

Region

US

US

EU

EU

US

US

US

US

US

US

US

US

EU

CHN

Specificfue

ltype

Bitcoal

Lignite

Bitcoal

Bitcoal

Sub

bit

coal

Sub

bit

coal

Bitcoal

Bitcoal

Bitcoal

Bitcoal

Bitcoal

Bitcoal

Bit+10%

Biomass

Bitcoal

Powerplan

ttype

SCPC

CFB

U

SCPC

USCPC

SCPC

USCPC

SCPC

SCPC

SCPC

Sub

PC

SCPC

USCPC

SCPC

USCPC

Netpower

outputw/ocapture(MW)

528

500

758

758

600

600

600

500

550

550

550

550

519

824

582

Netpower

outputw/capture(MW)

493

500

666

676

550

550

550

500

550

550

550

550

399

622

545

Netefficien

cyw/ocapture,LHV(%)

41.3

36.5

44.0

44.0

39.2

39.8

40.0

40.4

41.2

38.6

41.4

46.8

44.8

43.9

41.4

Netefficien

cyw/capture,

LHV(%)

31.4

26.7

34.8

35.3

28.2

28.8

29.1

30.7

29.9

27.5

29.7

34.9

34.5

33.1

30.9

CO2emissio

nsw/ocapture(kg/MWh)

811

1030

743

743

879

865

836

830

802

856

804

707

754

797

820

CO2emissio

nsw/capture(kg/MWh)

107

141

117

92

124

121

126

109

111

121

112

95

73

106

111

Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW)

1442

13301

408

1408

2061

2089

2007

1910

2024

1996

2587

2716

1710

856

1

899

Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW)

2345

22701

979

2043

3439

3485

3354

3080

3570

3610

4511

4279

2790

1572

3

135

Relativede

creaseinnetefficiency

24%

27%

21%

20%

28%

28%

27%

24%

28%

29%

28%

26%

23%

25%

25%

RE

EVALU

ATEDDATA(2010USD)

Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW)

1508

18681

720

1720

2580

2615

2512

2391

2203

2172

2409

2529

1873

938

2

162

Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW)

2664

34042

581

2664

4596

4657

4482

4116

4148

4195

4485

4255

3263

1838

3

808

LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh)

50

49

69

69

62

63

73

70

65

66

70

70

78

51

66

LCOEw/ca

pture(USD/MWh)

80

84

95

97

107

109

121

112

113

117

121

112

118

80

107

CostofCO2avoided(USD/tCO2

)

43

40

42

42

60

61

68

58

69

69

74

68

59

42

58

Relativein

creaseinovernightcost

77%

82%

50%

55%

78%

78%

78%

72%

88%

93%

86%

68%

74%

96%

75%

Relativein

creaseinLCOE

59%

73%

38%

40%

72%

72%

67%

60%

73%

77%

73%

59%

52%

57%

63%

OECD

China

Notes:DatacoveronlyCO2captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.

Overnightcostsincludeowners,

EPCand

contingencycosts,

butnotIDC.

A15%contingencybased

onEPCcostis

addedforunfor

eseentechnicalorregulatorydifficultiesforCCScases,

comparedtoa5%contingencyappliedfornon

CCScases.IDCisincludedinLCOEcalculations.Fuelpriceassu

mptionsdiffer

betweenregions

.


27/51


Page|25

Figure2.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines:CO2captureimpact

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

CMU

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

MIT

NETL

NETL

GCCSI

GCCSI

GHGIA

NZEC

Increaseinovernightcost(2010USD/kW)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

CMU

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

MIT

NETL

NETL

GCCSI

GCCSI

GHGIA

NZEC

IncreaseinLCOE(2010USD/MWh)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

CMU

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

MIT

NETL

NETL

GCCSI

GCCSI

GHGIA

NZEC

Relativeincreaseinovernightcost(%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

CMU

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

MIT

NETL

NETL

GCCSI

GCCSI

GHGIA

NZEC

Netefficiencypenalty(percentagepoints,LHV)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CMU

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI M

ITNETL

NETL

GCCSI

GCCSI

GHGIA

NZEC

RelativeincreaseinLCOE(%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

CMU

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

MIT

NETL

NETL

GCCSI

GCCSI

GHGIA

NZEC

Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency(%)

2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009

2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009

2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009

Notes:DatacoveronlyCO2captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.Datasortedbyyearofcostinformationas

published;whitebarsshowdataforinstallationsinChina.Overnightcostsincludeowners,EPCandcontingencycosts,butnotIDC.A

15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5%

contingencyapplied

for

non

CCS

cases.

IDC

is

included

in

LCOE

calculations.

Fuel

price

assumptions

differ

between

regions.


28/51


Page|26

By adding CO2 capture, overnight costs updated to 2010 cost levels increase on average by

USD1647/kW, but vary substantially by a factor of more than two between USD861/kW and

USD2076/kW.ForChinaovernightcostsareexpectedtoincreasebyUSD900/kW.

Incomparison,therelative(percentagewise)increaseofovernightcostscomparedtoovernight

costsof

the

reference

power

plant

is

more

stable

across

studies.

Overnight

costs

increase

by

on

average75%whenaddingCO2capture.Thistrend iscomparablyrobustacrossawiderangeof

powerplanttypes(SCPC,USCPC,CFB),coalsused(bituminous,subbituminousand lignite),and

tosomeextentevenregions(e.g.theUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanUnion).

InOECDregions,LCOEincreasesonaveragebyUSD41/MWh,butvariesbetweenUSD26/MWh

andUSD51/MWh.Therelative increaseofLCOEcomparedtoLCOEofthereferenceplant ison

average63%.CostsofCO2avoidedareonaverageUSD58/tCO2butvarybetweenUSD40/tCO2

and USD74/tCO2 for case studies across OECD regions. Costs of CO2 avoided for China are

estimatedUSD42/tCO2.

Table4.Postcombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes(OECDonly)

Specificfueltype

Powerplanttype USCPC SCPC SubPC USCPC SCPC CFB

Numberofcasesincluded 3 5 1 1 1 1

ORIGINALDATAASPUBLISHED(convertedtoUSD)

Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 689 581 550 600 600 500 582

Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 631 553 550 550 550 500 545

Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 44.9 41.4 38.6 39.8 39.2 36.5 41.4

Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 35.0 31.0 27.5 28.8 28.2 26.7 30.9

CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 731 804 856 865 879 1030 820

CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 101 109 121 121 124 141 111

Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1844 1896 1996 2089 2061 1330 1899

Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 2767 3151 3610 3485 3439 2270 3135

Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 22% 25% 29% 28% 28% 27% 25%

REEVALUATEDDATA(2010USD)

Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1990 2124 2172 2615 2580 1868 2162

Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3166 3760 4195 4657 4596 3404 3808

LCOE w/ocapture(USD/MWh) 69 66 66 63 62 49 66

LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 101 107 117 109 107 84 107

CostofCO2avoided(USD/tCO2) 51 59 69 61 60 40 58

Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 58% 76% 93% 78% 78% 82% 75%

RelativeincreaseinLCOE 46% 62% 77% 72% 72% 73% 63%

Overall

Average

Bitcoal Subbit&Lignite

Notes: Data cover only CO 2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency

costs, but not IDC. A15 % contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory di fficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5%

contingency appliedfornonCCScases.IDCis includedin LCOEcalculations.Fuel priceassumptionsdifferbetweenregions.

TheinfluenceofspecificpowerplantandfueltypesisshowninTable4.Thenumberofsamples

perpower

plant

and

fuel

combination

is

limited,

however,

and

results

should

not

be

regarded

as

representative.


29/51


Page|27

Overnight costs for USCPC plants running on bituminous coals are in comparison quite low. It

shouldbenotedthoughthattwooutofthethreeunderlyingdatasetsarebasedonupdatedcost

informationfromasinglereferencefrom2005.

Data for SubPC bituminous coalfired power plants, as well as all subbituminous and lignite

firedinstallations,

are

each

based

just

on

asingle

publication

(Figure

4).

They

thus

should

not

be

interpretedinfavouroforagainstalternativeoptions.

PrecombustionCO2capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles

Cost and performance data for precombustion CO2 capture from integrated gasification

combinedcycles(IGCC)areshowninTable5.Technoeconomicdatafor11differentcasesfrom7

organisationsareanalysed,includingacasestudyforaninstallationinChina.

Table5.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles

Regionalfocus China

Average

(OECD)

Yearofcostdata 2005 2005 2005 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009

Yearofpublication 2007 2007 2007 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

Organisation MIT GHGIA GHGIA NETL N ETL N ETL CMU EPRI E PRI GCCSI N ZEC


Region US EU EU US US US US US US US CHN

Specificfueltype Bitc oa l B itc oa l B itc oa l Bi tc oa l Bi tc oa l B itc oa l Bi tcoal Subbit

coal Bitcoal Bitcoal Bitcoal

Powerplanttype GE Shel l GE

Quench GER+Q

CoPE

Gas FSQ Shell

GE

Quench(Generic) (Generic)

Shell

IGCC TPRI

Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 500 776 826 622 625 629 538 573 603 636 633

Net

power

output

w/

capture

(MW) 500 676 730 543 514 497 495 482 507 517 662 546

Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 40.3 43.1 38.0 40.9 41.7 44.2 40.0 41.0 41.2 43.2 41.4

Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 32.7 34.5 31.5 34.3 32.6 32.8 34.5 32.3 32.3 33.6 36.8 33.1

CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 832 763 833 782 776 723 819 845 805 753 793

CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 102 142 152 93 98 99 94 141 135 90 95 115

Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1430 1613 1439 2447 2351 2716 1823 3239 2984 3521 2356

Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 1890 2204 1815 3334 3466 3904 2513 4221 3940 4373 1471 3166

Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 19% 20% 17% 16% 22% 26% 14% 21% 22% 22% 20%


Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 2009 1970 1758 2663 2559 2956 1551 3702 3410 3279 2586

Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 2834 2874 2367 3874 4027 4536 2323 5150 4808 4348 1721 3714

LCOE w/ocapture(USD/MWh) 62 69 75 76 73 81 52 86 92 88 75

LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 83 102 95 104 109 120 71 118 126 115 73 104

CostofCO2avoided(USD/tCO2) 29 53 30 42 53 62 26 45 51 41 43

CostofCO2avoidedvsPCbaseline

(USD/tCO2)18 53 38 57 64 86 28 64 79 64 32 55

Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 41% 46% 35% 45% 57% 53% 50% 39% 41% 33% 44%

RelativeincreaseinLCOE 35% 48% 27% 38% 49% 48% 37% 37% 37% 31% 39%

OECD

Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs i nclude owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A15%

contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for non CCS cases. IDC is

included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ between regions. Generic data shown for EPRI; further details for individual gasifier designs, including data

forSiemensgasifiersareavailablein EPRI(2009).


30/51


Page|28

Figure3.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles:CO2captureimpact

0

500

1000

1500

2000

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

NETL

NETL

NETL

CMU

EPRI

EPRI

GCCSI


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

NETL

NETL

NETL

CMU

EPRI

EPRI

GCCSI

IncreaseinLCOE(2010USD/MWh)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

NETL

NETL

NETL

CMU

EPRI

EPRI

GCCSI

Relativeincreaseinovernightcost(%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

NETL

NETL

NETL

CMU

EPRI

EPRI

GCCSI

Netefficiencypenalty(percentagepoints,LHV)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

NETL

NETL

NETL

CMU

EPRI

EPRI

GCCSI

RelativeincreaseinLCOE(%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

MIT

GHGIA

GHGIA

NETL

NETL

NETL

CMU

EPRI

EPRI

GCCSI

Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency(%)

2005 2007 20092008 2005 2007 20092008

2005 2007 20092008 2005 2007 20092008

2005 2007 20092008 2005 2007 20092008

Notes:DatacoveronlyCO2captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.Datasortedbyyearofcostinformationas

published;nofullsetofdataavailableforinstallationsinChina.Overnightcostsincludeowners,EPCandcontingencycosts,butnot

IDC.A15%contingencybasedonEPCcostisaddedforunforeseentechnicalorregulatorydifficultiesforCCScases,comparedtoa5%

contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ between regions. IGCC

referenceplant

data

are

not

provided

in

the

NZEC

(2009)

publication.


31/51


Page|29

AllreviewedstudiesapartfromoneevaluateprecombustionCO2capturefromIGCCplantsthat

operateonbituminouscoals.GasifiertechnologiesbyConocoPhillips(CoP),GeneralElectric(GE),

ShellandtheChineseThermalPowerResearchInstitute(TPRI)areanalysed.


poweroutputs

including

CO2

capture

range

from

482

MW

to

730

MW

across

OECD

regions,

at

an

averagenetefficiencyof33.1%(LHV).The impactofaddingprecombustioncapturetoanIGCC

referenceplantwithoutCO2captureisillustratedinFigure3.

Net efficiency penalties between 5.5 and 11.4 percentage points (LHV) are estimated for pre

combustionCO2captureinOECDregions,which isonaveragea20%reduction inefficiency.No

IGCCreferenceplantdataareprovidedinthecasestudyonprecombustionCO2captureinChina

(NZEC,2009).


USD1128/kWcompared toan IGCC referencecase.However,the increasevariessubstantially

byafactorofmorethantwobetweenUSD609/kWandUSD1580/kW.9

The

relative

(percentagewise)

increase

of

overnight

costs

is

more

stable

across

studies.

Overnightcosts increasebyonaverage44%comparedtoan IGCCreferencepowerplantwhen

adding CO2 capture. This trend appears comparably robust across the range of gasifier

technologiesandbetweentheUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanUnion.

LCOE figures follow a similar pattern. In OECD regions LCOE increases on average by

USD29/MWh relative to an IGCC reference plant, but varies between USD19/MWh and

USD39/MWh.Therelative increaseofLCOEcomparedtotheLCOEofthereferenceplant ison

average39%.

Costs of CO2 avoided are on average USD43/tCO2 if an IGCC reference plant is used, but vary

betweenUSD26/tCO2andUSD62/tCO2forOECDregionsacrossstudycases.

If

a

pulverised

coal

power

plant

reference

case

is

used,

average

costs

of

CO2 avoided rise toUSD55/tCO2. The cost of CO2 avoided in China is estimated USD32/tCO2 relative to a Chinese

pulverisedcoalpowerplant,orabouthalfofthecostsinOECDregions.

Table 6 illustrates the influence of specific fuel types. However, only a single data point is

available for subbituminous and lignitefired installations, which is insufficient for drawing

conclusionsregardingtechnologycompetitivenesscomparedtobituminouscoalfiredoptions.

9

Asstated

by

the

authors

in

afollow

up

publication

(MIT,

2009),

IGCC

cost

estimates

published

in

MIT

(2007)

might

havebeentoooptimistic.


32/51


Page|30

Table6.Precombustioncapture:influenceofcoals(OECDonly)

Numberofcasesincluded 9 1


Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 639 573 633

Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 553 482 546

Netefficiency w/ocapture,LHV(%) 41.4 41.0 41.4

Netefficiency w/capture,LHV(%) 33.2 32.3 33.1

CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 787 845 793

CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 112 141 115

Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 2258 3239 2356

Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3049 4221 3166

Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 20% 21% 20%


Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 2462 3702 2586

Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3555 5150 3714

LCOE w/ocapture(USD/MWh) 74 86 75

LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 103 118 104

Costof

CO2

avoided

(USD/tCO2) 43 45 43

CostofCO2avoidedvsPCbaseline

(USD/tCO2)54 64 55

Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 45% 39% 44%

RelativeincreaseinLCOE 39% 37% 39%

Overall

AverageSpecificfueltype Bitcoal

Subbit&

Lignite

Notes: Data cover only CO2capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight

costs incl ude owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15% contingency based on EPC cost

is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5%

contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price

assumptions differ betweenregions.

Oxycombustion

CO2

capture

from

coal

fired

power

generation

Cost and performance data for oxycombustion CO2 capture from coalfired power generation

are shown in Table7. Technoeconomic data for 11 different cases from 5 organisations are

analysed,includingacasestudyforaninstallationinChina.Itshouldbenotedaparticularlylarge

numberofdatastemfromasinglerecentUSDepartmentofEnergyassessment(NETL,2010e).

Oxycombustion capture from SCPC and USCPC boilers that operate on bituminous coals are

most often evaluated in the reviewed studies. Additional data cover CFB boilers, and plants

operatingonsubbituminouscoalsorlignite.


power

outputs

including

CO2

capture

range

from

500

MW

to

550

MW

in

OECD

countries,

at

an

averagenetefficiencyof31.9%(LHV).


33/51


Page|31

Table7.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration

Regionalfocus China Average

(OECD)

Yearofcostdata 2005 2005 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2009 2009 2009

Yearof

publication 2007 2007 2008 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009

Organisation GHGIA MIT NETL N ETL N ETL NETL N ETL N ETL GCCS I G CCSI NZ EC


Region EU US US US US US US US US US CHN

Specific fueltype Bitcoal B itcoal B itcoal Subbit

coal

Subbit

coal Lignite

Subbit

coal Lignite Bitcoal B itcoal B itcoal

Powerplanttype USCPC SCPC SCPC SCPC SCPC SCPC CFB CFB SCPC USCPC USCPC

Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 758 500 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 824 566

Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 532 500 550 550 550 550 549 550 550 550 673 543

Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 44.0 40.4 41.4 40.6 40.6 39.4 40.9 40.2 41.4 46.8 43.9 41.6

Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 35.4 32.1 30.7 32.5 29.5 31.4 31.6 30.7 30.8 34.7 35.6 31.9

CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 743 830 800 859 859 925 846 884 800 707 797 825

CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 84 104 0 98 0 103 99 105 0 0 98 59

Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1408 1330 1579 1851 1851 2003 1938 2048 2587 2716 856 1931

Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 2205 1900 2660 3093 3086 3163 3491 3821 4121 3985 1266 3153

Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 20% 21% 26% 20% 27% 20% 23% 24% 26% 26% 19% 23%


Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1720 1868 1976 2317 2317 2507 2426 2563 2409 2529 938 2263

Overnightcostw/capture( USD/kW) 2875 2849 3555 4133 4124 4227 4665 5106 4098 3962 1481 3959

LCOE w/ocapture(USD/MWh) 69 59 61 56 56 62 59 63 70 70 51 62

LCOE

w/

capture

(USD/MWh) 101 84 100 96 97 100 108 119 112 106 69 102

CostofCO2avoided(USD/tCO2) 49 35 49 52 47 46 66 72 52 50 27 52

Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 67% 53% 80% 78% 78% 69% 92% 99% 70% 57% 58% 74%

RelativeincreaseinLCOE 47% 43% 65% 71% 72% 62% 84% 89% 60% 51% 36% 64%

OECD

Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15%

contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for non CCS cases. IDC i s

included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ between regions. CO 2 purities >99.9% apart from GHG IA (96%), GCCSI (83%) and NETL ca se with 29.5% (LHV)

efficiency(83%).

TheimpactofaddingoxycombustionCO2capturerelativetoacoalfiredreferenceplantwithout

CO2captureisillustratedinFigure4.

Net

efficiency

penalties

between

7.9

and

12.2

percentage

points

(LHV)

are

estimated

for

oxy

combustionCO2captureinOECDregions,whichisonaveragea23%reductioninefficiency.The

netefficiencypenaltyestimatedforaninstallationinChinais8.3percentagepoints.


USD1696/kW but vary substantially by a factor of more than two between USD981/kW and

USD2543/kW.ForChinaovernightcostsareexpectedto increasebyUSD542/kW.Therelative

(percentagewise)increaseofovernightcostsisonaverage74%comparedtoovernightcostsof

thereferencepowerplant.


34/51


Page|32

Figure4.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration:CO2captureimpact

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

GHGIA

MIT

NETL

NETL

NETL

NETL

NETL

NETL

GCCSI

GCCSI

NZEC


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

GHGIA

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jose-deniz
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Costperf Ccs Powergen

Documents