8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 1/27

Home Browse Search My settings My alerts Shopping cart Help

  View more related articles

Thumbnails | Full-Size images 

Articles All fields Author   Advanced search

Images Journal/Book title Volume Issue Page Search tips

 

Related Articles

Add

My Applications

PDF (356 K)   Export citation   E-mail article

 

EnergyVolume 32, Issue 7, July 2007, Pages 1163-1176

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.07.039| How to Cite or Link Using DOI

  Permissions & Reprints

Performance and costs of power plants with captureand storage of CO2

John Davison,

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Orchard Business Centre, Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham,

GL52 7RZ, UK

Received 23 February 2006; Available online 2 October 2006.

Abstract

Hub ScienceDirect Scopus SciTopics Applications Register Go to SciVal SuiteLogin

Article Figures/Tables (11) References (28) Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with C...Energy Policy 

Techno-economic study of CO2 capture and storage in coa...

Fuel Processing Technology 

Techno-economic evaluation of advanced IGCC lignite coa...

Fuel 

Carbon dioxide recovery using a dual gas turbine IGCC p...

Energy Conversion and Management 

Influence of system integration options on the performa...

 Applied Energy 

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

1 of 27 9/26/2011 07:20

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 2/27

  View details of all 115 citing articles in Scopus

Provided by Scopus

  More related reference work articles

View Record in Scopus

Table Download  

MostDownloaded  

Cited by (115)

Related reference work articles e.g. encyclopedias

s paper assesses e ree ea ng ec no og es or cap ure o 2 n power genera on p an s,

i.e., post-combustion capture, pre-combustion capture and oxy-fuel combustion. Performance, cost

and emissions data for coal and natural gas-fired power plants are presented, based on information

from studies carried out recently for the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme by major engineering

contractors and process licensors. Sensitivities to various potentially significant parameters are

assessed.

Keywords: CO2; Capture; Electricity; CCS; Costs

Article Outline

1. Introduction

2. Basis of plant assessments

2.1. Technical criteria

2.2. Economic criteria

3. Plant descriptions

3.1. Post-combustion capture plants

3.2. Pre-combustion capture plants

3.3. Oxy-combustion

4. Plant performance

4.1. Efficiency and power output4.2. CO2 emissions

5. Resource consumptions and emissions

6. Costs

6.1. Costs of power generation

6.2. Costs of CO2 emissions avoidance

6.3. Costs of CO2 transport and storage

6.4. Sensitivity to fuel cost

6.5. Sensitivity to discount rate

6.6. Sensitivity to load factor 

6.7. Sensitivity to coal type

7. Potential for future improvement

8. Other criteria affecting technology choice

9. ConclusionsReferences

Development of a scalable infrastructure model for plan...

 Applied Energy 

Environmental impacts and costs of woody Biomass-to-Liq...

Forest Policy and Economics

Reducing energy penalties in carbon capture with Organi...

 Applied Thermal Engineering 

Electric Power Generation: Fossil Fuel

Encyclopedia of Energy 

Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Power Plants

Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology 

Power Generation and Human Health

Encyclopedia of Environmental HealthTurbines, Gas

Encyclopedia of Energy 

Gas-Turbine Power Plants

Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology 

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

2 of 27 9/26/2011 07:20

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 3/27

S i Di t E P f d t f l t ith t d t f CO2 htt // i di t / i / ti l / ii/S0360544206002155

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 4/27

e ex s ng coa - ase p an s nc u es s convers o n an 2 cap ure.

The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG) has assessed the performance and costs of 

new power plants with and without CO2 capture. Studies were carried out for IEA GHG by the

following leading engineering contractors and process developers:

• Post combustion capture: Fluor, in collaboration with Mitsui Babcock and Alstom, and MHI [3].

• Pre-combustion capture (IGCC ): Foster Wheeler, with data from gasification and gas treating

vendors [4].

• Oxy-combustion: Mitsui Babcock, in collaboration with Air Products and Alstom [5].

IEA GHG's recent studies on new power plants do not include natural gas-based pre-combustion

capture but IEA GHG has carried out a study on retrofit of capture to existing natural gas combined

cycle plants [6]. That study showed pre-combustion capture to be significantly more expensive than

post-combustion capture. IEA GHG carried out a later study which put some of the results from the

earlier studies [3] , [4] and [5] on a consistent basis with updated fuel prices and currency exchange

rates [7]. This paper presents results from that later report [7] and also includes more of the cases

from the IGCC study [4] on the same updated basis.

2. Basis of plant assessments

The reference power plants without CO2 capture in this paper use high-efficiency commercially

demonstrated technologies. The CO2 capture units are based on current designs but it is recognisedthat CO2 capture has not yet been demonstrated in large commercial power plants. The efficiencies of 

all of the power-generation technologies considered in this study will improve in future due mainly to

development of more advanced gas and steam turbines. The performance and costs of CO2 capture

technologies are also expected to improve in future due to technology developments and ‘learning by

doing’. This is discussed further in Section 6.

The main criteria used in the assessments in this paper are summarised below and in the following

plant descriptions.

2.1. Technical criteria

Coal feed Australian bituminous coal

Ash 12.2% as-received

Moisture 9.5% as-received

Carbon 82.5% dry-ash-freeHydrogen 5.6% dry-ash-free

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

4 of 27 9/26/2011 07:20

ScienceDirect Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www sciencedirect com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 5/27

Oxygen 9.0% dry-ash-free

Nitrogen 1.8% dry-ash-free

Sulphur 1.1% dry-ash-free

Chlorine 0.03% dry-as-free

LHV 25.87 MJ/kg as-received

Natural gas Southern Norwegian North Sea

Methane 83.9 vol%

Ethane 9.2 vol%

Propane 3.3 vol%

Butane+ 1.4 vol%

CO2 1.8 vol%

N2 0.4 vol%

Plant location Greenfield plant site, Netherlands coastal location with no special civil works

Ambient pressure 101.3 kPa

Average air temperature 9 °C

Average sea water temperature 12 °C

Cooling water system Once-through sea water cooling

CO2 output pressure 11 MPaMaximum emissions Particulates 25 mg/Nm3 (6% O2)

NO X  200 mg/Nm3 (6% O2)

SO2 200 mg/Nm3 (6% O2)

The pressure to which CO2 is compressed will depend on how it is transported and the nature of the

storage reservoir. The data in this paper include compression of CO2 to 11 MPa, at which pressure it

is a dense phase fluid with a density of about 0.75t/m3

at 35 °C. Because of its high density, the CO2

could if required be pumped to a higher pressure with very little impact on the plant performance and

cost.

2.2. Economic criteria

DCF rate 10% per year, excluding inflation

Plant operating life 25 years

Plant construction time 3 years

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

5 of 27 9/26/2011 07:20

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www sciencedirect com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 6/27

Expenditure schedule 20%/45%/35%

Load factor 85%

Coal price US$2.2/GJ (LHV basis), with sensitivity to $1.1/GJ 1

Natural gas price US$7.8/GJ (LHV basis), with sensitivity to $3.9/GJ

Contingencies: 10% of installed plant cost

Fees and owners cost 7% of installed plant cost (excludes interest during construction)

Interest during construction Calculated from the expenditure schedule and discount rate

Decommissioning cost Zero net cost (assumed to be equal to scrap value)

Working capital 30 days of raw materials and consumables, excluding natural gas

Start up costs 3 month commissioning period

Reduced load factor (60%) for remainder of year 1 for coal plants

Operating labour €50k/year (excludes maintenance labour), 5 shift operation

Maintenance costs 2–4% of installed cost per year, depending on type of process unit

Local taxation and insurance 2% of installed cost per year 

By-product/waste values Zero net values for sulphur, slag/ash and gypsum

Exchange rate 1.23 US$/€

The base case fuel prices are the average of Mott MacDonald's long-run forecast prices up to 2025 for 

the Netherlands coastal location [7]. The sensitivity to lower prices (half those of the base case) is

assessed because of the high uncertainty in prediction of long-term energy prices and because prices

vary between different locations.

The capital costs shown in Table 4 include miscellaneous owner's costs but exclude interest during

construction and start-up costs, although these are taken into account in the calculation of costs of 

electricity generation. Costs of electricity (380 kV) and CO2 (11 MPa) transmission beyond the plant

boundary are excluded. Coal is delivered to the plant boundary by conveyor and 30 days of outdoor storage is included on-site. The inlet and discharge ducts for the seawater cooling system are

included.

The capital costs in IEA GHG's original studies [3] , [4] and [5] were estimated using source data

denominated mainly in US$ and €. The $/€ exchange rate has varied between about 0.85 and 1.35:1

between 2001 and 2006, which introduces a degree of uncertainty into cost estimates. In IEA GHG's

latest study [7], costs for selected cases from the earlier studies [3] , [4] and [5] were updated using

the 2005 average exchange rate of 1.23$/€. For this paper further cases were updated using this

same exchange rate.

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

6 of 27 9/26/2011 07:20

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 7/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 8/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 9/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 10/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 11/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 12/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 13/27

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 14/27

avo e are e emssons o a p an w 2 cap ure compare o e emss ons o a ase ne p an

without CO2 emissions. The baseline plant should be type of plant that would be displaced by a plant

with CO2 capture. This could either be a plant based on the same type of power generation

technology as the plant with CO2 capture or an alternative type of plant. Table 2 shows the quantities

of emissions avoided for three baselines: the same type of power generation technology, a PF plant

and an NGCC plant. When compared to plants using the same type of power generation technology,the quantities of emissions avoided are lower than the quantities captured because of the reduction in

thermal efficiency, which results in greater production of CO2. In some circumstances plants with CO2

capture may displace old inefficient power plants, in which case the quantities of CO2 emissions

avoided would be significantly higher than those shown in Table 2.

Table 2. CO2 emissions

Fuel Power generation

technology

CO2

capture

technology

CO2

emissions

(g/kWh)

CO2

captured

(g/kWh)

CO2

captured

(%)

CO2 avoided (g/kWh)

Same

technology

baseline

PF

baseline

NGCC

baseline

Coal PF None 743 — — — — —

Fluor 117 822 87.5 626 626 262MHI 92 832 90 651 651 287

Oxy 84 831 90.8 659 659 295

IGCC None 763 — — — — —

(Shell) Selexol 142 809 85 621 601 237

IGCC None 833 — — — — —

(GE) Selexol 152 851 85 681 591 227

Gas IGCC None 379 — — — — —

Fluor 66 378 85 313 677 313

MHI 63 362 85 316 680 316

Oxy 12 403 97.2 367 731 367

The percentages of CO2 captured which are shown in Table 2 are in the range of 85–90% for the

post-combustion and pre-combustion capture plants and 90–97% for the oxy-combustion plants.

These are not necessarily the technical limits or economic optima for each of the technologies. For 

14 of 27 9/26/2011 07:20

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 15/27

examp e, ncreas ng e percen age 2 cap ure n coa - ase pos com us on cap ure rom –

is reported to reduce the cost per tonne of CO2 captured by 2% [3]. Further work is needed to

determine the effects of percentage CO2 capture on costs and efficiency for all technologies.

The plants do not all produce the same purity of CO2. Some technologies inherently produce

high-purity CO2 but others inherently produce lower purity CO2 which has to be refined if a higher 

purity is required. The relative merits of the technologies therefore depend on the CO2 purity

requirements.

5. Resource consumptions and emissions

The main resource consumptions, solid waste and by-product outputs and atmospheric emissions are

shown in Table 3. Natural gas-fired plants have the lowest resource consumptions and emissions.

Emissions to the atmosphere from plants without capture depend on environmental legislation and the

emissions shown in Table 3 do not represent the practical limits for each technology. For each type of fuel and power generation technology, CO2 capture results in increases in the fuel consumption and

outputs of wastes and by-products per unit of net electricity output, except for SO X emissions to the

atmosphere which are reduced.

Table 3. Resource consumptions and emissions [g/kwh]

Fuel Power 

generation

technology

Capture

technology

Resource consumptions Wastes and by-products (dry

basis)

At

emi

Fuel Limestone

/flux

Chemicalsorbent Ash

/slag

Gypsum Sulphur Spent

sorbent

CO

Coal PF None 316 8.4 — 39.3 13.8 — — 743

Fluor 400 11.6 1.31 48.9 19.1 — 2.63 117

MHI 394 11.4 0.13 48.3 18.8 — 0.26 92

Oxy-fuel 393 — — 48.0 — — — 84

IGCC None 323 10.0 0.01 44.7 — 2.78 0.01 763

(Shell) Selexol 404 12.5 0.02 55.8 — 3.48 0.02 142

IGCC None 367 — 0.01 54.1 — 3.16 0.01 833

(GE) Selexol 442 — 0.02 65.3 — 3.81 0.02 152

Gas NGCC None 120 — — — — — — 379

Fluor 141 — 0.61 — — — 1.19 66

MHI 135 — 0.10 — — — 0.20 63

15 of 27 9/26/2011 07:20

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 16/27

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 17/27

echnology echnology MW $/kW

Coal Pulverised fuel None 758 1408

Post-combustion (Fluor) 666 1979

Post combustion (MHI) 676 2043

Oxy-combustion 532 2205

IGCC (Shell) None 776 1613

Pre-combustion, Selexol 676 2204

IGCC (GE) None 826 1439

Pre-combustion, Selexol 730 1815

Gas Gas turbine combined cycle None 776 499

Post-combustion (Fluor) 662 869

Post-combustion, MHI 692 887

Oxy-combustion 440 1532

Table 5. Cost of electricity and CO2 avoidance

Fuel Power generation

technology

CO2 capture

technology

$1.1/GJ coal, $3.9/GJ

gas

$2.2/GJ coal, $7.8/GJ

gas

c/kWh $/t CO2

avoided

c/kWh $/t CO2

avoided

Coal Pulverised fuel None 4.46 5.36

Post-combustion, Fluor 6.34 30 7.49 34

Post combustion, MHI 6.27 28 7.40 31

Oxy-combustion 6.63 33 7.76 36

IGCC (Shell) None 4.88 5.81

Pre-combustion,

Selexol

6.52 33 7.68 39

IGCC (GE) None 4.55 5.60

Pre-combustion,

Selexol

5.66 20 6.94 27

Gas Combined cycle None 3.70 6.23

17 of 27 9/26/2011 07:20

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 18/27

Fuel Power generation

technology

CO2 capture

technology

$1.1/GJ coal, $3.9/GJ

gas

$2.2/GJ coal, $7.8/GJ

gas

c/kWh $/t CO2

avoided

c/kWh $/t CO2

avoided

Post-combustion, Fluor 5.07 44 8.03 58

Post-combustion, MHI 4.93 39 7.76 48

Oxy-combustion 6.84 85 9.98 102

Full-size image (56K)

Fig. 3.

Breakdown of costs of electricity.

The cost of electricity generation with CO2 capture is marginally higher for the natural gas combined

cycle plants with post combustion capture than for the coal-based IGCC and post-combustion plants.

The cost difference is greater between natural gas and coal based oxy-combustion plants. The natural

gas fired oxy-combustion plant has a cost of electricity that is about 25% higher than that of the natural

gas post-combustion capture plant. A 40% increase in the cost of the combined cycle unit (excluding

the oxygen plant and CO2 compression), per MW of gross output, contributes to the relatively high

cost of the natural gas fired oxy-combustion plant.

In Fig. 3 the costs of electricity generation are broken down into capital charges, operation andmaintenance (O+M) and fuel costs. It can be seen that the main cost for the gas-fired plants is fuel but

for the coal-fired plants, the capital charges are most significant.

The net outputs of the plants with and without capture [3] , [4] and [5] differ somewhat, as shown in

Table 4 because some items of equipment, e.g., gas turbines have fixed sizes. The only way to force

the plant outputs to be the same would be to operate some of them at non-optimum conditions, which

would not be realistic. The differences in plant size affect the economic comparisons, because plants

normally have economies in scale, i.e. the cost per unit output usually decreases with increasing plantsize. If all of the plants were converted to a hypothetical standard power out of 750 MWe using a scale

exponent of 0.8, the cost of electricity would decrease by 0.3 c/kWh for the oxyfuel plant, by 0.1 c/kWh

18 of 27 9/26/2011 07:20

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 19/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 20/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 21/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 22/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 23/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 24/27

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 25/27

av son omen c n ancuso cap ure n ow ran coa power p an s n:

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 26/27

Home Browse Search My settings My alerts Shopping cart Help

 

av son , omen c n , ancuso . 2 cap ure n ow ran coa power p an s. n:

Greenhouse gas control technologies. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on

Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 19–22 June 2006, Trondheim, Norway, Elsevier Ltd., Oxford,

UK, in press..

[25] Rubin E, Yeh S, Antes M, Berkenpas M and Davison J. Estimating future costs of CO2 capture

systems using historical experience curves. In: Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Proceedings of the eighth international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies, 19–22 June 2006,

Trondheim, Norway. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd., in press..

[26] Wolf M, Brautsch A, Gernert J, Kaefer G, Pfeffer A, Winkler D. Outlook on post combustion CO2

capture in Alstom gas turbine plants. In: Proceedings of powergen Europe conference, 30 May–1 June

2006, Cologne, Germany..

[27] Armstrong P, Bennett D, Foster E, Stein V. Ceramic membrane development for oxygen supply to

gasification applications. In: Proceedings of the Gasification Technologies Conference, 2002, San

Francisco, USA,〈www.gasification.org〉..

[28] Thomas D, editor. Carbon dioxide capture and storage in deep geologic formations—results of the

CO2 capture project, vol. 1, capture and separation of carbon dioxide from combustion sources.

Oxford, UK; Elsevier: 2005..

Tel.: +44 1242 680753; fax: +44 1242 680758.

1These fuel prices are on an LHV basis, for consistency with the plant performance data. However, it

should be noted that fuel is often traded on an HHV basis. Bituminous coal prices on an LHV basis are

about 5% higher than on an HHV basis and natural gas prices are about 10% higher.

2This paper uses data for reference-pulverised coal and natural gas combined cycle plants from [3].

These data are similar to data from [5].

Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

EnergyVolume 32, Issue 7, July 2007, Pages 1163-1176

26 of 27 9/26/2011 07:20

ScienceDirect - Energy : Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206002155

8/4/2019 Science Direct - Energy _ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-direct-energy-performance-and-costs-of-power-plants-with-capture 27/27

What is ScienceDirectContent detailsSet upHow to useSubscriptions

Developers

About ScienceDirect

Contact and Support

Contact and Support

About Elsevier About SciVerseAbout SciValTerms and ConditionsPrivacy policy

Information for advertisers

About Elsevier 

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. SciVerse® is a registered trademark of Elsevier Properties S.A., used under license. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.

27 of 27 9/26/2011 07:20