Technology Portfolio - UNECE

Technology Portfolio Comparison of technological input parameters from MESSAGE and GCAM

1

1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Approach ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Technology Costs in the Models .............................................................................................. 2

2 Photovoltaics ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Technical description ............................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Variations................................................................................................................................. 4

2.2.1 Wafer based silicon cells ................................................................................................. 4

2.2.2 Thin film cells ................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.3 Organic cells .................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Outlook .................................................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Data Comparison ..................................................................................................................... 5

3 Concentrating Solar Power .................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Technical Description .............................................................................................................. 8

3.2 Variations................................................................................................................................. 8

3.2.1 Line focus ......................................................................................................................... 8

3.2.2 Point focus ....................................................................................................................... 8

3.3 Outlook .................................................................................................................................... 8

3.4 Data Comparison ..................................................................................................................... 9

4 Wind Power ........................................................................................................................ 12

4.1 Technical Description ............................................................................................................ 12

4.2 Variations............................................................................................................................... 12

4.2.1 Onshore ......................................................................................................................... 12

4.2.2 Offshore ......................................................................................................................... 12

4.3 Outlook .................................................................................................................................. 12

4.4 Data Comparison ................................................................................................................... 13

5 Hydropower ....................................................................................................................... 16


5.2 Variations............................................................................................................................... 16

5.2.1 Run-of-river ................................................................................................................... 16

5.2.2 Reservoir ........................................................................................................................ 16

5.2.3 Tide ................................................................................................................................ 16

5.3 Outlook .................................................................................................................................. 16

5.4 Data Comparison ................................................................................................................... 17

6 Nuclear Power .................................................................................................................... 20


2

6.2 Variations............................................................................................................................... 20

6.2.1 Light Water Reactors ..................................................................................................... 20

6.2.2 Heavy Water Reactors ................................................................................................... 20

6.2.3 Fast Breeder Reactors ................................................................................................... 20

6.3 Outlook .................................................................................................................................. 21

6.4 Data Comparison ................................................................................................................... 21

7 Coal-Fueled Power Plants .................................................................................................... 24


7.2 Variations............................................................................................................................... 24

7.2.1 Lignite-and hard coal fired power plants ...................................................................... 24

7.2.2 High-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) coal-fired electricity generation ....................... 24

7.2.3 Desulphurization/DeNOx-Option .................................................................................. 25

7.2.4 CHP (Combined Heat and Power)-Option ..................................................................... 25

7.2.5 CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage)-Option ................................................................... 25

7.3 Outlook .................................................................................................................................. 26

7.4 Data Comparison ................................................................................................................... 27

7.4.1 IGCC with and without CCS ........................................................................................... 27

7.4.2 Supercritical power plants with and without CCS ......................................................... 32

7.4.3 Subcritical power plants ................................................................................................ 38

8 Gas Combustion .................................................................................................................. 41


8.2 Variations............................................................................................................................... 42

8.2.1 Gas steam power ........................................................................................................... 42

8.2.2 Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) .............................................................................. 42

8.3 Outlook .................................................................................................................................. 42

8.4 Data Comparison ................................................................................................................... 42

8.4.1 Gas combined cycle power plant with and without CCS ............................................... 42

8.4.2 Gas steam power plant and gas turbine power plant (without CCS) ............................ 48

9 Biomass .............................................................................................................................. 50


9.2 Variations............................................................................................................................... 51

9.2.1 Biomass steam power plant .......................................................................................... 51

9.2.2 Biomass IGCC power plant ............................................................................................ 51

9.2.3 Co-firing ......................................................................................................................... 51

9.3 Outlook .................................................................................................................................. 51

3

9.4 Data Comparison ................................................................................................................... 51

9.4.1 Biomass IGCC and biomass steam power plants ........................................................... 52

10 Ranking of annualized costs for different technologies. .................................................... 58

11 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................... 61

12 List of Figures .................................................................................................................. 64

1

1 Introduction This portfolio provides an overview of the main technologies under consideration for power generation

in the present and future. Moreover, these technologies are also incorporated in both integrated

assessment models (IAMs) GCAM and MESSAGE, which are used within the scope of the Pathways

project. IAMs are increasingly used to evaluate carbon policy impacts on energy structure, but different

models can yield considerably different results. Differences between models are driven by

assumptions and inputs. What is considered a reasonable assumption in a given model often

represents the perspective of the modeler. Within this context the aim of this document is to [1]

compare and illustrate the differences within the set of assumptions regarding the technologies used

by both models and [2] to relate them to existing literature values. The main objective is to increase

the transparency of the data, since it influences the outcome of the calculated scenarios.

1.1 Approach

For the data comparison, values from available open literature were collected. The time-period chosen

for the literature review, is from 2010 to 2050 as literature data availability of projections for the

development of the technology parameters beyond year 2050 is limited. Among the various available

parameters, the focus was placed on the capital cost, fixed operation & maintenance costs (O&M) and

technical efficiency. These input parameters are important for determining the mix of capacity

additions for predictions on future power supply systems. They are also essential to explore the

competition between new capacity and existing capacity on the market, or the response of different

power generation technologies on externalities.

The overview on capital and operation and maintenance costs is reported in USD/kW and

USD/kW/year. Where literature values were available in other currencies, OECD exchange rates of the

base year were used to convert them to USD. Among the sources surveyed for this portfolio, different

capital cost reporting practices were encountered. Capital costs include overnight capital cost and

defined transmission cost. In some cases, costs were reported as capital expenditures, which are

expenditures required to achieve commercial operation in a given year and other sources referred to

as only overnight capital costs. Moreover, not all sources outlined the components of their cost figures,

i.e. not defining which potential cost sources were included in the overall capital cost/operation and

maintenance cost figure. The review therefore focused on providing orientation by setting up ranges

of literature values to facilitate the comparison, abstaining from adjustment and modification of

values.

As the literature review has shown, high uncertainties exist with respect to costs of power generation

technologies. Many factors influence the variation of capital cost from one technology to another that

are either of economic or technical nature. In the scope of this report we will not evaluate the

associated uncertainty, but we want to raise awareness that large differences in cost estimates for

some technologies are common.

Figures to visualize the results of the data comparison were prepared with the same structure.

Literature data from different sources was cumulated. The ranges from each source are shown as a

grey area. Where overlaps between different sources occur, the area has a darker grey shade. GCAM

does not make regional distinctions in their data for the selected regions. The values of GCAM are

always represented as a single red line. MESSAGE provides different assumptions for the regions North

America (NAM), West European Union (WEU) and FSU (Former Soviet Union). MESSAGE values for

those three regions are shown in different blue shades.

2

1.2 Technology Costs in the Models The way both models integrate technology costs differs. This chapter briefly outlines the two

approaches, providing an overview and highlighting differences.

In GCAM the total cost of a technology is a combination of different factors summarized in the equation

below.

Ci = gi + hjPj + Ti

Where Ci is the total unit cost of technology i, gi is the non-fuel input cost, hj is the efficiency

(i.e. number of fuel input units j to produce one unit of i), Pj price of fuel input j and Ti is a

combination of other factors such as a carbon tax. The price factor is computed for each time

period. Being a market equilibrium model GCAM iterates to find the price where demand for

a service equals its supply. Even though the computation does not include cost optimization

it works on the assumptions that producers maximize profits while consumers minimize cost.

It is important to note that this technology portfolio’s focus is on the factor gi, the non-fuel

costs (i.e. investment and fixed operation and maintenance costs). This means that the

cheapest technologies identified here are not necessarily the cheapest technology options

during the modeling.

MESSAGE minimizes total costs while satisfying given demand levels for commodities/services

and considering a broad range of technical/engineering constraints and societal restrictions

(e.g. bounds on greenhouse-gas emissions). The optimal solution selects the most appropriate

option with respect to the calculated discounted cost of the delivered energy unit taking into

account the whole technology cost of investment operation and maintenance (O&M) and fuel

cost at constant price of the base year. The most important equation in with regard to the

optimization is the objective function shown below.

𝑂𝐵𝐽 = ∑𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 ∙ 𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇_𝑁𝑂𝐷𝐴𝐿𝑛,𝑦𝑛,𝑦

The objective function of MESSAGEix core model minimizes total discounted systems costs.

The COST_NODAL can be compard to GCAM’s total unit cost. It includes the investment cost,

fixed and variable operation and maintenance costs as well as other factors such as emission

taxes (1).

GCAM uses a probabilistic approach with logit specification to account for technology

competition. The probabilistic approach assumes a distribution of realized costs instead of a

discrete value. To calculate the market share the probability that a technology has the least

cost is considered. This avoids a “winner take all” scenario and is graphically summarized in

Figure 1-1.

3

Figure 1-1: GCAM’s probabilistic approach to technology competition.

When it comes to new capacity additions there are two things to highlight. Firstly, GCAM is a myopic

model, meaning that it does not have perfect foresight. Therefore, every new investment is decision is

made based on current prices. Secondly, it is assumed that capital stock is generally long-lived, i.e. it

can be in operation for many periods. However, once variable costs exceed the market price for the

product the plant will shut down.

The main difference between the models is that MESSAGE does have perfect foresight, i.e. when

making a decision future prices are known. Also, being an optimization model it needs to find another

way to avoid the “winner take all” scenario. To achieve this a set of dynamic constraint on market

penetration is introduced. These include upper and lower bounds on new capacity and activity as well

as constraints on the rate of expansion or phase-out of a technology. These constraints are defined

through calibration with historical data. (2)

At last, another important difference with regard to the cost comparisons presented in this portfolio

are the discounting factors. GCAM and MESSAGE use different methods to annualize their CapEx for

technology cost calculations. GCAM uses a Fixed Charge Rate of 13%, which includes multiple

discounting factors such as depreciation, interest rate, taxes and return on equity. MESSAGE on the

other hand works with the interest rate to discount the investment costs over the lifetime of the

technology (5%) while the other mentioned factors are considered at different stages.

2 Photovoltaics

2.1 Technical description Photovoltaic (PV) devices convert light to electricity using the physical phenomenon known as the

photovoltaic effect. The general working principle of PV devices can be split in three distinct steps.

First, light is absorbed and excites electrons to form electron-hole-pairs, this is followed by the

separation of the two charge carriers and ends with their separate extraction to an external circuit.

Semiconducting materials, with electrical properties between those of an insulator and a conductor,

exhibit the photovoltaic effect and are therefore used for PV applications. Single cells need to be

electrically connected in the form of stacks known as modules or solar panels to provide useful and

A Probabilistic Approach

`

Median Cost

Technology 1

Median Cost

Technology 2Median Cost

Technology 3

Market Price

4

scalable power output. These stacks typically have capacities between 50W and 200W, while the

combination of stacks can reach capacities of several MW, called PV systems. The primary output in

form of DC electricity can be converted to AC using inverters. (3)

2.2 Variations

2.2.1 Wafer based silicon cells

Crystalline silicon solar cells are by far the most common cell type today with a global installed capacity

market share of around 90% and a global production market share of 93% (4, 5). These cells belong to

the first generation of solar cells and were initially used for applications in space. They can either be

monocrystalline or multicrystalline. While single crystal cells have greater efficiencies they also have

higher production costs, balancing the two types. (6)

2.2.2 Thin film cells

Thin film solar cells emerged as the second generation of solar cells. A thin film of active material is

deposited on a substrate with film thicknesses ranging from nanometers to micrometers. The first

common type of thin film solar cell used amorphous silicon as the active material. Since then a wider

variety of material combinations has emerged ranging from copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) to

cadmium telluride (CdTe). The properties can vary significantly depending on the materials used, yet

it can be summarized that thin film cells are generally less efficient than crystalline silicon. However,

this is partly compensated for by the cheaper production. Despite the cost benefit and increasing

efficiencies thin film technology has a low global market share of around 10%. (5, 6)

2.2.3 Organic cells

Organic solar cells use conductive polymers or molecules to convert light to electricity. The idea behind

organic cells was to decrease production costs and to use abundant materials. Moreover, organic cells

add mechanical flexibility and can therefore be used in a wider variety of applications. Furthermore,

the band gap of these materials (which determines the type of radiation that is absorbed) can be tuned

by varying the length of the functional groups, i.e. the number of carbon molecules in a polymer chain.

However, the efficiency is below that of inorganic cells and long term stability remains a problem. (7,

8)

5

2.3 Outlook A large research focus lies on the third generation of solar cells. The aim is to combine high efficiencies

with the thin film deposition methods of the second generation. Materials that are abundant and non-

toxic are preferred. Organic cells are part of the third generation as well as quantum dot, dye-sensitized

and perovskite cells. Using concentrator photovoltaics and multi-junction cells also resulted in

increased efficiencies. The principle behind this is to focus the sunlight on a cell that contains material

layers with different band gaps so that a wider part of the solar spectrum can be converted. Module

efficiencies of up to 39.9% have been reached using concentrator technology. (4, 9)

2.4 Data Comparison

Figure 2-1 [Solar PV] Capital cost comparison of literature values (3, 10–13), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

6

Figure 2-2 [Solar PV] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (3, 10, 13), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

As can be seen from Figure 2-1 the general trend of capital cost development is similar among the

models and literature. In fact, literature values start off with upper and lower cost brackets, which

merge towards 2050. GCAM assumes a more conservative development compared to MESSAGE. The

operation and maintenance costs on the other hand are further apart from each other, illustrated in

Figure 2-2. MESSAGE assumptions follow the minimum of literature values while GCAM starts off more

than twice as high with little cost reduction. A characteristic feature of both figures is the broad

literature range at the onset, which narrows down over time. The assumed lifetimes for photovoltaic

systems are 30 years for both models. Therefore, the annualized cost show higher costs for GCAM due

to its higher operation and maintenance costs. The direct comparison is shown in Figure 2-3.

7

Figure 2-3 [Solar PV] Annualized cost comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

8

3 Concentrating Solar Power

3.1 Technical Description Concentrating solar power (CSP) systems use solar energy to generate electricity (or heat). The

underlying principle relies on the absorption of light by a receiving medium. The medium is generally

oil, air, water (steam) or liquid salt. The heated medium can then be used to power a thermodynamic

process to convert the thermal energy to electricity. This basic process is therefore very similar to

conventional power plants with the differentiator being the source of the heat. To save space and to

reach higher temperatures optical systems are used to focus sunlight from a large area to a smaller

receiving medium. Combining CSP plants with thermal storage systems allows them to generate

electricity even after sunset. Moreover, adding a combustion back-up system to generate heat makes

CSP plants potentially very reliable. (6)

3.2 Variations

3.2.1 Line focus

Parabolic trough and linear Fresnel reflectors are both systems that track the sun along one axis.

Fresnel reflectors consist of many flat mirrors that concentrate the light onto a tube through which the

receiving medium is pumped. Parabolic through systems use a parabolic reflector to focus light on a

tube and are the most developed technology. These line focusing technologies reach temperatures

between 290°C and 500°C and peak efficiencies ranging from 14% to 20%. (6, 14, 15)

3.2.2 Point focus

The reflectors in point focusing technologies track the sun along two axes. Solar power tower and dish

sterling systems use a point focus. A tower uses an array of reflectors to concentrate light onto the

receiving medium on top of the tower. A dish sterling system on the other hand contains a parabolic

reflector with a receiver placed in the focal point. Focal point technologies reach higher temperatures

in the range of 1000°C. Higher temperatures also lead to higher peak efficiencies between 23% and

31%. (6, 14, 15)

3.3 Outlook Technical improvements to achieve higher efficiencies and reduce costs are on the horizon. Developing

novel reflector optics, demonstrating large scale molten salts as heat transfer fluids for linear systems

and optimizing design choices for solar towers are all potential short-term improvements. Measures

such as introducing supercritical steam turbines to CSP plants or coupling them with PV technology via

spectrum splitting are also under investigation. (16)

9

3.4 Data Comparison

Figure 3-1 [Solar CSP] Capital cost comparison of literature values (10, 13, 16, 17), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

10

Figure 3-2 [Solar CSP] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (10, 13, 17, 18), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

The capital cost development depicted in Figure 3-1 highlights the regional diversity in MESSAGE. While

cost figures in Europe and North America are slightly decreasing there is an increase in capital costs in

the region of the former Soviet Union. By 2050 the cost values are aligned again, indicating a capital

cost harmonization over time. GCAM starts off with higher capital costs, which steadily decrease. This

development is in line with the literature trends. Figure 3-2 highlights the split in literature values,

which mainly results from the various storage options that lead to higher costs. Similar to the capital

cost development the FSU is increasing in costs until it reaches the other regions level. GCAM uses a

lower cost estimate, which remains lower than the MESSAGE assumptions over time. Factoring in the

expected lifetimes of 25 years in MESSAGE and 30 years in GCAM it becomes apparent that the cost

development is very similar in both models as can be seen in Figure 3-3. The major outlier is the Former

Soviet Union region with its lower starting costs.

11

Figure 3-3 [Solar CSP] Annualized cost comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

12

4 Wind Power

4.1 Technical Description Wind energy can be harvested through the use of wind turbines. The air flow turns the blades of the

wind turbine where the kinetic energy of the wind is converted to rotational energy in the rotor. The

rotational energy is used to spin a generator so that electricity is produced. The theoretical maximum

efficiency of these turbines is 59% (in relation to the total kinetic energy of the wind passing the

turbine). This efficiency does not include further impacts like rotor friction or transmission losses.

There are two main types of turbines, horizontal and vertical axis turbines. Horizontal axis designs

dominate the market due to the superior efficiency and energy output. Wind turbines are generally

placed on towers to take advantage of stronger and less turbulent wind. The power output from wind

turbines can range from several kilowatts to megawatts, the most cost effective method is to group

them in larger wind farms, which provide electricity to the central grid. (6, 19, 20)

4.2 Variations

4.2.1 Onshore

Onshore wind turbines are typically mounted on towers between 50m to 100m high with rotor

diameters in the same region. Wind speeds are generally slower onshore and not as constant.

Moreover, wind direction changes occur frequently onshore. Since the turbine needs to face into the

wind this results in fewer optimal hours of operation. The investment and maintenance cost are

comparatively lower due to better the accessibility of the turbines on land and the milder

environmental impacts. (20, 21)

4.2.2 Offshore

Offshore wind power is a more recent development of wind energy conversion. The wind conditions

on sea are more favorable than on land because of the faster and more reliant air flow. Hence, offshore

wind farms are often larger in scale with higher rated capacity than onshore wind farms. The

construction and maintenance however is much more expensive than for onshore facilities. Offshore

turbines must be fixed to the seabed, withstand stronger winds and storms and are constantly

subjected to the erosive environment of the sea. As a result costs can be more than twice as high

compared to onshore equivalents. (20, 21)

4.3 Outlook While wind turbines are a very mature technology there is continued development to increase

efficiencies and decrease costs. Especially for offshore wind turbines where maintenance costs are

much higher the use of sensors and data analysis is becoming more popular. Monitoring factors like

moisture absorption or stress levels can help to predict failures and carry out maintenance works in

advance. This can save costs due to decreased downtimes and potentially bundling maintenance tasks.

The major technical challenge is the integration to the power grids due to stability problems. Therefore

grid infrastructure improvements are generally required to effectively use wind energy. (20, 22)

13

4.4 Data Comparison Please note that there was only wind onshore data available for comparison.

Figure 4-1 [Wind Onshore] Capital cost comparison of literature values (13, 17), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

14

Figure 4-2 [Wind Onshore] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (13, 17), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

From Figure 4-1 it can be seen that both models and the literature assume a general decline in capital

cost over time. However, MESSAGE assumptions start off lower than GCAM or the literature values.

GCAM’s cost estimates are between 35% and 90% higher than those from MESSAGE. The situation is

very similar for the operation and maintenance costs where MESSAGE values are at times half of those

from GCAM and slightly lower than the literature ranges between 2030 and 2045. Comparing the

annualized costs in Figure 4-3 confirms these observations (expected lifetimes of both models is 30

years). The assumptions for Western Europe are more aligned with GCAM than North America and the

Former Soviet Union region.

15

Figure 4-3 [Wind Onshore] Annualized cost comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

16

5 Hydropower

5.1 Technical Description Hydropower plants harness energy from the natural water cycle by utilizing the water’s kinetic energy

to power a turbine. It is the most mature renewable energy technology to date and offers high

reliability, safety and is one of the most cost-effective power generation methods. Hydropower

produces around 16% of the global electricity output and makes up 80% of the global renewable

energy production. The capacity of hydropower plants can vary from several kW to hundreds of MW.

When compared to other renewable energy technologies hydropower yields a more constant power

output. Thus, it synergizes well with fluctuating power supplies from solar and wind. (23, 24)

5.2 Variations

5.2.1 Run-of-river

A run-of-river hydropower plant converts the available kinetic energy from the river flow to produce

electricity. They are further characterized by their lack of or very limited ability (hourly/daily) of storing

water and therefore energy. As a result, the power generation of run-of-river systems is highly

dependent on the flow rates of the river, making this option less reliable than other hydropower plants.

Thus, these systems are often built downriver of existing reservoirs to take advantage of the lower

construction costs while still retaining control over the power generation. (23, 24)

5.2.2 Reservoir

Hydropower plants are often associated with reservoirs, such as those behind dams. These reservoirs

have the capacity to store significant amounts of energy. This allows the decoupling of the power

generation from the highest water inflow periods, i.e. melting snow or heavy rain. This energy storage

makes reservoir hydropower plants one of the most flexible electricity suppliers and is ideal to facilitate

the integration of other variable renewable energy sources such as wind or solar. Another form of

hydropower plants that use reservoirs are pumped storage plants. Since these plants are technically

an energy storage option they are not listed here. (23, 24)

5.2.3 Tide

Tidal power generation uses the ocean’s water currents to power turbines. Tides are a result of the

gravitational attraction between the earth and the moon. Due to the constant orbit of the moon the

oceanic currents are also a constant energy source for tidal power plants. Energy conversion can be

either similar to wind turbines, i.e. using high current velocities to power the turbine, or similar to

pumped storage plants except that the process of elevating water uses natural sea level variations

instead of a pump. (25)

5.3 Outlook Even though hydropower is the most efficient power generation technology with turbine efficiency

above 90%, there is still some room for improvement. Developing technologies such as low kinetic flow

turbines for uses in canals, pipes or rivers is an example of such an improvement. It also shows that

the main restraint of hydropower plants is the limited land where plants can be built. So improving the

technologies that enable the use hydropower plants in locations that were thought to be inaccessible

will be a major focus. (23)

17

5.4 Data Comparison

Figure 5-1 [Hydro] Capital cost comparison of literature values (13, 24) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).

18

Figure 5-2 [Hydro] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (13, 24) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).

GCAM assumes an exogenous deployment trajectory for hydropower and could therefore not provide

cost data for it. Generally, it is assumed that hydropower is a mature technology, thus the development

for both capital and operation and maintenance cost is static. Differences in cost are mainly attributed

to geographical differences of new plants. The differences between the regions are the gently

increasing costs in Western Europe and the Former Soviet Union region, as compared to the static cost

development in North America.

19

Figure 5-3 [Hydro] Annualized cost comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

20

6 Nuclear Power

6.1 Technical Description Nuclear power plants are thermal power plants that generate electricity in a similar manner to

conventional combustion type plants. The principle is that a fuel is reacted to heat the coolant, which

in turn heats water to create steam, which powers a turbine to generate electricity. The distinction of

nuclear power lies in the initial heat generation. Instead of burning a fuel to produce the heat a process

called nuclear fission is used. In a greatly simplified manner nuclear fission can be described as the

splitting of larger atoms into smaller atoms. In the case of nuclear power plants, the fissile material

(uranium or plutonium) is bombarded with neutrons to induce splitting. During the splitting energy

and further neutrons are released. The release of more neutrons is essential to reach a chain reaction

event so that the reaction is self-sustained. As of 2015 around 11% of the global electricity generation

came from nuclear power plants. (26, 27)

6.2 Variations

6.2.1 Light Water Reactors

Light water reactors use ordinary water as a coolant and moderator. The moderator is needed to slow

down neutrons to thermal energy levels making fission of uranium-235 more likely. Light water

reactors require enriched uranium fuel (a higher share of U-235 isotopes compared to U-238) to

sustain a chain reaction. There are two main types of light water reactors using either pressurized

water (PWR) or boiling water (BWR). In PWR’s the water to cool and moderate the reactor is kept at

high pressures so that it remains in its liquid form at elevated temperatures of over 300°C. The high-

pressure water heats water in a secondary loop to form steam and power the turbine. BWR’s in

contrast use only one loop where the water from the coolant and moderator is also the steam source

for the turbine. BWR’s are simpler to construct but less efficient. (28, 29)

6.2.2 Heavy Water Reactors

Heavy water reactors use deuterium oxide instead of ordinary water as a coolant and moderator.

Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen that contains one more neutron. Heavy water, compared to light

water, absorbs fewer neutrons, which enables heavy water reactors to use non-enriched uranium as a

fuel. Therefore, there is a balance between the more expensive heavy water and the now much less

expensive fuel, since no enrichment facility is needed). The coolant is generally pressurized and a

steam generator is needed, similar to the design of PWR’s. (28)

6.2.3 Fast Breeder Reactors

A fast breeder reactor produces more new fuel than it consumes while operating. The reactor can

convert material that is generally fertile (not undergoing splitting) into fissile materials. This means for

example that the U-238 isotope in natural uranium can be converted to fissile plutonium. As a result,

the fuel economy of these reactors is much better that the conventional designs. To convert fertile

material to fissile material fast neutrons are required, therefore there is no need of a moderator and

the coolant should not be water since it slows neutrons down. Liquid metal is commonly used as a

coolant to overcome this. Due to higher operating temperatures the electricity production is more

efficient than that of conventional designs. (28)

21

6.3 Outlook Nuclear reactors can be categorized in terms of generations. The most common ones such as the light

and heavy water reactors are part of the second generation of nuclear reactors. Generation III are

mainly advanced versions of the second-generation reactor types. Current research focusses on

generation IV reactors with the aim of improving efficiency, safety, longevity and economic viability.

Fast breeder reactors are part of the fourth-generation research as well as very high temperature

reactors, a form of hybrid power plant where the heat will also be used to generate hydrogen. Other

reactor types of the fourth generation are the molten salt reactor (using a liquid fuel) and the super

critical water cooled reactor (operating above the critical point of water. (27, 28)

6.4 Data Comparison

Figure 6-1 [Nuclear] Capital cost comparison of literature values (13, 17), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

22

Figure 6-2 [Nuclear] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (13, 17), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

Figure 6-1 illustrates differences among the regions in MESSAGE. Both, NAM and FSU only contain

cost figures after 2020. The capital cost assumptions from GCAM are up to 90% higher than those

from MESSAGE, which are generally lower than the literature values as well. Both models assume

decreasing costs over time, though MESSAGE values decrease at a faster rate. However, in Figure

6-2the situation is reversed. The operation and maintenance values from MESSAGE assumptions are

up to 90% higher than those from GCAM. GCAM’s higher capital cost, lower operation and

maintenance cost and equal lifetimes of 60 years compared to MESSAGE result in GCAM sitting in-

between the regional MESSAGE assumptions when it comes to the annualized cost. This can be seen

in Figure 6-3. MESSAGE’s Western Europe starts off 33% higher than GCAM, however, by 2050 all

model assumptions lie within a 10% range.

23

Figure 6-3 [Nuclear] Annualized cost comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

24

7 Coal-Fueled Power Plants

7.1 Technical Description A coal fueled power plant converts heat energy into electrical energy, by turning water into steam,

which in turn drives turbine generators to produce electricity. First, flue gas is produced through the

combustion of pulverized coal. The thermal power of the flue gas is then used to turn water, pumped

through pipes inside a boiler, into steam. The pressure of the steam drives a steam turbine, that in turn

is connected to a generator that produces electricity. Conventional steam power plants operate at a

steam pressure in the range of 170 bar. These are subcritical power plants, which reach efficiencies up

to 38%. Both, lignite and hard coal are used as fuel. Hard coal power plants and lignite-fired power

plants have nearly identical plant facilities. While lignite-fired power plants are operated in base load,

hard coal power plants operate in the medium-load range. The pulverized coal type of boiler dominates

the electric power industry, producing about 50% of the world’s electricity supply (30, 31).

7.2 Variations

7.2.1 Lignite-and hard coal fired power plants

Lignite has a lesser burning capacity compared with hard coal as well as a greater water- and ash

content. Therefore, some lignite-fired power plant facilities are usually of larger dimensions. They can

achieve an efficiency factor up to 42%. Modern hard coal power plants achieve electrical efficiencies

of approx. 46% and advanced high-temperature power plants can even reach 50% (30, 31).

7.2.2 High-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) coal-fired electricity generation

The term high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) comprises all plants within the coal-fired electricity

generation, which can reach a higher conversion efficiency and lower CO2 emissions intensity than

conventional subcritical coal-fired power plants through the usage of advanced technologies. These

technologies include super critical pulverized coal combustion, ultra-supercritical pulverized coal

combustion and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) (32).

7.2.2.1 Super-critical, ultra-supercritical and advanced ultra-supercritical power plants

The difference between subcritical and supercritical versions of thermal power generation by coal is

associated with the steam pressure within the boiler. Higher steam pressure and temperature increase

the efficiency of the thermal cycle. In those conditions, steam is generated at a pressure above the

critical point of water, so no water-steam separation is required. Coal-fired plants with supercritical

technologies require less coal per MWh resulting in less greenhouse gas release, which leads to a

higher efficiency advantage in general (30).

Supercritical steam generators operate at pressures in the range of 220 to 275 bar and temperatures

of up to 600°C. They typically reach efficiencies of up to 42% (32). Ultra-super-critical power plants are

designed to operate at even higher temperature and pressure, which is made possible by the

development of materials with higher performance capabilities. Operating steam cycle conditions

above 539/621°C and at pressures of about 285 bar are referred to as ultra-supercritical. The

conversion efficiency of those power-plants amounts to 45%(33). Advanced ultra-supercritical coal

generation is under development and is expected to convert over 50% of the gross energy of coal to

electricity (33).

25

7.2.2.2 IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) power plants

In IGCC power plants, coal is conversed into pressurized gas, also called synthesis gas, using a high-

pressure gasifier. Under high temperature, coal is gasified with oxygen to generate synthesis gas, which

primarily consists of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and CO2. Other components are fuel-related

pollutants that are removed within a gas purification system. After purification, the synthesis gas is

utilized for electricity generation within a combined cycle natural gas turbine (also see 3.2.1). By

adding the higher-temperature steam produced by the gasification process the IGCC plant improves

the overall process efficiency. Moreover, an additional CO2-separation process can be integrated.

Through the water-gas shift reaction, carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by converting it to

carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The resulting CO2 from the shift reaction can be separated, compressed,

and stored through sequestration (30).

7.2.3 Desulphurization/DeNOx-Option

The flue gas generated in the combustion of coal contains other atmospheric pollutants like NOx

(oxides of nitrogen) and SOx (oxides of sulfur) in a concentration of about 15%. The terms

desulphurization and deNOx comprise a set of technologies used to remove those pollutants from

exhaust flue gases (30).

7.2.4 CHP (Combined Heat and Power)-Option

Cogeneration or combined heat and power (CHP) refers to the simultaneous generation of electricity

and heating from the combustion processes. Power plants using combined heat and power systems

recover the surplus heat produced from the electricity generation via heat exchangers. The regained

thermal energy can be used either on-site, be fed into a heat-storage device or into the district heating

network. CHP can therefor deliver savings in fuel consumption, fuel costs and carbon emissions. Power

generation plants with integrated CHP profit from a significantly increased annual efficiency and fuel

utilization rate (30).

7.2.5 CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage)-Option

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies provide an opportunity for climate mitigation. Coal-

fired electricity generation with an attached CCS technology can be a possible measure to reduce

carbon emissions. In general, the CCS process can be divided into three stages: carbon dioxide capture,

transport and storage. To capture the CO2 from flue gas from coal-fired power plants there exist

several different industrial methods, which are explained below (30).

7.2.5.1 Post-combustion

In the post-combustion process, CO2 is removed through a chemical method from the flue gas

subsequently after flue gas purification (which includes desulphurization, denitrification and dust

extraction). Hereby CO2 is chemically bound to organic or anorganic liquid absorbents.

7.2.5.2 Pre-combustion

Coal gasification in coal-fired power plants can be combined with CO2 removal. The synthesis gas

generated in the gasification process contains CO2 and carbon monoxide (CO). In a carbon monoxide

shift reaction, CO is conversed to CO2 and hydrogen. Separation of CO2 is achieved by physical gas

washing procedure.

7.2.5.3 Oxyfuel

If the power plant burns coal with pure oxygen, the resulting flue gas consists only of water vapor and

high concentrated CO2 (about 80%). The separation takes place through the condensation of water

26

vapor from the flue gas. After compression, the largely pure CO2 can be transferred to the storage

location. The pure oxygen required for the combustion process can be produced in cryogenic air

separation units or membrane separation systems. Currently this process is highly energy consuming

which limits the broad application of the Oxyfuel technology. A potentially more efficient alternative

being explored to improve of Oxyfuel installations, is to use innovations in ceramic membranes for

oxygen separation at elevated temperatures. This method could lead to a 15% reduction in capital cost

(30) (34). R&D on the Oxyfuel process is carried out inter alia within the COORETEC research initiative

in the joint project ADECOS (Advanced Development of the coal fired Oxyfuel Process with CO2

Separation).

7.3 Outlook Although legitimate concerns about air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are in public discourse,

coal remains an important energy source for power generation. The share of coal-fired power plants

in the global power production currently accounts for 40% (35).

For a carbon-constrained future, the usage of fossil fuel has to decrease and coal-fired power

generation would need to phase-out. The UN Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Agreement

renew pressures to take action towards a low-carbon transition. According to the OECD energy outlook

2017 (36), coal demand in Europe, USA and China has slightly decreased over the last two years and

the trend is expected to last. However, in many emerging economies, coal capacity is on the rise to

meet rapidly increasing energy demand. The future development of coal usage varies strongly by

region and is influenced by several factors, such as expected growth of demand and domestic access

to resources.

In the context of a sustainable energy future, the transition to higher efficiency power generation

through the implementation of HELE technologies is indispensable. 50% of constructed coal-fired

power plants in 2011 used HELE technologies (33). Still, according to IEA, about 30% of new installed

coal capacity in the years 2015 and 2016 accounted for subcritical technology (37). Concentrated

efforts to deploy and further develop HELE technology could essentially lower emissions from new

built or retrofitted coal-fired power plants. But at the same time the generation from older, less

efficient technology must gradually be phased out.

The development statues differ for the various HELE technologies - supercritical plants are mature

technology, ultra-supercritical plants are in deployment phase and ultra-supercritical plants are still in

development phase. IGCC units with efficiencies of about 45% are in deployment phase and until 2020

an efficiency factor of 50% is regarded as achievable. Advanced, higher firing temperature gas turbines

are still in the development phase (33).

To further decarbonize coal power generation and reach the global climate targets, the wide

implementation of CCS technologies will be essential. CCS received a lot of interest over the last 20

years but made limited progress to demonstrate commercial viability. One of the challenges is the

enormously energy intensive nature of common CCS technologies. CCS reduces a power plant’s

electricity output or increases its fuel input. This results in reduced efficiencies by up to 14%. To scale-

up new HELE and CCS technologies, effective funding and support mechanisms need to be provided as

well as mandatory policies have to be in place (33).

27

7.4 Data Comparison The following section gives an overview on the data comparison of the coal power generation

technologies IGCC, supercritical and subcritical power plants. For IGCC and supercritical technology the

first figures show the values for the option with included CCS technology.

7.4.1 IGCC with and without CCS

7.4.1.1 Capital Cost

As the figures above show, capital cost values taken from available literature for IGCC with CCS (Figure

7-1) and without CCS (Figure 7-2) spread widely. At the same time, there is a large gap between the

capital cost values used by MESSAGE and GCAM. The GCAM model assumes much higher capital cost

for IGCC with and without CCS, but the values coincide with the upper range of the literature data. The

model also assumes a linear capital cost reduction over time. In contrast, the values assumed by

MESSAGE are relatively low and beyond the capital cost range derived from the reviewed literature.

MESSAGE assumes the highest cost reduction for IGCC with or without CCS for the North American

regions until 2030 while the curves for the other two regions remain stable. CCS technologies in the

MESSAGE model are not included until 2020. The difference between the both models may result from

different assumptions in asset lifetime. In GCAM the lifetime for IGCC with or without CCS accounts for

60 years, while it is 30 years in MESSAGE.

Figure 7-1 [IGCC with CCS]Capital cost comparison of literature values (38, 39, 39–42), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

28

Figure 7-2 Capital cost comparison of literature values (38, 39, 41–43), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM for IGCC without CCS.

7.4.1.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost

The O&M costs for the IGCC technology options with and without CCS fit well with the value range

derived from literature. In both cases, the assumptions made by GCAM are around half as much as

those made by MESSAGE.

29

Figure 7-3 Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (38, 41) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) for IGCC with CCS.

30

Figure 7-4 [IGCC without CCS] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (38, 41) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) for IGCC without CCS.

7.4.1.3 Efficiency

In contrast to GCAM, the MESSAGE model doesn’t include a change rate over the years. For IGCC

with CCS he efficiency value from MESSAGE is 10% below the literature range while the mean value

of GCAM fits well into the defined range. Still, it shares approximately the same start value as

MESSAGE for 2010. This is also true for the figure of IGCC without CCS. Here, the values for both

models are consistent with the reviewed literature.

31

Figure 7-5 [IGCC with CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (41, 42) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union)

32

Figure 7-6 [IGCC without CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (39, 42, 44) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).

7.4.2 Supercritical power plants with and without CCS


The reviewed literature data for supercritical technology also show a broad spectrum of the projected

development of capital costs. Supercritical technology can generally have very different properties

which results in the cost variations. Both models lie within this range but on the opposite sides of the

spectrum. MESSAGE does not include supercritical technology until 2020 and capital costs are more

than a half lower than the costs assumed by the GCAM model. Both models have also differences in

their technology lifetime assumptions. Here, same applies as for IGCC - the lifetime of supercritical

technology within the GCAM model is 60 years, while it is 30 years within MESSAGE.

33

Figure 7-7 [Supercritical power plants with CCS]Capital cost comparison of literature values (38, 39, 41–43), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).

34

Figure 7-8 [Supercritical power plants without CCS] Capital cost comparison of literature values (38, 39, 41–44), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).


There is also an obvious gab in operation and maintenance costs between GCAM and MESSAGE. Here

the effect is reverse compared to the capital cost, and GCAM calculates with lower values than

MESSAGE. For supercritical installations with CCS GCAM fits well into the ranged derived from the

reviewed literature. MESSAGE assumes values on the upper range for the FSU region for the year 2020

and even higher costs for the NAM and WEU regions. By 2050 all cost curves meet the range of

literature values. With regard to supercritical technology without CCS, the literature sources showed

two different ranges. While the GCAM cost curve falls into the lower range, the MESSAGE values fall

into the upper one.

35

Figure 7-9 [Supercritical power plants with CCS] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (38, 41) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) for supercritical technology with CCS.

36

Figure 7-10 [Supercritical power plants without CCS] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (38, 39, 41, 44) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) for supercritical technology without CCS.

37

7.4.2.3 Efficiency

The literature sources on efficiency of supercritical technology with combined CCS were limited.

According to IEA Efficiency might improve to 41 to 46%. MESSAGE assumes a constant value of 35%.

GCAM starts with a value of 32% for 2010 and assumes a linear increase in efficiency over the following

decades to reach a value of 0,56 by 2050. Energy efficiency of power plants with carbon capture and

storage diminish significantly. More literature data is available on supercritical technology without CCS.

As shown in Figure 7-12, MESSAGE and GCAM values are within the literature range. Here, MESSAGE

uses a constant value of 37% while GCAM assumes an efficiency of 41% in 2010 and ascends to 55% in

2050.

Figure 7-11 [Supercritical power plants with CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (41, 42) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).

38

Figure 7-12 [Supercritical power plants without CCS]Efficiency comparison of literature values (39, 41, 42, 44) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).

7.4.3 Subcritical power plants


Subcritical coal power plants are expected to be phased out in future decades. Projections until 2050

studies carried out by DIW (39) and EWI (41) suggest capital costs from about 1600 to 1700 USD/kW.

GCAM capital cost assumption are about 40% higher and peak at year 2020. In contrast, MESSAGE

shows much lower costs. The MESSAGE model furthermore makes a distinction between subcritical

coal power plants with or without the DeNOX/Desulphurisation. Summarized over all regions and both

options the MESSAGE capital costs range from 900 to 1400 USD/kW for 2010 and slightly ascend to a

range of 900 to 2500 USD/kW by 2050. Here it should be also taken into account, that both models

make different assumptions on the lifetime of the regarded technology. GCAM calculates with a

lifetime of 60 years, whereas MESSAGE assumes 30 years.

39

Figure 7-13 [Subcritical power plants] Capital cost comparison of literature values (39, 42), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.


GCAM assumptions on operation and maintenance costs of subcritical coal power plants fit perfectly

with the values proposed by Black and Veatch (38). The operation and maintenance costs from

MESSAGE are more than twice as high.

40

Figure 7-14 [Subcritical power plants] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (38, 41) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).

7.4.3.3 Efficiency

GCAM assumes an efficiency rate for subcritical power plants of 40% for 2010. MESSAGE takes the

same value for installations in the west European region. While this value is remained constant until

2050, GCAM foresees efficiency improvements up to 45%. Values for the north American region used

by MESSAGE are just slightly below 40%. Efficiency rates assumed for the FSU region are even 10%

lower for 2010 but show a linear increase over the decades to reach the 40% mark by 2040.

41

Figure 7-15 [Subcritical power plants] Efficiency comparison of literature values(41, 42) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) for IGCC with CCS.

8 Gas Combustion

8.1 Technical Description Gas turbine engines derive their power from burning fuel in a combustion chamber and using the fast-

flowing combustion gases to drive a turbine in much the same way as the high-pressure steam drives

a steam turbine. First, to generate compressed air, the compressor driven by an electric motor or

internal-combustion engine, inducts air and compresses and transfers under high pressure into a

combustion chamber. There the air is mixed with injected fuel and ignited by gas burners. Flue gases,

that emerges during the combustion process, contribute to an increase of pressure in the combustion

chamber. They can reach a temperature of about 1500°C. The turbine is coupled with an electric

generator that converts kinetic energy into electricity. After leaving the turbine, flue gases still have a

temperature of 450 to 600°C. In a downstream heat recovery boiler, steam can be produced and

utilized as propulsion medium for steam turbines (see combined cycle gas turbine). Typical efficiencies

of gas turbines with a power output over 50 MW are about 38% (30)

42

8.2 Variations

8.2.1 Gas steam power

The most basic natural gas-fired electric generation consists of a steam generation unit, where fuels

are burned in a boiler to heat water and produce steam that then turns a turbine to generate

electricity. Natural gas may be used for this process. Typically, only 33 to 35% of the thermal energy

used to generate the steam is converted into electrical energy in these types of plants (30).

8.2.2 Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)

When a natural gas-fired turbine is combined with heat recovery steam generators to produce steam,

significant improvements can be realized in both efficiency and electrical output. This configuration is

referred to as combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT). Usually about two-thirds of the total power is

produced from the gas turbines and one-third from the steam cycle. The gas turbine generates

electricity directly and the system harnesses waste heat to create steam, which powers a steam

turbine. Because of this efficient use of the heat energy released from the natural gas, combined-cycle

plants are much more efficient, than gas turbines alone. Combined cycle plants can achieve thermal

efficiencies of up to 50 to 60% (30, 45).

8.3 Outlook Currently natural gas has a share of 25% of electricity generation (46). Natural gas is a lower-carbon

alternative to gas-fired power generation and is under discussion as a bridging technology to provide

short-term support for the integration of renewables. But at the same time gas is also increasingly

competing with renewable power generation technologies (46). Gas turbine power generation is

primarily used for peak-load demands, as it is possible to quickly and easily turn them on. These plants

have increased popularity due to advances in technology and the availability of natural gas (30).

Performance and efficiency of gas turbines were increased successively over the last two decades. CCG

power generation plants operate with an efficiency of about 60%. The aim is to reach an efficiency

factor of up to 65% within the next decade (47). CCG is projected to become the cheapest fossil-fuel

baseload technology. Higher efficiencies are likely to be reached through usage of new materials and

innovative coatings for the high-temperature components of the gas turbine to further increase

turbine inlet temperatures. Just like in coal-fired power plants CCS (see chapter 8.2.5) can be included

in the technology outline to reach further emission cuts (30).

8.4 Data Comparison The following section gives an overview on the data comparison of the power generation from gas

combustion. The selected technologies are GCC with and without CCS, gas steam power plant and gas

turbine power plant. The latter two are pictured in one chapter as no differentiation for the reviewed

values was made by GCAM.

8.4.1 Gas combined cycle power plant with and without CCS


According to the literature review, the projected capital cost values for combined cycle with CCS vary

widely. The GCAM values fall within the determined range. Capital cost values provided by MESSAGE

in comparison are only half as large and are slightly beyond the lower range of the literature spectrum.

For combined cycle technology without CCS the literature values overlap and capital costs range from

900 to 1250 USD/kW. Here, GCAM and MESSAGE do not meet with this range and assume lower capital

43

costs. Still the assumptions made by GCAM are about twice as high as those made by MESSAGE.

Furthermore, GCAM foresees a peak in capital costs by 2020. Lifetime used by GCAM for these

technologies is 45 years, while MESSAGE calculates with 30 years.

Figure 8-1 [Gas combined cycle with CCS] Capital cost comparison of literature values (39, 42), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).

44

Figure 8-2 [Gas combined cycle without CCS] Capital cost comparison of literature values (39, 42), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM for combined cycle technology without CCS.


Operation and maintenance costs for combined cycle with or without CCS from GCAM and MESSAGE

are consistent with the range derived from the literature review. In both cases the assumptions

made by MESSAGE are higher than those made by GCAM.

45

Figure 8-3 [Gas combined cycle with CCS] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (39, 42), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

46

Figure 8-4 [Gas combined cycle without CCS] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (39, 42), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).

8.4.1.3 Efficiency

The efficiency rate used by MESSAGE for combined cycle technology with CCS is in line with the

reviewed literature source. GCAM assumes a linear improvement of the efficiency rate, but still has

about the same starting point in 2010. The literature search for combined cycle technology without

CCS resulted in a relatively broad range of values. The input values on efficiency of both models fall

into this range. The efficiency rate from GCAM and for the WEU region from MESSAGE increase slightly

over time.

47

Figure 8-5 [Gas combined cycle with CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (41) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).

48

Figure 8-6 [Gas combined cycle without CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (39, 41, 42, 44) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) for combined cycle technology without CCS

8.4.2 Gas steam power plant and gas turbine power plant (without CCS)


GCAM made no distinction between gas steam power and gas turbine power generation. The capital

costs provided is an average of values of both technologies. The literature review has also been

combined in one figure. As shown in Figure 8-7, the GCAM data points and the values from MESSAGE

for steam turbine power plants are on both sides of the determined range. Capital costs assumptions

for gas turbine power plants are almost a half as high as the assumptions for gas steam power

generation plants. The lifetime used for calculation is the same as for combined cycle plants for both

models.

49

Figure 8-7 [Gas steam and gas turbine power generation] Capital cost comparison of literature values (39, 42), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM for steam power and turbine power generation.


For the operation and maintenance costs there is a reverse effect and GCAM makes much lower

assumptions than MESSAGE. There is no difference in costs between gas steam power or turbine

power generation. All values are in range within the reviewed literature data.

50

Figure 8-8 [Gas steam and gas turbine power generation] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (39, 42), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM for steam power and turbine power generation.

9 Biomass

9.1 Technical Description Biomass is defined as carbonaceous materials derived from organic naturally grown substances. It can

be divided into (1) primary products, like plants, plant residues, agricultural or forestry products and

(2) secondary products as animal waste or municipal sludge. The energy uses of biomass cover biomass

combustion and conversion of biomass to biofuel. Agriculture and forestry residues, and in particular

residues from timber and paper mills, are the most common biomass resources used for generating

electricity. Since biomass raw material absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere during plant growth,

biomass combustion is considered as CO2 neutral. Biomass can be converted into other energy carriers

through thermo-chemical, thermo-physical or bio-chemical processes. The composition of biomass, as

the water, oxygen or ash content, has an influence on the heating value that is a crucial factor for the

energy that can be provided. Most of today's biomass power plants are direct-fired systems. For power

generation biomass is burned in direct or co-fired systems for generating steam. In addition to

combustion, biomass can be converted to biofuels (30).

51

9.2 Variations

9.2.1 Biomass steam power plant

Direct biomass power plants use the heat generated during the combustion process is used to fire a

boiler. The resulting is driving steam turbines to produce electricity. The properties and composition

of the specific biomass materials used for power generation are essential. Some biomass requires

preceding pre-treatment. The biomass combustion process is divided in three stages – heating and

drying, pyrolysis, gasification and oxidation. The different stages take place in different temperature

ranges. Heating and drying is aimed at the expulsion of water from the biomass feedstock. The water

content of the utilized biomass drives this process. In the following pyrolysis the thermal

decomposition under the absence of air sets in. Here, the long-chain hydro-carbs are broken down.

During the gasification process, synthesis gas is created at high temperatures. Through combustion of

the synthesis gas in the oxidation process the heat for driving the boiler is generated (30, 48).

9.2.2 Biomass IGCC power plant

Biomass IGCC has the same technological approach as the pulverized coal IGCC technology (see 2.2.2).

However, because of the specific properties of the biomass feedstock several technological

adjustments are required. At best, BIGCC technology is combined with subsequent CCS technology to

reach net negative emissions. Currently there are some demonstration BIGCC projects ongoing but

large scale power generation through biomass gasification needs further technological innovations and

planning for biomass supply (49).

9.2.3 Co-firing

Co-firing is the practice of firing biomass fuels as a supplement to fossil fuels as in a conventional power

generation plants. Whereby co-firing does not contribute additional capacity, but instead displaces the

fossil fuel by unit. In pulverized coal power plants, biomass is either blended with coal on the conveyor

belt feeding the coal bunkers (only applicable for biomass from wood), or separately injected into the

furnace (30). Co-firing of 5%-10% biomass of the total load usually requires minor changes in the

handling equipment. A biomass share of over 10% would lead to changes in mills, burners and dryers

(50). Co-firing is mature technology and widely applied in modern coal-fired power plants.

9.3 Outlook Bioenergy in general has the largest among renewable energy sources. However, the cultivation of

biomass can entail land use change, if the area affected was not or otherwise used beforehand. Land-

use changes can have an impact on the lifecycle assessment of biomass-derived products.

Furthermore, it should be taken into account that cultivation and processing require energy input that

are not necessarily considered CO2-neutral. Because of the varieties in sources of biomass and

different handling processes and pre-treatment requirements, the costs of biomass generated power

can fluctuate significantly (30). Co-firing and direct biomass power plants are already widely deployed,

other promising technologies as BIGCC are not commercialized. Competitiveness of advanced

technologies will mostly depend on future regulations and prices of CO2 emissions(49).

9.4 Data Comparison The following section gives an overview on the data comparison of the power generation technologies

biomass steam power and biomass IGCC (with and without CCS).

52

9.4.1 Biomass IGCC and biomass steam power plants


Figure 9-2 shows the capital cost values used by MESSAGE and GCAM for biomass IGCC technology

with and without CCS. GCAM makes significantly higher assumptions on capital cost values than

MESSAGE for both options. Capital costs for biomass IGCC with CCS drop around 25% from 2010 to

2050. Biomass IGCC technology without CCS has about 40% lower capital costs according to GCAM.

MESSAGE does not include biomass IGCC power plants with CCS until 2030. Biomass IGCC capital costs

with or without CCS are about one third of the corresponding values used by GCAM.

In Figure 9-3 the capital cost input values are compared for steam power generation technologies.

GCAM and MESSAGE assumptions are on opposite sides of the spectrum for capital costs derived from

literature. However, for all technology options MESSAGE assumes a lifetime of 25 years, whereas it is

60 years for GCAM.

Figure 9-1 [Biomass IGCC with and without CCS]Capital cost comparison of, the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union).

53

Figure 9-2 [Biomass steam power]Capital cost comparison of literature values (38, 39, 41), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM..


Figure 9-4 shows the comparison of operation and maintenance costs for biomass IGCC with CCS. The

costs from GCAM show a linear decrease of about 25%. MESSAGE does not include CCS technology

until 2030. O&M costs for the North American region are the highest. Still on average, the MESSAGE

assumptions GCAM values are about 25% lower for 2030 and 2050.

For biomass IGCC power plant without CCS and biomass steam power plant without CCS GCAM and

MESSAGE use the same values for operation and maintenance costs. Therefore, Figure 9-5 summarizes

the results for both technologies in one image. Literature data ranges widely from 50 USD/kW to 350

USD/kW.

54

Figure 9-3 [Biomass IGCC with CCS]Operation and maintenance cost comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM. No literature values available.

55

Figure 9-4 [Biomass IGCC and biomass steam power without CCS] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (38, 39, 41, 44) (38, 39, 39–42), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM..

9.4.1.3 Efficiency

MESSAGE uses continuous efficiency rates over time. For IGCC with CCS (Figure 9-5) and biomass

steam generation (Figure 9-6) the efficiency rate is 30%, for biomass IGCC without CCS (Figure 9-7) it

is 37%. For all technologies, GCAM assumes an increase of efficiency. As shown in Figure 9-5, the

efficiency of IGCC with CCS starts at 23% in 2010 and rises up to 38% in 2050. On average, this would

be an efficiency rate of 31%, which corresponds to the MESSAGE assumption. For IGCC without CCS,

GCAM assumes marginal lower efficiency rates. Starting at 29% in 2010, the efficiency increases to

the same value as MESSAGE in 2050. For biomass steam power generation GCAM foresees an

increase in efficiency, diverging from MESSAGE by 7% in year 2050.

56

Figure 9-5 [Biomass IGCC with CCS] Efficiency comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM. Literature values not available.

57

Figure 9-6 [Biomass IGCC without CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (44), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM for biomass IGCC without CCS.

58

Figure 9-7 [Biomass steam power without CCS] Efficiency comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.Literature values not available.

10 Ranking of annualized costs for different technologies. Usually IAMs determine the least-cost technology mix needed to meet the final energy demand. It

makes sense to compare the annualized costs of all technologies combined within in a model, as an

indicator to see which technologies the models might prioritize. Figure 10-1 shows the annualized costs

for different technologies within GCAM. The most costly technologies are coal-supercritical with CCS

and biomass IGCC with CCS. On the lower end are gas fueled power generation technologies as GCC

with and without CCS, but also wind power generation and solar PV. Figure 10-2 demonstrates the

results for MESSAGE. By far most expensive technology is also coal supercritical with CCS, followed by

nuclear energy generation. The cheapest technology is gas steam power generation and GCC without

CCS. As for renewable power generation, wind is the cheapest option and solar PV annualized costs

drop by 2050 to about the same level. The calculated annualized costs vary significantly between the

both models. Due to the high interest rates and the generally higher O&M costs the values for GCAM

are much higher. Nevertheless the ranking of technologies is very similar to the ranking within

MESSAGE. The comparison of the ranking of technologies for MESSAGE and for GCAM is outlined in

table 10-1.

59

Figure 10-1 Annaulized costs of the selected technologies from 2010-2050 as projected by GCAM

Figure 10-2 Annaulized costs of different technologies from 2010-2050 as projected by MESSAGE

60

Table 10-1 Comparison of the ranking of the annualized costs of different technologies between GCAM and MESSAGE

GCAM Ranking 2050 MESSAGE

Technology lowest first Technology

Gas Steam 1 1 Gas Turbine

Gas Turbine 1 2 GCC

GCC 1 3 Gas Steam

PV 4 4 Wind

GCC w/CCS 5 5 PV

Wind 6 6 GCC w/CCS

Coal Subcritical 7 7 Coal Subcritical

Coal IGCC 8 8 Coal IGCC

CSP 9 9 Biomass Steam

Biomass Steam 10 10 Biomass IGCC

Biomass IGCC 10 11 Coal IGCC w/CCS

Nuclear 12 12 CSP

13 Hydro

Coal IGCC w/CCS 13 14 Biomass IGCC w/CCS

Biomass IGCC w/CCS 14 15 Nuclear

Coal Super Critical w/CCS 15 16 Coal Super Critical w/CCS

The comparison of the annualized costs shows, that both models have a very similar prioritization

when it comes to the selected power generation technologies for this report. The similar relation of

technologies of both models. Still, it should be noted that this comparison is based on a very simple

analysis of the input parameters only. IAMs include a higher technological detail within the calculation

and there is high number of variations in technological options that is added in the model runs. Also,

the comparison above does not take into account fuel prices, which would also have a high impact on

the overall results:

61

11 Literature Cited 1. IIASA. The MESSAGEix framework [cited 2018 Jun 21]. Available from: URL:

https://messageix.iiasa.ac.at/index.html.

2. JGCRI. GCAM v4.4 Documentation: Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM) [cited 2018 Jun 21].

Available from: URL: http://jgcri.github.io/gcam-doc/.

3. International Energy Agency - IEA. Technology Roadmap Solar Photovoltaic Energy; 2010.

4. Phillips S, Warmuth W. Photovoltaics Report 2016: Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy; 2016.

5. Statista. Market share of global solar photovoltaics from 2011 to 2015, by technology; 2017 [cited

2017 Jun 22].

6. Wietschel M, Arens M, Doetsch C, Herkel S, Krewitt W, Markewitz P et al. Energietechnologien

2050: Fraunhofer Verlag; 2010.

7. Cheng P, Zhan X. Stability of organic solar cells: Challenges and strategies. Chemical Society

reviews 2016; 45(9):2544–82.

8. Hoppe H, Sariciftci NS. Organic solar cells: An overview. Journal of Materials Research 2004;

19(7):1924–45.

9. Conibeer G. Third-generation photovoltaics. Materials Today 2007; 10(11):42–50.

10. Schröder A, Kunz F, Meiss M, Mendelevitch R, von Hirschhausen C. Current and Prospective Costs

of Electricity Generation until 2050: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung; 2013.

11. National Renewable Energy Laboratory - NREL. Photovoltaic System Pricing Trends: Historical,

Recent, and Near-Term Projections (Presentation): U.S. Department of Energy; 2014.

12. Mayer J. Current and Future Cost of Photovoltaics: Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy; 2015.

13. Joint Research Centre. ETRI - Energy Technology Reference Indicator projections for 2010-2050:

European Commission; 2014.

14. Liu M, Steven Tay NH, Bell S, Belusko M, Jacob R, Will G et al. Review on concentrating solar

power plants and new developments in high temperature thermal energy storage technologies.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016; 53:1411–32.

15. Lovegrove K, Stein W. Concentrating solar power technology: Principles, developments and

applications: Elsevier; 2012.

16. International Energy Agency - IEA. Technology Roadmap Solar Thermal Electricity 2014.

17. European Climate Foundation - ECF. Roadmap 2050: a practical guide to a prosperous, low-

carbon Europe; 2010.

18. International Renewable Energy Agency - IRENA. Renewable Energy Technologies Cost Analysis

Series: Concentrating Solar Power; 2012.

19. Department of Energy. Wind Turbines [cited 2017]. Available from: URL:

https://energy.gov/eere/wind/how-do-wind-turbines-work.

20. Kumar Y, Ringenberg J, Depuru SS, Devabhaktuni VK, Lee JW, Nikolaidis E et al. Wind energy:

Trends and enabling technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016; 53:209–24.

62

21. Bilgili M, Yasar A, Simsek E. Offshore wind power development in Europe and its comparison with

onshore counterpart. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011; 15(2):905–15.

22. Ibrahim H, Ghandour M, Dimitrova M, Ilinca A, Perron J. Integration of Wind Energy into

Electricity Systems: Technical Challenges and Actual Solutions. Energy Procedia 2011; 6:815–24.

23. International Energy Agency - IEA. Technology Roadmap Hydropower 2012.

24. International Renewable Energy Agency - IRENA. Renewable Energy Cost Analysis: Hydropower

2012.

25. Daborn G. Overview of Tidal Energy: Acadia Tidal Energy Institute [cited 2017 Jul 10].

26. International Energy Agency - IEA. Electricity Information: Overview 2017.

27. Giraldo J, Gotham D, Nderitu D, Preckel P, Mize D. Fundamentals of Nuclear Power: Purdue

University; 2012.

28. Linga Murty K, Charit I. An Introduction to Nuclear Materials, Fundamentals and Applications.

Wiley-VCH Verlag 2013.

29. HyperPhysics. Nuclear Energy [cited 2017 Jul 31]. Available from: URL: http://hyperphysics.phy-

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/nengcn.html#c1.

30. Hirzel S, editor. Energiekompendium: Ein Nachschlagewerk für Grundbegriffe, Konzepte und

Technologien : mit 323 Abbildungen und 107 Tabellen. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer-Verlag; 2017.

31. Wietschel M, editor. Energietechnologien 2050; Schwerpunkte für Forschung und Entwicklung.

Karlsruhe: Frauenhofer-Verl.; 2010. (ISI-Schriftenreihe Innovationspotenziale).

32. Ecofys. The incompatibility of high-efficient coal technology with 2°C scenarios; 2016. Available

from: URL: https://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2016-incompatibility-of-hele-coal-w-2c-

scenarios.pdf.

33. International Energy Agency - IEA. Technology Roadmap: High-Efficiency, Low-Emissions Coal-

Fired Power Generation; 2012. Available from: URL:

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/technology-roadmap-high-efficiency-

low-emissions-coal-fired-power-generation.html.

34. Cabral RP, Mac Dowell N. A novel methodological approach for achieving £/MWh cost reduction

of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) processes. Applied Energy 2017; 205:529–39.

35. OCDE O. Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2016: OECD Publishing; 2016.

36. Publishing O. World Energy Outlook 2017 -. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017.

37. International Energy Agency. Energy technology perspectives. Paris: OECD/IEA; 2017.

38. Black & Veatch (B&V). Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies; 2012.

Available from: URL: http://bv.com/docs/reports-studies/nrel-cost-report.pdf.

39. Schröder A, Kunz F, Meiss M, Mendelevitch R, Hirschhausen C von. Current and Prospective Costs

of Electricity Generation until 2050: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW); 2013.

40. Wietschel M, Arens M, Doetsch C, Herkel S, Krewitt W, Markewitz P et al. Energietechnologien

2050: Fraunhofer Verlag; 2010.

63

41. EWI-Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universität zu Köln. Energieszenarien für ein

Energiekonzept der Bundesregierung: EWI, Prognos, GWS; 2010. Available from: URL:

http://www.ewi.uni-

koeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/Studien/Politik_und_Gesellschaft/2010/EWI_2010-

08-30_Energieszenarien-Studie.pdf.

42. Publishing O, Agency NE. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010. Paris: Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development; 2010. Available from: URL:

http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=540186.

43. NREL. Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Data: 2017 Data; 2017. Available from: URL:

https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/data.html.

44. Centre JR. ETRI - Energy Technology Reference Indicator projections for 2010-2050: European

Commission; 2014.

45. Korobitsyn MA. New and Advanced Conversion Technologies: Analysis of Cogeneration,

Combined and Integrated Cycles. Enschede; 1998.

46. Publishing O. Gas 2017 - Analysis and Forecasts to 2022. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017. Available

from: URL: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gbv/detail.action?docID=4940005.

47. OECD/IEA. Energy Technology Perspectives 2017: Energy Technology Perspectives 2017 Excerpt.

Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017.

48. Kaltschmitt M, Hartmann H, Hofbauer H, editors. Energie aus Biomasse: Grundlagen, Techniken

und Verfahren. 2., neu bearb. und erweiterte Aufl. Berlin: Springer; 2009. Available from: URL:

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10310211.

49. International Energy Agency - IEA. Technology Roadmap: Delivering Sustainable Bioenergy; 2017.

Available from: URL:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Technology_Roadmap_Delivering_Sus

tainable_Bioenergy.pdf.

50. OECD/IEA. IEA Energy Technology Essentials: Biomass for Power Generation and CHP; 2007.

Available from: URL: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/iea-energy-

technology-essentials-biomass-for-power-generation-and-chp.html.

64

12 List of Figures

Figure 2-1 [Solar PV] Capital cost comparison of literature values (1, 8–11), the regional assumptions

from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and

GCAM....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2-2 [Solar PV] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (1, 8, 11), the

regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former

Soviet Union) and GCAM. ........................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 2-3 [Solar PV] Annualized cost comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU –

Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM. ............................... 7

Figure 3-1 [Solar CSP] Capital cost comparison of literature values (8, 11, 14, 15), the regional

assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet

Union) and GCAM. ................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3-2 [Solar CSP] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (8, 11, 15, 16),

the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU –

Former Soviet Union) and GCAM. ......................................................................................................... 10

Figure 3-3 [Solar CSP] Annualized cost comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU

– Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM. .......................... 11

Figure 4-1 [Wind Onshore] Capital cost comparison of literature values (11, 15), the regional


Union) and GCAM. ................................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 4-2 [Wind Onshore] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (11, 15),

the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU –

Former Soviet Union) and GCAM. ......................................................................................................... 14

Figure 4-3 [Wind Onshore] Annualized cost comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE

(WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM. ................ 15

Figure 5-1 [Hydro] Capital cost comparison of literature values (11, 22) and the regional assumptions

from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union). ......... 17

Figure 5-2 [Hydro] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (11, 22) and the


Soviet Union). ........................................................................................................................................ 18

Figure 5-3 [Hydro] Annualized cost comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU –

Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM. ............................. 19

Figure 6-1 [Nuclear] Capital cost comparison of literature values (11, 15), the regional assumptions


GCAM..................................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 6-2 [Nuclear] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (11, 15), the


Soviet Union) and GCAM. ...................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 6-3 [Nuclear] Annualized cost comparison of the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU –

Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM. ............................. 23

Figure 7-1 [IGCC with CCS]Capital cost comparison of literature values (36, 37, 37–40), the regional


Union) and GCAM. ................................................................................................................................. 27

65

Figure 7-2 Capital cost comparison of literature values (36, 37, 39–41), the regional assumptions from

MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM for

IGCC without CCS. ................................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 7-3 Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (36, 39) and the regional


Union) for IGCC with CCS....................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 7-4 [IGCC without CCS] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature values (36,

39) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America,

FSU – Former Soviet Union) for IGCC without CCS. .............................................................................. 30

Figure 7-5 [IGCC with CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (39, 40) and the regional


Union) .................................................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 7-6 [IGCC without CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (37, 40, 42) and the regional


Union). ................................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 7-7 [Supercritical power plants with CCS]Capital cost comparison of literature values (36, 37,

39–41), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America,

FSU – Former Soviet Union). ................................................................................................................. 33

Figure 7-8 [Supercritical power plants without CCS] Capital cost comparison of literature values (36,

37, 39–42), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North

America, FSU – Former Soviet Union). .................................................................................................. 34

Figure 7-9 [Supercritical power plants with CCS] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of

literature values (36, 39) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe,

NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) for supercritical technology with CCS. ............... 35

Figure 7-10 [Supercritical power plants without CCS] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of

literature values (36, 37, 39, 42) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western

Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) for supercritical technology without CCS.

............................................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 7-11 [Supercritical power plants with CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (39, 40)

and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU –

Former Soviet Union). ........................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 7-12 [Supercritical power plants without CCS]Efficiency comparison of literature values (37,

39, 40, 42) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North


Figure 7-13 [Subcritical power plants] Capital cost comparison of literature values (37, 40), the


Soviet Union) and GCAM. ...................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 7-14 [Subcritical power plants] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature

values (36, 39) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North


Figure 7-15 [Subcritical power plants] Efficiency comparison of literature values(39, 40) and the


Soviet Union) for IGCC with CCS. ........................................................................................................... 41

Figure 8-1 [Gas combined cycle with CCS] Capital cost comparison of literature values (37, 40), the


Soviet Union). ........................................................................................................................................ 43

66

Figure 8-2 [Gas combined cycle without CCS] Capital cost comparison of literature values (37, 40), the


Soviet Union) and GCAM for combined cycle technology without CCS. ............................................... 44

Figure 8-3 [Gas combined cycle with CCS] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of literature

values (37, 40), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North

America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM. ................................................................................ 45

Figure 8-4 [Gas combined cycle without CCS] Operation and maintenance cost comparison of

literature values (37, 40), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM –

North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union). ........................................................................................ 46

Figure 8-5 [Gas combined cycle with CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (39) and the


Soviet Union). ........................................................................................................................................ 47

Figure 8-6 [Gas combined cycle without CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (37, 39, 40,

42) and the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America,

FSU – Former Soviet Union) for combined cycle technology without CCS ........................................... 48

Figure 8-7 [Gas steam and gas turbine power generation] Capital cost comparison of literature values

(37, 40), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America,

FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM for steam power and turbine power generation. ................. 49

Figure 8-8 [Gas steam and gas turbine power generation] Operation and maintenance cost

comparison of literature values (37, 40), the regional assumptions from MESSAGE (WEU – Western

Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM for steam power and turbine

power generation. ................................................................................................................................. 50

Figure 9-1 [Biomass IGCC with and without CCS]Capital cost comparison of, the regional assumptions

from MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union). ......... 52

Figure 9-2 [Biomass steam power]Capital cost comparison of literature values (36, 37, 39), the


Soviet Union) and GCAM.. ..................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 9-3 [Biomass IGCC with CCS]Operation and maintenance cost comparison of the regional


Union) and GCAM. No literature values available. ............................................................................... 54

Figure 9-4 [Biomass IGCC and biomass steam power without CCS] Operation and maintenance cost

comparison of literature values (36, 37, 39, 42) (36, 37, 37–40), the regional assumptions from

MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM..

............................................................................................................................................................... 55

Figure 9-5 [Biomass IGCC with CCS] Efficiency comparison of the regional assumptions from

MESSAGE (WEU – Western Europe, NAM – North America, FSU – Former Soviet Union) and GCAM.

Literature values not available. ............................................................................................................. 56

Figure 9-6 [Biomass IGCC without CCS] Efficiency comparison of literature values (42), the regional


Union) and GCAM for biomass IGCC without CCS................................................................................. 57

Figure 9-7 [Biomass steam power without CCS] Efficiency comparison of the regional assumptions


GCAM.Literature values not available. .................................................................................................. 58

Date post:	26-Mar-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Technology Portfolio - UNECE

Documents