8 results ·
● Live web index
S
sciencedirect.com
article
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583622001025
# A techno-economic assessment of CO2 capture in biomass and waste-fired combined heat and power plants – A Swedish case study. Marginal abatement cost curve for CCS from Swedish co-generation plants. The Swedish district heating sector constitutes a large potential for BECCS, with biogenic point sources of CO2 in the form of combined heat and power (CHP) plants that burn biomass residues from the forest industry. This study analyzes the potential of CO2 capture in 110 existing Swedish biomass or waste-fired CHP plants. Process models of CHP steam cycles give the impacts of absorption-based CCS on heat and electricity production, while a district heating system unit commitment model gives the impact on plant operation and the potential for CO2 capture. The results provide a cost for carbon capture and transport to the nearest harbor by truck: up to 19.3 MtCO2/year could be captured at a cost in the range of 45–125 €/tCO2, corresponding to around 40% of the total fossil fuel-based Swedish CO2 emissions.
S
sequestration.mit.edu
research
https://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/David_and_Herzog.pdf
Table 2: Cost Model for Capture Plants, in 2000 and 2012 Cycle IGCC IGCC PC PC NGCC NGCC Data Description 2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012 Input Capital Cost, $/kW 1401 1145 1150 1095 542 525 O&M, mills/kWh 7.9 6.1 7.4 6.1 2.5 2.4 Heat Rate (LHV), Btu/kWh 8081 7137 8277 8042 6201 5677 Incremental Capital Cost, $/(kg/h) 305 275 529 476 921 829 Incremental O&M, mills/kg 2.65 2.39 5.56 5.00 5.20 4.68 Energy Requirements, kWh/kg 0.194 0.135 0.317 0.196 0.354 0.297 Basis Yearly Operating Hours, hrs/yr 6570 6570 6570 6570 6570 6570 Capital Charge Rate, %/yr 15 15 15 15 15 15 Fuel Cost (LHV), $/MMBtu 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 2.93 2.93 Capture Efficiency, % 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference Plant CO2 Emitted, kg/kWh 0.752 0.664 0.789 0.766 0.368 0.337 coe: CAPITAL, mills/kWh 32.0 26.1 26.3 25.0 12.4 12.0 coe: FUEL, mills/kWh 10.0 8.8 10.3 10.0 18.2 16.6 coe: O&M, mills/kWh 7.9 6.1 7.4 6.1 2.5 2.4 Cost of Electricity, ¢/kWh 4.99 4.10 4.39 4.10 3.30 3.10 Thermal Efficiency (LHV), % 42.2 47.8 41.2 42.4 55.0 60.1 Capture Plant Relative Power Output, % 85.4 91.0 75.0 85.0 87.0 90.0 Heat Rate (LHV), Btu/kWh 9462 7843 11037 9461 7131 6308 Capital Cost, $/kW 1909 1459 2090 1718 1013 894 CO2 Emitted, kg/kWh 0.088 0.073 0.105 0.090 0.042 0.037 coe: CAPITAL, mills/kWh 43.6 33.3 47.7 39.2 23.1 20.4 coe: FUEL, mills/kWh 11.7 9.7 13.7 11.7 20.9 18.5 coe: O&M, mills/kWh 11.6 8.4 15.7 11.6 5.1 4.4 Cost of Electricity, ¢/kWh 6.69 5.14 7.71 6.26 4.91 4.33 Thermal Efficiency (LHV), % 36.1 43.5 30.9 36.1 47.8 54.1 Comparison Incremental coe, ¢/kWh 1.70 1.04 3.32 2.16 1.61 1.23 Energy Penalty, % 14.6 9.0 25.0 15.0 13.0 10.0 Mitigation Cost, Capture vs.
S
scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
research
https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ese3.2089?af=R
This study undertakes a comprehensive techno-economic evaluation of three primary CO2 capture technologies—pre-combustion, post-combustion, and
E
eprints.whiterose.ac.uk
article
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/201324/8/Cost%20of%20small-scale%20…
• Compare OCGT+PCC against other low-carbon energy generators The purpose of this paper is to highlight the cost of including CO2 capture on small-scale fossil-based power generation. Included in the economic comparison is the cost of generating electricity from an OCGT power plant, capturing the CO2 from the flue gas, and conditioning the captured CO2 stream ready for pipeline transportation. Figure 12: Cost of CO2 avoidance comparison between OCGT+PCC (this studies work) and other power generation sources that include CO2 capture (BEIS [24] ) Page | 16 Contour plots showing the relationship between the LCOE, CP and capacity factor are shown in Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure 17, for the OCGT, OCGT+MEA, and OCGT+VPSA plants, respectively. A similar trend is observed for the CCA, reaching almost 1,700 £/tCO2 at 250 annual operating hours Figure 18: Levelised cost of electricity at different carbon prices for OCGT, OCGT+MEA, OCGT+VPSA plants.
N
netl.doe.gov
official
https://netl.doe.gov/projects/files/CostofCapturingCO2fromIndustrialSources_0…
52 COST OF CAPTURING CO2 FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES xi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS °C Degrees Celsius °F Degrees Fahrenheit AACE AACE International (formerly Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering) abs Absolute AGR Acid gas removal Ar Argon Aspen Aspen Plus® atm Atmosphere B Billion BBR4 Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Revision 4 BEC Bare erected cost BFD Block flow diagram BFS Blast furnace stove BOF Basic oxygen furnace BPD Barrels per day Btu British thermal unit C2H6 Ethane C3H8 Propane C4H10 Butane CCF Capital charge factor CCS Carbon capture and storage/sequestration CCSI Carbon Capture Simulation Initiative CF Capacity factor CH4 Methane CH4S Methanethiol CO Carbon monoxide COC Cost of CO2 capture CO2 Carbon dioxide COG Coke oven gas CTL Coal-to-liquids DOE Department of Energy EAF Electric arc furnace Eng’g CM H.O & Fee Engineering construction management home office and fees EO Ethylene oxide EOR Enhanced oil recovery EPC Engineering/procurement/ construction EPCC Engineering, procurement, and construction cost EPRI Electric Power Research Institute FGD Flue gas desulfurization ft3 Cubic foot FT Fischer-Tropsch gal Gallon GHG Greenhouse gas gpm Gallons per minute GTL Gas-to-liquids h, hr Hour H2 Hydrogen H2O Water H2S Hydrogen sulfide He Helium HHV Higher heating value HX Heat exchanger I&C instrumentation and control IEAGHG IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme kg Kilogram kJ Kilojoule KO Knockout kW, kWe Kilowatt electric lb Pound LHV Lower heating value M Million m3 Cubic meter MEA Monoethanethiol MMBtu Million British thermal units MMCFD Million cubic feet per day MMSCFD Million standard cubic feet per day mol% Mole percent MPa Megapascal MW, MWe Megawatt electric MWh Megawatt-hour N/A Not applicable/available N2 Nitrogen COST OF CAPTURING CO2 FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES xii NaOH Sodium hydroxide NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory NG Natural gas NGP Natural gas processing NOx Oxides of nitrogen O&M Operation and maintenance O2 Oxygen O-H Overhead PC Portland cement PPS Power plant
S
sciencedirect.com
article
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652623017535
However, applying the carbon capture process to coal power plants increased coal use from 15% to 30% on a gram per kilowatt hours fundamental unit (Odeh and
M
mdpi.com
article
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6175
This study shows that the LCOE and CO 2 avoided cost for 400 tCO 2 /day class CCU plant of mineral carbonation technology were 26 USD/MWh and 64 USD/tCO 2.
E
energy.gov
official
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/OCED_Portfolio_Insights_CC…
The U.S. is already leading the world with over 22 million metric tons per annum (MMTPA) of point source carbon capture capacity across operational projects.2 Operational carbon capture capacity in the U.S. is currently forecasted to grow to approximately 120 MMTPA by 2030 based on announced projects as of November 2023.3 To meet the net zero goal over the next 26 years, the U.S. will need to increase carbon capture and permanent safe storage4 capacity to between 400 to 1,800 MMTPA, a 18-80X increase from current deployments.5 Point source carbon capture is essential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from large scale power and industrial facilities, which account for approximately 700 and 1,600 MMTPA of U.S. CO2 emissions, respectively, as of 2022.6 For several sectors, such as natural gas processing and ethanol, the cost of capture relative to current tax credit values means that projects near viable storage sites are widely accepted as economically attractive today.5,7 To meet decarbonization goals, however, carbon capture deployment is necessary across a wider range of CO2 sources, including those where project economics are still developing.