This study undertakes a comprehensive techno-economic evaluation of three primary CO2 capture technologies—pre-combustion, post-combustion, and
Operating costs and total investment for different power plants using CCS technologies. Table 10 represents the operating costs and total
Comparing CO₂ capture technologies for power plants to identify the most efficient, cost-effective, and deployment-ready options.
# Cost-benefit comparison of carbon capture, utilization, and storage retrofitted to different thermal power plants in China based on real options approach. A trinomial tree model based on a real options approach was developed to evaluate the investment decisions on carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) retrofitted to the three main types of thermal power plants in China under the same power generation and CO2 emissions levels. This provides greater economic advantages than the other two plant types as their investment benefit is negative if the captured CO2 was used for enhanced water recovery (EWR), even if 45Q subsidies are provided. The 45Q subsidy policy reduced the critical carbon price, which determines the decision to invest or not, by 30.14 USD t−1 for the PC and IGCC power plants and by 15.24 USD t−1 for the NGCC power plants. Nevertheless, only when the subsidy reaches at least 71.84 USD t−1 and the period limit is canceled can all three types of power plants be motivated to invest in CCUS and used the capture CO2 for EWR.
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.
Standalone Retrofit for CO 2 capture implies less energy penalty. The CO 2 Hubs Scenario presented 88% lower emission factors. The OPEX is at least 82% of
Although both commercial coal plants were retrofit projects using post-combustion capture via amine-based absorption, the Petra Nova plant was able to reduce the cost per ton of CO2 captured by 25-30% by using an auxiliary natural gas plant to provide steam and electricity for the CCUS equipment.34 This use of an auxiliary system to power the CCUS equipment avoids siphoning energy from the coal power plant, so the plant can maintain its original output and revenue stream, avoiding an increased cost of electricity generation.35 Similarly, waste heat can be used to power absorption-based carbon capture equipment.36 By utilizing waste heat from industrial processes, a CCUS facility could avoid derating base plant efficiency and paying for an auxiliary power source. ###### [26] Psarras, Peter, Jiajun He, Hélène Pilorgé, Noah McQueen, Alexander Jensen-Fellows, Kouroush Kian, and Jennifer Wilcox, “Cost Analysis of Carbon Capture and Sequestration from U.S. Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants,” *Environmental Science & Technology* 54 (10): 6272–6280, .
For the German situation this approach arrives at the following conclusions: - CCS technologies emit per kWh more than generallyassumed in clean-coal concepts (total CO2 reduction by 72–90% and total greenhouse gas reduction by 65–79%) and much more if compared with renewable electricity – nevertheless, CCS could lead to a significant absolute reduction of GHG-emissions within the electricity supply system; - depending on the growth rates and the market development, renewables could develop faster and could be in the long term cheaper than CCS based plants; - especially, in Germany, CCS as a climate protection option is phasing a specific problem as an huge amount of fossil power plants has to be substituted in the next 15 years where CCS technologies might be not yet available.