Techno-economic comparison of three technologies for pre-combustion CO₂ capture from a lignite-fired IGCC

Abstract

This paper compares the techno-economic performances of three technologies for CO₂ capture from a lignite-based IGCC power plant located in the Czech Republic: (1) Physical absorption with a Rectisol-based process; (2) Polymeric CO₂-selective membrane-based capture; (3) Low-temperature capture. The evaluations show that the IGCC plant with CO₂ capture leads to costs of electricity between 91 and 120 €·MWh⁻¹, depending on the capture technology employed, compared to 65 €·MWh⁻¹ for the power plant without capture. This results in CO₂ avoidance costs ranging from 42 to 84 €·t_CO2,avoided⁻¹ , mainly linked to the losses in net power output. From both energy and cost points of view, the low-temperature and Rectisol based CO₂ capture processes are the most efficient capture technologies. Furthermore, partial CO₂ capture appears as a good mean to ensure early implementation due to the limited increase in CO₂ avoidance cost when considering partial capture. To go beyond the two specific CO₂-selective membranes considered, a cost/membrane property map for CO₂-selective membranes was developed. This map emphasise the need to develop high performance membrane to compete with solvent technology. Finally, the cost of the whole CCS chain was estimated at 54 €·t_CO2,avoided⁻¹ once pipeline transport and storage are taken into consideration.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

carbon capture and storage (CCS) / techno-economic comparison / pre-combustion capture / physical solvent / low-temperature capture

References

[1] International Energy Agency. IEA Statistics: Coal Information, 2015

[2] Bauerova L. Europe’s Coal Curtain Is Complicating the Climate Fight. Bloomberg Business, 2015-01-12

[3] Berstad D, Roussanaly S, Skaugen G, Anantharaman R, Nekså P, Jordal K. Energy and cost evaluation of a low-temperature CO₂ capture unit for IGCC plants. Energy Procedia, 2014, 63: 2031–2036

[4] IEAGHG. Assessment of Emerging CO₂ Capture Technologies and Their Potential to Reduce Costs, 2014/TR4, 2014

[5] Størset S, Tangen G, Berstad D, Eliasson P, Hoff K A, Langørgen Ø, Munkejord S T, Roussanaly S, Torsæter M. Profiting from CCS innovations: A study to measure potential value creation from CCS research and development. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2019, 83: 208–215

[6] Chen C, Rubin E. CO₂ control technology effects on IGCC plant performance and cost. Energy Policy, 2009, 37(3): 915–924

[7] Klara J, Plunkett J. The potential of advanced technologies to reduce carbon capture costs in future IGCC power plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2010, 4(2): 112–118

[8] Lin H, He Z, Sun Z, Kniep J, Ng A, Baker R, Merkel T. CO₂-selective membranes for hydrogen production and CO₂ capture—Part II: Techno-economic analysis. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 493: 794–806

[9] Urech J, Tock L, Harkin T, Hoadley A, Maréchal F. An assessment of different solvent-based capture technologies within an IGCC–CCS power plant. Energy, 2014, 64: 268–276

[10] Anantharaman R, Bolland O, Booth N, Dorst E V, Ekstrom C, Franco F, Macchi E, Manzolini G, Nikolic D, Pfeffer A, D1.4.3 European best practice guidelines for assessment of CO₂ capture technologies (DECARBit Project), 2011

[11] Zhai H, Rubin E. Systems analysis of physical absorption of CO₂ in ionic liquids for pre-combustion carbon capture. Environmental Science & Technology, 2018, 52(8): 4996–5004

[12] Gazzani M, Turi D, Ghoniem A, Macchi E, Manzolini G. Techno-economic assessment of two novel feeding systems for a dry-feed gasifier in an IGCC plant with Pd-membranes for CO₂ capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2014, 25: 62–78

[13] Grainger D, Hägg M B. Techno-economic evaluation of a PVAm CO₂-selective membrane in an IGCC power plant with CO₂ capture. Fuel, 2008, 87(1): 14–24

[14] Riboldi L, Bolland O. Comprehensive analysis on the performance of an IGCC plant with a PSA process integrated for CO₂ capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015, 43: 57–69

[15] Gräbner M, Morstein O, Rappold D, Günster W, Beysel G, Meyer B. Constructability study on a German reference IGCC power plant with and without CO₂-capture for hard coal and lignite. Energy Conversion and Management, 2010, 51(11): 2179–2187

[16] Rubin E, Booras G, Davison J, Ekstrom C, Matuszewski M, McCoy S T, Short C. Toward a common method of the cost estimation for CO₂ capture and storage at fossil fuel power plants. Global CCS Institute, 2013

[17] Falk-Pedersen O, Gundersen M H, Selfors A, Svendsen P T. Carbon capture and storage at Kårstø. Oslo: Norges Vassdrags-og Energidirektorat, 2007 (in Norwegian)

[18] Garðarsdóttir S, Normann F, Skagestad R, Johnsson F. Investment costs and CO₂ reduction potential of carbon capture from industrial plants—A Swedish case study. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2018, 76: 111–124

[19] Roussanaly S, Aasen A, Anantharaman R, Danielsen B, Jakobsen J, Heme-De-Lacotte L, Neji G, Sødal A, Wahl P E, Vrana T K, Dreux R. Offshore power generation with carbon capture and storage to decarbonise mainland electricity and offshore oil and gas installations: A techno-economic analysis. Applied Energy, 2019, 233-234: 478–494

[20] European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP). The Costs of CO₂ Transport, Post-Demonstration CCS in the EU, 2011

[21] Roussanaly S, Jakobsen J P, Hognes E H, Brunsvold A L. Benchmarking of CO₂ transport technologies: Part I—Onshore pipeline and shipping between two onshore areas. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 19: 584

[22] Kunze C, Spliethoff H. Modelling, comparison and operation experiences of entrained flow gasifier. Energy Conversion and Management, 2011, 52(5): 2135–2141

[23] Meerman J C, Knoope M M J, Ramírez A, Turkenburg W C, Faaij A P C. Technical and economic prospects of coal- and biomass-fired integrated gasification facilities equipped with CCS over time. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 16: 311–323

[24] Kapetaki Z, Ahn H, Brandani S. Detailed process simulation of pre-combustion IGCC plants using coal-slurry and dry coal gasifiers. Energy Procedia, 2013, 37: 2196–2203

[25] Padurean A, Cormos C C, Agachi P S. Pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture by gas–liquid absorption for integrated gasification combined cycle power plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2012, 7: 1–11

[26] Park S, Lee S, Lee J, Chun S, Lee J. The quantitative evaluation of two-stage pre-combustion CO₂ capture processes using the physical solvents with various design parameters. Energy, 2015, 81: 47–55

[27] Sun L, Smith R. Rectisol wash process simulation and analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013, 39: 321–328

[28] Li P, Wang Z, Qiao Z, Liu Y, Cao X, Li W, Wang J, Wang S. Recent developments in membranes for efficient hydrogen purification. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 495: 130–168

[29] Qiao Z, Wang Z, Yuan S, Wang J, Wang S. Preparation and characterization of small molecular amine modified PVAm membranes for CO₂/H₂ separation. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 475: 290–302

[30] Roussanaly S, Anantharaman R, Lindqvist K, Zhai H, Rubin E. Membrane properties required for post-combustion CO₂ capture at coal-fired power plants. Journal of Membrane Science, 2016, 511: 250–264

[31] Roussanaly S, Anantharaman R. Cost-optimal CO₂ capture ratio for membrane-based capture from different CO₂ sources. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2017, 327: 618–628

[32] Roussanaly S, Anantharaman R, Lindqvist K, Hagen B. A new approach to the identification of high-potential materials for cost-efficient membrane-based post-combustion CO₂ capture. Sustainable Energy & Fuels, 2018, 2(6): 1225–1243

[33] Saltonstall C. Calculation of the membrane area required for gas separations. Journal of Membrane Science, 1987, 32(2-3): 185–193

[34] Zhai H, Rubin E. Techno-economic assessment of polymer membrane systems for post-combustion carbon capture at coal-fired power plants. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(6): 3006–3014

[35] Merkel T, Lin H, Wei X, Baker R. Power plant post-combustion carbon dioxide capture: An opportunity for membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 359(1-2): 126–139

[36] He X, Fu C, Hägg M B. Membrane system design and process feasibility analysis for CO₂ capture from flue gas with a fixed-site-carrier membrane. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2015, 268: 1–9

[37] Vakharia V, Ramasubramanian K, Winston H. An experimental and modeling study of CO₂-selective membranes for IGCC syngas purification. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 488: 56–66

[38] Lin H, Freeman B. Materials selection guidelines for membranes that remove CO₂ from gas mixtures. Journal of Molecular Structure, 2005, 739(1-3): 57–74

[39] Lin H, He Z, Sun Z, Vu J, Ng A, Mohammed M, Kniep J, Merkel T, Wu T, Lambrecht R. CO₂-selective membranes for hydrogen production and CO₂ capture. Part I: Membrane development. Journal of Membrane Science, 2014, 457: 149–161

[40] Berstad D, Anantharaman R, Nekså P. Low-temperature CO₂ capture technologies: Applications and potential. International Journal of Refrigeration, 2013, 36(5): 1403–1416

[41] Anantharaman R, Berstad D, Roussanaly S. Techno-economic performance of a hybrid membrane-liquefaction process for post-combustion CO₂ capture. Energy Procedia, 2014, 61: 1244–1247

[42] Voldsund M, Gardarsdottir S, De Lena E, Pérez-Calvo J F, Jamali A, Berstad D, Fu C, Romano M, Roussanaly S, Anantharaman R, . Comparison of technologies for CO₂ capture from cement production. Part 1: Technical evaluation. Energies, 2019, 12(3): 559

[43] Gardarsdottir S, De Lena E, Romano M, Roussanaly S, Voldsund M, Pérez-Calvo J F, Berstad D, Fu C, Anantharaman R, Sutter D, . Comparison of technologies for CO₂ capture from cement production. Part 2: Cost analysis. Energies, 2019, 12(3): 542

[44] European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP). The Costs of CO₂ Capture, Transport and Storage, Post-Demonstration CCS in the EU, 2011

[45] Ho M, Allinson G, Wiley D. Comparison of MEA capture cost for low CO₂ emissions sources in Australia. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2011, 5(1): 49–60

[46] NETL. Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Cost Estimation Methodology for Netl Assessments of Power Plant Performance. DOE/NETL-2011/1455, 2011

[47] NETL. Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Technology Learning Curve (FOAK to NOAK). DOE/NETL-341/042211, 2012

[48] HIS. The IHS CERA European Power Capital Costs Index (EPCCI), 2013

[49] Trading Economics. Trading Economics Database on Euro Area Inflation Rate, 2011

[50] Richardson Engineering. Cost Factor Location Manual, 2007

[51] IEAGHG. CO₂ Capture in Natural Gas Production by Adsorption Processes for CO₂ Storage, EOR and EGR, 2016

[52] Grande C A, Roussanaly S, Anantharaman R, Lindqvist K, Singh P, Kemper J. CO₂ capture in natural gas production by adsorption processes. Energy Procedia, 2017, 114: 2259–2264

[53] Booz & Company. Understanding Lignite Generation Costs in Europe, 2014

[54] Zhai H. Advanced membranes and learning scale required for cost-effective post-combustion carbon capture. iScience, 2019, 13: 440–451

[55] Anantharaman R, Roussanaly S, Westman S F, Husebye J. Selection of optimal CO₂ capture plant capacity for better investment decisions. Energy Procedia, 2013, 37: 7039–7045

[56] Al-Mufachi N, Rees N, Steinberger-Wilkens R. Hydrogen selective membranes: A review of palladium-based dense metal membranes. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015, 47: 540–551

[57] Di Marcoberardino G, Binotti M, Manzolini G, Viviente J, Arratibel A, Roses L, Gallucci F. Achievements of European projects on membrane reactor for hydrogen production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 161: 1442–1450

[58] Roussanaly S, Skaugen G, Aasen A, Jakobsen J, Vesely L. Techno-economic evaluation of CO₂ transport from a lignite-fired IGCC plant in the Czech Republic. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2017, 65(Suppl C): 235–250

[59] Henriksen D, Ombudstvedt I. Cross-border transportation—A key to unlock full-scale CCS. Energy Procedia, 2017, 114: 7443–7458

[60] European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP). The Costs of CO₂ Storage, Post-Demonstration CCS in the EU, 2011

[61] Jakobsen J, Roussanaly S, Anantharaman R. A techno-economic case study of CO₂ capture, transport and storage chain from a cement plant in Norway. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 144: 523–539

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Norway grants, as part of the project NF-CZ08-OV-1-003-2015.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-019-1870-8 and is accessible for authorized users.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2020 Higher Education Press