Carbon capture and storage (CCS) represents a key solution to control the global warming reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. This study reports a comparative performance assessment of different power generation technologies, including ultrasupercritical (USC) pulverized coal combustion plant with postcombustion CO2 capture, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with precombustion CO2 capture, and oxy-coal combustion (OCC) unit. These three power plants have been studied considering traditional configuration, without CCS, and a more complex configuration with CO2 capture. These technologies (with and without CCS systems) have been compared from both the technical and economic points of view, considering a reference thermal input of 1000 MW. As for CO2 storage, the sequestration in saline aquifers has been considered. Whereas a conventional (without CCS) coal-fired USC power plant results to be more suitable than IGCC for power generation, IGCC becomes more competitive for CO2-free plants, being the precombustion CO2 capture system less expensive (from the energetic point of view) than the postcombustion one. In this scenario, oxy-coal combustion plant is currently not competitive with USC and IGCC, due to the low industrial experience, which means higher capital and operating costs and a lower plant operating reliability. But in a short-term future, a progressive diffusion of commercial-scale OCC plants will allow a reduction of capital costs and an improvement of the technology, with higher efficiency and reliability. This means that OCC promises to become competitive with USC and also with IGCC.

CO2 emissions reduction from coal-fired power generation: a techno-conomic comparison

TOLA, VITTORIO;CAU, GIORGIO;
2016-01-01

Abstract

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) represents a key solution to control the global warming reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. This study reports a comparative performance assessment of different power generation technologies, including ultrasupercritical (USC) pulverized coal combustion plant with postcombustion CO2 capture, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with precombustion CO2 capture, and oxy-coal combustion (OCC) unit. These three power plants have been studied considering traditional configuration, without CCS, and a more complex configuration with CO2 capture. These technologies (with and without CCS systems) have been compared from both the technical and economic points of view, considering a reference thermal input of 1000 MW. As for CO2 storage, the sequestration in saline aquifers has been considered. Whereas a conventional (without CCS) coal-fired USC power plant results to be more suitable than IGCC for power generation, IGCC becomes more competitive for CO2-free plants, being the precombustion CO2 capture system less expensive (from the energetic point of view) than the postcombustion one. In this scenario, oxy-coal combustion plant is currently not competitive with USC and IGCC, due to the low industrial experience, which means higher capital and operating costs and a lower plant operating reliability. But in a short-term future, a progressive diffusion of commercial-scale OCC plants will allow a reduction of capital costs and an improvement of the technology, with higher efficiency and reliability. This means that OCC promises to become competitive with USC and also with IGCC.
2016
renewable energy, sustainability and the environment; fuel technology; energy engineering and power technology; mechanical engineering; geochemistry and petrology
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
RI_2016_JERT-138_TO-CA-FE-PE.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: versione editoriale
Dimensione 879.87 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
879.87 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11584/213378
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 31
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 29
social impact