Download - Costperf Ccs Powergen
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
1/51
Cost and Performance ofCarbon Dioxide Capturefrom Power Generation
INTERNATIONALENERGYAGENCY
MATTHIASFINKENRATH
W OR KIN G PA PE R
2011
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
2/51
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
3/51
The views expressed in this working paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views or policy of the International Energy Agency (IEA) Secretariat or of its
individual member countries. This paper is a work in progress, designed to elicit commentsand further debate; thus, comments are welcome, directed to the author at:
Cost and Performance ofCarbon Dioxide Capturefrom Power Generation
INTERNATIONALENERGYAGENCY
MATTHIASFINKENRATH
2011
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
4/51
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY
The International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous agency, was established inNovember 1974. Its mandate is two-fold: to promote energy security amongst its membercountries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply and to advise member
countries on sound energy policy.The IEA carries out a comprehensive programme of energy co-operation among 28 advancedeconomies, each of which is obliged to hold oil stocks equivalent to 90 days of its net imports.The Agency aims to:
n Secure member countries access to reliable and ample supplies of all forms of energy; in particular,through maintaining effective emergency response capabilities in case of oil supply disruptions.
n Promote sustainable energy policies that spur economic growth and environmental protectionin a global context particularly in terms of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions that contributeto climate change.
n Improve transparency of international markets through collection and analysis ofenergy data.
nSupport global collaboration on energy technology to secure future energy suppliesand mitigate their environmental impact, including through improved energy
efficiency and development and deployment of low-carbon technologies.
n Find solutions to global energy challenges through engagementand dialogue with non-member countries, industry,
international organisations and other stakeholders. IEA member countries:
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea (Republic of)
Luxembourg
NetherlandsNew Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
The European Commission
also participates in
the work of the IEA.
Please note that this publication
is subject to specific restrictions
that limit its use and distribution.
The terms and conditions are available
online at www.iea.org/about/copyright.asp
OECD/IEA, 2010
International Energy Agency9 rue de la Fdration
75739 Paris Cedex 15, France
www.iea.org
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
5/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|3
Tableofcontents
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................5
Executivesummary
........................................................................................................................
7
Introduction....................................................................................................................................9
Scopeofanalysis...........................................................................................................................11
Analysedtechnoeconomicdataandkeytargetmetrics...........................................................11
EvaluatedCO2captureprocesses...............................................................................................12
Dataselectedforanalysis...........................................................................................................12
Approachandmethodology.........................................................................................................15
Costofgeneratingelectricitycalculation...................................................................................15
Conversionand
calibration
of
cost
data
.....................................................................................
16
Conversionandcalibrationofperformancedata.......................................................................18
Boundaryconditionsandassumptions......................................................................................19
Costandperformanceresultsanddiscussion.............................................................................22
Maincasestudies..........................................................................................................................22
PostcombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines.......................23
PrecombustionCO2capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles.......................27
OxycombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration.........................................30
PostcombustionCO2capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles........................................34
Summaryof
results
.....................................................................................................................
37
Futurecostandperformancepotential.....................................................................................38
Uncertaintyandsensitivityofresults.........................................................................................39
Conclusionsandrecommendations.............................................................................................41
References....................................................................................................................................43
Annex:Studycaseswithlimitedavailabledata............................................................................45
PostcombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia...................45
Acronyms,abbreviationsandunitsofmeasure..........................................................................47
Listoffigures
Figure1.Illustrationofthemethodologyfordataanalysis..........................................................15
Figure2.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration
byamines:CO2captureimpact.....................................................................................................25
Figure3.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombined
cycles:CO2captureimpact............................................................................................................28
Figure4.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration:CO2captureimpact.......32
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
6/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|4
Figure5.Postcombustioncapturefromnaturalgasfiredpower
generation:CO2captureimpact....................................................................................................35
Figure6.Impactofa50%variationinkeyassumptionsonLCOE..............................................40
Figure7.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration
byammonia:
CO2
capture
impact
.................................................................................................
46
Listoftables
Table1.Overviewofgeneralboundaryconditionsofreviewedstudies.....................................18
Table2.Technoeconomicassumptionstypicallyusedbydifferentorganisations,
andinthisanalysis........................................................................................................................20
Table3.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines........................24
Table4.Postcombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes............................26
Table5.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles........................27
Table6.
Pre
combustion
capture:
influence
of
coals
...................................................................
30
Table7.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration..........................................31
Table8.Oxycombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes.............................33
Table9.Postcombustioncapturefromnaturalgasfiredpowergeneration..............................34
Table10.AveragecostandperformancedatabyCO2captureroute..........................................38
Table11.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia..................45
Listofboxes
Box1.
Fuel
price
assumptions
.......................................................................................................
20
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
7/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|5
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared by Matthias Finkenrath, Energy Analyst in the Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS) Unit under the Directorate of Sustainable Energy Policy and Technology at the
InternationalEnergy
Agency
(IEA).
Theauthorwouldliketothankseveralindividualsforreviewingthemanuscriptofthisworking
paper and for providing invaluable feedback: John Davison and Mike Haines from the IEA
Implementing Agreement for a Cooperative Programme on Technologies Relating to
Greenhouse Gases Derived from Fossil Fuel Use (Greenhouse Gas Implementing Agreement);
John Kessels from the Implementing Agreement for the IEA Clean Coal Centre; Christopher
Short from the Global CCS Institute; Clas Ekstrm from Vattenfall; John Chamberlain from
gasNatural fenosa; Trygve Utheim Riis and Aage Stangeland from the Research Council of
Norway; Tore Hatlen from Gassnova; Howard Herzog from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology;andJeffreyPhillipsandGeorgeBoorasfromtheElectricPowerResearchInstitute
(EPRI).SpecialthankstoEPRIsCoalFleetforTomorrowR&Dprogrammeforsharingdatafrom
theirpublication.
The author would also like to thank his colleagues at the IEA, in particular Juho Lipponen for
overarching guidance and support, and also Uwe Remme, Dennis Volk, Brendan Beck, Justine
GarrettandJulianSmithforreviewingthedraftandprovidingveryhelpfulcomments.Additional
thankstoMarilynSmithforhereditorialsupportandBertrandSadinandAnneMayneofthe
IEACommunicationandInformationOfficeforcoverdesignandfinallayout.
Formoreinformationonthisdocument,contact:
MatthiasFinkenrath,IEASecretariat
Tel.+33(0)140576779
Email:
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
8/51
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
9/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|7
Executivesummary
Energy scenarios developed by the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggest that carbon
captureandstorage (CCS) frompowerplantsmightcontributeby2050toaround10%ofthe
energyrelated
carbon
dioxide
(CO2)
emission
reduction
required
to
stabilise
global
warming
(IEA,2010).SinceCO2capture frompowergeneration isanemergingtechnologythathasnot
beendemonstratedonacommercialscale,relatedcostandperformanceinformation isbased
onfeasibilitystudiesandpilotprojectsandisstilluncertain.
This paper analyses technoeconomic data for CO2 capture from power generation, including
CO2 conditioning and compression, in order to support energy scenario modelling and policy
making.Costandperformancetrendsareshownbasedonestimatespublishedoverthelastfive
years in major engineering studies for about 50 CO2 capture installations at power plants.
Capitalcostand levelisedcostofelectricity (LCOE)arereevaluatedandupdatedto2010cost
levels to allow for a consistent comparison. Presented data account for CO2 capture but not
transportation and storage of CO2. They are estimates for generic, early commercial plants
basedon
feasibility
studies,
which
have
an
accuracy
of
on
average
30%.
The
data
do
not
reflect
projectspecificcostorcostforfirstlargescaledemonstrationplants,whicharelikelyhigher.
For coalfired power generation, no single CO2 capture technology outperforms available
alternative capture processes in terms of cost and performance. Average net efficiency
penalties for post and oxycombustion capture are 10 percentage points relative to a
pulverisedcoalplantwithoutcapture,andeightpercentagepointsforprecombustioncapture
compared to an integrated gasification combined cycle. Overnight costsof power plants with
CO2captureinregionsoftheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)
are about USD3800 per kW (/kW) across capture routes, which is 74% higher than the
referencecostswithoutcapture.Costfiguresvarysubstantiallydependingonthetypeofpower
plant
type
and
fuel
used.
The
relative
increase
in
overnight
costs
compared
to
a
reference
plant
withoutCO2capture isacomparablystablemetricacrossstudies. It isthusrecommended for
estimating cost if limited data are available. Projected LCOE is on average USD105 per
megawatthour(/MWh).AveragecostsofCO2avoidedareUSD55pertonneofCO2(/tCO2)ifa
pulverisedcoalpowerplantwithoutCO2captureisusedasareference.
For natural gasfired power generation, postcombustion CO2 capture is most often analysed
andappears themostattractiveneartermoption.Averagecostandperformanceprojections
include net efficiency penalties of eight percentage points for postcombustion CO2 capture
fromnaturalgascombinedcycles.OvernightcostsareUSD1700/kWincludingCO2capture,or
82%higherthanthereferenceplantwithoutcapture.LCOE isUSD102/MWhandcostsofCO2
avoidedareUSD80/tCO2ifanaturalgascombinedcycleisusedasareference.
CostestimatesstatedaboveareaveragefiguresforOECDregions.CostdataforinstallationsinChinaindicatesignificantlylowercostscomparedtotheabovementionedfigures.Allovernight
costs include a contingency for CCS plants to account for unforeseen technical or regulatory
difficulties.LCOEandcostsofCO2avoideddonotincludeaCO2emissionprice.
Harmonisationofcostingmethodologiesisneededinordertosimplifytechnologycomparisons.
Thoughasimilarapproachisusedforestimatingcostandperformanceacrossstudies,specific
methodologies,terminologiesandunderlyingassumptionsareinconsistent.
Broader assessments of CO2 capture from power generation in nonOECD countries are still
underrepresented, though according to global energy scenarios deployment of CCS in these
regionsmighthavetoexceedexpectedlevelsinOECDcountries.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
10/51
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
11/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|9
Introduction
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes a significant reduction of
worldwidegreenhousegas(GHG)emissions isrequired inordertostabilisetheglobalaverage
temperature
increase
at
2.0C
to
2.4C
above
preindustrial
levels.
Equivalent
CO2
emissions
needtobecutbyatleast50%by2050comparedtotheyear2000(IPCC,2007).
TheIEAregularlyanalysespathwaysforreducingenergyrelatedCO2emissions.Comparedtoa
businessasusualBaselineScenario,carboncaptureandstorage (CCS) frompowergeneration
could contribute in 2050 to 10% of the required global reduction in energyrelated CO2
emissions (IEA,2010).Apart fromCCS inpowergeneration,CCS from industrialandupstream
applications is expected to provide a similar emission reduction. CCS is thus a potential key
contributortoCO2emissionmitigation, inadditiontoother importantaimssuchas improving
energyefficiencyandincreasingrenewablepowergeneration.
CCShasbeenappliedcommerciallyintheoilandgasindustryforseveraldecades.Thisincludes
technologies
along
the
CCS
value
chain
such
as
solvent
based
separation
of
CO2
from
gas
streams,transportationofCO2bypipelineandstorageofCO2 inaquifers.CO2 isalsousedfor
enhancedoilrecovery(EOR).
CCS is however still an emerging technology in the power sector, where it has not yet been
demonstrated at large scale. Applying CCS to fullsize power plants requires scaleup of
commercially available CO2 capture processes. Consequently, current cost and performance
information related to CCS from power generation is limited to estimates from engineering
studiesandpilotprojects.Thisisdifferenttoestablishedpowertechnologiesforwhichcostand
performancedataofcommercialunitsarewellknownandregularlysummarised(OECD,2010).
AdedicatedreviewofpublisheddataisneededtotracklatestCCSdevelopments.Thequalityof
technoeconomic data for CCS will likely improve once additional information from the first
commercialscale demonstration plants, which are currently in planning, become available.
Meanwhile, bestpossible estimates of cost and performance of power plants with CCS are
requiredasinputforenergyscenariosandasabasisforcleanenergypolicymaking.Againstthis
background, this paper summarises and analyses technoeconomic data on CO2 capture from
powergenerationthatwerepublishedoverthelastfiveyears.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
12/51
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
13/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|11
Scopeofanalysis
CCS applied to power generation is an emerging technology. Technoeconomic data for CO2
capturefrompowergenerationthusremainuncertain;afactthatisfurtheramplifiedbycurrent
unprecedentedeconomic
uncertainties
resulting
from
the
recent
global
financial
crisis.
MostenergyscenariosthatanalyseclimatechangemitigationpathsexpectthatCO2capturewill
contributesubstantiallytoglobalCO2emissionreductioninthecomingdecades.TheIEAEnergy
TechnologyPerspectives2010(ETP2010)publicationestimatesthatby2050around10%ofthe
emission reduction will stem from CO2 capture from power generation alone compared to a
businessasusualBaselineScenario(IEA,2010).
This analysis aims to illustrate cost and performance trends related to CO2 capture from
powergenerationoverthelastfiveyears.Thischaptergivesanoverviewabouttypesofdata
thatareanalysedanddescribeswhichspecificcapturecasesandpublicationsareconsidered
inthisstudy.
Analysedtechnoeconomicdataandkeytargetmetrics
Thisworkingpaperevaluateskeydatathatarecommonlyrequiredasinputforenergyscenario
modellingandgeneralenergypolicysupport,suchas:
powerplanttype
fueltype
capacityfactor
netpoweroutput
netefficiency
overallCO2capturerate
netCO2emissions
capitalcost
operationandmaintenance(O&M)cost
yearofcostdata
locationof
power
plant
Publishedtechnoeconomicinformationisreviewedandreevaluatedinordertocompareresults
ofdifferentstudies.Updateddataareprovidedforthefollowingkeymetrics:
overnightcosts
levelisedcostofelectricity(LCOE)
costofCO2avoided
Costandperformancedataarerequiredforboththepowerplantwithoutcapture(alsoreferred
toas
reference
plant)
and
for
the
power
plant
with
capture.
This analysis focuses on fundamental technoeconomic information typically used for cross
technology comparisons under consistent boundary conditions. Cost data presented in this
studyaregenericinnatureandnotmeanttorepresentcostsofspecificCO2captureprojects,
whichare likelytobedifferent. Investmentdecisionsabout individualCCSplantswilldepend
on numerous casespecific boundary conditions such as (among others): national or regional
policyandregulatoryframeworks;emissionandpowermarkets;theexperienceandriskprofile
of the investor; or available incentive and financing structures. In addition, local ambient
conditions and available fuel qualities can have a strong impact on the capture technology
choiceanditsviability.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
14/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|12
Cost and performance information for the transport and storage of captured CO2 will need to
complement data for CO2 capture. Transportation and storage data are even more difficult to
generalisecomparedtoCO2captureprocessdata,giventhattheyareverysitespecificoreven
unique for every single project. Because of this complexity, available storage capacities and
associatedcostsstillremainsubjecttosignificantresearch inmanyregionsoftheworld.Unlike
CO2capturefrompowergeneration,anumberoflargescaleCO2transportandstorageprojectshoweverexiststhatareoperatingtodayandwhichcanprovidesome,albeitlimited,dataonthe
associatedcosts.TechnoeconomicdatarelatedtothetransportandstorageofCO2,inparticular
relatedtoCO2storagecapacities,arenotcoveredinthispaper,butimprovingrelatedknowledge
is essential. Consequently, the IEA and other organisations are addressing this challenge in
separate,dedicatedworkstreams.
EvaluatedCO2captureprocesses
This working paper analyses CO2 capture from power generation. CO2 capture from industrial
applications
is
evaluated
through
the
forthcoming
United
Nations
Industrial
DevelopmentOrganisation(UNIDO)roadmap,andisthusnotdiscussed(UNIDO,2010).
The study focuses on CO2 capture from newbuild coal and natural gasfired power
generationplantswithatleast80%overallcapturerate.Onlycommercialscalepowerplants
over 300MW net power output are considered. Data forbiomassfired installations are still
scarce in comparison to coal and natural gasfired power plants. They are thus not
systematically evaluated in this working paper, but a case study with biomass cofiring is
includedforcomparison.
ThispaperfocusesonearlycommercialinstallationsofCO2capturefrompowergenerationand
does not cover demonstration plants. Cost and performance information related to firstofa
kind
CO2
capture
demonstration
plants
is
often
not
representative
of
commercial
units
that
are
installed later, forexamplesincetheyaresuboptimallyoroverdesigned.Significant largescale
commercialdeploymentofCCStechnologyforpowergenerationapplicationsisnotexpectedto
takeplacepriortotheyear2020.Therefore,costandperformancedataconsideredinthisstudy
are primarily estimates for early commercial CO2 capture processes from power plants that
wouldbeinservicearound2020.1
Onlycapturetechnologiesthathavebeendemonstratedonasignificantpilotscale(orevenata
commercialsize inother industries)areconsidered in thisanalysis.Novel technologies forCO2
capturefrompowergenerationthatare inanearlyphaseofdevelopment,suchasmembrane
based processes, are not covered. The general improvement potential for CO2 capture from
powergenerationinthefuturebytechnologicallearningisdiscussedinChapter4.
Dataselectedforanalysis
Technoeconomic studies on CO2 capture from power generation are numerous. In this paper,
CO2 capture cost and performance data of selected studies are reviewed, reevaluated and
updatedtocurrentcostlevels.Onlystudiesbyorganisationsthatperformedbroadcomparisons
acrossallcaptureroutesareconsidered.Publicationsbyauthorsthatarefocusingtheiranalyses
onindividualoraverylimitednumberofcapturetechnologiesarenotincluded.Inordertolimit
the reevaluationof older data toa reasonable timehorizon,onlystudies thatwerepublished
1 Not all of the reviewed studies provide explicit timelines or a definition of the level of commercial deployment
associatedto
their
performance
and
cost
estimates,
and
some
reports
envision
full
scale
commercial
deployment
alreadyearlier.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
15/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|13
over the last five years (between 2006 and 2010) are covered. In rare cases, the underlying
originaldatamightstemfromearlieryears.
Reevaluating and comparing cost and performance data across studies presents a major
challenge. There are differences in the types of data published, and in the cost estimation
methodologiesused.
In
addition,
there
is
often
limited
transparency
with
respect
to
underlying
boundaryconditionsandassumptions.
The studies selected for further analysis in this working paper exhibit a broad coverage of
evaluated capture routes and used a consistent evaluation methodology for assessing their
individualcapturecases.Inaddition,theyaretypicallybasedonanengineeringlevelanalysisand
providedetailedcostandperformanceestimatesand informationonkeyboundaryconditions,
which allow for further processing and analysis.2 Technoeconomic data from studies by the
followingorganisationsareincludedinthisworkingpaper:
CarnegieMellonUniversityCMU(Rubin,2007;Chen,2009;Versteeg,2010)
ChinaUKNearZeroEmissionsCoalInitiativeNZEC(NZEC,2009)
CO2CaptureProjectCCP(Melien,2009)
ElectricPowerResearchInstituteEPRI(EPRI,2009)
GlobalCCSInstituteGCCSI(GCCSI,2009)
GreenhouseGasImplementingAgreementGHGIA(Davison,2007;GHGIA,2009)
NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratoryNETL(NETL,2008;NETL,2010af)
MassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyMIT(MIT,2007;Hamilton,2009)
Intheeventseveralevaluationsweremadebyorganisationsonthesamecaptureprocessover
thelastfiveyears,onlythemostrecentlypublisheddataareincludedinthisanalysis.
Itis
likely
there
are
additional
studies
that
should
be
considered
in
future
analysis.
The
author
wouldappreciatesuggestionsofadditionalstudiesthatmatchthegeneralselectioncriteriaand
should be considered in potential updates of this review. Since similarly broad and detailed
studies were not found for other regions, the analysed studies are limited to CO2 capture
installationsintheUnitedStates,theEuropeanUnionandChina.
Theselectedstudiesarebasedondatafrombottomupengineeringstudies,whichperformcost
and performance estimates based on detailed process flow sheet data that account for main
equipmentorprocessunitislands.Theyprovide,ataminimum,themaincostandperformance
data for the base power plant, the CO2 capture process and a CO2 compression unit for
compressing and pumping the separated CO2 to a supercritical pressure for transportation.
Besides
the
core
CO2
capture
and
compression
units,
other
additional
major
equipment
and
utility systems are required. This includes equipment for oxygen generation, fluid handling,
exhaust pretreatment for drying or purification, and compression and pumping, which is
accountedforinalltheselectedstudies.
CO2 transportandstorage arenotevaluated in most of the publications, and any data on CO2
transportandstorageisnotconsideredinthispaper.Mostcostestimatesusedinthisstudyare
basedontheassumptionthatprocessesandprocessequipmentareproventechnologiesor,at
least, have been demonstrated on a commercial scale. Thus costs required for research,
developmentandinitialdeploymentindemonstrationplantsarenotincluded.
2
Severalstudies
are
not
considered
as
the
level
of
detail
regarding
costs
or
boundary
conditions
is
insufficient
for
furtheranalysisunderthisstudy(e.g.ENCAP,2009;McKinsey,2007).
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
16/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|14
Thoughitisoftennotexplicitlystated,thegroupofanalysedstudiesgenerallyassumesthatCO2
capture and compression is integrated into a new power plant and benefits from at least a
minimum infrastructure, which is typical for an industrial site. This includes availability of
engineeringand localhumanresources,equipment,utilityandfuelsupply,accesstothepower
grid and appropriate options for transporting and storing separated CO2. In addition, for such
newbuild,
brown
field
installations,
the
study
assumes
full
flexibility
in
terms
of
plant
integration
andoptimisation.
This working paper does not analyse the impact of retrofitting CO2 capture to existing power
plants. Incremental costs of adding CO2 capture to those plants could be higher than the
incrementalcostsshowninthereviewedstudies,sincetheseexistingplantsweredesignedwith
noconsiderationsforfutureCO2capture.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
17/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|15
Approachandmethodology
Thefundamentalapproachusedinthisstudytoreviewandanalysepublishedtechnoeconomic
informationonCO2capture is illustrated inFigure1. Ina firststep,applicable literatureonthe
subjectis
researched
and
reviewed.
In
order
to
allow
acomparison
of
cost
data
from
different
years, economic data of the selected studies are calibrated by aligning their scope and by
updatingtheircostto2010USDcostlevelsusingmarketexchangeratesandprocessequipment
costindices.Performancerelateddataarenotrecalibratedforreasonsthatareoutlinedinmore
detailfurtherbelow.
Subsequently, updated costdataareused to reevaluateLCOE and costofCO2 avoided of the
different capture cases. To provide consistency with previous work by the OECD, the
methodologyandunderlyingassumptionsarebasedonthesameapproachthatwastakenbythe
OECD Projected Costs ofGenerating Electricity 2010 analysis, which for simplicity is hereafter
referredtoasPCGE2010(OECD,2010).
Common
financial
and
operating
boundary
conditions
and
fuel
prices
are
applied
for
all
cases.
Cost and performance trendsacrossstudies are identified basedon the updateddata.Further
detailsofthecalibrationmethodology, includingadescriptionof limitationsoftheanalysis,are
providedinthischapter.
Figure1.Illustrationofthemethodologyfordataanalysis
Calibrationof
economic
data
of
major
studies
Reviewofindividualtechnoeconomicstudies
Coversonlymajorstudiesacrosscaptureroutespublishedwithinthelastfiveyears(200610) Focusonlargescale(>300MWnetpower)coalandnaturalgasfiredpowergeneration Limitedtonewbuilt,earlycommercialtechnologieswithmorethan80%overallCO2capture
Costingscopealignedacrossstudies(totalcapitalrequirement, overnightcosts,etc.) CurrenciesofstudiesupdatedtoUSD Costsupdatedto2010costlevelusingcostindices
1
2
ReevaluationofcostofelectricityandCO2avoidance3
Dataanalysisanddiscussionofresults4
Originalandrecalibratedcostdatareported Comparisonofresults Discussionofkeycosttrends
Conclusionsandrecommendations5
BasedonOECDProjectedCostofGeneratingElectricity2010methodology Standardised financialandfuelcostassumptions used Commonsetofoperationandmaintenancecostdata
Costofgeneratingelectricitycalculation
LCOE is commonly used as a measure of comparing generating costs of different power
generationandcapture technologiesoveraplantseconomic life.LCOE isequaltothepresent
valueofthesumofdiscountedcostsdividedbythetotalelectricityproduction.
This study uses a LCOE model that wasjointly developed by the IEA and the Nuclear Energy
Agency(NEA)
with
support
of
adiverse
group
of
international
experts
and
organisations
for
the
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
18/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|16
PCGE2010 publication. The underlying philosophy and methodology behind the calculation is
discussedindetailintheOECDpublicationandnotrepeatedinthispaper.
Basedon IEAandNEAconvention,akeyassumptionof theLCOEapproach isthat the interest
rateusedfordiscountingcostsdoesnotvaryoverthelifetimeoftheprojectunderconsideration.
Areal
discount
rate
of
10%
is
used
for
all
cases
in
this
study,
which
is
the
higher
of
two
discount
rates defined in the PCGE 2010 study. This figure is chosen for this study because of an
anticipatedhighertechnicalandfinancialriskassociatedwithinvestmentsinCCStechnologiesin
the early phase of commercialisation. It should be noted that apart from considerations about
technology maturity, other factors (such as the type of plant ownership) influence the cost of
financingaproject.Thiswouldbereflectedintheapplicablediscountrates.
LCOE is also used as a basis for providing estimates of costs of CO2 avoidance for different
capture technologies. Further background on the terminology, including how to derive CO2
avoidance costs are extensively discussed in previous publications. This includes important
considerationsrelatedtoselectingameaningfulreferencepowerplantwithoutCCSforcalcula
tingcostofCO2avoided(IPCC,2005;GCCSI,2009).
ItisimportanttonotethatincontrasttotheOECDPCGE2010publication,reportedLCOEdata
do not include a USD30/tCO2 emission price, since this approach is less common for CCS
related cost comparisons. Hence in this working paper no CO2 emission price is added for
calculatingLCOE.
Conversionandcalibrationofcostdata
Several methodologies are used to estimate economic data, in particular capital costs, of CO2
capture from power generation. There is neither a standardised methodology nor a set of
commonlyagreedonboundaryconditions,whichaddstothecomplexityofcomparingdatafrom
different
studies.
Moreover,
some
factors
are
often
not
fully
transparent,
such
as
costing
methodologies, sources of costs, the exact scope of data as well as assumptions on individual
cost parameters. As a consequence, it is not straightforward to transform technoeconomic
informationfromdifferentstudiesintoacomparablesetofdata.
Though there is no consistently applied approach for cost evaluation, similarities exist
throughoutstudiesintermsofhowCO2capturecostsareconceptuallyassessed.Costdataare
usuallysplit intocapitalcosts(relatedtotheconstructionofequipment),fuelcosts,andnon
fueloperatingandmaintenancecosts(relatedtotheprocessand itsequipment).Thesecosts
arecommonlyused together tocalculate the firstyearcostofelectricity (COE)orLCOEover
thelifetimeoftheplant.
Sourcesof
capital
costs
are
often
not
clearly
stated
in
publications.
Typically,
costs
are
based
on
estimates for main equipment or process islands that are provided by vendors or taken from
equipment cost databases. Often equipment costs are readjusted (using scaling laws) to the
specific processconditions,andcostsareadded for installation and indirectexpensesrequired
forthecompleteconstructionoftheplant.
Assumptions about additional capital expenses vary across studies or are not clearly reported.
Examplesoftheseadditionalcapitalcostsincludeengineeringandoverhead,commissioningexpenses,
orprocessandequipmentcontingencies.Insomeinstances,thesametermsareuseddifferently.
For consistency with previous OECD studies and in order to reduce the impact of project
specificcostelementsthisstudyusesovernightcostsasthekeymetricforquantifyingcapital
cost.According
to
OECD
terminology,
overnight
costs
include:
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
19/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|17
preconstructionorownerscosts;
engineering,procurementandconstruction(EPC)costs;and
contingencycosts.
Overnight costs assume a power plant could be constructed in a single day. They reflect
technological
and
engineering
costs
in
a
particular
country
but
avoid
impacts
of
the
specific
financialstructurethatisinplacetorealiseconstruction.Whileforrealprojectsinvestorsneedto
pay close attention to total capital requirements, overnight costs are useful in particular for
energyscenariomodellers,policymakersandutilitiesforcomparisonsofcostsatanearlystage
ofassessment.
Overnightcostsexcludeinterestduringconstruction(IDC).IDCisaddedforLCOEcalculationsin
order to account for the actual time it takes to construct the power plant. This also includes
relatedequipmentoutside thepowerplantboundary (suchas transmission linesor railroads
for coal transportation), and the costs of financing construction before the power plant
becomesoperational.
Preconstruction
or
owners
costs
are
miscellaneous
additional
costs
directly
incurred
by
the
ownerofaprojectsuchasownersstaff,land,permitting,environmentalreportingandfacilities.
Ownerscostsaresubjecttomuchconfusion.MostCCSrelatedcoststudiesdonotprovidethe
precisescopeandcontentofownerscosts.Or,sometimesothercostelementssuchasstartup
costs, contingencies or fees are lumped into a single owners cost factor on top of EPC costs.
Owners costs can vary widely from project to project depending on whether it is publicly or
privatelyowned.Theyremainamajoruncertaintyacrossallstudies.
Engineering, procurement and construction costs typically cover the required total process
capital. This includes direct and indirect costs for equipment and labour, general supporting
facilities,butalsocostsrelatedtoengineeringandprojectmanagement,homeoffice,overhead
or
technology
fees.
Contingency costs are included in order to reflect cost uncertainties due to the level of
project definition, the risk related to technology maturity and performance, or unforeseen
regulatorydifficulties.
Overnight costs are used as a basis for LCOE calculations in this working paper. Several
studiesreviewedusealternativeterminologies orhaveadifferentscopewithrespecttokey
capitalcostfigures.
CapitalcostdatapublishedbyMITandGCCSIalreadyincludeIDC;thesecostsarerecalculatedin
this paper to represent overnight costs without IDC. If originally published cost data do not
include owners costs, these are added to capital cost. This applies to data by MIT and NETL.3
Totalcapital
requirement
and
total
plant
costs
are
published
by
EPRI.
Total
plant
costs
without
ownerscostsareusedfromEPRIasabasisfortheanalysisperformedunderthisstudy.Owners
costareaddedinthiscase.
The currency for reporting economic data used in this report is US dollar (USD). Cost data
reported inothercurrenciesareconvertedtoUSDusingtheconversionrateoftheyearofthe
costsaspublished,unlessaconversionrateisprovidedintheoriginalpublication.4
Apart from a currency conversion, it is also necessary to account for changes in installed
equipmentcostovertime.Sincepublished informationdoesnotallowforadetailedescalation
onacomponentbycomponentbasis,generalcostindicesareusedtorecalibratecosttocurrent
3
Apartfrom
data
from
NETL
(2010a),
which
already
include
owners
cost.
4 Resultingexchangerates:USD0.146perCNY(NZEC,2009)andUSD1.35perEUR(GHGIA,2009).
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
20/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|18
levels. In this study, published cost data are updated to 2010 cost levels using the Chemical
EngineeringPlantCostIndex,CEPCI(CE,2010).
Insummary,calibrationofcapitalcostdataincludes:
Calibrationtoovernightcostsestimates(byaddingownerscostsorsubtractingIDC);
ConversionoftheoriginalcurrencytoUSD;and
Calibrationofcostsasquotedto2010costlevelsbyusingcostindices.
Unless otherwise stated (e.g. with respect to fuel cost assumptions), the same boundary
conditionsareappliedtoalldataregardlessofthe locationofthepowerplantforeseenbythe
authorsofthestudies.Publicationyears,projectlocationsandcurrenciesofthereviewedstudies
areshowninTable1.
Table1.Overviewofgeneralboundaryconditionsofreviewedstudies
Organisation CCP CMU EPRI GCCSI GHGIA NETL NZEC MIT
Publicationyear(s) 2009
2007,
2009,
2010
2009 2009 2007,
2009
2008,
2010 2009
2007,
2009
Projectlocation EU US US US EU US CHN US
Currency USD USD USD USD USD,EUR USD CNY USD
Cost location factors are not applied in this study. Instead, for each data point shown in this
workingpaperthelocationofthepowerplantisprovidedasspecifiedintheoriginalstudy.Thisis
helpfulsincedifferencesinlocalcostlevels,inparticularrelatedtolabourcostandproductivity,
are expected for different locations. A sensitivity analysis of locationspecific costs for CO2
captureinstallations
can
be
found
in
the
literature
(GCCSI,
2009).
Conversionandcalibrationofperformancedata
ThetechnicalperformanceofpowerplantswithCO2captureistypicallysummarisedintermsof
plant efficiencies, power output and CO2 emissions. Terminology related to performance
evaluation is used consistently throughout technoeconomic studies. Key performance and
operationalparametersreported includethenetefficiencyorheatrate,thenetpoweroutput,
specificCO2emissions,andtheplantcapacityfactororloadfactor.
Performanceestimates inpublishedstudiesareusuallybasedonfundamentalmassandenergy
balances from process flow sheets of the power plant and the CO2 capture and compression
process. Analyses are commonly based on process simulation as it is typically performed to
assess general feasibility or for frontend engineering and design (FEED) studies. Standardised
(ISO)ambientconditionsareusuallyassumedforthestudies.
Nonetheless, importantdifferences inrelevanttechnicalassumptionscanapply, forexample in
terms of fuel types or qualities, CO2 compression and pumping discharge pressures, or
assumptions regardingcoolingwatercharacteristics (e.g.Zhai,2010).Due to thecomplexityof
theprocessesorlimiteddetailprovidedinpublishedinformation,itwasimpossibletorecalibrate
performance results across the breadth of studies under consideration. Though performance
related data are not reevaluated in this analysis, it is important to note that differences in
performanceassumptions
can
have
asubstantial
impact
on
results.
The
potential
impact
varies
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
21/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|19
across capture and power plant technologies, and is discussed in more detail in the scientific
literature(e.g.Rubin,2007).
Published overall CO2 capture rates are between 85% and 100%. Data are not scaled to a
standardised capture rate, since reported cases likely represent the most costeffective or
advantageous
operating
conditions.
Furthermore,
some
capture
processes
would
be
limited
intheir flexibility in terms of achievable capture rates. To enable a comparison (on a consistent
level)ofcostdataacrosstechnologiesatslightlydifferentcapturerates,costsofCO2avoidedare
includedinthispaper.
CO2purity isabove99.9% forsolventbasedpost andprecombustioncaptureprocesses.Oxy
combustion can achieve a similar purity level. However, some oxycombustion capture plants
result in a higher level of noncondensablegases and contaminants in theseparated CO2. This
dependsonthepurityofsuppliedoxygenandfuel,thelevelofairinleakageintotheboiler,the
process design and intensity of purification. This study does not calibrate cost or performance
data with respect to CO2 purity. However, oxycombustion data with CO2 purities lower than
99.9%aremarkedaccordinglywhenresultsarepresented.
Rescalingofcostandperformancedatatoacommonnetpowerplantoutput, forexampleby
using powerscaling laws, was considered even though reported net power outputs show a
relativelymoderatespreadacrossdatapoints.However,itisnotappliedsincescalingcanleadto
misleadingresults forcaptureprocessesthatrelyonusingmultipletrainsofequipmentdueto
currentsizelimitations.
Boundaryconditionsandassumptions
Financialandoperationalboundaryconditions,suchasconstructiontimes,projectlifetimesand
capacityfactorsareadoptedfromtheOECDPCGE2010publication.Theparametersusedinthis
working
paper
are
listed
in
Table
2,
together
with
assumptions
typically
used
by
different
organisations.
Contributionsofownerscostsrangebetween5%and25%across individualstudies.Thisstudy
assumesan averagecontribution ofownerscosts toovernight costs of15%. For reevaluating
LCOE,IDCiscalculatedseparatelyforeachcase.
ThePCGE2010studyassumesa15%contingencycostforpowerplantswithonlyasmallnumber
ofinstalledfacilities.Thiscontingencyaccountsforunforeseentechnicalorregulatorydifficulties,
andisaddedtotheLCOEcalculationinthelastyearofconstruction.InthePCGE2010study,itis
applied for nuclear power plants, offshore wind and CCS.5 For all other technologies, a 5%
contingency is added. This working paper follows the same approach. Contingency cost
calculationsare
based
on
EPC
cost.
5
Thisdoes
however
not
apply
to
data
for
nuclear
power
plants
in
France,
Japan,
Korea
and
the
United
States,
where
a
largenumberofnuclearplantsarealreadyinstalled.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
22/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|20
Table2.Technoeconomicassumptionstypicallyusedbydifferentorganisations,andinthisanalysis
Organisation CCP CMU EPRI GCCSI GHGIA N ETL NZEC MIT
Thisstudy
(basedon
OECD,2010)
Discountrates 10% 9
10% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Owner'scost 57% 15% 7% 1525% 7% 10% 15%
Capacityfactor,coal 75% 80% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%
Capacityfactor,naturalgas 95% 75% 85% 85% 85%
Economiclife,coal 30yrs 30yrs 30yrs 25yrs 30yrs 25yrs 20yrs 40yrs
Economiclife,naturalgas 25yrs 30yrs 30yrs 25yrs 30yrs 30yrs
Construction time,coal 4yrs 4yrs 3yrs 3yrs 3yrs 4yrs
Construction time,naturalgas 3yrs 2yrs
ContingencieswithCCS 20% 530% 1314% 520% 10% 1520% 10% 15%
Valuesofbyproductsorwastegeneratedinthepowerplants,suchassulphur,gypsumandslag
orash,areassumedazeronetcost.Attheendoftheproject lifetime,5%ofovernightcosts is
appliedincostcalculationsfordecommissioning.Assumptionsonfuelpricesvaryacrossregions
andaresummarisedinBox1.
Box1.Fuelpriceassumptions
Common fuel prices that remain constant over the entire lifetime of the plant are assumed for
evaluatingelectricitygenerationcosts.Thisstudyusesforconsistencyfuelpricesforbituminouscoals
andnaturalgasasdefinedintheOECDPCGE2010publication(eventhoughinparticularnaturalgas
prices
are
currently
lower).
Sub
bituminous
coals
and
lignite
are
typically
not
traded
on
an
international level.Henceforthesecoalsnationalfuelpriceassumptionsareused.Sinceacrossthe
datacoveredbythisreviewsubbituminouscoalsandligniteareonlyusedinUSplants,fuelpricesas
reportedbyDOE/NETLareassumed(NETL,2010e).Followingsimilarconsiderations,thefuelpricefor
biomass,whichisonlyusedinasinglecaseforcofiring,isbasedonassumptionsfromtheunderlying
study(GHGIA,2009).
Insummary,thefollowingfuelpricesareassumedinthisstudy:
OECDEurope
Bituminouscoal:USD3.60pergigajoule(/GJ)(USD90/tonne)
Naturalgas:USD9.76/GJ(USD10.30/MBtu)
Biomass:USD11.32/GJ
UnitedStates
Bituminouscoal:USD2.12/GJ(USD47.60/tonne)
Naturalgas:USD7.40/GJ(USD7.78/MBtu)
Subbituminouscoal:USD0.72/GJ(USD14.28/tonne)
Lignite:USD0.86/GJ(USD13.19/tonne)
China
Bituminouscoal:USD2.95/GJ(USD86.34/tonne)
Naturalgas:USD4.53/GJ(USD4.78/MBtu)
Conversion between lower (LHV) and higher heating value (HHV) thermal plant efficiencies is
simplifiedbased
on
IEA
conventions,
with
a5%
difference
for
coal
and
10%
for
natural
gas.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
23/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|21
LCOEalsoaccounts for variableand fixedO&Mcosts. Incontrast to fixed O&Mcosts,variable
O&M costs include all consumable items, spare parts, and labour that are dependent on the
outputlevelatagivenplant.Forprocessesthatarenotyetcommerciallyavailable,itiscommon
to approximate both variable and fixed O&M costs by a using a percentage estimate of the
capital cost. This approach was also taken in the abovementioned OECDstudy. O&M costsof
largescale,
commercial
CO2captureinstallationsatpowerplantsstillremainuncertain.Hencea
constantfractionof4%oftheinstalledcapitalcostsforreferenceplantswithoutCO2captureand
forplantswithcaptureisappliedasthebasisforO&Mcostassumptionsacrossallcasestudies.
Since the impact of individual O&M assumptions is reduced, this approach also simplifies
comparisonsbetweenLCOEresults.
ReportedCO2emissions includeonlyemissionsrelatedtothepowerplantcombustionprocess.
Equivalent lifecycle CO2emissionsarehigher due to additional emissions from theacquisition
and transport of raw materials, power transmission and depending on the specific enduse.
Recentlifecycleanalysesofcoal andnaturalgasfiredpowerplantshavebeenpublishedbythe
USDepartmentofEnergy(NETL,2010be).
Inaddition,
LCOE
figures
provided
in
this
report
reflect
private
costs
only,
without
considering
externalcostswithrespecttoenvironmentalandhealthrelatedimpactswhichareparticularly
difficulttoquantify.Externalcostscoverexternalitiesatallstagesoftheproductionprocesssuch
as construction, dismantling, the fuel cycle and operation, which are converted into monetary
value. A recent European study provides estimates of external LCOE associated with power
generationtechnologies.Theimpactassessmentfocusesonpotentialdamageonhumanhealth,
buildingmaterials,cropsandecosystems,andduetoclimatechange.ForGermanyexternalcosts
of fossilfuelledpowergenerationwithCCSareestimated in theorderofUSD1.8/MWh in the
year2025(usingyear2000cost levels),comparedtoaboutUSD4.6/MWh forfossil fuelpower
generationwithoutCCS(NEEDS,2009).
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
24/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|22
Costandperformanceresultsanddiscussion
In this working paper cost and performance data for CO2 capture from power generation are
reviewed,recalibratedandupdatedto2010costlevels.Theresultsofthisanalysisarepresented
anddiscussed
in
this
chapter.
Maincasestudies
Only CO2 capture cases that are covered by several studies are included in this report. The
evaluationofcoalfiredpowergenerationfocusesonpost andoxycombustionCO2capturefrom
supercritical (SCPC) and ultrasupercritical pulverised coal (USCPC) boilers as well as pre
combustion CO2 capture from integrated gasification combined cycles (IGCC). Postcombustion
CO2captureisalsoanalysedfornaturalgascombinedcycles(NGCC).6
Hence,resultsforfourmainCO2capturecasesarepresented:
Postcombustion
CO2
capture
from
coal
fired
power
generation
using
amines
PrecombustionCO2capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles
OxycombustionCO2capturefrompulverisedcoalpowergeneration
PostcombustionCO2capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles
PostcombustionCO2captureusingammoniaisapotentialneartermalternativetoaminebased
solvents.Asimilarlydetailedanalysis isnotpossibleforammoniabasedsolventssinceonlyfew
relateddataarepresented intheanalysedstudies.Availabledataarenonetheless listed inthe
Annexofthisworkingpaperforreference.
BiomassfiredpowergenerationwithCO2capture isnotevaluated indepthsince information is
rare
compared
to
coal
and
natural
gasfired
plants.
A
single
data
point
for
post
combustion
capture from coalfired power plants with 10% cofiring of biomass is however added in the
resultspresentedinthischapterforcomparison.
As outlined above, results report cost and performance estimates for newbuild, early
commercialplants.Allcostdata, includingLCOEandcostofCO2avoided,covercostsrelatedto
thecaptureandcompressionofCO2tosupercriticalpressures,aswellastheconditioningofCO2
for transportation (but not for CO2 transport and storage). Generally, CO2 capture costs are
considered to represent the bulk of the costs of integrated CCS projects. CO2 transport and
storage costs can still be significant depending on the local availability and characteristics of
storagesites,andarethuscrucialadditionaleconomicfactorstoconsiderinanyprojectspecific
evaluationorenergyscenariomodellingwork.
To illustratecostandtechnologydevelopmenttrends,CO2capturedatashown inthefollowing
tables and figures are sorted by the year of the cost information as provided in the original
publication.Keydataareshownforreferencecaseswith(w/)CO2captureandwithout(w/o)CO2
capture.CostofCO2avoidedisausefulmetricforcomparingeconomicsofaspecificCO2capture
processagainstalternativeCO2capturetechnologies.AnappropriatereferencecasewithoutCO2
capture needs to be chosen for specific assessments. In a specific newbuild CCS project, this
referencewouldbethemosteconomicalpowergenerationalternativewithoutCCSthatmeets
all projectspecific requirements (e.g. regarding plant availability or operating flexibility). This
6
Acrossreviewed
studies,
only
asingle
case
is
available
for
each
pre
and
oxy
combustion
capture
from
NGCC;
thus,
thesecaptureroutesarenotincludedinthisreview.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
25/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|23
referenceplantdoesnotnecessarilyhavetobebasedonthesamepowergenerationtechnology
orusethesamefuel.
Sinceitisdifficulttodefineauniversallyapplicablereferencetechnology,costofCO2avoidedin
thisstudyiscalculatedusingthesamepowerplanttypewithandwithoutcapture.ForIGCCwith
CO2capture,
cost
of
CO2
avoided
is
also
presented
using
aPC
reference
based
on
data
published
bythesameorganisation.CostofCO2avoidedforcoalbasedoxycombustioncaptureisbasedon
aPCreferencecasewithoutCO2capture,withdatafromthesameorganisation.
Mosttechnoeconomicdataavailablefromthereviewedstudiesdescribecaptureinstallationsin
the United States, followed by studies on European power plants.7 An analysis of CO2 capture
costandperformanceinChinaisincludedinthisanalysis.BroadassessmentsacrossCO2capture
routesarehoweverscarceforinstallationsinnonOECDcountries.
In some of the following tables, different power plant and coal types are shown next to each
otherforthesamecaptureroute.Whilethedifferenttypesarelistedexplicitly,thisisimportant
tonotesincecoaltypescanvarywidelyfromthepredominantlyanalysedbituminouscoalstothe
less
common
sub
bituminous
coals
or
lignite.
In
addition,
some
organisations
published
several
setsoftechnoeconomicdataforthesamefueltypeandcaptureroute.Averagedataprovidedin
thefarrightcolumnofthetablesareaddedtoguidethereader,butshouldbeinterpretedwith
somecareagainst thisbackground.Additional tables illustrate the influence of the typeof the
powerplantandthespecificfuelusedforeachcaptureroute.
PostcombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines
Costandperformancedata forpostcombustionCO2capture fromcoalfiredpowergeneration
are shown in Table3. Technoeconomic data for 14 different cases from 7 organisations are
analysed,includingacasestudyforaninstallationinChina.
All
postcombustion
capture
cases
are
using
amine
based
solvents
for
CO2 capture, typically
monoethanolamine (MEA). Data for aqueous ammoniabased processes are provided in the
Annex. Postcombustion CO2 capture from SCPC or USCPC boilers that operate on bituminous
coals(labelledasBitcoal)areanalysedmostoften.Additionaldatacoversubcritical(SubPC)
orcirculatingfluidisedbed(CFB)boilers,andplantsthatoperateonsubbituminouscoals,lignite
orwith10%cofiringofbiomassinadditiontobituminouscoal.8
Averagepublishedcapacityfactorsare83%forthecasesshown;CO2captureratesare87%.Net
power outputs including CO2 capture range from 399MW to 676 MW, at an average net
efficiencyof30.9%(LHV)acrossOECDregions.Thecostandperformanceimpactofaddingpost
combustionCO2capturetoacoalfiredreferenceplantwithoutCO2captureisgiveninFigure2.
Netefficiency
penalties
between
8.7
and
12.0
percentage
points
(LHV)
are
estimated
for
post
combustionCO2captureinOECDregions,whichisonaveragea25%reductioninefficiency.The
netefficiencypenaltyestimatedforaninstallationinChinais10.8percentagepoints.
7 Another study on CCS performance and cost by the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel
PowerPlants
(ZEP)
is
announced
for
2011,
but
was
not
yet
available
at
the
time
of
this
publication.
8 Forbiomasscofiring,actualCO2emissionsarestatedinTable3.Nopriceforagreencertificateisassumed.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
26/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|24
Table3.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines
Regionalfocus
Average
(OECD)
Yearofcostdata
2005
2005
2005
2005
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2009
2009
2009
2009
Yearofpub
lication
2007
2007
2007
2007
2009
2009
2009
2009
2010
2010
2009
2009
2009
2009
Organisatio
n
CMU
MIT
GHGIAGHGIA
EPRI
EPRI
EPRI
MIT
NETL
NETL
GCCSI
GCCSIGHGIA
NZEC
ORIGINAL
DATAASPUBLISHED(convertedtoUSD)
Region
US
US
EU
EU
US
US
US
US
US
US
US
US
EU
CHN
Specificfue
ltype
Bitcoal
Lignite
Bitcoal
Bitcoal
Sub
bit
coal
Sub
bit
coal
Bitcoal
Bitcoal
Bitcoal
Bitcoal
Bitcoal
Bitcoal
Bit+10%
Biomass
Bitcoal
Powerplan
ttype
SCPC
CFB
U
SCPC
USCPC
SCPC
USCPC
SCPC
SCPC
SCPC
Sub
PC
SCPC
USCPC
SCPC
USCPC
Netpower
outputw/ocapture(MW)
528
500
758
758
600
600
600
500
550
550
550
550
519
824
582
Netpower
outputw/capture(MW)
493
500
666
676
550
550
550
500
550
550
550
550
399
622
545
Netefficien
cyw/ocapture,LHV(%)
41.3
36.5
44.0
44.0
39.2
39.8
40.0
40.4
41.2
38.6
41.4
46.8
44.8
43.9
41.4
Netefficien
cyw/capture,
LHV(%)
31.4
26.7
34.8
35.3
28.2
28.8
29.1
30.7
29.9
27.5
29.7
34.9
34.5
33.1
30.9
CO2emissio
nsw/ocapture(kg/MWh)
811
1030
743
743
879
865
836
830
802
856
804
707
754
797
820
CO2emissio
nsw/capture(kg/MWh)
107
141
117
92
124
121
126
109
111
121
112
95
73
106
111
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW)
1442
13301
408
1408
2061
2089
2007
1910
2024
1996
2587
2716
1710
856
1
899
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW)
2345
22701
979
2043
3439
3485
3354
3080
3570
3610
4511
4279
2790
1572
3
135
Relativede
creaseinnetefficiency
24%
27%
21%
20%
28%
28%
27%
24%
28%
29%
28%
26%
23%
25%
25%
RE
EVALU
ATEDDATA(2010USD)
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW)
1508
18681
720
1720
2580
2615
2512
2391
2203
2172
2409
2529
1873
938
2
162
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW)
2664
34042
581
2664
4596
4657
4482
4116
4148
4195
4485
4255
3263
1838
3
808
LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh)
50
49
69
69
62
63
73
70
65
66
70
70
78
51
66
LCOEw/ca
pture(USD/MWh)
80
84
95
97
107
109
121
112
113
117
121
112
118
80
107
CostofCO2avoided(USD/tCO2
)
43
40
42
42
60
61
68
58
69
69
74
68
59
42
58
Relativein
creaseinovernightcost
77%
82%
50%
55%
78%
78%
78%
72%
88%
93%
86%
68%
74%
96%
75%
Relativein
creaseinLCOE
59%
73%
38%
40%
72%
72%
67%
60%
73%
77%
73%
59%
52%
57%
63%
OECD
China
Notes:DatacoveronlyCO2captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.
Overnightcostsincludeowners,
EPCand
contingencycosts,
butnotIDC.
A15%contingencybased
onEPCcostis
addedforunfor
eseentechnicalorregulatorydifficultiesforCCScases,
comparedtoa5%contingencyappliedfornon
CCScases.IDCisincludedinLCOEcalculations.Fuelpriceassu
mptionsdiffer
betweenregions
.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
27/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|25
Figure2.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines:CO2captureimpact
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
CMU
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
EPRI
EPRI
EPRI
MIT
NETL
NETL
GCCSI
GCCSI
GHGIA
NZEC
Increaseinovernightcost(2010USD/kW)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
CMU
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
EPRI
EPRI
EPRI
MIT
NETL
NETL
GCCSI
GCCSI
GHGIA
NZEC
IncreaseinLCOE(2010USD/MWh)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
CMU
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
EPRI
EPRI
EPRI
MIT
NETL
NETL
GCCSI
GCCSI
GHGIA
NZEC
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost(%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
CMU
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
EPRI
EPRI
EPRI
MIT
NETL
NETL
GCCSI
GCCSI
GHGIA
NZEC
Netefficiencypenalty(percentagepoints,LHV)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CMU
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
EPRI
EPRI
EPRI M
ITNETL
NETL
GCCSI
GCCSI
GHGIA
NZEC
RelativeincreaseinLCOE(%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
CMU
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
EPRI
EPRI
EPRI
MIT
NETL
NETL
GCCSI
GCCSI
GHGIA
NZEC
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency(%)
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
Notes:DatacoveronlyCO2captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.Datasortedbyyearofcostinformationas
published;whitebarsshowdataforinstallationsinChina.Overnightcostsincludeowners,EPCandcontingencycosts,butnotIDC.A
15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5%
contingencyapplied
for
non
CCS
cases.
IDC
is
included
in
LCOE
calculations.
Fuel
price
assumptions
differ
between
regions.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
28/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|26
By adding CO2 capture, overnight costs updated to 2010 cost levels increase on average by
USD1647/kW, but vary substantially by a factor of more than two between USD861/kW and
USD2076/kW.ForChinaovernightcostsareexpectedtoincreasebyUSD900/kW.
Incomparison,therelative(percentagewise)increaseofovernightcostscomparedtoovernight
costsof
the
reference
power
plant
is
more
stable
across
studies.
Overnight
costs
increase
by
on
average75%whenaddingCO2capture.Thistrend iscomparablyrobustacrossawiderangeof
powerplanttypes(SCPC,USCPC,CFB),coalsused(bituminous,subbituminousand lignite),and
tosomeextentevenregions(e.g.theUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanUnion).
InOECDregions,LCOEincreasesonaveragebyUSD41/MWh,butvariesbetweenUSD26/MWh
andUSD51/MWh.Therelative increaseofLCOEcomparedtoLCOEofthereferenceplant ison
average63%.CostsofCO2avoidedareonaverageUSD58/tCO2butvarybetweenUSD40/tCO2
and USD74/tCO2 for case studies across OECD regions. Costs of CO2 avoided for China are
estimatedUSD42/tCO2.
Table4.Postcombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes(OECDonly)
Specificfueltype
Powerplanttype USCPC SCPC SubPC USCPC SCPC CFB
Numberofcasesincluded 3 5 1 1 1 1
ORIGINALDATAASPUBLISHED(convertedtoUSD)
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 689 581 550 600 600 500 582
Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 631 553 550 550 550 500 545
Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 44.9 41.4 38.6 39.8 39.2 36.5 41.4
Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 35.0 31.0 27.5 28.8 28.2 26.7 30.9
CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 731 804 856 865 879 1030 820
CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 101 109 121 121 124 141 111
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1844 1896 1996 2089 2061 1330 1899
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 2767 3151 3610 3485 3439 2270 3135
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 22% 25% 29% 28% 28% 27% 25%
REEVALUATEDDATA(2010USD)
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1990 2124 2172 2615 2580 1868 2162
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3166 3760 4195 4657 4596 3404 3808
LCOE w/ocapture(USD/MWh) 69 66 66 63 62 49 66
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 101 107 117 109 107 84 107
CostofCO2avoided(USD/tCO2) 51 59 69 61 60 40 58
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 58% 76% 93% 78% 78% 82% 75%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE 46% 62% 77% 72% 72% 73% 63%
Overall
Average
Bitcoal Subbit&Lignite
Notes: Data cover only CO 2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency
costs, but not IDC. A15 % contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory di fficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5%
contingency appliedfornonCCScases.IDCis includedin LCOEcalculations.Fuel priceassumptionsdifferbetweenregions.
TheinfluenceofspecificpowerplantandfueltypesisshowninTable4.Thenumberofsamples
perpower
plant
and
fuel
combination
is
limited,
however,
and
results
should
not
be
regarded
as
representative.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
29/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|27
Overnight costs for USCPC plants running on bituminous coals are in comparison quite low. It
shouldbenotedthoughthattwooutofthethreeunderlyingdatasetsarebasedonupdatedcost
informationfromasinglereferencefrom2005.
Data for SubPC bituminous coalfired power plants, as well as all subbituminous and lignite
firedinstallations,
are
each
based
just
on
asingle
publication
(Figure
4).
They
thus
should
not
be
interpretedinfavouroforagainstalternativeoptions.
PrecombustionCO2capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles
Cost and performance data for precombustion CO2 capture from integrated gasification
combinedcycles(IGCC)areshowninTable5.Technoeconomicdatafor11differentcasesfrom7
organisationsareanalysed,includingacasestudyforaninstallationinChina.
Table5.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles
Regionalfocus China
Average
(OECD)
Yearofcostdata 2005 2005 2005 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009
Yearofpublication 2007 2007 2007 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
Organisation MIT GHGIA GHGIA NETL N ETL N ETL CMU EPRI E PRI GCCSI N ZEC
ORIGINALDATAASPUBLISHED(convertedtoUSD)
Region US EU EU US US US US US US US CHN
Specificfueltype Bitc oa l B itc oa l B itc oa l Bi tc oa l Bi tc oa l B itc oa l Bi tcoal Subbit
coal Bitcoal Bitcoal Bitcoal
Powerplanttype GE Shel l GE
Quench GER+Q
CoPE
Gas FSQ Shell
GE
Quench(Generic) (Generic)
Shell
IGCC TPRI
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 500 776 826 622 625 629 538 573 603 636 633
Net
power
output
w/
capture
(MW) 500 676 730 543 514 497 495 482 507 517 662 546
Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 40.3 43.1 38.0 40.9 41.7 44.2 40.0 41.0 41.2 43.2 41.4
Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 32.7 34.5 31.5 34.3 32.6 32.8 34.5 32.3 32.3 33.6 36.8 33.1
CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 832 763 833 782 776 723 819 845 805 753 793
CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 102 142 152 93 98 99 94 141 135 90 95 115
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1430 1613 1439 2447 2351 2716 1823 3239 2984 3521 2356
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 1890 2204 1815 3334 3466 3904 2513 4221 3940 4373 1471 3166
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 19% 20% 17% 16% 22% 26% 14% 21% 22% 22% 20%
REEVALUATEDDATA(2010USD)
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 2009 1970 1758 2663 2559 2956 1551 3702 3410 3279 2586
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 2834 2874 2367 3874 4027 4536 2323 5150 4808 4348 1721 3714
LCOE w/ocapture(USD/MWh) 62 69 75 76 73 81 52 86 92 88 75
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 83 102 95 104 109 120 71 118 126 115 73 104
CostofCO2avoided(USD/tCO2) 29 53 30 42 53 62 26 45 51 41 43
CostofCO2avoidedvsPCbaseline
(USD/tCO2)18 53 38 57 64 86 28 64 79 64 32 55
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 41% 46% 35% 45% 57% 53% 50% 39% 41% 33% 44%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE 35% 48% 27% 38% 49% 48% 37% 37% 37% 31% 39%
OECD
Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs i nclude owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A15%
contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for non CCS cases. IDC is
included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ between regions. Generic data shown for EPRI; further details for individual gasifier designs, including data
forSiemensgasifiersareavailablein EPRI(2009).
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
30/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|28
Figure3.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles:CO2captureimpact
0
500
1000
1500
2000
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
NETL
NETL
NETL
CMU
EPRI
EPRI
GCCSI
Increaseinovernightcost(2010USD/kW)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
NETL
NETL
NETL
CMU
EPRI
EPRI
GCCSI
IncreaseinLCOE(2010USD/MWh)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
NETL
NETL
NETL
CMU
EPRI
EPRI
GCCSI
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost(%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
NETL
NETL
NETL
CMU
EPRI
EPRI
GCCSI
Netefficiencypenalty(percentagepoints,LHV)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
NETL
NETL
NETL
CMU
EPRI
EPRI
GCCSI
RelativeincreaseinLCOE(%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
NETL
NETL
NETL
CMU
EPRI
EPRI
GCCSI
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency(%)
2005 2007 20092008 2005 2007 20092008
2005 2007 20092008 2005 2007 20092008
2005 2007 20092008 2005 2007 20092008
Notes:DatacoveronlyCO2captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.Datasortedbyyearofcostinformationas
published;nofullsetofdataavailableforinstallationsinChina.Overnightcostsincludeowners,EPCandcontingencycosts,butnot
IDC.A15%contingencybasedonEPCcostisaddedforunforeseentechnicalorregulatorydifficultiesforCCScases,comparedtoa5%
contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ between regions. IGCC
referenceplant
data
are
not
provided
in
the
NZEC
(2009)
publication.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
31/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|29
AllreviewedstudiesapartfromoneevaluateprecombustionCO2capturefromIGCCplantsthat
operateonbituminouscoals.GasifiertechnologiesbyConocoPhillips(CoP),GeneralElectric(GE),
ShellandtheChineseThermalPowerResearchInstitute(TPRI)areanalysed.
Averagepublishedcapacityfactorsare81%forthecasesshown;CO2captureratesare88%.Net
poweroutputs
including
CO2
capture
range
from
482
MW
to
730
MW
across
OECD
regions,
at
an
averagenetefficiencyof33.1%(LHV).The impactofaddingprecombustioncapturetoanIGCC
referenceplantwithoutCO2captureisillustratedinFigure3.
Net efficiency penalties between 5.5 and 11.4 percentage points (LHV) are estimated for pre
combustionCO2captureinOECDregions,which isonaveragea20%reduction inefficiency.No
IGCCreferenceplantdataareprovidedinthecasestudyonprecombustionCO2captureinChina
(NZEC,2009).
By adding CO2 capture, overnight costs updated to 2010 cost levels increase on average by
USD1128/kWcompared toan IGCC referencecase.However,the increasevariessubstantially
byafactorofmorethantwobetweenUSD609/kWandUSD1580/kW.9
The
relative
(percentagewise)
increase
of
overnight
costs
is
more
stable
across
studies.
Overnightcosts increasebyonaverage44%comparedtoan IGCCreferencepowerplantwhen
adding CO2 capture. This trend appears comparably robust across the range of gasifier
technologiesandbetweentheUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanUnion.
LCOE figures follow a similar pattern. In OECD regions LCOE increases on average by
USD29/MWh relative to an IGCC reference plant, but varies between USD19/MWh and
USD39/MWh.Therelative increaseofLCOEcomparedtotheLCOEofthereferenceplant ison
average39%.
Costs of CO2 avoided are on average USD43/tCO2 if an IGCC reference plant is used, but vary
betweenUSD26/tCO2andUSD62/tCO2forOECDregionsacrossstudycases.
If
a
pulverised
coal
power
plant
reference
case
is
used,
average
costs
of
CO2 avoided rise toUSD55/tCO2. The cost of CO2 avoided in China is estimated USD32/tCO2 relative to a Chinese
pulverisedcoalpowerplant,orabouthalfofthecostsinOECDregions.
Table 6 illustrates the influence of specific fuel types. However, only a single data point is
available for subbituminous and lignitefired installations, which is insufficient for drawing
conclusionsregardingtechnologycompetitivenesscomparedtobituminouscoalfiredoptions.
9
Asstated
by
the
authors
in
afollow
up
publication
(MIT,
2009),
IGCC
cost
estimates
published
in
MIT
(2007)
might
havebeentoooptimistic.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
32/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|30
Table6.Precombustioncapture:influenceofcoals(OECDonly)
Numberofcasesincluded 9 1
ORIGINALDATAASPUBLISHED(convertedtoUSD)
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 639 573 633
Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 553 482 546
Netefficiency w/ocapture,LHV(%) 41.4 41.0 41.4
Netefficiency w/capture,LHV(%) 33.2 32.3 33.1
CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 787 845 793
CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 112 141 115
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 2258 3239 2356
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3049 4221 3166
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 20% 21% 20%
REEVALUATEDDATA(2010USD)
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 2462 3702 2586
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3555 5150 3714
LCOE w/ocapture(USD/MWh) 74 86 75
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 103 118 104
Costof
CO2
avoided
(USD/tCO2) 43 45 43
CostofCO2avoidedvsPCbaseline
(USD/tCO2)54 64 55
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 45% 39% 44%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE 39% 37% 39%
Overall
AverageSpecificfueltype Bitcoal
Subbit&
Lignite
Notes: Data cover only CO2capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight
costs incl ude owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15% contingency based on EPC cost
is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5%
contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price
assumptions differ betweenregions.
Oxycombustion
CO2
capture
from
coal
fired
power
generation
Cost and performance data for oxycombustion CO2 capture from coalfired power generation
are shown in Table7. Technoeconomic data for 11 different cases from 5 organisations are
analysed,includingacasestudyforaninstallationinChina.Itshouldbenotedaparticularlylarge
numberofdatastemfromasinglerecentUSDepartmentofEnergyassessment(NETL,2010e).
Oxycombustion capture from SCPC and USCPC boilers that operate on bituminous coals are
most often evaluated in the reviewed studies. Additional data cover CFB boilers, and plants
operatingonsubbituminouscoalsorlignite.
Averagepublishedcapacityfactorsare85%forthecasesshown;CO2captureratesare92%.Net
power
outputs
including
CO2
capture
range
from
500
MW
to
550
MW
in
OECD
countries,
at
an
averagenetefficiencyof31.9%(LHV).
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
33/51
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|31
Table7.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration
Regionalfocus China Average
(OECD)
Yearofcostdata 2005 2005 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2009 2009 2009
Yearof
publication 2007 2007 2008 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009
Organisation GHGIA MIT NETL N ETL N ETL NETL N ETL N ETL GCCS I G CCSI NZ EC
ORIGINALDATAASPUBLISHED(convertedtoUSD)
Region EU US US US US US US US US US CHN
Specific fueltype Bitcoal B itcoal B itcoal Subbit
coal
Subbit
coal Lignite
Subbit
coal Lignite Bitcoal B itcoal B itcoal
Powerplanttype USCPC SCPC SCPC SCPC SCPC SCPC CFB CFB SCPC USCPC USCPC
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 758 500 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 824 566
Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 532 500 550 550 550 550 549 550 550 550 673 543
Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 44.0 40.4 41.4 40.6 40.6 39.4 40.9 40.2 41.4 46.8 43.9 41.6
Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 35.4 32.1 30.7 32.5 29.5 31.4 31.6 30.7 30.8 34.7 35.6 31.9
CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 743 830 800 859 859 925 846 884 800 707 797 825
CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 84 104 0 98 0 103 99 105 0 0 98 59
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1408 1330 1579 1851 1851 2003 1938 2048 2587 2716 856 1931
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 2205 1900 2660 3093 3086 3163 3491 3821 4121 3985 1266 3153
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 20% 21% 26% 20% 27% 20% 23% 24% 26% 26% 19% 23%
REEVALUATEDDATA(2010USD)
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1720 1868 1976 2317 2317 2507 2426 2563 2409 2529 938 2263
Overnightcostw/capture( USD/kW) 2875 2849 3555 4133 4124 4227 4665 5106 4098 3962 1481 3959
LCOE w/ocapture(USD/MWh) 69 59 61 56 56 62 59 63 70 70 51 62
LCOE
w/
capture
(USD/MWh) 101 84 100 96 97 100 108 119 112 106 69 102
CostofCO2avoided(USD/tCO2) 49 35 49 52 47 46 66 72 52 50 27 52
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 67% 53% 80% 78% 78% 69% 92% 99% 70% 57% 58% 74%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE 47% 43% 65% 71% 72% 62% 84% 89% 60% 51% 36% 64%
OECD
Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15%
contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for non CCS cases. IDC i s
included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ between regions. CO 2 purities >99.9% apart from GHG IA (96%), GCCSI (83%) and NETL ca se with 29.5% (LHV)
efficiency(83%).
TheimpactofaddingoxycombustionCO2capturerelativetoacoalfiredreferenceplantwithout
CO2captureisillustratedinFigure4.
Net
efficiency
penalties
between
7.9
and
12.2
percentage
points
(LHV)
are
estimated
for
oxy
combustionCO2captureinOECDregions,whichisonaveragea23%reductioninefficiency.The
netefficiencypenaltyestimatedforaninstallationinChinais8.3percentagepoints.
By adding CO2 capture, overnight costs updated to 2010 cost levels increase on average by
USD1696/kW but vary substantially by a factor of more than two between USD981/kW and
USD2543/kW.ForChinaovernightcostsareexpectedto increasebyUSD542/kW.Therelative
(percentagewise)increaseofovernightcostsisonaverage74%comparedtoovernightcostsof
thereferencepowerplant.
-
8/11/2019 Costperf Ccs Powergen
34/51
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|32
Figure4.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration:CO2captureimpact
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
GHGIA
MIT
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
GCCSI
GCCSI
NZEC
Increaseinovernightcost(2010USD/kW)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
GHGIA