Comparative techno-economic assessment of biomass and coal with CCS technologies in a pulverized combustion power plant in the United Kingdom

The technical performance and cost effectiveness of white wood pellets (WWP) combustion in comparison to three types of coal namely U.S., Russian and Colombian coals are investigated in this study. Post-combustion capture and storage (CCS) namely with amine FG+, and oxy-fuel with carbon capture and storage (oxy-fuel) are applied to a 650 MW pulverized combustion (PC) plant. The impacts of the Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) and carbon price (CP) policy in accelerating the CCS deployment in the framework of GHG emissions mitigation, are also evaluated. The operational factors affecting CCS costs and emissions in the power generation plants are taken into consideration, hence, the Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM 8.0.2) is employed for a systematic estimation of plant performance, costs and emissions of different scenarios of fuel and CCS technologies. This study showed that the utilization of white wood pellets (WWP) in electricity generation can annually avoid about 3 M tonnes CO2 emissions from a 650 MW power plant. However, this mitigation process had impact on the plant efficiency and the cost of electricity. Further, the BECCS using white wood pellets has showed a better efficiency and lower cost of electricity with the oxy-fuel technology than the post-combustion CCS technology. However, in order to boost biomass energy CCS (BECCS) deployment with the WWP, an increase of the ROC for biomass power plants, or, an increase of the carbon price for the coal power plants is recommended. It was found that, the sensitivity of COE towards the ROC was higher than towards the carbon price variation. This result can be interpreted as the ROC has more positive impact than the carbon price, on the COE from the point of customers view without adding more burdens on the power generation companies.

[1]  M. Thring.  World Energy Outlook , 1977 .

[2]  K. Lindgren,et al.  The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) , 2010 .

[3]  Jon Price,et al.  Evaluation of performance and cost of combustion‐based power plants with CO2 capture in the United Kingdom , 2013 .

[4]  David William Keith,et al.  Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage , 2005 .

[5]  Havva Balat,et al.  Potential contribution of biomass to the sustainable energy development. , 2009 .

[6]  Rosa Domenichini,et al.  Techno-economic evaluation of biomass fired or co-fired power plants with post combustion CO2 capture , 2011 .

[7]  O. Ricci.  Providing adequate economic incentives for bioenergies with CO2 capture and geological storage , 2012 .

[8]  Igor Bulatov,et al.  Techno-economic modelling and cost functions of CO2 capture processes , 2007, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[9]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage , 2007 .

[10]  Neil Hewitt,et al.  A Techno-economic assessment of the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the use of biomass co-combustion , 2011 .

[11]  A. Laude,et al.  Biomass and CCS: The influence of technical change , 2013 .

[12]  S. Fuss,et al.  BECCS in South Korea—Analyzing the negative emissions potential of bioenergy as a mitigation tool , 2014 .

[13]  M. Coulter.  Minamata Convention on Mercury , 2016, International Legal Materials.

[14]  B. M. Gibbs,et al.  The effect of air staged, co-combustion of pulverised coal and biomass blends on NOx emissions and combustion efficiency , 2011 .

[15]  André Faaij,et al.  Techno-economic performance and challenges of applying CO2 capture in the industry: A case study of five industrial plants , 2013 .

[16]  A. J. Toft,et al.  A techno-economic comparison of power production by biomass fast pyrolysis with gasification and combustion , 2002 .

[17]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  A proposed methodology for CO2 capture and storage cost estimates , 2013 .

[18]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Understanding the pitfalls of CCS cost estimates , 2012 .

[19]  S. De,et al.  Impact of cofiring biomass with coal in power plants - A techno-economic assessment , 2009 .

[20]  D. Wiley,et al.  The impact of biomass quality and quantity on the performance and economics of co-firing plants with and without CO2 capture , 2014 .

[21]  Sergio Mussati,et al.  CO2 capture in power plants: Minimization of the investment and operating cost of the post-combustion process using MEA aqueous solution , 2012 .

[22]  Sergio Mussati,et al.  CO2 capture using monoethanolamine (MEA) aqueous solution: Modeling and optimization of the solvent regeneration and CO2 desorption process , 2012 .

[23]  Pierre Desprairies,et al.  World Energy Outlook , 1977 .

[24]  Andrea Ramírez,et al.  Technical and economic prospects of coal- and biomass-fired integrated gasification facilities equipped with CCS over time , 2013 .

[25]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Comparative assessments of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage , 2005 .

[26]  Paola Lettieri,et al.  Techno-economic performance analysis of energy production from biomass at different scales in the UK context , 2011 .

[27]  Марк Д. Левайн,et al.  Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Technical Summary , 2007 .

[28]  M. Oksa,et al.  Increased Lifetime for Biomass and Waste to Energy Power Plant Boilers with HVOF Coatings: High Temperature Corrosion Testing Under Chlorine-Containing Molten Salt , 2013, Journal of Thermal Spray Technology.

[29]  Mike Shelton.  Carbon management plan , 2012 .

[30]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with CO2 capture , 2007 .

[31]  Patricia Thornley,et al.  Securing a bioenergy future without imports , 2014 .

[32]  Mohamed Pourkashanian,et al.  Wood would burn , 2011 .