The energy penalty of post-combustion CO2 capture & storage and its implications for retrofitting the U.S. installed base

A review of the literature has found a factor of 4 spread in the estimated values of the energy penalty for post-combustion capture and storage of CO2 from pulverized-coal (PC) fired power plants. We elucidate the cause of that spread by deriving an analytic relationship for the energy penalty from thermodynamic principles and by identifying which variables are most difficult to constrain. We define the energy penalty for CCS to be the fraction of fuel that must be dedicated to CCS for a fixed quantity of work output. That penalty can manifest itself as either the additional fuel required to maintain a power plant's output or the loss of output for a constant fuel input. Of the 17 parameters that constitute the energy penalty, only the fraction of available waste heat that is recovered for use and the 2nd-law separation efficiency are poorly constrained. We provide an absolute lower bound for the energy penalty of ∼11%, and we demonstrate to what degree increasing the fraction of available-waste-heat recovery can reduce the energy penalty from the higher values reported. It is further argued that an energy penalty of ∼40% will be easily achieved while one of ∼29% represents a decent target value. Furthermore, we analyze the distribution of PC plants in the U.S. and calculate a distribution for the additional fuel required to operate all these plants with CO2 capture and storage (CCS).

[1]  Jon Gibbins,et al.  Maximising the effectiveness of post combustion CO2 capture systems , 2005 .

[2]  Paul Clark,et al.  Canadian Clean Power Coalition: The evaluation of options for CO2 capture from existing & new coal-fired power plants , 2005 .

[3]  E. W. McAllister Pipeline rules of thumb handbook : quick and accurate solutions to your everyday pipeline problems , 2005 .

[4]  Christopher B. Field,et al.  Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO , 2007 .

[5]  D. Gaskell Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Materials , 2017 .

[6]  Richard Edwin Sonntag,et al.  Fundamentals of Thermodynamics , 1998 .

[7]  Eric W. Lemmon,et al.  Thermophysical Properties of Fluid Systems , 1998 .

[8]  Jianbin Tang,et al.  Enhanced CO2 Absorption of Poly(ionic liquid)s , 2005 .

[9]  A. Dandekar,et al.  Petroleum Reservoir Rock and Fluid Properties , 2006 .

[10]  Edward S Rubin,et al.  A technical, economic, and environmental assessment of amine-based CO2 capture technology for power plant greenhouse gas control. , 2002, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Uncertainties in CO2 Capture and Sequestration Costs , 2003 .

[12]  M. King Hubbert,et al.  Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing , 1972 .

[13]  S Pacala,et al.  Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies , 2004, Science.

[14]  Eric Croiset,et al.  Techno-economic study of CO2 capture from an existing coal-fired power plant: MEA scrubbing vs. O2/CO2 recycle combustion , 2003 .

[15]  Sally M. Benson,et al.  The role of hydrogeological and geochemical trapping in sedimentary basins for secure geological storage of carbon dioxide , 2004, Geological Society, London, Special Publications.

[16]  P. Gennes,et al.  Capillarity and Wetting Phenomena , 2004 .

[17]  J. Canadell,et al.  Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  B. Metz IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage , 2005 .

[19]  Babatunde A. Oyenekan,et al.  Modeling of strippers for CO2 capture by aqueous amines , 2007 .

[20]  D. Broseta,et al.  CO2/water interfacial tensions under pressure and temperature conditions of CO2 geological storage , 2007 .