Results: Browse all data

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. We would recommendthat you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biomass to power with amine-based carbon capture. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. We would recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biomass to power with chemical looping CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. Wewould recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. We would recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. We would recommend thatyou read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports wereshown to be invalid. We would recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. We would recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown tobe invalid. We would recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

This spreadsheet model was produced as part of the CCS Capture Benchmark Refresh Study, and provides a techno-economic analysis of the performance of a state-of-the art CCGT with and without amine capture at 90% capture rate. The spreadsheet enables 'what if' calculations of costs for the following designs: CCGT with and without capture, at 100% and 40% load; CCGT with and without capture, with 38% and 18% exhaust gas recycle rates, at 100% and 40% load; CCGT with an independent capture plant, generating its own power and steam, at 100% load; CCGT with an independent capture plant, generating its own steam only, at 100% load CCGT with retrofitted capture plant, at 100% load. Outputs include capital costs, operating costs, cost of capture and levelised cost of electricity. The spreadsheet concentrates on power generation, capture and compression, but allows manual input of transport and storage costs to provide overall figures. These cases are covered in Benchmark Refresh reports D2.1 (refresh of CCGT benchmark and EGR) and D7.1 (Independent Capture Plant). It should be noted that the underlying capture plant designs were reviewed as part of the Independent Capture Plant work, so the results given by this spreadsheet for the earlier cases may not precisely match those presented in Report D2.1.