Results: Browse all publications

This document is a summary of the project titled 'With/without CO2 Capture Options'.

• D3.3: Parameterised sub-system models
• D3.4: Model requirements and specifications and modelling strategy
• D3.5: Model and sub-model user documentation

• T6 denotes dedicated biomass oxy-firing combustion
• T7 Biomass combustion, with CO₂ capture by post-combustion carbonate looping
• T8 Dedicated biomass chemical-looping-combustion using a solid oxygen carrier

• An assessment of materially significant changes from the previous CCGT benchmark, together with documentation of the assumptions used in development of the new benchmark;
• An assessment of appropriate EGR rates fulfilling the above criteria appropriate exhaust gas recycle (EGR) rates which could potentially be used in CCGTs with CCS;
• Presentation of the technical and economic performance and deliverables for each of the benchmark cases

• The base case consists of a CCGT plus ICP configured for 90% capture using an amine system but where the CCGT is unaffected by the capture plant. In this case the capture plant operates independently of the CCGT and is self-sufficient in steam and power;
• The first sensitivity case investigates the use of power import from the CCGT. The steam demand for the ICP is met with a package steam boiler;
• The second sensitivity case investigates the effect of importing both power and steam from the CCGT. This is considered to represent a retrofit scenario, where the ICP is built next to an existing CCGT.

The objectives of this project are to:

The primary aim and objective of the work is to develop the technical and economic information that will assist existing or future owners and investors in the power industry to evaluate the advantages of utilising coal based syngas generated in a Gasification Enabling Module (GEM) to refuel existing NGCC plants which have the capability to remove 85% or more of the CO2 prior to combustion. To achieve this objective, the study will evaluate GEMs located both adjacent and remote from existing NGCC plants and will evaluate the performance of the GEMs both before and after carbon capture. The results to date on these flow schemes are based on preliminary conceptual technical evaluations and preliminary cost estimates.

This document is the final report for the project titled 'Coal-Fired Advanced Supercritical Retrofit with CO₂ Capture '.

Retrofit of carbon abated clean coal technologies (CATs) is a practical solution with no technical or physical show stoppers being identified in the course of the study. Advanced supercritical boiler/turbine (ASC BTR) technology is available now with the appropriate guarantees for retrofitting to coal-fried power plant to improve efficiency, reduce costs and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

When CO2 capture and storage becomes economic or mandatory the retrofit routes studies are likely to be amongst the best and most economic options for existing pulverised fuel power generation plant. The project consortium members (Doosan Babcock, Alstom, E.ON UK, Air Products, Imperial College London and Fluor Ltd) are well positioned to exploit the opportunities worldwide.

1. Introduction
2. Technical Description of Results
3. Recommendations
4. Results and Conclusions
5. Acknowledgements
6. References

• Successfully deploying CCS would save billions of pounds – capturing industrial emissions at low cost, providing low carbon energy for industry, transport & heat and delivering negative emissions combined with Bioenergy
• To deliver these savings requires around 10GW of capacity by 2030 - needs capital investment around £21-31bn – based on efficient sharing of infrastructure and co-ordinated cluster/hub development
• Early investments in transport and storage infrastructure can unlock future unit cost reductions and strategic build out options. Strike prices below £100 per MWh are achievable in the 2020s
• 10GW scale deployment is achievable and affordable, capturing and storing around 50 million tonnes of CO₂ per annum from power and industry by 2030
• Developing capture technology options and diversifying geographical location can deliver reduced risk
• Success or otherwise in deploying CCS determines key aspects of the UK’s energy infrastructure architecture
• Delay increases reliance on nuclear and offshore wind – increasing system risk and costs before and after 2030

1. how material they are in UK bioenergy value chains, and
2. identifying which UK value chains offer a significant opportunity to deliver GHG savings relative to fossil baselines.

• Successfully deploying Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) would save tens of billions of pounds to consumers and businesses – providing low carbon electricity, capturing industrial emissions, creating flexible low carbon fuels and delivering negative emissions in combination with bioenergy.
• CCS is a combination of proven technologies. Injection of CO₂ from an ammonia plant for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) began as far back as 1972 and “first intent” CCS began at Sleipner in 1996. By 2017, 22 plants will be running CCS technology applications, spanning post combustion and pre-combustion coal, natural gas steam reforming, bioenergy CCS (corn to ethanol), and applications from power, gas production, refi ning, chemicals and steel.
• The potential for cost reduction through deployment is significant:
  • Investment in anchor projects provides transport and storage infrastructure for subsequent projects to build on
  • Reductions in scope and increased project sizes to exploit economies of scale.
  • Risk reduction during the early stages of CCS deployment should attract more competitive fi nancing. Developers in the US, UK and Canada have committed to publically sharing their CCS designs and early operational experiences such that future projects can benefit.
• Additional cost reduction can be achieved through innovation in capture technology:
  • Post combustion capture, based on mature amine gas separation technology, has seized the largest share of the power market and still offers opportunities for further improvements.
  • Pre-combustion gasification technology potentially offers a clean, flexible alternative for coal, biomass and waste, and significant research, development and demonstration (RD&D) funding is resulting in continuous improvements, now feeding into demonstrations.
  • Other promising options using membranes, hydrates, cryogenics, enzymes, fuel cells and carbonate chemistry are actively being developed, and progressing towards commercialisation, such as vacuum swing adsorption (VSA) in a refinery in the USA. Post combustion temperature swing adsorption (TSA) has the potential to compete with amines in the future, but next generation adsorbents are still at a relatively early stage of their development.
  • NET Power’s supercritical CO₂ technology has the potential to be a game-changing technology. It faces several new challenges in equipment design and operation, but testing is under way. It is likely to take several years before it can be demonstrated at full scale.
• Given the current immature status of thenext generation of alternatives, amines or pre-combustion are likely to be the most investable options for the next five to ten years.
• One pathway to reducing the cost of CCS is deploying a small number of full scale plants sequentially (at least three), based on established technologies. Our analysis strongly suggests that risk reduction through sequential deployments of existing technology in the UK can drive output energy costs down by as much as 45%, largely through a combination of increased scale, infrastructure sharing and reductions in fi nancing costs. This paves the way for the introduction of higher risk emerging technologies once the overall CCS risk is reduced.

Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS) will reduce the risk and cost of the UK's transition to a low carbon energy system, according to this report delivered by the Energy Systems Catapult for the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI).

'Still in the mix? Understanding the role of Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage', takes into account recent cost reductions in renewables and the latest ETI modelling on CCUS costs. The report reaffirms previous ETI work on the importance of CCUS deployment by 2030 and ETI analysis that if CCUS is not developed at all before 2050, the 'national bill' for low carbon energy that year would be circa £35bn higher - equivalent to circa 1% of expected GDP.

The report highlights gas power with CCUS (up to 3GW) as an effective low carbon electricity option that can be deployed cost-effectively before 2030 within an electricity generation mix that meets the 5th carbon budget. The report concludes that early investment in gas power CCUS in favourable locations for a CCUS industrial cluster represents the most straightforward, deliverable and best value approach to early deployment of the technology.

Key points:

The ETI has spent 10 years carrying out extensive research on the deployment of CCUS and for this report commissioned analysis from Baringa Partners and Frontier Economics. Baringa explored cost-optimal pathways for decarbonising electricity out to 2050 with a focus on the pre-2030s. Frontier Economics produced illustrative analysis against a baseline scenario informed by the assumptions constructed by Baringa's work.

• Overall the impact of changing CCGT with CCS technical parameters on whole system CO₂ emissions and generation costs are small (however, there are some caveats in relation to the perfect foresight modelling)
• Changes in the market conditions such as interconnection and storage have a larger impact on system generation and the levels of flexibility provided by CCGT CCS plant.
• In the Base case, a CCGT CCS plant has an annual average load factor of ca 75%, indicating it is running baseload whenever it can but is providing downwardflexibility in times of high wind generation.
• CCGT CCS plant require around 70-80 starts per year in the Base market environment. However, with storage at current levels or a higher cost of imports, the requirement can increase to around 130-140 starts per year.
• One caveat to note is that perfect foresight with a 3 day look ahead is used in the Plexos model, which could not be achieved in reality. This allows the model to optimise around wind and demand variations and may therefore underestimate the importance of flexibility parameters like ramp rates

• Large Gas Turbines – prevalence and role in UK power
• Additional plant to add post combustion Carbon Capture and Storage
• Cost, scale and promoting industrial emissions capture
• Performance requirements as renewables increase - 2030
• Alternative oxy –fired and pre-combustion options

The objectives of this project were:

The project was set up as a potential first step towards a VPDM. It would review the current capability of power plant modelling; it would also look at the future needs and applications, consider how well current models can meet these needs and in particular what further developments are needed. Finally, it would consider the proposed VPDM initiative and consider whether it is the best framework for providing these further developments and if so, what is the best strategy that will enable the UK to produce this VPDM.

The conclusion from the review of existing capabilities is that the UK currently has a strong simulation capability in power generation. Difficulties begin to arise when the range of plant considered in a given study increases, when an equipment change is proposed within an existing study, where operators wish to simulate off-design performance within their own plant or where whole system studies such as economic analyses and cycle optimisation are required.

It is clear from this project that a major collaborative initiative similar to that proposed for a VPDM, is required for the fossil power plant industry. This project has identified the development needs that the collaborative project must meet and it has also detailed a particular integrated software framework that should achieve these needs. Most of the leading organisations in the UK involved in power plant modelling development or use, have indicated that they would like to participate in preparing such a collaborative project.

1. the investability of the “power station project” and
2. the extent to which it will act as an exemplar for future power/CCS projects.

The objectives of this project are:

UK power generation and associated industries are facing growing pressures from ever-tightening environmental constraints, the drive for sustainability and increasing global competition. This provides new challenges and applications for power plant modelling in: new plant development; design and manufacture; plant demonstration and authorisation; engineering support. The recently completed project on Power Plant Modelling (see Project Summary 336), which was supported by the DTI, proposes a new UK power plant modelling initiative: the development of a VPDM.

A future VPDM will provide an integrated software framework which will allow the full potential for whole-plant software modelling to be realised. As a result, UK industry could provide competitive power plant solutions and ultimately zero emission technologies with significantly reduced development costs, risk and very competitive prices. The development of the full VPDM will be split into two phases, each lasting three years.

Foresight's Advanced Power Generation Task Force has recommended that an initiative should be undertaken to produce a Virtual Plant Demonstration Model. The 'Stepping Stones to Sustainability' report of the Foresight's Energy and Natural Environment Panel recommends a priority area for R and D on 'low and close-to-zero emission power generation'; a realistic VPDM will be a key tool in ensuring the UK can successfully develop fossil fuelled commercial plant that delivers this.

The VPDM should reduce the need for full-scale demonstrations of advanced power station technologies, which for large plant typically cost £100's million and should also reduce commissioning times for new plant. It will also help in the development of new technologies and assist in avoiding 'dead-end' developments. Finally, it will be of benefit to existing plant by being able to model new technology upgrades, which could be a major business in some markets where existing coal plant could become marginalised.

Specific objectives are:

The UK has a track record of power plant development and operation that is second to none. However the UK has at times fallen down on getting these developments into the market place; the ABGC and some IGCC designs are examples of this. In the case of GTs, new developments have been pushed through into the market place but often they have been accompanied by major commissioning, operation and maintenance problems that have threatened their economic viability. A way round these problems is to have major demonstration programmes but these are extremely costly for large plant and difficult to fund.