Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage
Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.009
复制
发表时间：
2007-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
9
通讯作者：
Rao, Anand B.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rubin, Edward S.;Chen, Chao;Rao, Anand B.
CO2捕获和储存（CCS）作为化石燃料发电厂的一种潜在温室气体（GHG）减排方案正受到相当大的关注。CCS的成本和性能估计是能源和政策分析中的关键因素。CCS成本研究必然采用一系列技术和经济假设，这些假设可能会对结果产生巨大影响。因此，特定的研究对分析师的价值往往有限。研究人员和行业人员寻求替代案例的结果。在本文中，我们使用一个通用的建模工具来估计和比较排放量。系统地评估采用CCS的化石燃料发电厂的效率、资源需求和当前成本。这种工厂级的分析探讨了更广泛的关键假设比发现在最近的研究中，我们回顾了三个主要的工厂类型：煤粉（PC）工厂，天然气联合循环（NGCC）工厂，和整体气化联合循环（IGCC）系统使用煤。特别是，我们研究的影响，最近增加的资本成本和天然气价格，以及差异工厂利用率的影响，IGCC融资和运营假设，工厂规模的变化，以及燃料质量的差异，包括烟煤，次烟煤和褐煤。我们的研究结果表明，较高的发电厂和CCS成本比以前的研究，由于最近的资本和运营成本的升级。范围更广的案例还揭示了在有和没有CCS的PC、NGCC和IGCC电厂的相对成本方面以前没有报告过的差异。虽然CCS可以显著减少发电厂的CO排放（通常为85-90%），但CCS能源需求对工厂级资源需求和多介质环境排放的影响也很显著，目前的CCS系统增加了约15-30%。为了描述这种影响，提出了“能源惩罚”的另一种定义，以取代目前普遍使用的这一术语。(C)2007爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有。
CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is receiving considerable attention as a potential greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation option for fossil fuel power plants. Cost and performance estimates for CCS are critical factors in energy and policy analysis. CCS cost studies necessarily employ a host of technical and economic assumptions that can dramatically affect results. Thus, particular studies often are of limited value to analysts. researchers, and industry personnel seeking results for alternative cases. In this paper, we use a generalized modeling tool to estimate and compare the emissions. efficiency, resource requirements and current costs of fossil fuel power plants with CCS on a systematic basis. This plant-level analysis explores a broader range of key assumptions than found in recent studies we reviewed for three major plant types: pulverized coal (PC) plants, natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants, and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems using coal. In particular, we examine the effects of recent increases in capital costs and natural gas prices, as well as effects of differential plant utilization rates, IGCC financing and operating assumptions, variations in plant size, and differences in fuel quality, including bituminous, sub-bituminous and lignite coals. Our results show higher power plant and CCS costs than prior studies as a consequence of recent escalations in capital and operating costs. The broader range of cases also reveals differences not previously reported in the relative costs of PC, NGCC and IGCC plants with and without CCS. While CCS can significantly reduce power plant emissions of CO, (typically by 85-90%), the impacts of CCS energy requirements on plant-level resource requirements and multi-media environmental emissions also are found to be significant, with increases of approximately 15-30% for current CCS systems. To characterize such impacts, an alternative definition of the "energy penalty" is proposed in lieu of the prevailing use of this term. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.