A Techno-economic assessment of the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the use of biomass co-combustion
A Techno-economic assessment of the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the use of biomass co-combustion
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.fuel.2010.08.022
复制
发表时间：
2011-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Williams, B. C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McIlveen-Wright, D. R.;Huang, Y.;Williams, B. C.
使用可持续生长的生物质作为唯一的燃料，或与煤共烧，是减少燃烧发电厂净CO（2）排放的有效方法。使用生物质可能会降低效率，主要是由于其相对较高的含水量，系统的经济性也可能受到不利影响，通过生物质替代煤减少CO（2）排放的经济成本可通过分析仅用生物质作燃料的系统来确定，生物质或某些废物与煤粉一起在电站锅炉中燃烧的技术可行性已得到充分证实。还发现混合燃烧对效率或火焰稳定性的影响很小，试验工厂的研究表明，混合燃烧可减少NO（x）和SO（x）的排放，有几种技术可用于生物量或废物与煤的混合燃烧。本评估研究检查了以下混合燃烧的潜力：（a）600 MWe的粉末燃料（PF）发电厂，（i）混合燃烧煤与秸秆和污水污泥，（ii）使用秸秆衍生的燃气作为返回燃料;（B）350 MWe的加压流化床燃烧（PFBC）系统，混合燃烧煤与污水污泥;（c）250兆瓦和125兆瓦的循环流化床燃烧厂，将煤与秸秆和污水污泥混烧;（d）25兆瓦的循环流化床燃烧系统，将低硫和高硫含量的煤与秸秆、木材和从橄榄核中压榨的木质物质混烧;（e）12 MWe循环流化床锅炉（CFBC），采用ECLIPSE过程模拟软件包，对低硫和高硫煤与秸秆混烧的技术、环境和经济性进行了分析。发电系统的效率进行了评估和比较不同的技术和系统规模。系统的资本成本估计燃煤，也引入了任何额外的成本时，使用生物质。每种技术的盈亏平衡电价都是在考虑系统规模和所用燃料的情况下计算出来的，由于使用生物质时二氧化碳净排放量减少，因此可以发现使用生物质对电价的影响，并评估减排所需的溢价。此外，还考虑了所需的资助水平，无论是作为二氧化碳信贷还是作为可再生信贷，使使用生物质的系统与仅使用煤炭的系统竞争。与二氧化碳信贷相比，可再生信贷似乎是一种更透明和更具成本效益的机制，以支持在此类发电厂中使用生物质。(C)2010爱思唯尔有限公司保留所有权利。
Using sustainably-grown biomass as the sole fuel, or co-fired with coal, is an effective way of reducing the net CO(2) emissions from a combustion power plant. There may be a reduction in efficiency from the use of biomass, mainly as a result of its relatively high moisture content, and the system economics may also be adversely affected.The economic cost of reducing CO(2) emissions through the replacement of coal with biomass can be identified by analysing the system when fuelled solely by biomass, solely by coal and when a coal-biomass mixture is used.The technical feasibility of burning biomass or certain wastes with pulverised coal in utility boilers has been well established. Cofiring had also been found to have little effect on efficiency or flame stability, and pilot plant studies had shown that cofiring could reduce NO(x) and SO(x) emissions.Several technologies could be applied to the co-combustion of biomass or waste and coal. The assessment studies here examine the potential for co-combustion of (a) a 600 MWe pulverised fuel (PF) power plant, (i) cofiring coal with straw and sewage sludge and (ii) using straw derived fuel gas as return fuel; (b) a 350 MWe pressurised fluidised bed combustion (PFBC) system cofiring coal with sewage sludge; (c) 250 and 125 MWe circulating fluidised bed combustion (CFBC) plants cofiring coal with straw and sewage sludge; (d) 25 MWe CFBC systems cofiring low and high sulphur content coal with straw, wood and woody matter pressed from olive stones (WPOS); and (e) 12 MWe CFBC cofiring low and high sulphur content coal with straw.The technical, environmental and economic analysis of such technologies, using the ECLIPSE suite of process simulation software, is the subject of this study. System efficiencies for generating electricity are evaluated and compared for the different technologies and system scales. The capital costs of systems are estimated for coal-firing and also any additional costs introduced when biomass is used. The Break-even electricity selling price is calculated for each technology, taking into account the system scale and fuel used.Since net CO(2) emissions are reduced when biomass is used, the effect of the use of biomass on the electricity selling price can be found and the premium required for emissions reduction assessed. Consideration is also given to the level of subvention required, either as a Carbon dioxide Credit or as a Renewable Credit, to make the systems using biomass competitive with those fuelled only with coal.It would appear that a Renewable Credit (RC) is a more transparent and cost-effective mechanism to support the use of biomass in such power plants than a Carbon dioxide Credit (CC). (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.