Integration of the calcium carbonate looping process into an existing pulverized coal-fired power plant for CO2 capture: techno-economic and environmental evaluation

Angela Rolfe, Ye Huang, Martin Haaf, Sina Rezvani, David McIlveen-Wright, Neil Hewitt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This work focuses on the techno-economic and environmental evaluation for an existing pulverised coal-fired power plant retrofitted with the calcium carbonate looping (CCL) process. The CCL process is an attractive technology due to relatively low efficiency penalties. To better understand the performance characteristics and benefits of systems integration, the steady-state model for the CCL process, developed in ECLIPSE, was used to perform a techno-economic analysis. The simulation results showed that the net efficiency for the selected 600MW PC power plant equipped with the CCL process was 33.8% (lower heating value) at 94% CO2 capture ratio. With respect to the reference plant without CO2 capture, this resulted in a lower efficiency penalty (7.4% points). The capital cost and maintenance and operating costs were estimated according to a bottom-up approach using the information gained through the mass and energy balance. Specific investment was found to be €1778/kWe, which is approximately 21% higher than for the reference plant. The levelized cost of electricity would be €77.3/MWh with CCL CO2 capture. The CO2 capture cost and CO2 avoidance cost relative to the corresponding reference plant were €16.3/tCO2 captured and €22.3/tCO2 avoided, respectively. The SimaPro software was used to perform a life cycle analysis of the capture technology to determine its environmental impact. The results illustrated that the overall climate change impact had been reduced by 75%, while the fossil depletion impact was increased by 22%.
LanguageEnglish
Pages169-179
JournalApplied Energy
Volume222
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Jul 2018

Fingerprint

Calcium carbonate
Power plants
Coal
Economics
Costs
Economic analysis
Energy balance
Operating costs
Climate change
Environmental impact
Life cycle
Electricity
Heating

Keywords

  • pulverised coal-fired power plant
  • calcium carbonate looping
  • CO2 capture
  • life cycle analysis
  • techno-economic analysis

Cite this

@article{d972f5ca0b3f48008067c90559889e26,
title = "Integration of the calcium carbonate looping process into an existing pulverized coal-fired power plant for CO2 capture: techno-economic and environmental evaluation",
abstract = "This work focuses on the techno-economic and environmental evaluation for an existing pulverised coal-fired power plant retrofitted with the calcium carbonate looping (CCL) process. The CCL process is an attractive technology due to relatively low efficiency penalties. To better understand the performance characteristics and benefits of systems integration, the steady-state model for the CCL process, developed in ECLIPSE, was used to perform a techno-economic analysis. The simulation results showed that the net efficiency for the selected 600MW PC power plant equipped with the CCL process was 33.8{\%} (lower heating value) at 94{\%} CO2 capture ratio. With respect to the reference plant without CO2 capture, this resulted in a lower efficiency penalty (7.4{\%} points). The capital cost and maintenance and operating costs were estimated according to a bottom-up approach using the information gained through the mass and energy balance. Specific investment was found to be €1778/kWe, which is approximately 21{\%} higher than for the reference plant. The levelized cost of electricity would be €77.3/MWh with CCL CO2 capture. The CO2 capture cost and CO2 avoidance cost relative to the corresponding reference plant were €16.3/tCO2 captured and €22.3/tCO2 avoided, respectively. The SimaPro software was used to perform a life cycle analysis of the capture technology to determine its environmental impact. The results illustrated that the overall climate change impact had been reduced by 75{\%}, while the fossil depletion impact was increased by 22{\%}.",
keywords = "pulverised coal-fired power plant, calcium carbonate looping, CO2 capture, life cycle analysis, techno-economic analysis",
author = "Angela Rolfe and Ye Huang and Martin Haaf and Sina Rezvani and David McIlveen-Wright and Neil Hewitt",
note = "Reference text: [1] IEA, Key world energy statistics, International Energy Agency, 2016. [2] k. Burnard and S. Bhattacharya, Power Generation from Coal - Ongoing Developments and Outlook, International Energy Agency, 2011. [3] B. Tang, R. Li, X. Li and H. Chen, “An optimal production planning model of coal-fired power industry in China: Considering the process of closing down inefficient units and developing CCS technologies,” Applied Energy, vol. 206, pp. 519-530, 2017. [4] X. Zhang, N. Winchester and ZhangX., “The future of coal in China,” Energy Policy, vol. 110, pp. 644-652, 2017. [5] P. Johnstone and S. Hielscher, “Phasing out coal, sustaining coal communities? Living with technological decline in sustainability pathways,” The Extractive Industries and Society, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 457-461, 2017. [6] IEA, World Energy Outlook 2016, Paris: IEA, 2016. [7] B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos and L. A. Meyer, “IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. [8] UN, “The Paris Agreement,” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php. [9] R. Sathre, L. Gustavsson and N. Le Truong, “Climate effects of electricity production fuelled by coal, forest slash and municipal solid waste with and without carbon capture,” Energy, vol. 122, pp. 711-723, 2017. [10] L. Johnston and R. Wilson, “Strategies for Decarbonizing the Electric Power Supply,” November 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.raponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/rap-gpbp-decarbonizingpowersupply-2012-nov-16.pdf. [11] IEA, “20 years of carbon capture and storage - Accelerating future deployment,” 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/20-years-of-carbon-capture-and-storage.html. [12] F. Clarens, J. Esp{\'i}, M. Giraldi and M. Rovira, “Life cycle assessment of CaO looping versus amine-based absorption for capturing CO2 in a subcritical coal power plant,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 46, pp. 18-27, 2016. [13] IEA, “Cement Technology Roadmap 2009,” December 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Cement.pdf. [14] D. Hanak and V. Manovic, “Economic feasibility of calcium looping under uncertainty,” Applied Energy, 2017. [15] D. Summerbell, D. Khripko, C. Barlow and J. Hesselbach, “Cost and carbon reductions from industrial demand-side management: Study of potential savings at a cement plant,” Applied Energy, vol. 197, pp. 100-113, 2017. [16] Scarlet, “Scale-up of Calcium Carbonate Looping Technology for efficient CO2 Capture from Power and Industrial Plants,” 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.project-scarlet.eu/wordpress/?page_id=70. [17] J. Hilz, M. Helbig, M. Haaf, A. Daikeler, J. Str{\"o}hle and B. Epple, “Long-term pilot testing of the carbonate looping process in 1 MWth scale,” Fuel, vol. 201, p. 892–899, 2017. [18] M. Haaf, A. Stroh, J. Hilz, M. Helbig, J. Str{\"o}hle and B. Epple, “Process modelling of the calcium looping process and validation,” Energy Procedia, vol. 114, p. 167 – 178, 2017. [19] J. Hilz, M. Helbig, M. Haaf, A. Daikeler, J. Str{\"o}hle and B. Epple, “Investigation of the fuel influence on the carbonate looping process in 1 MWth scale,” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 169, pp. 170-177, 2018. [20] A. Stroh, F. Alobaid, M. von Bohnstein and J. E. B. Str{\"o}hle, “Numerical CFD simulation of 1 MWth circulating fluidized bed using the coarse grain discrete element method with homogenous drag models and particle size distribution,” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 169, pp. 84-93, 2018. [21] M. Zeneli, A. Nikolopoulos, N. Nikolopoulos, P. Grammelis, S. Karellas and E. Kakaras, “Simulation of the reacting flow within a pilot scale calciner by means of a three phase TFM mode,” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 162, pp. 105-125, 2017. [22] J. Str{\"o}hle, M. Orth and B. Epple, “Chemical looping combustion of hard coal in a 1MWth pilot plant using ilmenite as oxygen carrier,” Applied Energy, vol. 157, pp. 288-294, 2015. [23] C. Cormos and L. Petrescu, “Evaluation of Calcium Looping as Carbon Capture Option for Combustion and Gasification Power Plants,” Energy Procedia, vol. 51, pp. 154-160, 2014. [24] J. M{\'i}guez, J. Porteiro, R. P{\'e}rez-Orozco, D. Pati{\~n}o and S. Rodr{\'i}guez, “Evolution of CO2 capture technology between 2007 and 2017 through the study of patent activity,” Applied Energy, vol. 211, pp. 1282-1296, 2018. [25] L. Petrescu, D. Bonalumi, G. Valenti, A. Cormos and C. Cormos, “Life Cycle Assessment for supercritical pulverized coal power plants with post-combustion carbon capture and storage,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 157, pp. 10-21, 2017. [26] J. Hilz, M. Helbig, A. Stroh, J. Str{\"o}hle, B. Epple, C. Weing{\"a}rtner and O. Stallmann, “1 MWth pilot testing and scale-up of the carbonate looping process in the SCARLET project,” in 3rd IEAGHG Post Combustion Capture Conference (PCCC3), Regina, Canada, 2015. [27] K. Atsonios, P. Grammelis, S. Antiohos, N. Nikolopoulos and E. Kakaras, “Integration of calcium looping technology in existing cement plant for CO2 capture: Process modelling and technical considerations,” Fuel, p. 210–223, 2015. [28] Ulster University, “ECLIPSE process simulator,” Energy Research Centre, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Copyright 1992. [29] “Enhanced capture of CO2,” FP6 ENCAP: Enhanced Capture of CO2, [Online]. Available: http://www.encapco2.org/. [30] “CORDIS,” FP7 DECARBit: Enabling advanced pre-combustion capture techniques and plants, [Online]. Available: http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/85742_en.html. [31] B. C. Williams; J. T. McMullan, Techno-economic analysis of fuel conversion and power generation systems — the development of a portable chemical process simulator with capital cost and economic performance analysis capabilities Wiley International Journal of Energy Research, 1996, Vol.20, Issue 2, pp.125-142 [32] ISO, BS EN ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Requirements and guidelines, BSI, 2006. [33] H. Baumann and A. Tillman, The Hitch Hikers Guide to LCA, 1 ed., Studentlitteratur AB, 2004. [34] M. Goedkoop, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. De Schryver, J. Struijs and R. van Zelm, “ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level,” Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Netherlands, 2013. [35] T. Ponsioen, “Normalisation: New Developments in Normalisation Sets,” PR{\'e}, 21 July 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.pre-sustainability.com/the-normalisation-step-in-lcia. [36] ReCiPe, “Normalisation,” ReCiPe, [Online]. Available: http://www.lcia-recipe.net/normalisation. [37] Sekkappan G, Melling PJ, Anheden M, Lindgren G, Kluger F, Molinero IS, et al. Oxy-fuel technology for CO2 capture from advanced supercritical pulverized fuel plants. In: 8th International conference on greenhouse gas control technologies. Trondheim Norway. Proceedings of GHGT-8; June 2006. [38] Y. Huang, M. Wang, P. Stephenson and D McIlveen-Wright, et al, “Hybrid coal fired power plants with CO2 capture: A technical and economic evaluation based on computational simulations,” Fuel, vol. 101, pp. 244-253, 2012 [39] CAESAR Project, “European Best Practice Guidelines for Assessment of CO2 Capture Technologies”, Deliverable 4.9, February 2011. [Online] Available: http://www.energia.polimi.it/news/D{\%}204_9{\%}20best{\%}20practice{\%}20guide.pdf [40] D. Hanak, A. Kolios and V. Manovic, Comparison of probabilistic performance of calcium looping and chemical solvent scrubbing retrofits for CO2 capture from coal-fired power plant, Applied Energy, 172 (2016) pp 323-336 [41] J. Davison, L. Mancuso and N. Ferrari, Costs of CO2 capture technologies in coal fired power and hydrogen plants, Energy Procedia 63 (2014) pp. 7598 – 7607 [42] E. Visser, C. Hendriks, M. Barrio, M. M{\o}lnvik, G. Koeijer, S. Liljemark and Y. Gallo, Dynamis CO2 quality recommendations, international journal of greenhouse gas control, 2 (2008), pp 478-484 [43] S. Rezvani, Y. Huang, D. McIlveen-Wright, NJ Hewitt, Y. Wang, Comparative assessment of sub-critical versus advanced super-critical oxyfuel fired PF boilers with CO2 sequestration facilities, FUEL 86 (2007) pp 2134-2143 [44] B. Singh, A. Str{\o}mman and E. Hertwich, {"}Comparative life cycle environmental assessment of CCS technologies,{"} International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 911-921, 2011. [45] A. Cormos, C. Dinca, L. Petrescu, D. Chisalita, S. Szima and C. Cormos, {"}Carbon capture and utilisation technologies applied to energy conversion systems and other energy-intensive industrial applications,{"} Fuel, 2017.",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.160",
language = "English",
volume = "222",
pages = "169--179",
journal = "Applied Energy",
issn = "0306-2619",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Integration of the calcium carbonate looping process into an existing pulverized coal-fired power plant for CO2 capture: techno-economic and environmental evaluation. / Rolfe, Angela; Huang, Ye; Haaf, Martin; Rezvani, Sina; McIlveen-Wright, David; Hewitt, Neil.

In: Applied Energy, Vol. 222, 15.07.2018, p. 169-179.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Integration of the calcium carbonate looping process into an existing pulverized coal-fired power plant for CO2 capture: techno-economic and environmental evaluation

AU - Rolfe, Angela

AU - Huang, Ye

AU - Haaf, Martin

AU - Rezvani, Sina

AU - McIlveen-Wright, David

AU - Hewitt, Neil

N1 - Reference text: [1] IEA, Key world energy statistics, International Energy Agency, 2016. [2] k. Burnard and S. Bhattacharya, Power Generation from Coal - Ongoing Developments and Outlook, International Energy Agency, 2011. [3] B. Tang, R. Li, X. Li and H. Chen, “An optimal production planning model of coal-fired power industry in China: Considering the process of closing down inefficient units and developing CCS technologies,” Applied Energy, vol. 206, pp. 519-530, 2017. [4] X. Zhang, N. Winchester and ZhangX., “The future of coal in China,” Energy Policy, vol. 110, pp. 644-652, 2017. [5] P. Johnstone and S. Hielscher, “Phasing out coal, sustaining coal communities? Living with technological decline in sustainability pathways,” The Extractive Industries and Society, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 457-461, 2017. [6] IEA, World Energy Outlook 2016, Paris: IEA, 2016. [7] B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos and L. A. Meyer, “IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. [8] UN, “The Paris Agreement,” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php. [9] R. Sathre, L. Gustavsson and N. Le Truong, “Climate effects of electricity production fuelled by coal, forest slash and municipal solid waste with and without carbon capture,” Energy, vol. 122, pp. 711-723, 2017. [10] L. Johnston and R. Wilson, “Strategies for Decarbonizing the Electric Power Supply,” November 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.raponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/rap-gpbp-decarbonizingpowersupply-2012-nov-16.pdf. [11] IEA, “20 years of carbon capture and storage - Accelerating future deployment,” 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/20-years-of-carbon-capture-and-storage.html. [12] F. Clarens, J. Espí, M. Giraldi and M. Rovira, “Life cycle assessment of CaO looping versus amine-based absorption for capturing CO2 in a subcritical coal power plant,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 46, pp. 18-27, 2016. [13] IEA, “Cement Technology Roadmap 2009,” December 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Cement.pdf. [14] D. Hanak and V. Manovic, “Economic feasibility of calcium looping under uncertainty,” Applied Energy, 2017. [15] D. Summerbell, D. Khripko, C. Barlow and J. Hesselbach, “Cost and carbon reductions from industrial demand-side management: Study of potential savings at a cement plant,” Applied Energy, vol. 197, pp. 100-113, 2017. [16] Scarlet, “Scale-up of Calcium Carbonate Looping Technology for efficient CO2 Capture from Power and Industrial Plants,” 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.project-scarlet.eu/wordpress/?page_id=70. [17] J. Hilz, M. Helbig, M. Haaf, A. Daikeler, J. Ströhle and B. Epple, “Long-term pilot testing of the carbonate looping process in 1 MWth scale,” Fuel, vol. 201, p. 892–899, 2017. [18] M. Haaf, A. Stroh, J. Hilz, M. Helbig, J. Ströhle and B. Epple, “Process modelling of the calcium looping process and validation,” Energy Procedia, vol. 114, p. 167 – 178, 2017. [19] J. Hilz, M. Helbig, M. Haaf, A. Daikeler, J. Ströhle and B. Epple, “Investigation of the fuel influence on the carbonate looping process in 1 MWth scale,” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 169, pp. 170-177, 2018. [20] A. Stroh, F. Alobaid, M. von Bohnstein and J. E. B. Ströhle, “Numerical CFD simulation of 1 MWth circulating fluidized bed using the coarse grain discrete element method with homogenous drag models and particle size distribution,” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 169, pp. 84-93, 2018. [21] M. Zeneli, A. Nikolopoulos, N. Nikolopoulos, P. Grammelis, S. Karellas and E. Kakaras, “Simulation of the reacting flow within a pilot scale calciner by means of a three phase TFM mode,” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 162, pp. 105-125, 2017. [22] J. Ströhle, M. Orth and B. Epple, “Chemical looping combustion of hard coal in a 1MWth pilot plant using ilmenite as oxygen carrier,” Applied Energy, vol. 157, pp. 288-294, 2015. [23] C. Cormos and L. Petrescu, “Evaluation of Calcium Looping as Carbon Capture Option for Combustion and Gasification Power Plants,” Energy Procedia, vol. 51, pp. 154-160, 2014. [24] J. Míguez, J. Porteiro, R. Pérez-Orozco, D. Patiño and S. Rodríguez, “Evolution of CO2 capture technology between 2007 and 2017 through the study of patent activity,” Applied Energy, vol. 211, pp. 1282-1296, 2018. [25] L. Petrescu, D. Bonalumi, G. Valenti, A. Cormos and C. Cormos, “Life Cycle Assessment for supercritical pulverized coal power plants with post-combustion carbon capture and storage,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 157, pp. 10-21, 2017. [26] J. Hilz, M. Helbig, A. Stroh, J. Ströhle, B. Epple, C. Weingärtner and O. Stallmann, “1 MWth pilot testing and scale-up of the carbonate looping process in the SCARLET project,” in 3rd IEAGHG Post Combustion Capture Conference (PCCC3), Regina, Canada, 2015. [27] K. Atsonios, P. Grammelis, S. Antiohos, N. Nikolopoulos and E. Kakaras, “Integration of calcium looping technology in existing cement plant for CO2 capture: Process modelling and technical considerations,” Fuel, p. 210–223, 2015. [28] Ulster University, “ECLIPSE process simulator,” Energy Research Centre, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Copyright 1992. [29] “Enhanced capture of CO2,” FP6 ENCAP: Enhanced Capture of CO2, [Online]. Available: http://www.encapco2.org/. [30] “CORDIS,” FP7 DECARBit: Enabling advanced pre-combustion capture techniques and plants, [Online]. Available: http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/85742_en.html. [31] B. C. Williams; J. T. McMullan, Techno-economic analysis of fuel conversion and power generation systems — the development of a portable chemical process simulator with capital cost and economic performance analysis capabilities Wiley International Journal of Energy Research, 1996, Vol.20, Issue 2, pp.125-142 [32] ISO, BS EN ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Requirements and guidelines, BSI, 2006. [33] H. Baumann and A. Tillman, The Hitch Hikers Guide to LCA, 1 ed., Studentlitteratur AB, 2004. [34] M. Goedkoop, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. De Schryver, J. Struijs and R. van Zelm, “ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level,” Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Netherlands, 2013. [35] T. Ponsioen, “Normalisation: New Developments in Normalisation Sets,” PRé, 21 July 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.pre-sustainability.com/the-normalisation-step-in-lcia. [36] ReCiPe, “Normalisation,” ReCiPe, [Online]. Available: http://www.lcia-recipe.net/normalisation. [37] Sekkappan G, Melling PJ, Anheden M, Lindgren G, Kluger F, Molinero IS, et al. Oxy-fuel technology for CO2 capture from advanced supercritical pulverized fuel plants. In: 8th International conference on greenhouse gas control technologies. Trondheim Norway. Proceedings of GHGT-8; June 2006. [38] Y. Huang, M. Wang, P. Stephenson and D McIlveen-Wright, et al, “Hybrid coal fired power plants with CO2 capture: A technical and economic evaluation based on computational simulations,” Fuel, vol. 101, pp. 244-253, 2012 [39] CAESAR Project, “European Best Practice Guidelines for Assessment of CO2 Capture Technologies”, Deliverable 4.9, February 2011. [Online] Available: http://www.energia.polimi.it/news/D%204_9%20best%20practice%20guide.pdf [40] D. Hanak, A. Kolios and V. Manovic, Comparison of probabilistic performance of calcium looping and chemical solvent scrubbing retrofits for CO2 capture from coal-fired power plant, Applied Energy, 172 (2016) pp 323-336 [41] J. Davison, L. Mancuso and N. Ferrari, Costs of CO2 capture technologies in coal fired power and hydrogen plants, Energy Procedia 63 (2014) pp. 7598 – 7607 [42] E. Visser, C. Hendriks, M. Barrio, M. Mølnvik, G. Koeijer, S. Liljemark and Y. Gallo, Dynamis CO2 quality recommendations, international journal of greenhouse gas control, 2 (2008), pp 478-484 [43] S. Rezvani, Y. Huang, D. McIlveen-Wright, NJ Hewitt, Y. Wang, Comparative assessment of sub-critical versus advanced super-critical oxyfuel fired PF boilers with CO2 sequestration facilities, FUEL 86 (2007) pp 2134-2143 [44] B. Singh, A. Strømman and E. Hertwich, "Comparative life cycle environmental assessment of CCS technologies," International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 911-921, 2011. [45] A. Cormos, C. Dinca, L. Petrescu, D. Chisalita, S. Szima and C. Cormos, "Carbon capture and utilisation technologies applied to energy conversion systems and other energy-intensive industrial applications," Fuel, 2017.

PY - 2018/7/15

Y1 - 2018/7/15

N2 - This work focuses on the techno-economic and environmental evaluation for an existing pulverised coal-fired power plant retrofitted with the calcium carbonate looping (CCL) process. The CCL process is an attractive technology due to relatively low efficiency penalties. To better understand the performance characteristics and benefits of systems integration, the steady-state model for the CCL process, developed in ECLIPSE, was used to perform a techno-economic analysis. The simulation results showed that the net efficiency for the selected 600MW PC power plant equipped with the CCL process was 33.8% (lower heating value) at 94% CO2 capture ratio. With respect to the reference plant without CO2 capture, this resulted in a lower efficiency penalty (7.4% points). The capital cost and maintenance and operating costs were estimated according to a bottom-up approach using the information gained through the mass and energy balance. Specific investment was found to be €1778/kWe, which is approximately 21% higher than for the reference plant. The levelized cost of electricity would be €77.3/MWh with CCL CO2 capture. The CO2 capture cost and CO2 avoidance cost relative to the corresponding reference plant were €16.3/tCO2 captured and €22.3/tCO2 avoided, respectively. The SimaPro software was used to perform a life cycle analysis of the capture technology to determine its environmental impact. The results illustrated that the overall climate change impact had been reduced by 75%, while the fossil depletion impact was increased by 22%.

AB - This work focuses on the techno-economic and environmental evaluation for an existing pulverised coal-fired power plant retrofitted with the calcium carbonate looping (CCL) process. The CCL process is an attractive technology due to relatively low efficiency penalties. To better understand the performance characteristics and benefits of systems integration, the steady-state model for the CCL process, developed in ECLIPSE, was used to perform a techno-economic analysis. The simulation results showed that the net efficiency for the selected 600MW PC power plant equipped with the CCL process was 33.8% (lower heating value) at 94% CO2 capture ratio. With respect to the reference plant without CO2 capture, this resulted in a lower efficiency penalty (7.4% points). The capital cost and maintenance and operating costs were estimated according to a bottom-up approach using the information gained through the mass and energy balance. Specific investment was found to be €1778/kWe, which is approximately 21% higher than for the reference plant. The levelized cost of electricity would be €77.3/MWh with CCL CO2 capture. The CO2 capture cost and CO2 avoidance cost relative to the corresponding reference plant were €16.3/tCO2 captured and €22.3/tCO2 avoided, respectively. The SimaPro software was used to perform a life cycle analysis of the capture technology to determine its environmental impact. The results illustrated that the overall climate change impact had been reduced by 75%, while the fossil depletion impact was increased by 22%.

KW - pulverised coal-fired power plant

KW - calcium carbonate looping

KW - CO2 capture

KW - life cycle analysis

KW - techno-economic analysis

U2 - 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.160

DO - 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.160

M3 - Article

VL - 222

SP - 169

EP - 179

JO - Applied Energy

T2 - Applied Energy

JF - Applied Energy

SN - 0306-2619

ER -