Abstract
As part of the sixth European framework project on enhanced capture of CO2 (ENCAP), several novel power generation cycles with CO2 pre-capture methods are identified and the promising technologies are selected for a techno-economic assessment. For this analysis, the chemical process simulation package ECLIPSE is utilised. Following a detailed mass and energy balance calculation, the economic assessments of the Semi-close Oxygen Combustion (SCOC), Water Cycle and Graz as well as S-Graz Cycles is performed in reference to year 2004. The total capital cost estimation of the studied cycles is implemented in a bottom-up approach. Subsequently, the breakeven electricity selling price (BESP) is determined according to the net present value. Through the modification of parameters such as fuel price or capacity factor, the sensitivity analysis is carried out to assess the effect of endogenous or exogenous changes on the economic viability of the cycles. Among the systems, the S-Graz Cycle is the most cost intensive process. Yet, due to its high plant efficiency, it delivers the lowest electricity price and the lowest CO2-avoidance costs. The Water Cycle is the least capital intensive technology in this study. Due to its poorer plant efficiency however, the economics of this cycle scored third on the list.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 565-572 |
| Journal | Energy Procedia |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published (in print/issue) - Feb 2009 |
Bibliographical note
Reference text: [1]B.C. Willams and J.T. McMullan In: Imariso and Bemtgen, Editors, Development of Computer Models for the Simulation of Coal Liquefaction Processes, Progress in Synthetic Fuels, Graham and Trotman, London (1988), pp. 83–189.[2]ECLIPSE Process Simulator, Copyright 1992, Energy Research Centre, University of Ulster, Coleraine, BTS2 1SA Tel (++44) 02870324469.
[3] GTW, Gas Turbine World Hand Book vol. 25 (2006).
[4]H.M. Kvamsdale, SOFC and Gas Turbine Power Systems: Evaluation of Configuration for CO2 capture, The 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vancouver, Canada, September 2004.
[5]H.M. Kvamsdal, K. Jordal and O. Bolland, A quantitative comparison of gas turbine cycles with CO2 capture, Energy 32 (2007), pp. 10–24. Article | PDF (551 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (63)
[6]L. Keith, Pronske, Fabrication and Testing of an Advanced Nonpolluting Turbine Drive Gas Generator, Clean Energy Systems, Inc., Turbine Power Systems Conference and Condition Monitoring Workshop, February 25, 2002, Galveston, TX.
[7]The costs of air separation units for each cycle was provided by Air Liquide.
[8]R.C. Hendricks, NASA/TM_2005-212632, March 2005.
[9]The Graz Cycle—A Zero Emission Power Plant of Highest Efficiency, Franz Heitmeir, Wolfgang Sanz, Emil Göttlich, Herbert Jericha, Graz University of Technology.
[10]Onsite Sycom, Cost Analysis of NOx control Alternatives for Stationary Gas Turbines, Contract No. DE-FC02- 97CHIO877, U.S. Department of Energy, November 1999.
[11]US Dep. of Energy for steam injected turbo-machinery (Contract No. DE-FC02-97CHIO877).
[12]Franz Heitmeir, Wolfgang Sanz, Emil Göttlich, Herbert Jericha, The Graz Cycle—A Zero Emission Power Plant of Highest Efficiency, Graz University of Technology.