IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v208y2017icp920-934.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges and uncertainties of ex ante techno-economic analysis of low TRL CO2 capture technology: Lessons from a case study of an NGCC with exhaust gas recycle and electric swing adsorption

Author

Listed:
  • van der Spek, Mijndert
  • Ramirez, Andrea
  • Faaij, André

Abstract

this work addresses the methodological challenges of undertaking techno-economic assessments of very early stage (technology readiness level 3–4) CO2 capture technologies. It draws lessons from a case study on CO2 capture from a natural gas combined cycle with exhaust gas recycle and electric swing adsorption technology. The paper shows that also for very early stage technologies it is possible to conduct techno-economic studies that give a sound first indication of feasibility, providing certain conditions are met. These conditions include the availability of initial estimates for the energy use of the capture technology, either from bench scale measurements, or from rigorous process models, and the possibility to draw up a generic (high level) equipment list. The paper shows that for meaningful comparison with incumbent technologies, the performance of very early stage technologies needs to be projected to a future, commercial state. To this end, the state of the art methods have to be adapted to control for the development and improvements that these technologies will undergo during the R&D cycle. We call this a hybrid approach. The paper also shows that CO2 capture technologies always need to be assessed in sympathy with the CO2 source (e.g. power plant) and compression plant, because otherwise unreliable conclusions could be drawn on their feasibility. For the case study, it is concluded that electric swing adsorption is unlikely to become economically competitive with current technologies, even in a highly optimised future state, where 50% of the regeneration duty is provided by LP steam and 50% by electricity: the net efficiency of an NGCC with EGR and optimised ESA (49.3%LHV; min–max 45.8–50.4%LHV) is lower than that of an NGCC with EGR and standard MEA (50.4%LHV). Also, investment and operational costs are higher than MEA, which together with ESA’s lower efficiency leads to an unfavourable levelised cost of electricity: 103€/MWh (min–max 93.89–117.31€/MWh) for NGCC with ESA, versus 91€/MWh for NGCC with MEA.

Suggested Citation

  • van der Spek, Mijndert & Ramirez, Andrea & Faaij, André, 2017. "Challenges and uncertainties of ex ante techno-economic analysis of low TRL CO2 capture technology: Lessons from a case study of an NGCC with exhaust gas recycle and electric swing adsorption," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 920-934.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:208:y:2017:i:c:p:920-934
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917313405
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.058?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhang, Wenbin & Liu, Hao & Sun, Yuan & Cakstins, Janis & Sun, Chenggong & Snape, Colin E., 2016. "Parametric study on the regeneration heat requirement of an amine-based solid adsorbent process for post-combustion carbon capture," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 394-405.
    2. Rubin, Edward S. & Yeh, Sonia & Antes, Matt & Berkenpas, Michael & Davison, John, 2007. "Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with CO2 capture," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt46x6h0n0, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    3. David M. Reiner, 2016. "Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, January.
    4. Hedin, Niklas & Andersson, Linnéa & Bergström, Lennart & Yan, Jinyue, 2013. "Adsorbents for the post-combustion capture of CO2 using rapid temperature swing or vacuum swing adsorption," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 418-433.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexander García-Mariaca & Eva Llera-Sastresa, 2021. "Review on Carbon Capture in ICE Driven Transport," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-30, October.
    2. Jiang, L. & Gonzalez-Diaz, A. & Ling-Chin, J. & Roskilly, A.P. & Smallbone, A.J., 2019. "Post-combustion CO2 capture from a natural gas combined cycle power plant using activated carbon adsorption," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 245(C), pages 1-15.
    3. Chen, S.J. & Zhu, M. & Fu, Y. & Huang, Y.X. & Tao, Z.C. & Li, W.L., 2017. "Using 13X, LiX, and LiPdAgX zeolites for CO2 capture from post-combustion flue gas," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 87-98.
    4. Chen, Siyuan & Liu, Jiangfeng & Zhang, Qi & Teng, Fei & McLellan, Benjamin C., 2022. "A critical review on deployment planning and risk analysis of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) toward carbon neutrality," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Dimitrios Mendrinos & Spyridon Karytsas & Olympia Polyzou & Constantine Karytsas & Åsta Dyrnes Nordø & Kirsti Midttømme & Danny Otto & Matthias Gross & Marit Sprenkeling & Ruben Peuchen & Tara Geerdin, 2022. "Understanding Societal Requirements of CCS Projects: Application of the Societal Embeddedness Level Assessment Methodology in Four National Case Studies," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-15, September.
    6. Lai, N.Y.G. & Yap, E.H. & Lee, C.W., 2011. "Viability of CCS: A broad-based assessment for Malaysia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3608-3616.
    7. David M. Newbery & David M. Reiner & Robert A. Ritz, 2018. "When is a carbon price floor desirable?," Working Papers EPRG 1816, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    8. Bossink, Bart A.G., 2017. "Demonstrating sustainable energy: A review based model of sustainable energy demonstration projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1349-1362.
    9. Batidzirai, B. & Mignot, A.P.R. & Schakel, W.B. & Junginger, H.M. & Faaij, A.P.C., 2013. "Biomass torrefaction technology: Techno-economic status and future prospects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 196-214.
    10. Lovering, Jessica R. & Yip, Arthur & Nordhaus, Ted, 2016. "Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 371-382.
    11. Christopher J. Blackburn & Mallory E. Flowers & Daniel C. Matisoff & Juan Moreno‐Cruz, 2020. "Do Pilot and Demonstration Projects Work? Evidence from a Green Building Program," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1100-1132, September.
    12. Zhang, Minkai & Guo, Yincheng, 2013. "Rate based modeling of absorption and regeneration for CO2 capture by aqueous ammonia solution," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 142-152.
    13. Rochedo, Pedro R.R. & Szklo, Alexandre, 2013. "Designing learning curves for carbon capture based on chemical absorption according to the minimum work of separation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 383-391.
    14. Marie Renner, 2014. "Carbon prices and CCS investment: comparative study between the European Union and China," Working Papers 1402, Chaire Economie du climat.
    15. Escudero, Marcos & Jiménez, Ángel & González, Celina & López, Ignacio, 2013. "Quantitative analysis of potential power production and environmental benefits of Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycles in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 63-75.
    16. Wu Haibo & Liu Zhaohui, 2018. "Economic research relating to a 200 MWe oxy‐fuel combustion power plant," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 8(5), pages 911-919, October.
    17. Prabu, V., 2015. "Integration of in-situ CO2-oxy coal gasification with advanced power generating systems performing in a chemical looping approach of clean combustion," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-13.
    18. Zhang, Xiaowen & Zhang, Xin & Liu, Helei & Li, Wensheng & Xiao, Min & Gao, Hongxia & Liang, Zhiwu, 2017. "Reduction of energy requirement of CO2 desorption from a rich CO2-loaded MEA solution by using solid acid catalysts," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 673-684.
    19. Wang, Nan & Akimoto, Keigo & Nemet, Gregory F., 2021. "What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    20. Choi, Munkyoung & Cho, Minki & Lee, J.W., 2016. "Empirical formula for the mass flux in chemical absorption of CO2 with ammonia droplets," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-9.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:208:y:2017:i:c:p:920-934. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.