02.03.2013 Views

Ikelic - Alliance Digital Repository

Ikelic - Alliance Digital Repository

Ikelic - Alliance Digital Repository

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

COAL<br />

selected power generation, C02 capture options,<br />

and C02 disposal options were evaluated. The<br />

most promising options will be selected for more<br />

detailed appraisal as components of a number of<br />

Full Fuel Cycles for power generation.<br />

Four power generation schemes were studied:<br />

- A<br />

- A<br />

- An<br />

modern pulverized coal-fired plant<br />

equipped with flue gas desulfurization<br />

facilities and operating with a subcritical<br />

high temperature steam cycle<br />

(PF+FGD).<br />

modern natural gas-fired combined<br />

cycle in which gas is fired into gas tur<br />

bines with a steam turbine also incor<br />

porated into the cycle (GTCC).<br />

Integrated Gasification Combined<br />

Cycle (IGCC) in which a coal slurry is fed<br />

to an oxygen-blown gasifier of the<br />

entrained-flow type.<br />

TABLE 1<br />

- Power<br />

generation based on a scheme of<br />

burning pulverized coal in oxygen using<br />

recycled to moderate the combus<br />

C02<br />

tion temperature (CO, Recycle). The<br />

technology has not been extensively<br />

demonstrated and must therefore be<br />

regarded as Long Term.<br />

The four schemes were selected to represent a<br />

wide range of C02 concentrations and conditions<br />

in the exhaust gas.<br />

The studies concentrate on the overall impact of<br />

capture processes (for specifically removing or<br />

isolating C02)<br />

on power generation. The com<br />

bined power generation and scrubbing plant<br />

should have a net output of 500 megawatts (e).<br />

Using solvent absorption of from the flue<br />

C02<br />

gas, figures arrived at for the cost incurred per<br />

tonne of C02 release to atmosphere avoided,<br />

range from $16 to $87 per tonne (Table 1). They<br />

do not include the cost of C02 liquefaction and<br />

disposal.<br />

CARBON DIOXIDE RELEASES AND COST OF AVOIDANCE<br />

(Efficiencies as %LHV)<br />

CO, IGCC<br />

PF+FGD GTCC IQQC Recvcle Selexol<br />

Reference Efficiency 40 52 42 33 42<br />

Efficiency After Capture 29 42 28 30 36<br />

CO Captured (%) 90 85 90 99 82<br />

C02 in Product (%)<br />

Cost Avoided C02 ($/tonne)<br />

Power Cost (ref . mills/kWh)<br />

99.2<br />

35<br />

49<br />

99.4<br />

55<br />

35<br />

99.8<br />

87<br />

53<br />

99.9<br />

16<br />

78<br />

96<br />

23<br />

53<br />

Power cost (mills/kWh)<br />

Specific Investment Cost ($/kW)<br />

74 53 112 94 63<br />

Reference Case 1,058 702 1,561 2,044 1,561<br />

Removal Case 1,842 1,367 3,254 3,102 2,400<br />

4-40<br />

THE SYNTHETIC FUELS REPORT, JANUARY 1995

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!