TY - JOUR
T1 - Feasibility comparison of bioenergy and CO2 capture and storage in a large combined heat, power and cooling system
AU - Tsupari, Eemeli
AU - Arponen, Timo
AU - Hankalin, Ville
AU - Kärki, Janne
AU - Kouri, Sampo
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation , Tekes [ 2832/31/2010, 2011-2016 and 40101/14, 2014-2017 ].
Funding Information:
This work was carried out in the Carbon Capture and Storage Program (CCSP) R&D program coordinated by CLIC Innovation Ltd and finalised in ‘Neo-Carbon Energy’ project. The authors gratefully acknowledge the public financing of Tekes and the valuable help of VTT's experts Markus Hurskainen, Jussi Ikäheimo, Sebastian Teir and Lauri Kujanpää during this study. Appendix A Case/merit order District heat production, GWh/a Peak load hours a New multifuel CHP GTCC CHP Coal CHP Coal HOB Gas HOBs Oil HOBs Heat pumps New multifuel CHP GTCC CHP Coal CHP 1/1 2868 2940 643 147 189 14 700 6930 5046 2140 1/2 2868 2010 1573 147 189 14 700 6930 3450 5234 1/3 2218 2107 2126 147 189 14 700 5359 3616 7076 1/4 1742 4021 688 147 189 14 700 4210 6900 2290 1/5 1139 4021 1292 147 189 14 700 2751 6900 4300 1/6 1100 3225 2126 147 189 14 700 2658 5535 7076 2/1 2868 2940 643 147 189 14 700 6930 5046 2140 2/2 2868 2010 1573 147 189 14 700 6930 3450 5234 2/3 2218 2107 2126 147 189 14 700 5359 3616 7076 2/4 1742 4021 688 147 189 14 700 4210 6900 2290 2/5 1139 4021 1292 147 189 14 700 2751 6900 4300 2/6 1100 3225 2126 147 189 14 700 2658 5535 7076 3/1 3035 2932 531 122 170 10 700 6520 5032 1768 3/2 3035 1791 1672 122 170 10 700 6520 3073 5566 3/3 2453 1920 2126 122 170 10 700 5269 3294 7076 3/4 1885 4021 593 122 170 10 700 4049 6900 1974 3/5 1186 4021 1292 122 170 10 700 2548 6900 4300 3/6 1147 3225 2126 122 170 10 700 2465 5535 7076 4/1 3333 2816 422 96 128 6 700 6297 4832 1403 4/2 3333 1575 1662 96 128 6 700 6297 2702 5533 4/3 2696 1748 2126 96 128 6 700 5094 3000 7076 4/4 2015 4021 535 96 128 6 700 3807 6900 1780 4/5 1258 4021 1292 96 128 6 700 2376 6900 4300 4/6 1219 3225 2126 96 128 6 700 2303 5535 7076 a annual fuel usage [MWh]/maximum fuel capacity [MW].
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd
Copyright:
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2017/11/15
Y1 - 2017/11/15
N2 - Heating and cooling is responsible for almost 50% of the final energy demand in Europe. One of the most developed combined heat, power and cooling (CHPC) systems in the world exists in Helsinki, Finland, operated by Helen Ltd. As one option for significant reductions in direct CO2 emissions from Helen's fleet, this paper presents case studies for different options regarding a multifuel CHP plant planned for Helsinki. The studied cases include coal firing, co-firing high proportion of forest residues with coal, applying post-combustion CCS for coal firing, and combination of CCS and biomass co-firing. The cases are compared in different market situations in terms of the operation and profitability of the plant portfolio. The results highlight the sensitivities of economic feasibility on different market prices. With the default values assumed, the co-firing case is about as profitable as coal firing solely at present price of CO2 allowances. If CO2 price increases, co-firing becomes the most feasible option until the combination of co-firing and CCS becomes the most feasible option if the price of CO2 allowance is high. However, this would require recognising bio-CCS, and the “negative” CO2 emissions it generates, in the regulations of EU Emissions Trading System.
AB - Heating and cooling is responsible for almost 50% of the final energy demand in Europe. One of the most developed combined heat, power and cooling (CHPC) systems in the world exists in Helsinki, Finland, operated by Helen Ltd. As one option for significant reductions in direct CO2 emissions from Helen's fleet, this paper presents case studies for different options regarding a multifuel CHP plant planned for Helsinki. The studied cases include coal firing, co-firing high proportion of forest residues with coal, applying post-combustion CCS for coal firing, and combination of CCS and biomass co-firing. The cases are compared in different market situations in terms of the operation and profitability of the plant portfolio. The results highlight the sensitivities of economic feasibility on different market prices. With the default values assumed, the co-firing case is about as profitable as coal firing solely at present price of CO2 allowances. If CO2 price increases, co-firing becomes the most feasible option until the combination of co-firing and CCS becomes the most feasible option if the price of CO2 allowance is high. However, this would require recognising bio-CCS, and the “negative” CO2 emissions it generates, in the regulations of EU Emissions Trading System.
KW - bio-CCS
KW - bioenergy
KW - co-generation
KW - CO2 capture
KW - combined heat power and cooling
KW - economic feasibility
KW - CO capture
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027867549&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.022
DO - 10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.022
M3 - Article
VL - 139
SP - 1040
EP - 1051
JO - Energy
JF - Energy
SN - 0360-5442
ER -