Parametric study and benchmarking of NGCC, coal and biomass power cycles integrated with MEA-based post-combustion CO2 capture

David Berstad; Antti Arasto; Kristin Jordal; Geir Haugen

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.048

Parametric study and benchmarking of NGCC, coal and biomass power cycles integrated with MEA-based post-combustion CO₂ capture

David Berstad^*
, Antti Arasto
, Kristin Jordal
, Geir Haugen

^*Corresponding author for this work

SINTEF AS

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A comparative study of MEA-based post-combustion CO₂ capture has been performed for NGCC, coal and biomass power cycles. With particular focus on overall electric efficiency and electricity output losses per unit of captured CO₂, the performance of the power cycles in consideration have been calculated and compared with respect to variation in desorber pressure in the capture process. For each of the cases, overall efficiency is rather insensitive to desorber pressure, as no major energy gains are obtained in the trade-off between steam extraction pressure, reboiler duty and CO₂ compression ratio. Whereas NGCC shows the lower efficiency penalty (7.2-7.4 %-units) at 90% CO₂ capture ratio, the coal and biomass cases still show lower specific electricity output losses per unit of captured CO ₂ (20-25% lower than for NGCC), despite higher efficiency penalties. Hence, when considering specific CO₂ capture and compression work as comparison criterion, the coal and biomass plants turn out more favourable than NGCC, despite higher efficiency penalty.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1737-1744
Journal	Energy Procedia
Volume	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.048
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2011
MoE publication type	A1 Journal article-refereed
Event	10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT 2010 - Amsterdam, Netherlands Duration: 19 Sept 2010 → 23 Sept 2010

Funding

This publication forms a part of the BIGCO2 project, performed under the strategic Norwegian research programClimit. The authors acknowledge the partners: Statoil, GE Global Research, Statkraft, Aker Clean Carbon, Shell, TOTAL, ConocoPhillips, ALSTOM, the Research Council of Norway (178004/I30 and 176059/I30) and Gassnova (182070) for their support. Furthermore, the CCS Finland project financed by the ClimBus program of TEKES is acknowledged, including partners: Geologian Tutkimuskeskus (GTK), Fortum Oyj, Foster Wheeler Energia Oy, Metso Oyj, Pohjolan Voima Oy, Rautaruukki Oyj and Vapo Oy.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 13 Climate Action

Keywords

Biomass
CCS
Coal
MEA
NGCC
Post combustion

Access to Document

10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.048Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

https://publications.vtt.fi/julkaisut/muut/2011/Parametric_study.pdf

Cite this

@article{307898e8584845b68e7c39d7817ac81e,

title = "Parametric study and benchmarking of NGCC, coal and biomass power cycles integrated with MEA-based post-combustion CO2 capture",

abstract = "A comparative study of MEA-based post-combustion CO2 capture has been performed for NGCC, coal and biomass power cycles. With particular focus on overall electric efficiency and electricity output losses per unit of captured CO2, the performance of the power cycles in consideration have been calculated and compared with respect to variation in desorber pressure in the capture process. For each of the cases, overall efficiency is rather insensitive to desorber pressure, as no major energy gains are obtained in the trade-off between steam extraction pressure, reboiler duty and CO2 compression ratio. Whereas NGCC shows the lower efficiency penalty (7.2-7.4 \%-units) at 90\% CO2 capture ratio, the coal and biomass cases still show lower specific electricity output losses per unit of captured CO 2 (20-25\% lower than for NGCC), despite higher efficiency penalties. Hence, when considering specific CO2 capture and compression work as comparison criterion, the coal and biomass plants turn out more favourable than NGCC, despite higher efficiency penalty.",

keywords = "Biomass, CCS, Coal, MEA, NGCC, Post combustion",

author = "David Berstad and Antti Arasto and Kristin Jordal and Geir Haugen",

note = "Project code: 23116; 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT 2010, GHGT 2010 ; Conference date: 19-09-2010 Through 23-09-2010",

year = "2011",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.048",

language = "English",

volume = "4",

pages = "1737--1744",

journal = "Energy Procedia",

issn = "1876-6102",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Parametric study and benchmarking of NGCC, coal and biomass power cycles integrated with MEA-based post-combustion CO2 capture

AU - Berstad, David

AU - Arasto, Antti

AU - Jordal, Kristin

AU - Haugen, Geir

N1 - Project code: 23116

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - A comparative study of MEA-based post-combustion CO2 capture has been performed for NGCC, coal and biomass power cycles. With particular focus on overall electric efficiency and electricity output losses per unit of captured CO2, the performance of the power cycles in consideration have been calculated and compared with respect to variation in desorber pressure in the capture process. For each of the cases, overall efficiency is rather insensitive to desorber pressure, as no major energy gains are obtained in the trade-off between steam extraction pressure, reboiler duty and CO2 compression ratio. Whereas NGCC shows the lower efficiency penalty (7.2-7.4 %-units) at 90% CO2 capture ratio, the coal and biomass cases still show lower specific electricity output losses per unit of captured CO 2 (20-25% lower than for NGCC), despite higher efficiency penalties. Hence, when considering specific CO2 capture and compression work as comparison criterion, the coal and biomass plants turn out more favourable than NGCC, despite higher efficiency penalty.

AB - A comparative study of MEA-based post-combustion CO2 capture has been performed for NGCC, coal and biomass power cycles. With particular focus on overall electric efficiency and electricity output losses per unit of captured CO2, the performance of the power cycles in consideration have been calculated and compared with respect to variation in desorber pressure in the capture process. For each of the cases, overall efficiency is rather insensitive to desorber pressure, as no major energy gains are obtained in the trade-off between steam extraction pressure, reboiler duty and CO2 compression ratio. Whereas NGCC shows the lower efficiency penalty (7.2-7.4 %-units) at 90% CO2 capture ratio, the coal and biomass cases still show lower specific electricity output losses per unit of captured CO 2 (20-25% lower than for NGCC), despite higher efficiency penalties. Hence, when considering specific CO2 capture and compression work as comparison criterion, the coal and biomass plants turn out more favourable than NGCC, despite higher efficiency penalty.

KW - Biomass

KW - CCS

KW - Coal

KW - MEA

KW - NGCC

KW - Post combustion

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/79955430117

U2 - 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.048

DO - 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.048

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79955430117

SN - 1876-6102

VL - 4

SP - 1737

EP - 1744

JO - Energy Procedia

JF - Energy Procedia

T2 - 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT 2010

Y2 - 19 September 2010 through 23 September 2010

ER -