Research Papers: Energy Conversion/Systems

CO2 Emissions Reduction From Coal-Fired Power Generation: A Techno-Economic Comparison

[+] Author and Article Information
Vittorio Tola

Department of Mechanical,
Chemical and Materials Engineering,
University of Cagliari,
Via Marengo 2,
Cagliari 09123, Italy
e-mail: vittorio.tola@dimcm.unica.it

Giorgio Cau

Department of Mechanical,
Chemical and Materials Engineering,
University of Cagliari,
Via Marengo 2,
Cagliari 09123, Italy
e-mail: gcau@unica.it

Francesca Ferrara

Sotacarbo S.p.A.,
Grande Miniera di Serbariu,
Carbonia 09013, Italy
e-mail: f.ferrara@sotacarbo.it

Alberto Pettinau

Sotacarbo S.p.A.,
Grande Miniera di Serbariu,
Carbonia 09013, Italy
e-mail: apettinau@sotacarbo.it

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received October 30, 2015; final manuscript received August 22, 2016; published online September 14, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Vittorio Verda.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 138(6), 061602 (Sep 14, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: JERT-15-1413; doi: 10.1115/1.4034547 History: Received October 30, 2015; Revised August 22, 2016

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) represents a key solution to control the global warming reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. This study reports a comparative performance assessment of different power generation technologies, including ultrasupercritical (USC) pulverized coal combustion plant with postcombustion CO2 capture, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with precombustion CO2 capture, and oxy-coal combustion (OCC) unit. These three power plants have been studied considering traditional configuration, without CCS, and a more complex configuration with CO2 capture. These technologies (with and without CCS systems) have been compared from both the technical and economic points of view, considering a reference thermal input of 1000 MW. As for CO2 storage, the sequestration in saline aquifers has been considered. Whereas a conventional (without CCS) coal-fired USC power plant results to be more suitable than IGCC for power generation, IGCC becomes more competitive for CO2-free plants, being the precombustion CO2 capture system less expensive (from the energetic point of view) than the postcombustion one. In this scenario, oxy-coal combustion plant is currently not competitive with USC and IGCC, due to the low industrial experience, which means higher capital and operating costs and a lower plant operating reliability. But in a short-term future, a progressive diffusion of commercial-scale OCC plants will allow a reduction of capital costs and an improvement of the technology, with higher efficiency and reliability. This means that OCC promises to become competitive with USC and also with IGCC.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Hasler, D. , 2009, “ New Coal-Fired Power Plant—Performance and Cost Estimates,” Sargent & Lundy LLC, Chicago, IL, Technical Report No. SL-009808.
Lohwasser, R. , and Madlener, R. , 2012, “ Economics of CCS for Coal Plants: Impact of Investment Costs and Efficiency on Market Diffusion in Europe,” Energy Econ., 34(3), pp. 850–863. [CrossRef]
Huang, Y. , Rezvani, S. , McIlveen-Wright, D. , Minchener, A. , and Hewitt, N. , 2008, “ Techno-Economic Study of CO2 Capture and Storage in Coal Fired Oxygen Fed Entrained Flow IGCC Power Plants,” Fuel Process. Technol., 89(9), pp. 916–925. [CrossRef]
EU Commission, 2006, “ Commission Communication on Sustainable Power Generation From Fossil Fuels: Aiming From Near Zero Emissions From Coal After 2020,” Summary of the Impact Assessment, Commission Staff Working Document.
Viebahn, P. , Vallentin, D. , and Höller, S. , 2012, “ Integrated Assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the German Power Sector and Comparison With the Deployment of Renewable Energies,” Appl. Energy, 97, pp. 238–248. [CrossRef]
Cau, G. , Tola, V. , and Deiana, P. , 2014, “ Comparative Performance Assessment of USC and IGCC Power Plants Integrated With CO2 Capture Systems,” Fuel, 116, pp. 820–833. [CrossRef]
Emun, F. , Gadalla, M. , Majozi, T. , and Boer, D. , 2010, “ Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Process Simulation and Optimization,” Comput. Chem. Eng., 34(3), pp. 331–338. [CrossRef]
Tola, V. , and Pettinau, A. , 2014, “ Power Generation Plants With Carbon Capture and Storage: A Techno-Economic Comparison Between Coal Combustion and Gasification Technologies,” Appl. Energy, 113, pp. 1461–1474. [CrossRef]
Alie, C. , Backham, L. , Croiset, E. , and Douglas, P. L. , 2005, “ Simulation of CO2 Capture Using MEA Scrubbing: A Flowsheet Decomposition Method,” Energy Convers. Manage., 46(3), pp. 475–487. [CrossRef]
Abu-Zahra, M. R. M. , Schneiders, L. H. J. , Niederer, J. P. M. , Feron, P. H. M. , and Versteeg, G. F. , 2007, “ CO2 Capture From Power Plants—Part I. A Parametric Study of the Technical Performance Based on Monoethanolamine,” Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 1(1), pp. 37–46. [CrossRef]
Toftegaard, M. B. , Brix, J. , Jensen, P. A. , Glarbotrg, P. , and Jensen, A. D. , 2010, “ Oxy-Fuel Combustion of Solids Fuels,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 36(5), pp. 581–625. [CrossRef]
Tranier, J. P. , Perrin, N. , and Dubettier, R. , 2011, “ Air Separation Units for Coal Power Plants—Carbon Capture Journal,” Future Energy Publishing, Ltd., London, accessed Feb. 12, 2014, http://www.carboncapturejournal.com
Jones, D. , Bhattacharyya, D. , Turton, R. , and Zitney, S. E. , 2011, “ Optimal Design and Integration of an Air Separation Unit (ASU) for an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plant With CO2 Capture,” Fuel Process. Technol., 92(9), pp. 1685–1695. [CrossRef]
Bolhàr-Nordenkampf, M. , Friedl, A. , Koss, U. , and Tork, T. , 2004, “ Modelling Selective H2S Absorption and Desorption in an Aqueous MDEA Solution Using a Rate-Based Non-Equilibrium Approach,” Chem. Eng. Process., 43(6), pp. 701–715. [CrossRef]
Descamps, C. , Bouallou, C. , and Kanniche, M. , 2008, “ Efficiency of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plant Including CO2 Removal,” Energy, 33(6), pp. 874–881. [CrossRef]
Sun, L. , and Smith, R. , 2013, “ Rectisol Wash Process Simulation and Analysis,” J. Cleaner Prod., 39, pp. 321–328. [CrossRef]
Donda, F. , Volpi, V. , Persoglia, S. , and Parushev, D. , 2011, “ CO2 Storage Potential of Deep Saline Aquifers: The Case of Italy,” Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(2), pp. 327–335. [CrossRef]
Davison, J. , 2007, “ Performance and Costs of Power Plants With Capture and Storage of CO2,” Energy, 32(7), pp. 1163–1176. [CrossRef]
Hoffmann, B. S. , and Szklo, A. , 2011, “ Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle and Carbon Capture: A Risky Option to Mitigate CO2 Emissions of Coal-Fired Power Plants,” Appl. Energy, 88(11), pp. 3917–3929. [CrossRef]
Gerdes, K. , Summers, W. M. , and Wimer, J. , 2011, “ Cost Estimation Methodology for NETL Assessments of Power Plant Performance,” U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratories, Report No. DOE/NETL-2011/1455.
Pettinau, A. , Ferrara, F. , and Amorino, C. , 2013, “ Combustion vs. Gasification for a Demonstration CCS Project in Italy: A Techno-Economic Analysis,” Energy, 50, pp. 160–169. [CrossRef]
Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Italian Customs Agency), 2015, “ Aliquote di imposta vigenti nel settore delle accise—Aggiornamento al 1 deg gennaio 2015,” accessed Oct. 20, 2015, www.agenziadogane.it (Italian).
Bloomberg, “  Bloomberg Fuel Price Database,” Bloomberg L.P., New York, accessed Oct. 29, 2015, www.bloomberg.com
Hendriks, C. , Graus, W. , and van Bergen, F. , 2004, “ Global Carbon Dioxide Storage Potential and Costs,” Utrecht, The Netherlands, Ecofys Report No. EEP-02001.
Rubin, E. S. , Chen, C. , and Rao, A. B. , 2007, “ Cost and Performance of Fossil Fuel Power Plants With CO2 Capture and Storage,” Energy Policy, 35(9), pp. 4444–4454. [CrossRef]
Metz, B. , Davidson, O. , de Coninck, H. , Loos, M. , and Meyer, L. , 2005, IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Simbeck, D. , and Beecy, D. , 2011, “ The CCS Paradox: The Much Higher CO2 Avoidance Costs of Existing Versus New Fossil Fuel Power Plant,” Energy Procedia, 4, pp. 1917–1924. [CrossRef]
Li, S. , Zhang, X. , Gao, L. , and Jin, H. , 2012, “ Learning Rates and Future Cost Curves for Fossil Fuel Energy Systems With CO2 Capture: Methodology and Case Study,” Appl. Energy, 93, pp. 348–356. [CrossRef]
Gerbelová, H. , Versteeg, P. , Ioakimidis, C. S. , and Ferrão, P. , 2013, “ The Effect of Retrofitting Portuguese Fossil Fuel Power Plants With CCS,” Appl. Energy, 101, pp. 280–287. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

USC simplified scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

OCC simplified scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

IGCC simplified scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Sensitivity analysis on CO2-free plant configurations: effects of capital cost

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Sensitivity analysis on CO2-free plant configurations: effects of plant availability



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In