1 IECM Comparisons of PC, IECM Comparisons of PC, NGCC and IGCC Plants: NGCC and IGCC Plants: Current Technology and the Potential for Current Technology and the Potential for Cost Reductions Through Cost Reductions Through “ Learning Learning” Edward S. Rubin, Anand B. Rao and Chao Chen Department of Engineering and Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 6 th International CO2 Capture Network Trondheim, Norway March 8, 2004 Carnegie Mellon Factors Affecting Reported Costs Factors Affecting Reported Costs of CO of CO 2 Capture & Storage (CCS) Capture & Storage (CCS) • Choice of CCS Technology • Process Design and Operating Variables • Economic and Financial Parameters • Choice of System Boundaries; e.g., Power plant only vs. partial or complete life cycle One facility vs. multi-plant system (regional, national or global) GHG gases considered (CO 2 only vs. all GHGs) • Time Frame of Interest Current technology vs. future (improved) systems Consideration of technological “learning”
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
IECM Comparisons of PC, IECM Comparisons of PC, NGCC and IGCC Plants:NGCC and IGCC Plants:
Current Technology and the Potential for Current Technology and the Potential for Cost Reductions Through Cost Reductions Through ““LearningLearning””
Edward S. Rubin, Anand B. Rao and Chao ChenDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy
• Choice of CCS Technology• Process Design and Operating Variables• Economic and Financial Parameters• Choice of System Boundaries; e.g.,
Power plant only vs. partial or complete life cycleOne facility vs. multi-plant system (regional, national or global)GHG gases considered (CO2 only vs. all GHGs)
• Time Frame of InterestCurrent technology vs. future (improved) systemsConsideration of technological “learning”
2
Carnegie Mellon
Different Measures of CostDifferent Measures of CostEmbodying Key AssumptionsEmbodying Key Assumptions
(COE)ccs – (COE)ref
(CO2/kWh)emitted, ref – (CO2/kWh)emitted, ccs
• Cost of CO2 Avoided ($/ton CO2)
=
• Cost of Electricity ($/MWh)(TCR)(FCF) + FOM
(CF)(8760)(MW) + VOM + (HR)(FC)=
(COE)ccs – (COE)ref
(CO2/kWh)captured, ccs
• Cost of CO2 Captured ($/ton CO2)
=
Carnegie Mellon
Project ObjectivesProject Objectives
• Develop a modeling framework to systematically evaluate the performance and cost of alternative CCS options at the level of an individual plant
• Provide flexibility and transparency of assumptions• Incorporate both current and advanced technologies
for power generation and CO2 capture• Integrate carbon management technologies with
other environmental control systems • Characterize key uncertainties in performance and
cost (of components and the overall system)
3
Carnegie Mellon
Modeling ApproachModeling Approach
• Systems Analysis Approach• Process Technology Models• Engineering Economic Models• Advanced Software Capabilities
Probabilistic analysis capabilityUser-friendly graphical interfaceEasy to add or update models
Carnegie Mellon
Schematic of COSchematic of CO22 Capture Capture and Storage System and Storage System
Energy Conversion
Process
Air orOxygen
Coal orNatural Gas
UsefulProducts
(Electricity, Fuels,Chemicals, Hydrogen)
CO2
- EOR- ECBM- Aquifers- Ocean
CO2Capture
CO2Transport
CO2 Storage (Sequestration)
- Pipeline
4
Carnegie Mellon
MultiMulti--Pollutant Interactions Pollutant Interactions Also are Explicitly ModeledAlso are Explicitly Modeled
Two Approaches to Estimating Two Approaches to Estimating Future Technology CostsFuture Technology Costs
• “Top-Down” ApproachUse of learning curves (experience curves) to estimate cost reductions as a function of cumulative production or output
• “Bottom-Up” ApproachUse of engineering-economic models of a technology to examine implications of specific process improvements
Carnegie Mellon
Learning Curves for FGD SystemsLearning Curves for FGD Systems(Normalized costs based on 90% SO(Normalized costs based on 90% SO22 removal, 500 MW plant, 3.5%S coal)removal, 500 MW plant, 3.5%S coal)
10%
100%
1 10 100 1000Cumulative World Capacity of Wet FGD Systems (GWe)
FGD
Cap
ital C
ost
(% o
f bas
e va
lue) y = 1.45x -0.168
R 2 = 0.79
19761980
19821990
1995
Cost reduction = 11%per doubling of
installed capacity
10%
100%
1 10 100 1000Cumulative World Capacity of Wet FGD Systems (GWe)
FGD
Cap
ital C
ost
(% o
f bas
e va
lue) y = 1.45x -0.168
R 2 = 0.79
19761980
19821990
1995
Cost reduction = 11%per doubling of
installed capacity
10%
100%
1 10 100 1000Worldwide Capacity of Wet FGD Systems (GWe)
Nor
mal
ized
FG
D O
&M
Cos
ts
Y = 3.88x-0.36
R2 = 0.99Projected cost reduction = 22%per doubling of
installed capacity
10%
100%
1 10 100 1000Worldwide Capacity of Wet FGD Systems (GWe)
Nor
mal
ized
FG
D O
&M
Cos
ts
Y = 3.88x-0.36
R2 = 0.99Projected cost reduction = 22%per doubling of
installed capacity
O&MO&MCostsCosts
CapitalCapitalCostCost
18
Carnegie Mellon
Learning Curves for SCR SystemsLearning Curves for SCR Systems(Normalized costs based on 80% NOx removal, 500 MW plant, medium(Normalized costs based on 80% NOx removal, 500 MW plant, medium S coal, 65% CF)S coal, 65% CF)
O&MO&MCostsCosts
CapitalCapitalCostCost
10%
100%
1 10 100Cumulative World Capacity of SCR at Coal-Fired Plants (GWe)
SCR
Cap
ital c
ost (
% o
f bas
e va
lue)
y = 1.28x-0.18
R2 = 0.75
1983 1989
1996
19951993
Cost reduction = 12%per doubling of
installed capacity
10%
100%
1 10 100Cumulative World Capacity of SCR at Coal-Fired Plants (GWe)
SCR
Cap
ital c
ost (
% o
f bas
e va
lue)
y = 1.28x-0.18
R2 = 0.75
1983 1989
1996
19951993
Cost reduction = 12%per doubling of
installed capacity
1%
10%
100%
1 10 100Worldwide SCR Capacity at Coal-Fired Plants (GWe)
Nor
mal
ized
SC
R O
&M
Cos
t
Y = 1.87x -0.48
R2 = 0.67 Projected cost reduction = 28%per doubling of
installed capacity
1%
10%
100%
1 10 100Worldwide SCR Capacity at Coal-Fired Plants (GWe)
Nor
mal
ized
SC
R O
&M
Cos
t
Y = 1.87x -0.48
R2 = 0.67 Projected cost reduction = 28%per doubling of
installed capacity
Carnegie Mellon
BottomBottom--Up Approach:Up Approach:
Performance Model for MEA SystemPerformance Model for MEA System