Techno‐economic analysis of biomass/coal Co‐gasification IGCC systems with supercritical steam bottom cycle and carbon capture

In recent years, integrated gasification combined cycle technology has been gaining steady popularity for use in clean coal power operations with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). This study focuses on investigating two approaches to improve efficiency and further reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. First, replace the traditional subcritical Rankine steam cycle portion of the overall plant with a supercritical steam cycle. Second, add different amounts of biomass as feedstock to reduce emissions. Employing biomass as a feedstock has the advantage of being carbon neutral or even carbon negative if CCS is implemented. However, due to limited feedstock supply, such plants are usually small (2–50 MW), which results in lower efficiency and higher capital and production costs. Considering these challenges, it is more economically attractive and less technically challenging to co‐combust or co‐gasify biomass wastes with low‐rank coals. Using the commercial software, Thermoflow®, this study analyzes the baseline plants around 235 MW and 267 MW for the subcritical and supercritical designs, respectively. Both post‐combustion and pre‐combustion CCS conditions are considered. The results clearly show that utilizing a certain type of biomass with low‐rank coals up to 50% (wt.) can, in most cases, not only improve the efficiency and reduce overall emissions but may be economically advantageous, as well. Beyond a 10% Biomass Ratio, however, the efficiency begins to drop due to the rising pretreatment costs, but the system itself still remains more efficient than from using coal alone (between 0.2 and 0.3 points on average). The CO₂ emissions decrease by about 7000 tons/MW‐year compared to the baseline (no biomass), making the plant carbon negative with only 10% biomass in the feedstock. In addition, implementing a supercritical steam cycle raises the efficiency (1.6 percentage points) and lowers the capital costs ($300/kW), regardless of plant layout. Implementing post‐combustion CCS consistently causes a drop in efficiency (at least 7–8 points) from the baseline and increases the costs by $3000–$4000/kW and In recent years, integrated gasification combined cycle technology has been gaining steady popularity for use in clean coal power operations with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). This study focuses on investigating two approaches to improve efficiency and further reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. First, replace the traditional subcritical Rankine steam cycle portion of the overall plant with a supercritical steam cycle. Second, add different amounts of biomass as feedstock to reduce emissions. Employing biomass as a feedstock has the advantage of being carbon neutral or even carbon negative if CCS is implemented. However, due to limited feedstock supply, such plants are usually small (2–50 MW), which results in lower efficiency and higher capital and production costs. Considering these challenges, it is more economically attractive and less technically challenging to co‐combust or co‐gasify biomass wastes with low‐rank coals. Using the commercial software, Thermoflow®, this study analyzes the baseline plants around 235 MW and 267 MW for the subcritical and supercritical designs, respectively. Both post‐combustion and pre‐combustion CCS conditions are considered. The results clearly show that utilizing a certain type of biomass with low‐rank coals up to 50% (wt.) can, in most cases, not only improve the efficiency and reduce overall emissions but may be economically advantageous, as well. Beyond a 10% Biomass Ratio, however, the efficiency begins to drop due to the rising pretreatment costs, but the system itself still remains more efficient than from using coal alone (between 0.2 and 0.3 points on average). The CO₂ emissions decrease by about 7000 tons/MW‐year compared to the baseline (no biomass), making the plant carbon negative with only 10% biomass in the feedstock. In addition, implementing a supercritical steam cycle raises the efficiency (1.6 percentage points) and lowers the capital costs ($300/kW), regardless of plant layout. Implementing post‐combustion CCS consistently causes a drop in efficiency (at least 7–8 points) from the baseline and increases the costs by $3000–$4000/kW and $0.06–$0.07/kW‐h. The SO_x emissions also decrease by about 190 tons/year (7.6 × 10^?6 tons/MW‐year). Finally, the CCS cost is around $65–$72 per ton of CO₂. For pre‐combustion CCS, sour shift appears to be superior both economically and thermally to sweet shift in the current study. Sour shift is always cheaper, (by a difference of about $600/kW and $0.02‐$0.03/kW‐h), easier to implement, and also 2–3 percentage points more efficient. The economic difference is fairly marginal, but the trend is inversely proportional to the efficiency, with cost of electricity decreasing by 0.5 cents/kW‐h from 0% to 10% biomass ratio (BMR) and rising 2.5 cents/kW‐h from 10% to 50% BMR. Pre‐combustion CCS plants are smaller than post‐combustion ones and usually require 25% less energy for CCS due to their compact size for processing fuel flow only under higher pressure (450 psi), versus processing the combusted gases at near‐atmospheric pressure. Finally, the CO₂ removal cost for sour shift is around $20/ton, whereas sweet shift's cost is around $30/ton, which is much cheaper than that of post‐combustion CCS: about $60–$70/ton. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture and storage

The evaluation of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from power generation with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a critical factor in energy and policy analysis. The current paper examines life cycle emissions from three types of fossil-fuel-based power plants, namely supercritical pulverized coal (super-PC), natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), with and without CCS. Results show that, for a 90% CO₂ capture efficiency, life cycle GHG emissions are reduced by 75–84% depending on what technology is used. With GHG emissions less than 170 g/kWh, IGCC technology is found to be favorable to NGCC with CCS. Sensitivity analysis reveals that, for coal power plants, varying the CO₂ capture efficiency and the coal transport distance has a more pronounced effect on life cycle GHG emissions than changing the length of CO₂ transport pipeline. Finally, it is concluded from the current study that while the global warming potential is reduced when MEA-based CO₂ capture is employed, the increase in other air pollutants such as NO_x and NH₃ leads to higher eutrophication and acidification potentials.     

Parametric techno‐economic studies of coal/biomass co‐gasification for IGCC plants with carbon capture using various coal ranks,fuel‐feeding schemes,and syngas cooling methods

Because of biomass's limited supply (as well as other issues involving its feeding and transportation), pure biomass plants tend to be small, which results in high production and capital costs (per unit power output) compared with much larger coal plants. Thus, it is more economically attractive to co‐gasify biomass with coal. Biomass can also make an existing plant carbon‐neutral or even carbon‐negative if enough carbon dioxide is captured and sequestered (CCS). As a part of a series of studies examining the thermal and economic impact of different design implementations for an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant fed with blended coal and biomass, this paper focuses on investigating various parameters, including radiant cooling versus syngas quenching, dry‐fed versus slurry‐fed gasification (particularly in relation to sour‐shift and sweet‐shift carbon capture systems), oxygen‐blown versus air‐blown gasifiers, low‐rank coals versus high‐rank coals, and options for using syngas or alternative fuels in the duct burner for the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to achieve the desired steam turbine inlet temperature. Using the commercial software, Thermoflow^®, the case studies were performed on a simulated 250‐MW coal IGCC plant located near New Orleans, Louisiana, and the coal was co‐fed with biomass using ratios ranging from 10% to 30% by weight. Using 2011 dollars as a basis for economic analysis, the results show that syngas coolers are more efficient than quench systems (by 5.5 percentage points), but are also more expensive (by $500/kW and 0.6 cents/kW h). For the feeding system, dry‐fed is more efficient than slurry‐fed (by 2.2–2.5 points) and less expensive (by $200/kW and 0.5 cents/kW h). Sour‐shift CCS is both more efficient (by 3 percentage points) and cheaper (by $600/kW or 1.5 cents/kW h) than sweet‐shift CCS. Higher‐ranked coals are more efficient than lower‐ranked coals (2.8 points without biomass, or 1.5 points with biomass) and have lower capital cost (by $600/kW without using biomass, or $400/kW with biomass). Finally, plants with biomass and low‐rank coal feedstock are both more efficient and have lower costs than those with pure coal: just 10% biomass seems to increase the efficiency by 0.7 points and reduce costs by $400/kW and 0.3 cents/kW h. However, for high‐rank coals, this trend is different: the efficiency decreases by 0.7 points, and the cost of electricity increases by 0.1 cents/kW h, but capital costs still decrease by about $160/kW. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage

CO₂ capture and storage (CCS) is receiving considerable attention as a potential greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation option for fossil fuel power plants. Cost and performance estimates for CCS are critical factors in energy and policy analysis. CCS cost studies necessarily employ a host of technical and economic assumptions that can dramatically affect results. Thus, particular studies often are of limited value to analysts, researchers, and industry personnel seeking results for alternative cases. In this paper, we use a generalized modeling tool to estimate and compare the emissions, efficiency, resource requirements and current costs of fossil fuel power plants with CCS on a systematic basis. This plant-level analysis explores a broader range of key assumptions than found in recent studies we reviewed for three major plant types: pulverized coal (PC) plants, natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants, and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems using coal. In particular, we examine the effects of recent increases in capital costs and natural gas prices, as well as effects of differential plant utilization rates, IGCC financing and operating assumptions, variations in plant size, and differences in fuel quality, including bituminous, sub-bituminous and lignite coals. Our results show higher power plant and CCS costs than prior studies as a consequence of recent escalations in capital and operating costs. The broader range of cases also reveals differences not previously reported in the relative costs of PC, NGCC and IGCC plants with and without CCS. While CCS can significantly reduce power plant emissions of CO₂ (typically by 85–90%), the impacts of CCS energy requirements on plant-level resource requirements and multi-media environmental emissions also are found to be significant, with increases of approximately 15–30% for current CCS systems. To characterize such impacts, an alternative definition of the “energy penalty” is proposed in lieu of the prevailing use of this term.     

Clean coal technology development in China

Coal is found in huge amounts throughout the world and is expected to play a crucial role as an abundant energy source. However, one critical issue in promoting coal utilization is controlling environmental pollution. Clean coal technologies are needed to utilize coal in an environmentally acceptable way and to improve coal utilization efficiency. This paper describes coal's role in China's energy system and the environmental issues related to coal use. Coal is responsible for 90% of the SO₂ emissions, 70% of the dust emissions, 67% of the NO_x emissions, and 70% of the CO₂ emissions. But as the most abundant energy resource, it will continue to be the dominant energy supply for a long time. Therefore, the development and deployment of clean coal technologies are crucial to promote sustainable development in China. Clean coal technologies currently being developed in China are described including high efficiency combustion and advanced power generation technologies, coal transformation technologies, IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) and carbon capture and storage (CCS). Although China only recently began developing clean coal technologies, there have been many successes. Most recent orders of coal-fired power plants are units larger than 600 MW and new orders for supercritical and ultra supercritical systems are increasing rapidly. Many national research programs, industrial research programs and international collaboration projects have been launched to develop on IGCC and CCS systems in China. Finally, suggestions are given on how to further promote clean coal technologies in China.     

Comparative analysis of Fischer-Tropsch and integrated gasification combined cycle biomass utilization

Use of agricultural biomass (switchgrass, prairie grasses) through Fischer-Tropsch (FT) conversion to liquid fuels is compared with biomass utilization via (IGCC) integrated gasification combined cycle electrical production. In the IGCC scenario, biomass is co-fired with coal, with biomass comprising 10% of the fuel input by energy content. In this case, the displaced coal is processed via FT methods so that liquid fuels are produced in both scenarios. Overall performance of the two options is compared on the basis of total energy yield (electricity, liquid fuels), carbon dioxide emissions, and total cost. Total energy yield is almost identical whether biomass is used for electrical power generation or liquid fuels synthesis. Carbon dioxide emissions are also approximately equal for the two pathways. Capital costs are more difficult to compare since scaling factors cause considerable uncertainty. With IGCC costs roughly equivalent for either scenario, cost differences between the pathways appear based on FT plant construction cost. Coal FT facility capital cost estimates for the plant scale in this study (721 MW_t LHV input) are estimated to be 410 (MUSD) million US Dollars while the similar scale biomass-only FT plant costs range from 430 MUSD to 590 MUSD.     

The long-term life cycle private and external costs of high coal usage in the US

Using four times as much coal in 2050 for electricity production need not degrade air quality or increase greenhouse gas emissions. Current SO_x and NO_x emissions from the power sector could be reduced from 12 to less than 1 and from 5 to 2 million tons annually, respectively, using advanced technology. While direct CO₂ emissions from new power plants could be reduced by over 87%, life cycle emissions could increase by over 25% due to the additional coal that is required to be mined and transported to compensate for the energy penalty of the carbon capture and storage technology. Strict environmental controls push capital costs of pulverized coal (PC) and integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants to $1500–1700/kW and $1600–2000/kW, respectively. Adding carbon capture and storage (CCS) increases costs to $2400–2700/kW and $2100–3000/kW (2005 dollars), respectively. Adding CCS reduces the 40–43% efficiency of the ultra-supercritical PC plant to 31–34%; adding CCS reduces the 32–38% efficiency of the GE IGCC plant to 27–33%. For IGCC, PC, and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants, the carbon dioxide tax would have to be $53, $74, and $61, respectively, to make electricity from a plant with CCS cheaper. Capturing and storing 90% of the CO₂ emissions increases life cycle costs from 5.4 to 11.6 cents/kWh. This analysis shows that 90% CCS removal efficiency, although being a large improvement over current electricity generation emissions, results in life cycle emissions that are large enough that additional effort is required to achieve significant economy-wide reductions in the US for this large increase in electricity generation using either coal or natural gas.     

Conversion of fossil and biomass fuels to electric power and transportation fuels by high efficiency integrated plasma fuel cell (IPFC) energy cycle

The IPFC is a high efficiency energy cycle, which converts fossil and biomass fuel to electricity and co-product hydrogen and liquid transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel). The cycle consists of two basic units, a hydrogen plasma black reactor (HPBR) which converts the carbonaceous fuel feedstock to elemental carbon and hydrogen and CO gas. The carbon is used as fuel in a direct carbon fuel cell (DCFC), which generates electricity, a small part of which is used to power the plasma reactor. The gases are cleaned and water gas shifted for either hydrogen or syngas formation. The hydrogen is separated for production or the syngas is catalytically converted in a Fischer–Tropsch (F–T) reactor to gasoline and/or diesel fuel. Based on the demonstrated efficiencies of each of the component reactors, the overall IPFC thermal efficiency for electricity and hydrogen or transportation fuel is estimated to vary from 70 to 90% depending on the feedstock and the co-product gas or liquid fuel produced. The CO₂ emissions are proportionately reduced and are in concentrated streams directly ready for sequestration. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that IPFC is highly competitive with respect to conventional integrated combined cycle plants (NGCC and IGCC) for production of electricity and hydrogen and transportation fuels.     

Production of power using underground coal gasification

Underground coal gasification (UCG) is a process that converts deep, un-mineable coal resources into syngas, which can then be converted into valuable end products such as electric power. This paper provides a summary of the options to combine UCG with electric power production and focuses on commercial-scale applications using a combined-cycle power plant including integration options and syngas cleanup steps. Simulation results for a UCG power plant with carbon capture are compared against the results for an equivalent Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant using the same feedstock. Relative capital cost savings for a UCG power plant are estimated based on published IGCC process unit costs. The UCG power plant with carbon capture is shown to provide a higher thermal efficiency, lower CO₂ intensity, and lower capital cost than an equivalent IGCC plant. Finally, the potential of UCG as a method for producing cost-effective, low-emissions electrical power from deep coal is discussed and some of the challenges and opportunities are summarized.     

Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage

Integration of biomass energy technologies with carbon capture and sequestration could yield useful energy products and negative net atmospheric carbon emissions. We survey the methods of integrating biomass technologies with carbon dioxide capture, and model an IGCC electric power system in detail. Our engineering process model, based on analysis and operational results of the Battelle/Future Energy Resources Corporation gasifier technology, integrates gasification, syngas conditioning, and carbon capture with a combined cycle gas turbine to generate electricity with negative net carbon emissions. Our baseline system has a net generation of 123 MW_e, 28% thermal efficiency, 44% carbon capture efficiency, and specific capital cost of 1,730 $ kW_e⁻¹. Economic analysis suggests this technology could be roughly cost competitive with more conventional methods of achieving deep reductions in CO₂ emissions from electric power. The potential to generate negative emissions could provide cost-effective emissions offsets for sources where direct mitigation is expected to be difficult, and will be increasingly important as mitigation targets become more stringent.     

Boiling coal in water: Hydrogen production and power generation system with zero net CO2 emission based on coal and supercritical water gasification

Coal is the single most important fuel for power generation today. Nowadays, most coal is consumed by means of “burning coal in air” and pollutants such as NO_x, SO_x, CO₂, PM2.5 etc. are inevitably formed and mixed with excessive amount of inner gases, so the pollutant emission reduction system is complicated and the cost is high. IGCC is promising because coal is gasified before utilization. However, the coal gasifier mostly operates in gas environments, so special equipments are needed for the purification of the raw gas and CO₂ emission reduction. Coal and supercritical water gasification process is another promising way to convert coal efficiently and cleanly to H₂ and pure CO₂. The gasification process is referred to as “boiling coal in water” and pollutants containing S and N deposit as solid residual and can be discharged from the gasifier. A novel thermodynamics cycle power generation system was proposed by us in State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering (SKLMFPE) of Xi'an jiaotong University (XJTU), which is based on coal and supercritical water gasification and multi-staged steam turbine reheated by hydrogen combustion. It is characterized by its high coal-electricity efficiency, zero net CO₂ emission and no pollutants. A series of experimental devices from quartz tube system to a pilot scale have been established to realize the complete gasification of coal in SKLMFPE. It proved the prospects of coal and supercritical water gasification process and the novel thermodynamics cycle power generation system.     

The economics of reburning with cattle manure-based biomass in existing coal-fired power plants for NOx and CO2 emissions control

Coal plants that reburn with catttle biomass (CB) can reduce CO₂ emissions and save on coal purchasing costs while reducing NO_x emissions by 60–90% beyond levels achieved by primary NO_x controllers. Reductions from reburning coal with CB are comparable to those obtained by other secondary NO_x technologies such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR). The objective of this study is to model potential emission and economic savings from reburning coal with CB and compare those savings against competing technologies. A spreadsheet computer program was developed to model capital, operation, and maintenance costs for CB reburning, SCR, and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). A base case run of the economics model, showed that a CB reburn system retrofitted on an existing 500 MW_e coal plant would have a net present worth of −$80.8 million. Comparatively, an SCR system under the same base case input parameters would have a net present worth of +$3.87 million. The greatest increase in overall cost for CB reburning was found to come from biomass drying and processing operations. The profitability of a CB reburning system retrofit on an existing coal-fired plant improved with higher coal prices and higher valued NO_x emission credits. Future CO₂ taxes of $25 tonne⁻¹ could make CB reburning as economically feasible as SCR. Biomass transport distances and the unavailability of suitable, low-ash CB may require future research to concentrate on smaller capacity coal-fired units between 50 and 300 MW_e.     

Assessment of coal and biomass to liquid fuels in central Appalachia,USA

Liquid fuels from coal and biomass have the potential to reduce petroleum fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions. A multi‐equation model was developed to assess the economics of a potential coal/biomass‐to‐liquids (CBTL) fuel plant in the central Appalachian hardwood region, USA. The model minimizes the total annual production cost subject to a series of regional supply, demand, and other constraints. Model inputs include coal and biomass availability, biomass handling system, plant investment, production capacity, transportation logistics, and project financing. The outputs include the required selling price (RSP) and the optimal logistical decision‐making associated with feedstock requirement, collection, delivery, and liquid fuel production. Results showed that the RSP of Fischer–Tropsch (FT) diesel for a 40 000 barrel‐per‐day CBTL plant with coal/biomass ratio (by weight) of 85/15 was $86.45–87.25 bbl^?1 using different biomass handling systems. The RSP would vary between $86.45 and $89.81 per barrel according to different coal/biomass mix ratios. In consideration of the carbon offset credits due to the addition of biomass, the RSP was adjusted to $84.19–86.74 with respect to four levels of carbon prices. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the RSP of FT diesel was mostly affected by plant capacity, capital cost, coal price, and liquid fuel yield. The crude‐oil‐equivalent price of FT fuels must be above $66 bbl^?1 for a CBTL plant to be profitable in central Appalachia for the long run. These results can help investors/decision‐makers evaluate future CBTL developments in the region. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Techno-economic assessment of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture – Results of EU H2-IGCC project

In order to address the ever-increasing demand for electricity, need for security of energy supply, and to stabilize global warming, the European Union co-funded the H₂-IGCC project, which aimed to develop and demonstrate technological solutions for future generation integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC¹) plants with carbon capture. As a part of the main goal, this study evaluates the performance of the selected IGCC plant with CO₂ capture from a techno-economic perspective. In addition, a comparison of techno-economic performance between the IGCC plant and other dominant fossil-based power generation technologies, i.e. an advanced supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC²) and a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC³), have been performed and the results are presented and discussed here. Different plants are economically compared with each other using the cost of electricity and the cost of CO₂ avoided. Moreover, an economic sensitivity analysis of every plant considering the realistic variation of the most uncertain parameters is given.     

NOx emissions and thermal efficiencies of small scale biomass-fuelled combustion plant with reference to process industries in a developing country

Solid biomass materials are an important industrial fuel in many developing countries and also show good potential for usage in Europe within a future mix of renewable energy resources. The sustainable use of wood fuels for combustion relies on operation of plant with acceptable thermal efficiency. There is a clear link between plant efficiency and environmental impacts due to air pollution and deforestation. To supplement a somewhat sparse literature on thermal efficiencies and nitrogen oxide emissions from biomass-fuelled plants in developing countries, this paper presents results for tests carried out on 14 combustion units obtained during field trials in Sri Lanka. The plants tested comprised steam boilers and process air heaters. Biomass fuels included: rubber-wood, fuelwood from natural forests; coconut shells; rice husks; and sugar cane bagasse. Average NO_x (NO and NO₂) emissions for the plants were found to be 47 gNO₂ GJ⁻¹ with 18% conversion of fuel nitrogen. The former value is the range of NO_x emission values quoted for combustion of coal in grate-fired systems; some oil-fired systems and systems operating on natural gas, but is less than the emission levels for the combustion of pulverized fuel and heavy fuel oil. This value is significantly within current European standards for NO_x emission from large combustion plants. Average thermal efficiency of the plants was found to be 50%. Observations made on operational practices demonstrated that there is considerable scope for the improvement of this thermal efficiency value by plant supervisor training, drying of fuelwood and the use of simple instruments for monitoring plant performance.     

Effects of supplementary biomass firing on the performance of combined cycle power generation: A comparison between NGCC and IGCC plants

In the present work, effects of biomass supplementary firing on the performance of fossil fuel fired combined cycles have been analyzed. Both natural gas fired combined cycle (NGCC) and integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) have been considered in the study. The efficiency of the NGCC plant monotonically reduces with the increase in supplementary firing, while for the IGCC plant the maximum plant efficiency occurs at an optimum degree of supplementary firing. This difference in the nature of variation of the efficiency of two plants under the influence of supplementary firing has been critically analyzed in the paper. The ratings of different plant equipments, fuel flow rates and the emission indices of CO₂ from the plants at varying degree of supplementary firing have been evaluated for a net power output of 200 MW. The fraction of total power generated by the bottoming cycle increases with the increase in supplementary firing. However, the decrease in the ratings of gas turbines is much more than the increase in that of the steam turbines due to the low work ratio of the topping cycle. The NGCC plants require less biomass compared to the IGCC under identical condition. A critical degree of supplementary firing has been identified for the slag free operation of the biomass combustor. The performance parameters, equipment ratings and fuel flow rates for no supplementary firing and for the critical degree of supplementary biomass firing have been compared for the NGCC and IGCC plants.     

CO2 control technology effects on IGCC plant performance and cost

As part of the USDOE's Carbon Sequestration Program, an integrated modeling framework has been developed to evaluate the performance and cost of alternative carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies for fossil-fueled power plants in the context of multi-pollutant control requirements. This paper uses the newly developed model of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant to analyze the effects of adding CCS to an IGCC system employing a GE quench gasifier with water gas shift reactors and a Selexol system for CO₂ capture. Parameters of interest include the effects on plant performance and cost of varying the CO₂ removal efficiency, the quality and cost of coal, and selected other factors affecting overall plant performance and cost. The stochastic simulation capability of the model is also used to illustrate the effect of uncertainties or variability in key process and cost parameters. The potential for advanced oxygen production and gas turbine technologies to reduce the cost and environmental impacts of IGCC with CCS is also analyzed.     

Future carbon regulations and current investments in alternative coal-fired power plant technologies

We analyze how uncertain future US carbon regulations shape the current choice of the type of power plant to build. Our focus is on two coal-fired technologies, pulverized coal (PC) and integrated coal gasification combined cycle technology (IGCC). The PC technology is cheapest—assuming there is no need to control carbon emissions. The IGCC technology may be cheaper if carbon must be captured. Since power plants last many years and future regulations are uncertain, a US electric utility faces a standard decision under uncertainty. A company will confront the range of possible outcomes, assigning its best estimate of the probability of each scenario, averaging the results and determining the power plant technology with the lowest possible cost inclusive of expected future carbon related costs, whether those costs be in the form of emissions charges paid or capital expenditures for retrofitting to capture carbon. If the company assigns high probability to no regulation or to less stringent regulation of carbon, then it makes sense for it to build the PC plant. But if it assigns sufficient probability to scenarios with more stringent regulation, then the IGCC technology is warranted. We provide some useful benchmarks for possible future regulation and show how these relate back to the relative costs of the two technologies and the optimal technology choice. Few of the policy proposals widely referenced in the public discussion warrant the choice of the IGCC technology. Instead, the PC technology remains the least costly. However, recent carbon prices in the European Emissions Trading System are higher than these benchmarks. If it is any guide to possible future penalties for emissions in the US, then current investment in the IGCC technology is warranted. Of course, other factors need to be factored into the decision as well.     

3‐E analysis of advanced power plants based on high ash coal

The objective of the study is to identify the ‘best’ possible power plant configuration based on 3‐E (namely energy, exergy, and environmental) analysis of coal‐based thermal power plants involving conventional (subcritical (SubC)) and advanced steam parameters (supercritical (SupC) and ultrasupercritical (USC)) in Indian climatic conditions using high ash (HA) coal. The analysis is made for unit configurations of three power plants, specifically, an operating SubC steam power plant, a SupC steam power plant, and the AD700 (advanced 700°C) power plant involving USC steam conditions. In particular, the effect of HA Indian coal and low ash (LA) reference coal on the performance of these power plants is studied. The environmental impact of the power plants is estimated in terms of specific emissions of CO₂, SO_x, NO_x, and particulates. From the study, it is concluded that the maximum possible plant energy efficiency under the Indian climatic conditions using HA Indian coal is about 42.3% with USC steam conditions. The results disclose that the major energy loss is associated with the heat rejection in the cooling water, whereas the maximum exergy destruction takes place in the combustor. Further, the sliding pressure control technique of load following results in higher plant energy and exergy efficiencies compared to throttle control in part‐load operation. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

生物质燃烧技术的应用

生物质作为一种可再生能源,替代矿物燃料可降低大气中ＣＯ２,ＳＯＸ物ＮＯＸ的排放。本文简述了生物质的基本概念及其燃烧过程的机理,介绍了主要的生物质燃烧技术的 实际应用情况,并重点叙述了生物质和煤的混合燃烧,生物质ＩＧＣＣ等两种先进的生物质气化技术和它们在示范电站中采用的系统设备,生物质燃料种类,运行性能