You are on page 1of 50

Power Plant Economics

Carl Bozzuto
ALSTOM 2006. We reserve all rights in this document and in the information contained therein. Reproduction, use or disclosure to third parties without express authority is strictly forbidden

Overview
z z z z z z z z

Economic Terms Economic Methodologies Cost Models Pitfalls Cost Studies Results Some words about CO2 Conclusions

Economic Terms
z z z z z z z z z z
3

Return on Sales = Net after tax/Sales revenue Asset turnover = Sales revenue/Assets Leverage = Assets/Equity PE Ratio = Stock Market Price (per share)/Net after tax (per share) Market/Book Ratio = Stock Market Price (per share)/Equity (per share) Return on Assets = Net/Assets Return on Equity = Net/Equity Discount Rate = Time value of Money Net Present Value = Present Value of Future Returns @ Discount Rate Internal Rate of Return = Discount Rate which yields an NPV of zero

Why do we care?

ROS x Turnover x Leverage x PE = Market/Book


Listed firms want to increase stock price (shareholder value)

The Discount Rate considers risk as well interest rates and inflation
The discount rate is often a project hurdle rate

z z

Many firms use IRR for project evaluation Return on Equity is a key consideration for any investment

Economic Methodologies

z z

A Power Plant is a long lived asset that is capital intensive. It also takes a long time to acquire the asset.
Construction times range from 2 years for a combined cycle plant to 3 4 years for a coal plant to 10 years for a nuclear plant.

z z z

A key issue is treating the time value of money. Depreciation is a key consideration. Different entities treat these considerations differently.

Plant Cost
z

Plant Cost is exceptionally site specific.


Labor costs Shipping and material costs Environmental costs Site preparation costs Site impacts on performance Fuel costs Cooling water type and availability Connection costs

Today, we really dont know what the final cost of a plant will be.
Raw material escalation Shipping costs Labor costs

Plant Cost Terminology


z

There are numerous ways to talk about plant cost.


Engineered, Procured, and Constructed (EPC cost) Most commonly used today Fits best with Merchant Plant model Does not included Owners Costs
Land, A/E costs, Owners Labor, Interconnection, Site Permits, PR, etc.

Can often be obtained as a fixed price contract for proven technology Equipment Cost Generally the cost to fabricate, deliver, and construct the plant equipment Overnight Cost Either the equipment cost or the EPC cost with the NPV of interest during construction. This was used in the 70s and 80s to compare coal plants with nuclear plants due to the difference in construction times. Total Installed Cost (TIC) The total cost of the equipment and engineering including interest during construction in present day dollars. This is the cost that a utility would record on its books without the cost of land and other home office costs.
7

Total Plant Cost (TPC) includes all costs

Economic Methodologies
z

Simple payback
The number of years it takes to pay back the original investment

Return on Equity
For regulated utilities, the ROE is set by the regulatory body. The equity is determined by the total plant cost being allowed in the rate base. The equity portion is determined by the leverage of the company. The ROE is applied to the equity and added to the cost in determining the cost of electricity and thus the rate to be charged to the customer.

Capital Charge Rate


This is the rate to be charged on the capital cost of the plant in order to convert capital costs (ie investment) into operating costs (or annual costs). This rate can be estimated in a number of ways. This rate generally includes most of our ignorance about the future (ie interest rates, ROE, inflation, taxes, etc.)

Discounted Cash Flow Analysis


This method is preferred by economists and developers. A spread sheet is set up to estimate the cash flows over the life of the project. An IRR can be calculated if an electricity price is known (or estimated).
8

Economic Methodologies
z

All of these methods can be made equivalent to one another for any given set of assumptions.
A simple payback time can be selected to give the same cost of electricity (COE) as the other methods. A return on equity can be selected to give the same COE. A capital charge rate can be selected to give the same COE. The Discounted Cash Flow method is considered the most accurate. However, there are still a considerable number of assumptions that go into such a model such as the discount rate, inflation rate, tax rate, interest rates, fuel prices, capacity factors, etc. that the accuracy is typically less in reality.

The Independent Power Producer pioneered the use of the DCF model for smaller power projects.
In this model, the developer attempted to fix as many costs as possible by obtaining fixed price contracts for all of the major cost contributors. These included the EPC price, the fuel contract, the Operations & Maintenance Contract (O&M), and the Power Purchase Agreement.

Cost Models
z

Capital Charge Rate Model


The goal is to select a capital charge rate that typically covers most of the future unknowns. This rate is applied to the EPC cost in order to provide an annual cost that will provide the desired return on equity. In its simplest form, one can use the following: Interest rate on debt - 8 - 10% for utility debt ROE - 10 12 % for most utilities Inflation rate - 3 4% Depreciation - 2 4% Taxes and Insurance - 3 5% Risk - ? (typically 3% for mature technologies, higher for others) Another approach would be to run a number of DCF cases with different assumptions and then assess a capital charge rate that is consistent. A reasonable number for a regulated utility is 20% (one significant figure)

10

Discounted Cash Flow Model


z

The goal is to estimate the cash flows of the project over the life of the plant. A significant number of variables are involved and must be estimated or assumed in order to make the spread sheet work.
Input variables include net output, capacity factor, availability, net plant heat rate (HHV), degradation, EPC price, construction period, insurance, initial spares/consumables, fixed O&M, variable O&M, fuel price, fuel heating value (HHV), financial closing date, reference date, depreciation, analysis horizon, owners contingency, development costs, permitting costs, advisory/legal fees, start up fuel, fuel storage, inflation rates, interest rates, debt level, taxes, construction cash flow, discount rate, and ROE. A detailed cash flow analysis is set up for each year of the project. For shorter term projects, these estimated cash flows are more realistic. For longer term projects, the accuracy is debatable. Since the cash generation may be variable, it is often desirable to perform some kind of levelizing function to generate an average that is understandable. There are risks associated with this step. The most common application is to assume a market price for electricity and then try to maximize the IRR for the project.
11

Discounted Cash Flow Model


z

The model assumes that we know a lot about the project and the number of variables. What if we dont know very much about the future project? For example, what if we dont know where the plant will be located? What if we dont know which technology we will use for the plant? What if we want to compare technologies on a consistent basis? One approach is to run the DCF model backwards. In this approach, we stipulate a required return and calculate an average cost of electricity needed to generate that return. We still need to make a lot of assumptions, but at least we can be consistent. One advantage of having such spread sheet programs is that a wide range of scenarios and assumptions can be tested. This approach gives us a little more insight into the decision making process and helps us understand why some entities might chose one technology over another.
12

Typical Construction Period w/Cash Drawdown


1. C um ulativeD raw dow n
0 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 -100,000 -200,000 -300,000 -400,000 -500,000 -600,000 47 1 3 5 7 9

13

Typical Levelized Cash Flow


4. E ndingE quityC ashflow

50,000 0 (50,000) (100,000) (150,000) (200,000) (250,000) (300,000) (350,000) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

14

Pitfalls
z

The biggest pitfall is thinking that these numbers are real. They are only indicative. Just because a computer can calculate numbers to the penny does not mean that the numbers are accurate. There is a lot of uncertainty due to the number of assumptions that have to be made. It is important to understand what the goal and/or objective of the analysis is. In the following study, the goal was to compare technologies that might be used in the future. This goal is different from looking at a near term project where the site, technology, fuel, customer, and vendors have already been selected. There is no substitute for sound management judgement. The analysis itself does not identify the risks. The analyzer must consider the risks and ask the appropriate what if questions. In the following study, over 3,000 spread sheet runs were made in order to analyze the comparisons effectively. Avoid the Swiss Watch mentality.
15

z z

Technology Position and Experience


Experience Base Sub-Critical PC Super-Critical PC PFBC IGCC CFB NGCC 1,200 GW 265 GW 0.5 GW 1 GW 20 GW 200 GW GT 100 GW ST GE, Shell, Conoco Phillips Alstom, FW GE, Siemens, Alstom Major Competitors Alstom,MHI, B&W, FW and Several Others Alstom,MHI, B&W Technology Maturity Mature Proven Demo Demo Proven Mature

16

Baseline Economic Inputs 1997 400 MW Class

Subcritical Supercritical P800 PFBC Size


(MW)

IGCC 400 1,380 8,700 80 48 39.08 0.42


GE

400 1,000 9,374 80 36 31.14 0.77


Market

400 1,050 8,385 80 36 32.11 0.69


Market

400 1,100 8,405 80 48 33.69 1.01


ABB

Capital Cost
($/ kW)

Heat Rate
(Btu/ kWh)

Availability
(%)

Cycle Time
(months)

Fixed O&M
($/ kW)

Variable O&M
(mills/ kWh)
Source:

17

Baseline Economic Inputs 1997 100 MW Class

CFB Size
(MW)

P200 PFBC 100 1,200 8,815 80 32 55. 41 1.06


ABB

NGCC 270 500 6,640 80 24 16.92 0.01


PGT

100 1,000 10,035 80 30 44.13 1.18


Market

Capital Cost
($/ kW)

Heat Rate
(Btu/ kWh)

Availability
(%)

Cycle Time
(months)

Fixed O&M
($/ kW)

Variable O&M
(mills/ kWh)
Source:

18

Baseline Economic Inputs - 2005 400 MW Class


Subcritical Supercritical P800 PFBC IGCC Size
(MW)

400 750 8,750 80 24 26.33 0.81


BA Plan

400 750 8,125 80 24 26.33 0.75


BA Plan

400 750 8,030 80 30 26.95 1.05


SECAR

400 1,100 7,800 80 36 33.69 0.37


GE

Capital Cost
($/ kW)

Heat Rate
(Btu/ kWh)

Availability
(%)

Cycle Time
(months)

Fixed O&M
($/ kW)

Variable O&M
(mills/ kWh)
Source:
19

Baseline Economic Inputs 2005 100 MW Class

CFB Size
(MW)

P200 PFBC 100 850 8,530 80 22 48.67 1.12


SECAR

NGCC 270 325 6195 80 18 16.44 0.01


PGT

100 725 9,350 80 18 38.84 1.15


BA Plan

Capital Cost
($/ kW)

Heat Rate
(Btu/ kWh)

Availability
(%)

Cycle Time
(months)

Fixed O&M
($/ kW)

Variable O&M
(mills/ kWh)
Source:

20

Financing Scenario Summary


Loan structure Horizon (years) Interest rate (%) Loan term (years) Depreciation (years) Equity (%) Debt (%) ROE (%) Taxes (%) Municipal Utility IPP 1 IPP 2 Industrial 40 5.75 40 40 0 100 n/a 0 30 7.75 30 30 50 50 10 20 15 8.75 9 15 30 70 20 30 15 8.75 9 15 50 50 20 30 10 8.25 10 10 75 25 23 30

21

Comparison of Financing Scenarios


400 MW Subcritical PC Fired Plant 10.0 9.0 8.0

Financial Fixed O&M Variable O&M Fuel

Levelized Tariff, c/ kWh

7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Municipal Utility

ts have s o c l a i c Finan on COE e c n e u l f major in

IPP-1

IPP-2

Industrial

Financing Arrangement
22

Comparison of Technologies
Municipal Financing - 1997
4.0
Financial Fixed O&M

(80% CF, $1.20 coal and $3.00 gas)

3.5

Variable O&M Fuel

3.0

Levelized Tariff, c/ kWh

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 Subcrit PC (400 MW) 23 Super PC (400 MW) P-800 (400 MW) IGCC (400 MW) P-200 (100 MW) CFB (100 MW) NGCC (270 MW)

Comparison of Technologies
Utility Financing - 1997
(80% CF, $1.20 coal and $3.00 gas) 5.0 4.5 4.0

Financial

Levelized Tariff, c/ kWh

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

NGCC lo oks bett er on to but wor tal C se on di spatch b OE, asis. t s o c ancial n i f r e h g i H nce on e u l f n i s e increas CO E

Fixed O&M Variable O&M Fuel

Subcrit PC (400 MW) 24

Super PC (400 MW)

P-800 (400 MW)

IGCC (400 MW)

P-200 (100 MW)

CFB (100 MW)

NGCC (270 MW)

Comparison of Technologies
IPP(1) Financing - 1997
8.0
Financial Fixed O&M

(80% CF, $1.20 coal and $3.00 gas)

7.0

Variable O&M Fuel

6.0

Levelized Tariff, c/ kWh

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 Subcrit PC (400 MW) 25 Super PC (400 MW) P-800 (400 MW) IGCC (400 MW) P-200 (100 MW) CFB (100 MW) NGCC (270 MW)

Comparison of Technologies
IPP(2) Financing - 1997
9.0
Financial Fixed O&M

(80% CF, $1.20 coal and $3.00 gas)

8.0 7.0

Variable O&M Fuel

Levelized Tariff, c/ kWh

6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Subcrit PC (400 MW) Super PC (400 MW) P-800 (400 MW) IGCC (400 MW) P-200 (100 MW) CFB (100 MW) NGCC (270 MW)

26

Comparison of Technologies
Industrial Financing - 1997
(80% CF, $1.20 coal and $3.00 gas) 16.0
Financial Fixed O&M Variable O&M Fuel

14.0

12.0

Levelized Tariff, c/ kWh

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 Subcrit PC (400 MW) 27 Super PC (400 MW) P-800 (400 MW) IGCC (400 MW) P-200 (100 MW) CFB (100 MW) NGCC (270 MW)

Capacity Factor Effect on COE


Municipal Financing - 1997
($1.20 coal and $3.00 gas) 8.0
Subcrit PC Supercrit PC

7.0

P-800 IGCC

Levelized Tariff, (c/ kWh)

D is
6.0

5.0

patc CFB h ra NGCC hav e m te and/ ajor o influ r capac i en c e on ty facto COE r

P-200

4.0

3.0

2.0 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Capacity Factor, (%)


28

Impact of Availability on COE


Municipal Financing - 1997
3.5 3.4 3.3
Subcrit PC

($1.20 coal)

Levelized Tariff, (c/ kWh)

3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8

5 days lost availability makes sub and supercritical equal.

Supercrit PC

~5 days

2.7 2.6 2.5 6,500 6,600 6,700 6,800 6,900 7,000 7,100 7,200 7,300 7,400 7,500

Capacity, (hrs/ year)


29

Sensitivity Analysis
Subcritical PC
20% 1997 IPP1 Financing - $1.20 coal

15%

ility and b a l i a v a nge in n CO E a o h e c c , n e % u l n I est inf h g i h e v a eh EPC pric

10%

Change in COE, (%)

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

Availability EPC price Plant heat rate Fixed O&M Cycle time Var O&M

-20% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Percent Variable Change


30

Sensitivity Analysis
NGCC
20% 1997 IPP1 Financing - $3.00 gas

15%

10%

ty and i l i b a l i a v ng e i n a a COE h c n , o e % c C n C e st influ For NG e h g i h e v ha efficiency

Change in COE, (%)

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

Availability EPC price Plant heat rate Fixed O&M Cycle time Var O&M

-20% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Percent Variable Change


31

Comparison of Technologies
China 1997 Municipal Financing Conditions
4.0 ($1.80 coal and $5.00 LNG)

gh NGCC hi el due to fu cost

3.5

3.0

r ta nt o p m i s s e tl First cos g h c os t i h o t e u itive d fue l s e ns

Levelized Tariff, (c/ kWh)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Financial Fixed O&M Variable O&M Fuel

0.5

0.0 Subcrit PC Supercrit PC P-800 IGCC P-200 CFB NGCC

32

Comparison of Technologies
China 1997 IPP Financing Conditions
($1.80 coal and $5.00 LNG) 7.00

6.00

Levelized Tariff, (c/ kWh)

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00
Financial Fixed O&M

1.00

Variable O&M Fuel

0.00 Subcrit PC 33 Supercrit PC P-800 IGCC P-200 CFB NGCC

Comparison of Technologies
Japan Market Conditions - 1997
($2.90 coal and $5.00 LNG)

5.0 4.5 4.0

Levelized Tariff, c/ kWh

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Subcrit PC (400 MW) Super PC (400 MW) P-800 (400 MW) IGCC (400 MW) P-200 (100 MW) CFB (100 MW) NGCC (270 MW)

portant m i s s e l t c os t h First cos g i h o t tive due i s n e s l e fu

Financial Fixed O&M Variable O&M Fuel

34

Net Plant Heat Rate Summary


12,000 10,035 12%

9,375

8,750

8,700

8,815

10,000

9,350

10% 8,385 8,125 8,405 8,030 8,530

10%

Net Plant Heat Rate (Btu/kW)

7,800

NPHR Improvement (%)

8,000

8% 6,640 7% 6,195 7% 6%

7% 6,000

4% 4,000 3% 2,000 3%
1997 2005 Improvement

4%

2%

0 Subcrit PC (400 MW) Super PC (400 MW) PFBC-P800 (400 MW) IGCC (400 MW) PFBC-P200 (100 MW) CFB (100 MW) NGCC (270 MW)

0%

35

$1,600

Summary of EPC Prices


$1,380
1997 2005 % Decrease

40%

$1,100

$1,000

EPC Price ($/kW, net)

29%

$1,000

$1,200

$1,050

$1,100

32%

$1,200

$1,400

35%

29%

30% 28%

EPC Decrease (%)

$750

$750

$750

$850

$1,000

25%

25% $725

$800

20%

20%

$600 $350 $325 7% $200

15%

$400

10%

5%

$0 Subcrit PC (400 MW) Super PC (400 MW) PFBC-P800 (400 MW) IGCC (400 MW) PFBC-P200 (100 MW) CFB (100 MW) NGCC (270 MW)

0%

36

Coal Technology Cost Trends


2,000 1,800 1,600
Subcritical PC Supercritical PC P800 P200

Extrapolated to 2005

EPC Price ($/kW, net)

1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

all 4 have 00 MW t echn the s olog ame ies mid term targ et
1999 2001 2003 2005

Year
37

Market Trends
Carbon Steel Price Trends

175

Index Base 1982

150

125

100 01/02 01/03 01/04 01/05 01/06

Month

38

Market Trends

39
Spot Nickel
16.20 15.80 15.40 15.00 14.60 14.20 13.80 13.40 13.00 12.60 12.20 11.80 11.40 11.00 10.60 10.20 9.80 9.40 9.00 8.60 8.20 7.80 7.40 7.00 6.60 6.20 5.80 5.40 5.00 4.60 4.20 3.80 3.40 3.00 2.60 2.20 1.80

2000 2001 2002

Nickel Trend: 2000 - 2006

Low Ni 2003 Month / Year 2004 2005 2006 Avg. Spot Ni High Ni

January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December

Todays Costs (Estimated)


z

Todays debate centers around conventional pulverized coal plants (PC) and integrated gasification combined cycle plants (IGCC). As we have seen, the current level of development for IGCC makes it uncompetitive with PC, which explains why very few have been built. The claim for the future is that the cost of capture of CO2 to mitigate greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will be more expensive for PC than for IGCC. Further, as IGCC develops, its costs will come down (learning curve). As we are in a state of flux with regard to present day costs for plants, the best we can assume (to one significant figure) is that costs have escalated from their 1997 level to about double. That is, a PC plant is now about $2000/Kw and an IGCC is about $3000/Kw (EPC). Recall that the forecast in 1997 was for PC to be $750/Kw and the IGCC to be $1100/Kw. Unfortunately, that is one of the dangers of forecasting.
40

Todays Costs (Estimated)


z

Fuel costs have also escalated. Recent data for fuel costs delivered to new plants is about $1.75/MMBTU for coal and $6.50/MMBTU for gas. We can input these new costs into the spread sheet model and get an estimate for the COE for a utility trying to make a decision today.
Under these conditions, with no CO2 capture, the COE for the PC plant would be 6.55 cents/Kwhr and the IGCC plant would be 9.41 cents/Kwhr. The natural gas plant would again look competitive at 6.3 cents/Kwhr with an 80% capacity factor. However, at a more typical 40% capacity factor, the COE is 8.30 cents/Kwhr. As a result, we see a lot of utilities considering supercritical pulverized coal plants.

What about the argument for CO2 capture?


This is a subject of intense debate/argument. IGCC costs are expected to increase by 15 - 20% for CO2 capture. The range for PC is considerable. Old technology could increase by as much as 50%. Current technology ranges from 20 30%. New technology is estimated between 10 15%. Whos right?
41

Efficiency Critical to emissions strategy


Source: National Coal Council From EPRI study

100% Coal

Coal w/ 10% co-firingbiomass

Commercial Supercritical/ First of kind IGCC

Existing US coal fleet @ avg 33%

Net Plant Efficiency (HHV), %

42

Meeting the Goals for Coal Based Power - Efficiency

Plant Efficiency % (HHV Basis)

50 40 30 20 10 0
POLK/WABASH IGCC Target for New IGCC* SCPC Today USC Target Next Gen IGCC

43

CO2 Mitigation Options for Coal Based Power

9 Increase efficiency Maximize MWs per lb of carbon processed 9 Fuel switch with biomass Partial replacement of fossil fuels = proportional reduction in CO2 9 Then, and only then .Capture remaining CO2 for EOR/Sequestration
= Logical path to lowest cost of carbon reduction
44

CO2 Capture Post Combustion


Technology
CO2 Scrubbing options ammonia based CO2 Frosting

Status
Demonstration in 2006. Advantage of lower costs than Amines. Applicable for retrofit & new applications Uses Refrigeration Principle to Capture CO2 from Flue Gas. Process Being Developed by Ecole de Mines de Paris, France, with ALSTOM Support

CO2 Wheel

Use Regenerative Air-Heater-Like Device with Solid Absorbent Material to Capture ~ 60% CO2 from Flue Gas. Being Developed by Toshiba, with Support from ALSTOM

CO2 Adsorption with Solids

Being Developed by the University of Oslo & SINTEF Materials & Chemistry (Oslo, Norway), in Cooperation with ALSTOM Further Improvements in Solvents, Thermal Integration, and Application of Membranes Technologies Focused on Reducing Cost and Power Usage Multiple suppliers driving innovations

Advanced Amine Scrubbing

45

Technology Validation & Demonstration

Post Combustion CO2 Capture


Chilled Ammonia

Without CO2 Removal

MEA-Fluor Dan. Proc.


652 329 8.56 0.24 51.1

NH3

Total power plant cost, M$ Net power output, MWe Levelized cost of power, c/KWh CO2 Emission, lb/kwh Avoided Cost, $/ton CO2

528 462 5.15 1.71 Base

648 421 6.21 0.19 19.7

46

Going Down The Experience Curve for Post Combustion CO2 Capture
3000 Heat of Reaction (BTU/lb) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1990
Process Optimization Advanced Amines Process Innovations 1,350 BTU/lb
ABB Lumnus Values From Current Projects

2001 Parsons Study (Fluor)

ALSTOMs Chilled Ammonia Process

1995 1995

2000 2000

2005 2005

2010 2010

2015 2015

2020

Significant Improvements Are Being Achieved


47

Multiple Paths to CO2 Reduction Innovations for the Future


Hatched Range reflects cost variation from fuels and uncertainty

Technology Choices Reduce Risk and Lower Costs


Levelized COE cents/Kwhr

10 8 6 4 2 0

No CO2 Capture ------------------------------With CO2 Capture---------------------------

Note: Costs include compression , but do not include sequestration equal for all technologies

48

w /M O EA xy fir in g w SC CO PC 2 ad v am in IG es CC F tu rb in e SC PC US NH IG C 3 CC PC H ad tu v rb C O in 2 e w ad v CO 2

SC PC

SC PC

IG CC

Economic Comparison
Cost of Electricity (common basis)
Ref Air fired CFB w/o capture Ref IGCC 7FA w/ capture spare O2 fired PC w/ capture

9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 (Cents/kWhr) 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00

O2 fired CFB w/ capture

Ammonia scrubbing

Chemical Looping
4.50 4.00 0 10 20 30 40 50

CO2 Allowance Price ($/Ton CO2 Emitted)


49

Conclusions

New coal fired power plants shall be designed for highest efficiency to minimize CO2 and other emissions Lower cost, higher performance technologies for post combustion CO2 capture are actively being developed, and more are emerging There is no single technology answer to suit all fuels and all applications The industry is best served by a portfolio approach to drive development of competitive coal power with carbon capture technology

50