You are on page 1of 11

Applied Energy 111 (2013) 710–720

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

A review of efficiency penalty in a coal-fired power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture
Kazuya Goto ⇑, Katsunori Yogo, Takayuki Higashii
Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE), 9-2 Kizugawadai, Kizugawa-shi, Kyoto 619-0292, Japan

h i g h l i g h t s 
Recent studies on the efficiency penalty of a coal-fired power plant with CCS are reviewed.  The effects of CO2 capture and CO2 compression on the efficiency penalty are investigated.  Chemical absorption and other CO2 capture technologies are introduced.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) is a promising countermeasure against global warming, but installing CCS into a power supply system causes a significant decrease in power output. Much research has already focused on the issue of how to facilitate implementation of CCS technology. This paper reviews recent studies on the efficiency penalty of coal-fired power plants with CCS. Efficiency penalty, which represents a net decrease in the power efficiency caused by the CO2 capture and compression process, can be estimated using process simulation that considers factors such as the power generation steam cycle, coal type, and CO2 capture and compression process. According to previous research, the efficiency penalty for current applications was about 10%. The ratio of efficiency penalty caused by CO2 capture to the total efficiency penalty was about two thirds. It appears that while the types of power plant and coal had little influence on efficiency penalty, the CO2 capture technology was critically important. By reducing the regeneration energy of the CO2 scrubbing solvent by 1 GJ/t-CO2, an approximate 2% efficiency improvement can be expected. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 29 January 2013 Received in revised form 6 May 2013 Accepted 9 May 2013 Available online 14 June 2013 Keywords: CCS Post-combustion capture Coal-fired power plant Net efficiency Efficiency penalty

Contents 1. 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Efficiency penalty of a coal-fired power plant with CCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Power generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Analysis methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Studies focusing on coal-fired power plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Power plant specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. Power plant type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. Coal type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. CO2 capture facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Location of steam extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Newly built or retrofit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Electric power supply and demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. CO2 capture load. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. Flexible operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Studies focusing on CO2 capture technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. CO2 capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1. Chemical absorption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711 712 712 713 713 713 713 714 714 714 715 715 715 715 715 715 715

3.

4.

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: goto.ka@rite.or.jp (K. Goto). 0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.05.020

. . . . . . . . . The CCS in this scenario covered not only electric power generation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . especially in the US. . . . . . the major compound implicated in global warming. . . . . . Solid sorbent . . . . such as coal-fired and gas-fired power plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CO2 emissions from electricity and heat generation throughout the world reached 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pre. . . . . . . . Although IGCC and oxy-fuel combustion are promising technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5].1. . . but CO2 capture cost at a natural gas power plant with CCS is higher than that of a coal-fired power plant [3]. . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . according to IEA’s 450 Scenario [1]. . . . . .2. . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CCS for electric power generation from coal accounted for about 40% of the sector CCS contribution in 2050 [2]. . Also. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . including the iron and steel and cement industries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The potential benefit of CCS on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is estimated to reach 22% in 2035. . However. . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy efficient technologies for a gas-fired power plant have been investigated to reduce the CO2 capture cost [4. . . . 4. . . .K. . . . . . . coal-fired power generation has been the mainstream technology up to now and will continue to be so in the future. . . Contributions of capture and compression to efficiency penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There are a lot of future paths of CCS technology. . .1. . . . . . . Fig. Schematic diagram of coal-fired power plant with CCS. . Membrane .3. . . . . . . . Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) is a lower emission technology based on coal gasification and it theoretically reaches high thermal efficiency. . According to International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2011 [1]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . Natural gas is now increasingly important role in the energy portfolio. . As well as clean energy technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . CO2 is captured from a large CO2 emission source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and it produces a large amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . but also energy intensive industrial operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . With the CCS technology. . . . . . . . . The coal-fired power generation with CCS must be investigated as a near-term solution to the global warming issue. . In that year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . compressed. . .and post combustion [6]. A chemical absorption process is generally adopted for CO2 capture because a scrubbing solvent for CO2 capture using Steam Qcap CO2 Capture Compression Flue gas Coal Power plant (Auxiliary) E gross Ecap Ecomp Output E net Eaux Fig. . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . Goto et al. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . coal combustion for electric power generation and associated greenhouse gas emissions have become popular topics for technology development. . . . . . . . . Coal-fired capacity accounted for one third of all electric power generating capacity additions worldwide over the period 1990–2010 [1]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Gt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . and coal combustion accounted for 73% of this amount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of a coal-fired power plant with CCS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716 717 717 717 718 718 718 718 718 1. . Other CO2 capture technologies. . . . . Energy flow of power plant with CO2 capture and compression. . . and finally injected into an underground storage area such as a deep saline layer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Advanced solvents . . . . . Coal-fired power plant Steam cycle Boiler Power generation Flue gas Water Extracted steam Capture Absorber Regenerator Reboiler Compression CO2 To Storage Fig. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . Also IGCC can integrate various CO2 capture technologies such as oxy-fuel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accordingly. . the BLUE Map scenario suggested in IEA’s Roadmap [2] indicates that CCS could contribute 19% to the total CO2 mitigation effort necessary to reduce CO2 emission in 2050 by up to half. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . .1.3. . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is considered a potential solution to the greenhouse gas issue. . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . coal represented 41% of the world’s total electric power generation in 2009. . . . CO2 compression . .1. / Applied Energy 111 (2013) 710–720 711 5. . . . . Introduction Coal is one of the world’s primary energy resources. . . .

cc Dgpenalty ¼ 1 ðQ þ Ecap þ Ecomp Þ LHV cap Capture Fig. the net power provided by a power plant with CCS is less than for a plant without CCS. In addition. which could be used to optimize the energy and cost efficiency of a CCS system. and turning turbines. The CO2 capture and compression processes at a plant with CCS require both thermal energy and electricity. CO2-absorbed ‘‘rich’’ solvent flows from the absorber bottom to the regenerator top by way of a rich-lean thermal heat exchanger. gnet . Process simulation tools Aspen PlusÒ ProMaxÒ. At Huaneng Beijing coal-fired power plant. pre-combustion. In this paper. the rich solvent is heated by steam generated at the reboiler. CO2 capture at a coal-fired power plant for CCS has not been commercially operated yet and still under investigation. After CO2 desorption occurs.1. we think it is important to provide a rough sketch of a coal-fired power plant with CCS. including post-combustion. Additionally. There might be a huge number of parameters to accurately evaluate a specific power plant case. Aqueous amine solutions have already been commercialized and used in industries such as ammonia plants and gas processing. However. In the regenerator. EBSILONÒ CHEMSIM gPROMS Steam Pro HysysÒ Professional UniSimÒ Pro/II Design suite CCS is close to commercial development. flue gas and aqueous amine solution are contacted with counter-current flow at the absorber. Goto et al. The ratio of the net output efficiency to the calorific value of coal.) The efficiency penalty of a power plant with CCS compared with a plant without CCS is shown in Fig. the ‘‘lean’’ solvent is recirculated to the absorber. The ‘‘net output efficiency’’ is the percent of net output compared with the fuel’s calorific value. 3. . steam for use as reboiler heat can be extracted from the steam cycle in the power plant. In the case of CO2 capture from the flue gas of a coal-fired power plant. composition of coal will significantly influence on power generation efficiency. steam is necessary for heating scrubbing solvent in the regenerator to around 100–120 °C. Coal (Heating value) Power output without CO2 capture Eaux Enet Power output with CO2 capture E gross Ecomp Compression Ecap Qcap Eaux Auxiliary Steam for capture gnet ¼ Enet LHV ð1Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ Dgpenalty ¼ gnet.ref À gnet. CO2 capture from coal-fired power plants has been at the demonstration stage. Power generation The term ‘‘efficiency penalty’’ refers to the power generation loss by installing CCS on a power plant. generating steam. and these results in a decrease in the plant’s power output. However. is called ‘‘gross output efficiency’’. CCS implementation reduces electric power generation in a power plant. the application of CCS to power generation has been broadly researched. the report described various capture technologies. Although the turbines generate the electric power. a lower efficiency penalty is better. the actual electric power supplied to customers from a power plant is different from the gross output. In the case of a chemical absorption process. a process that directly influences power generation. (2). Coal-fired power plants generate electricity by burning coal. and a portion of the steam from a power plant’s steam cycle is supplied to the process. which is calculated by subtracting auxiliary power from the gross output. and the ratio of gross output to fuel’s calorific value. An important aspect of the post-combustion CO2 capture process using chemical absorption is the high amount of energy required and the resulting efficiency penalty on the steam power cycle. Especially. / Applied Energy 111 (2013) 710–720 Table 1 Process simulation tools for evaluating a coal-fired power plant with CCS [11–35]. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Considering this situation. Following the IPCC report. which takes into account steam for CO2 capture and electricity for CO2 capture and compression (Eq. is used in this paper. 3 and defined by Eq. Fig.712 K. CO2 capture plant with aqueous amine solution has been operated to carry out industrial test and techno-economic analysis [9]. expressed as a percent. chemical absorption and other CO2 capture technologies such as solid sorbent and membrane are introduced. The energy efficiency of power generation using CCS was previously described in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that reviewed CCS technology [10]. 2. Needless to say. the CO2 Technology Centre Mongstad project has constructed two large post-combustion CO2 capture demonstration plants [8]. In Europe. Efficiency penalty of a coal-fired power plant with CCS 2. the efficiency penalty could be considered an index for evaluating whether a power plant with CCS is energy-efficient. Also. and also examined low-energy reduction technologies. The IPCC report discussed previous studies estimating the energy efficiency of coal-fired power plants with and without CCS. (1). (The low heat calorific value of fuel. we investigate the effect of CO2 capture and CO2 compression on the efficiency penalty. Because chemical absorption requires high steam energy during the regeneration process. In the chemical absorption process. we review the studies on coal-fired power plants with CCS from the viewpoint of efficiency penalty. Integrating a large-scale CO2 capture and compression system into coal-fired power generation system is complex and will require detailed research. is defined by Eq. (3)). In this regard. Ltd and Southern Company constructed a demonstration plant with a capacity of 500 t-CO2/d at an existing coal-fired power plant in Alabama [7]. Power output of power plant with and without CCS. LHV. Power output from turbines is called ‘‘gross output’’. and oxy-fuel combustion. The power supplied to customers is ‘‘net power’’. Because of the energy requirements for CO2 capture and compression. and is generally considered the difference in thermodynamic performance between plants with and without CCS. 2 shows a schematic diagram of a coal-fired power plant with CO2 capture and compression processes that obtain their energy for operation from the power plant. The temperature of the rich solvent at the regenerator is about 100–120 °C.

achieving . Subcritical Steam pressure Temperature Net efficiency (without CCS) 180 bar 540 °C 35% Supercritical 250 bar 560 °C 40% Ultra-supercritical 300 bar 600 °C 45% A-USC 713 350 bar 700 °C 48% (Subcritical) Net efficiency of a power plant with CCS Efficiency penalty (Ultra-supercritical) Net efficiency of a power plant with CCS Efficiency penalty Strube [11] Dave [12] MIT [43] Romeo [44] Harkin [45] Khalilpour [14] 0 10 20 30 40 50 Aroonwilas [36] LeMoullec [46] Romeo [21] IEAGHG [47] MIT [43] Ystad [22] Liebenthal [23] Liszka [48] Dave [12] Gibbins [37] CESAR [49] (Supercritical) Net efficiency of a power plant with CCS Efficiency penalty Net efficiency [%] Fig. the Aspen PlusÒ process simulation software has been frequently used. 3. 5.1. simulation may be the only viable method available to predict CCS system performance. for example Steam Pro from Thermoflow. Power plant specifications DE ¼ gnet. Net efficiency [%] Fig.1. DEÃ. Studies focusing on coal-fired power plants 3. as defined by Eq. This represents the additional energy required by installing the CO2 capture and compression processes. Another index used in the IPCC report [10] is the energy penalty. Goto et al.ref ð 4Þ The commercially available software packages listed in Table 1 are powerful tools reported in previous papers [11–35]. / Applied Energy 111 (2013) 710–720 Table 2 Performance of a coal-fired power plant. an open-access tool that calculates energy system performance. These tools can easily calculate heat and mass balance on a process flow diagram based on thermodynamics.1. One such program is the Integrated Environmental Control Model [38]. Net efficiency of supercritical steam cycle with CCS. 4. DE. Inc. (4).ref À1 gnet. In particular. It represents the capacity decrease in electricity generation. The energy efficiency of commercial coal-fired power plants based on ultra-supercritical steam cycles may exceed 50% in the next decade.K. we have to consider the type of power generation unit. 6. The fractional increase in a plant’s energy input per unit of CO2 removal. (See the above information about the reference) EPRI [16] Meijer [50] Abu Zahra [51] Cifre [24] 0 10 20 30 40 50 Berstad [15] Dave [12] EPRI [16] Liang [17] Versteeg [18] Zhai [19] Sanpasertparnich [20] 0 10 20 30 40 50 Net efficiency [%] Fig.37]. Because CCS is not yet commercialized. Also Sipöcz [39] presented the use of Artificial Neural Network model to predict plant operation of CO2 capture and showed usefulness of it for fast simulation of complex steady state process with validity of a rigorous process simulation model. emissions. 3. (5). DE Ã ¼ 1 À gnet.cc gnet. Net efficiency of ultra-supercritical steam cycle with CCS. other types of power generation steam cycles. Net efficiency of subcritical steam cycle with CCS. Analysis methods The efficiency penalty of a power plant with CCS has generally been estimated by numerical approaches that can evaluate various CCS systems at power plants as case studies.cc ð 5Þ 2.2. is defined by Eq. Power plant type When a coal-fired power plant with CCS is discussed. Software specifically for calculating the steam cycle of a power generation system has also been used. In the meantime. Original calculation programs were also developed in previous studies [36. and costs.

The IEA report [42] showed that CCS implementation by retrofit was not economically favorable for a power plant with lower efficiency (less than 35% LHV). integration of a CO2 capture process with a power plant requires modifications to the power generation steam cycle.5%.1. a low-rank coal could lower power plant efficiency on its own with no relation to CCS. Technically.7%). Location of steam extraction Previous studies [13.8%) and black coal (10. as shown in Table 2. and commercialization is expected by 2020 [41]. Goto et al. Brown coal such as lignite is a low-rank and low-calorific coal. lignite.7%. Power plant classifications are shown in Table 2. A backpressure turbine Fig. In the above-mentioned research.2.52–55] focused on the location of steam extraction and on the steam cycle system. Hard coal. 7B. we need to examine in more detail the fuel’s effect on the operation of a power plant with CCS. For the subcritical power plant with CCS. As for the steam extraction from the cross-over pipe between IP and LP turbines. The effect of installing CCS technology on a power plant is different for each type of power generation system. An advanced ultra-supercritical (A-USC) plant with a temperature target of over 700 °C is being researched. Fig.4%).714 K. the steam turns turbines that generate electric power. The high heat calorific value (HHV) reported in previous papers was converted using coal composition. and the higher the steam temperature. 14. Dave [13] presented efficiency penalties for brown coal (11. high-pressure steam is produced in the boiler. Aroonwilas and Veawab [36] demonstrated the impact of bituminous coal and lignite on power output efficiency. coal type or relevant information described in the papers. where the steam temperature reaches over 600 °C. 6 was about 45%. / Applied Energy 111 (2013) 710–720 (A) IP LP Capture (B) IP LP Capture Capture (C) IP LP BP the consumption of brown coal is increasing because of its economic attractiveness. Thermal efficiency is based on the Rankine cycle theory. Effect of CO2 capture load on efficiency penalty. However. Next. The net efficiency for the ultrasupercritical power plant without CCS in Fig. a throttle valve should be installed. 8. 7A). sub-bituminous. [20] compared extraction locations and showed that a low extracted steam pressure from a series of stream turbines minimized the energy penalty. as shown in Fig. the state-of-the-art technology for coal-fired power generation is the ultra-supercritical power plant. sub-bituminous. However. there was not an obvious difference in efficiency penalty among coal types. the extracted steam pressure is high. 3. 14. making it necessary to adjust the extraction pressure (determined by the steam pressure and the required temperature for solvent regeneration). and lignite coals. Some researchers have focused on the operation of power plants with CCS from the perspective of coal type. Heat integration of the steam cycle in a power plant is required because CO2 capture using a scrubbing solvent needs thermal energy at low levels. are currently operating throughout the world. 1. Sanpasertparnich et al. CO2 capture facilities 3.20. most existing power plants do not achieve these conditions at any extraction point and need to be adapted to the required steam conditions. [20] presented simulation results for bituminous. based on the LHV. steam condensing at 3 bar.2. there was no significant difference in efficiency penalty between the types of coal. Bituminous coal is classified as hard coal. Coal type Coal for power generation is typically categorized as ‘‘hard coal’’ and ‘‘brown coal’’. and ultra-supercritical steam cycles. Currently. . Efficiency penalty [%] average thermal efficiency values of about 33% [40]. supercritical. Options for steam extraction from a power plant steam cycle for CO2 capture. However. Figs. which contains steam coal. 14. 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 CO2 capture load [%] Fig. For the subcritical. the net efficiency without CCS increased. In particular. For the coalfired power plant represented by Fig. the energy efficiency (20–30%) was lower than that of the other plants. coal is burned with air. 4–6 show the net efficiency of coal-fired power plants (excluding A-USC) with and without CCS.2.1. Each figure shows that net efficiency with CCS decreased about 10% from that without CCS for each of the three types of steam cycles. and a high-temperature. has a high calorific value. 7 shows several options for steam extraction from a power generation steam cycle. Although bituminous coal had 2% higher net output efficiency. the greater the efficiency. One option is to extract steam from a cross-over pipe between the intermediate pressure (IP) and low pressure (LP) steam turbine sections (Fig.31. There was no difference in the efficiency penalty among the coals when installing 90% CO2 capture (bituminous. there was no effect of improving power plant steam cycle on efficiency penalty. for example. Another option is steam extraction from an appropriate port of an LP turbine. 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Liang [17] Sanpasertparnich [20] Aroonwilas [36] NETL [59] 3. Thus. Sanpasertparnich et al. That is. 7.

0 2.22.1. rather than continuous regeneration at 70% capture load. and performance implications of flexible CO2 capture over its investment lifetime using a dynamic electricity grid model.K. Lucquiaud et al. By lowering the CO2 capture load by about 10%. [64] investigated daily and weekly fluctuations in power plant operation. The IEA’s analysis [1. [66] studied the economic. but also electricity demand. [57] examined retrofit factors such as site constraints. 9. Fig.68. As shown in Fig. fossil fuel. type and design of gas cleaning system. Electric power supply and demand 3. Chalmers et al. This means that a 2% improvement in power output efficiency can be expected if the regeneration energy of the solvent is reduced by 1 GJ/t-CO2. Aroonwilas and Veawab [36].2 1. Thus. When CCS is installed at a power plant serving a local power grid. (MEA aqueous solution).52]. An ideal scenario would be that highly efficient power plants with CCS replace lowefficiency power plants following their premature retirement.6 Regeneration pressure [bar] Fig. and energy efficiency.2. / Applied Energy 111 (2013) 710–720 715 (Fig. an approximate 1–1. This potential loss should be replaced so that sufficient capacity is available to maintain grid reliability and to meet electricity demand. 7C) with a low-efficiency loss can also be installed [13. the CO2 recovery target (the ratio of captured CO2 to total CO2 content in the flue gas) is not always constant. [63] and Husebye et al. Chemical absorption Chemical absorption is the most promising state-of-the-art technology for CO2 capture. For a power plant having low efficiency or a high electricity demand.6 2. However. and availability of space. 10. was economically beneficial.69]. some electricity generation capacity will be lost to the CO2 capture energy requirements. Newly built or retrofit CCS can be installed on a new power plant.21. Effect of regeneration energy of scrubbing solvent on efficiency penalty. A linear relationship exists between regeneration energy and efficiency penalty [12. or it can be retrofitted to an existing plant. and chemical process industries. The US National Energy Technology Laboratory [59] conducted a feasibility study of various CO2 capture loads (90%. It is already commercialized in various industries.5% decrease in power output efficiency penalty can be expected.8 1.1.8 Liang [17] Cifre [24] Kather [68] 3. 9. remaining plant life. it is critical to meet the electricity demand of the local community. a chemical solvent having lower regeneration energy would be desirable. including the urea and ammonia production. Flexible operation It is important to consider CCS implementation at coal-fired power plants from a viewpoint of flexible operation depending on electricity demand and price. Also. CCS is not a market-driven technology. IGCC: 44euro/t-CO2) [50]. CO2 capture 4. the gradient was around 2. 4. [67] suggested a fleet-wide model for planning that could be used to determine the optimal power grid network necessary to meet not only a given CO2 reduction target.1. operating with maximum regeneration of solvent for 1 h. nuclear. Goto et al. and wind). Elkamel et al. [17] also considered a wide range of CO2 capture efficiencies while simulating a coal-fired power plant with CCS.3. Comparisons between a retrofit plant and a new IGCC power plant show that the retrofit does not have an energy efficiency advantage. [65] investigated the effects of CCS on daily and yearly power demand fluctuations for a Texas power grid. IPCC [10] and Gibbins et al. mittent operation of CO2 capture at a coal-fired power plant. 8 shows the linear relationship between CO2 capture load and power generation efficiency. Efficiency penalty [%] 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Dave [12] Romeo [21] Cifre [24] Kather [68] Regeneration energy [GJ/t-CO2] Fig.3. specific retrofitting factors should be considered.24. [20]. Studies focusing on CO2 capture technology 18 16 4. Cohen et al. When CCS is used on a power plant.1. and energy consumption and CO2 capture costs need to be markedly reduced to facilitate installation of the chemical absorption technology at coal-fired power plants.3. 3.4 2.2 3. food and beverage. [62] demonstrated that when the electricity price is low. Effect of regeneration pressure of scrubbing solvent on efficiency penalty. The model incorporated power generation as well as CO2 emissions from a fleet of generating stations (hydroelectric.2. 3. Fyffe et al. .56] suggests that CCS retrofits will be increasingly important until 2030. Retrofitting a CO2 capture system has an economical advantage and can accelerate implementation of CCS. and 30%) for retrofitting a coal-fired power plant using a chemical absorption process. 50%. age efficiency. Folger [58] noted that the feasibility and cost of retrofitting a CO2 capture system depended heavily on site-specific factors such as the plant size.0. 70%. CO2 capture load CO2 capture load is one of the most important parameters for CCS implementation in a power supply system. but it does have a cost advantage (retrofit: 33euro/t-CO2. To retrofit CCS systems to power plants. The model was applied to the energy supply system operated by Ontario Power Generation for the province of Ontario.2. This configuration allows for flexible power plant operation. Dalia [60] and Chalmers and Gibbins [61] examined the energy and cost implications of inter- 18 16 Efficiency penalty [%] 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0. and Liang et al. environmental. 3. Sanpasertparnich et al.

In the case of a higher regeneration pressure. and efficiency penalties were reported at 9.0 2.52 Efficiency penalty (%) 9. IEAGHG. excess steam energy would be provided from the reboiler. The experimental results concluded that 2-(2-aminoethyl-amino)ethanol (AEEA) was a potentially good absorbent for capturing CO2 from low pressure gases according to the criteria such as high absorption rate and high cyclic capacity.47 [Ref. and the efficiency penalty would be high.4 9. [78]. Development of the chilled ammonia process for CO2 capture has progressed over a relatively short period from the laboratory to pilot-scale tests. Shaw [77] Wu et al.68]. [27] Another important factor to reduce the efficiency penalty is the regeneration condition of the chemical absorption process.55 2. [92]. Solvent Commercial Econmaine FG+ KS-1 KS-2 CANSOLV H3 R&D NH3 (10 °C) NH3 (4 °C) MDEA-TETA MDEA-PZ K.8 2.77] and Hitachi [78.] [118] [118] Current study 5. The process of the PZ solution with regeneration at 150 °C by a two-stage flash was presented. Ltd.3%.8 bar. Econamine FG+ and KS-1 solvents for CO2 capture in post-combustion flue gas were evaluated [47]. a polyamine with three amine functionalities (two primary and one secondary amines). Goto [81] formulated new solvents with a secondary amine which had characteristics of high absorption rate and small enthalpy of absorption. which have characteristics of low heat of reaction and large CO2 capacity but low CO2-absorption rate.2. Amine mixture solvents also have been investigated broadly [26.79]. Other companies. Telikapalli et al. [91]).33 2. Process evaluations of power plant systems with the amine mixture solvents were reported [26. Fig. Econamine FG+ [70.3 8.0 4.8 [Ref.08 3. An aqueous MEA solution is regarded as a conventional CO2 scrubbing solvent.27]. 120 bar [122]). have prepared high-performance amine solvents for commercial CO2 capture.1. 4. the regeneration energy would increase.27. Each curve has an optimum point of regeneration pressure to reach the minimum efficiency penalty.2–2.716 Table 3 Performance of advanced solvents. it was concluded that the chilled ammonia offered greater potential for cost reductions. Generally. 11. the regeneration temperature would be lower than usual.12 3.3 8. regenerating a scrubbing solvent at a high pressure has the advantage of decreasing compression energy for storage (see Section 4. such as CANSOLV [76. Development of new solvents suitable for regeneration at high pressure is challenging. 10 shows the relationship between regeneration pressure and efficiency penalty. . KS-1 has been commercialized and CO2 capture plants using KS-1 have been delivered to fertilizer companies. the required electric power for compression would be reduced.2% and 8.46 References IEAGHG [47] IEAGHG [47] Gibbins and Crane [37] Just [76]. and it has been produced over the past 20 years.5 9.9–8. Inc and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. 1993 Solid sorbent Membrane 11. Advanced solvents To reduce regeneration energy. [79] Versteeg and Rubin [18].2 8. Goto et al.2). new solvents and process improvements have been investigated.4–9.46 2. / Applied Energy 111 (2013) 710–720 Regeneration Energy (GJ/t-CO2) 3. [29] Amann and Bouallou [26] Oexmann et al. Ma’mum [80] selected new amine absorbents for CO2 capture. which was an effective resistant to both oxygen degradation and thermal degradation. but temperature and pressure for regeneration are dependent on solvent characteristics [17. According to expert assessment results summarized by Chung et al. [90]. If the regeneration pressure reaches a high value and the pressure difference at the compression target is small.. but not without greater uncertainty regarding scale 18 16 Abu Zahra [121] Scherer [122] Efficiency penalty [%] 14 Capture & compression 12 10 8 6 4 2 Compression Table 4 Efficiency penalties for CO2 capture using solid sorbent and membrane. Hartono [85. It appears that regeneration for the aqueous MEA solution is ideally carried out at a pressure of around 1. KS-2 and KS-3) [72–75].71] is a well-known commercialized amine solvent. and there would be a shortage in the regeneration of a rich solvent.4 8. The University of Texas [82– 84] suggested a concentrated aqueous piperazine (PZ) solution. It is MEA-based with proprietary inhibitors. Stover et al. have been formulated with additives.117] 0 1 10 100 Initial pressure of CO2 compression [bar] Fig.8 2.24. Effect of initial pressure on efficiency penalty.86] focused on diethylenetriamine (DETA).115. Jilvero et al. where chemical absorption was calculated with aqueous Monoethanolamine (MEA) solution. but its large regeneration energy causes a high efficiency penalty during power plant operation. (Target pressure: 100 bar [121].2 8.2 7. In the case of low pressure.87–89]. Alstom first introduced the process for CO2 capture (Kozak et al. have developed new aqueous solutions of sterically-hindered amines (KS-1.4%. The Kansai Electric power Co. Gibbins and Crane [37] calculated the KS-2 efficiency penalty at 9. Various amine compounds were proposed to enhance CO2 capture efficiency and to reduce regeneration energy.] [110] [34. respectively. Consequently. Tertiary amines and hindered amines. [28] Valenti et al. DETA can potentially have large capacity for CO2 and high absorption rate.8 8–11.

In addition. high-pressure gas is easily treated by membrane technology [111. and cryogenic technologies. safety and environment) risks becomes an increasing concern for implementation of CCS with chemical absorption. In the Chaffee et al. Gray et al. Porcheron [30] concluded that the use of monoamines in chemical absorption limited the performance of the CO2 capture process to minimum regeneration energy of 2. Although the other technologies are in the research phase. Chemical absorption.8 GJ/t-CO2. Goto et al.1. [20]. [37]. including the development of novel solvents. Immobilized amine sorbents might be expected to show similar reactions to liquid amines in the typical scrubbing process. [104] and Hedin et al.112]. Furthermore. [127] [22]. From a review of these papers. (Steam cycle: ultra-supercritical.100–103]. with additional advantages such as low amine emissions and low corrosion. Recently. and the application of this technology to post-combustion CO2 capture has been attempted [34. Generally. Other CO2 capture technologies CO2 capture technology includes not only chemical absorption. This relationship could be extended to other solvent scrubbing systems by thermal regeneration. [47]. Also the review found that approximately 37. [106] and Siriwardane and Robinson [107] investigated resin-supported and silica-supported immobilized amine sorbents. [23].1. in Valencia. [59] [128] [17]. and examples are referenced [10. Jilvero et al. [50]. a power plant with CO2 capture by the sorbent-based process resulted in 346 MW of electricity generation. Samanta et al. Jockenhoevel et al.8 1 Contribution to efficiency penalty [-] Fig.100. but also adsorption. Cousins et al. [15]. some technology reviews on CO2 capture have been published. 4.6 0. CO2. [14].3.0% belonged to solid sorbent and membrane. membrane. ionic liquid and metal– organic frameworks. for CO2 capture from a coal-fired power plant. Breakdown of efficiency penalty.109] reported the performance of a solid-based CO2 capture system for a 430 MW coal-fired power plant. [43]. solvent: MEA aqueous solution. inter-stage temperature control.3. and vapor recompression. split flow process. [18]. membrane. [94] reviewed flow sheet modifications such as multi-component columns. [28] and Valenti et al. the CO2 Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM) project includes assessment of the quality and quantity of the emissions to air [8]. [24]. 9. Davidson [102] reviewed new technologies.5% and 27. the electricity requirement for CO2 capture was estimated at 6–10 kW/t-CO2 in the case of CO2 capture (90–95% purity) using a nine-cycle step system. [99] points out that a sharp increase in patent numbers was seen in the last several years and substantially more patents on CO2 removal and separation technologies are expected in the coming years. [49]. Table 3 shows the performance of commercialized and investigated solvents. [51] [21]. Davidson [102] examined specific membranes that were considered potentially suitable for post-combustion coal-fired flue . Solid sorbent. while the MEA process resulted in 303 MW net power output. 4.3. Compression: 110 bar). including solid sorbent and membrane. chemical absorption needs a high amount of thermal energy for regeneration. [46]. 35.5% belonged to solvent. Econamine FG+ and KS-1 have an energy efficiency penalty of about 9% [47]. separation with membrane technology uses the pressure difference between mixed gas (flue gas) and CO2 (permeate gas).4 0.22. [100] introduced the concept that the technology focus has moved from chemical absorption using amine compounds to technologies such as solid sorbent. Membrane.25] have investigated the effects of flow sheet modifications on power plant efficiency. / Applied Energy 111 (2013) 710–720 717 and technical feasibility.1. Although the CO2 adsorption capacities of activated carbons and other mesoporous sorbents are governed by physical interactions. [29] have investigated the energy efficiency of the process. EUPHORE. but solid sorbent regeneration energy should be lower because of low steam loss during CO2 desorption. we hope these promising technologies will progress toward the demonstration and commercial stages soon. Some researchers [17. ADA Environmental Solutions [108. is moving ahead of the other technologies.4–9. [110] work on vacuum swing adsorption with an inorganic– organic hybrid adsorbent. A patent review presented by Li et al. [12].0%. Because of the significantly lower steam requirement for CO2 desorption from solid sorbents. Laboratory-scale experiments have been conducted to investigate chemical reactions between amine compounds and impurities in a coalfired flue gas [95–97]. Target pressure of compression (bar) 200 150 140 130 110 100 Number of references 3 5 2 1 12 4 Refs. Regarding the efficiency penalty.K. 4. The chemical absorption process has been substantially improved. Versteeg and Rubin [18]. [78]. [33] Capture Compression LeMoullec [46] Liszka [48] IEAGHG [47] CESAR [49] Liebenthal [23] Meijer [50] Abu Zahra [51] Cifre [24] 0 0.2 0. respectively. [126]. Figueroa et al. Solid sorbent is used in adsorption/ Table 5 Target pressure of CO2 compression. desorption process similar to chemical absorption. [44]. [93] estimated the performance of amino acid and reported a 9% efficiency penalty.112–117]. The entrainment of volatile amines and degradation products in a scrubbed gas from an absorber top occurs and those compounds might emit from a stack to the air. their capacities can be increased by introducing nitrogen functional groups into their structures. and much progress has been made in this area [100].2. Photochemistry experiments were carried out at the European Photochemical Reactor. [48]. reducing HSE (health. The relationship between regeneration energy and efficiency penalty in Table 3 coincided well with the results in Fig.1. These investigations would contribute to reducing the HSE risks and to accelerating CCS implementation. 12. now at the demonstration stage. This represented an efficiency penalty of about 5. Solid sorbents have been investigated and developed for CO2 capture. process flow improvement appears to result in a possible increase in power plant efficiency up to about 2%. Spain [98]. However. [105] presented an overview for the capture of CO2 from post-combustion flue gas using sorbents. [125] [70]. Solid sorbent and membrane technologies are reviewed in the sections below.

Previous papers successfully used simulation tools such as Aspen PlusÒ software to estimate specific data for coal-fired power plants with CCS. supercritical and ultrasupercritical steam cycles. CO2 capture in coal-fired power plants – impact on plant performance. financially supported this work. The coal-fired power generation is the main technology of the world’s electricity production. while the latter group may have performed their study under specific conditions. [3] Middleton RS. Table 4 summarizes the solid sorbent and membrane processes. Paris: IEA/OECD. World Energy Outlook 2011. For this reason.org/CCS_roadmap_foldout. Farve [114] reviewed post-combustion capture using membranes and identified forthcoming membrane processes and target applications. ceramic. pipeline specification and so on.5:710–26. The other parameter needed for compression energy estimates is the initial pressure of the compressed CO2 stream. Energy performance of a coal-fired power plant with CO2 capture using membrane technology was investigated.1 °C. CO2 capture technology is critically important for reducing the penalty. but also the power grid networks in local areas. carbon. [7] Iijima M. At Snøhvit.117] determined 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [5] Li H. Loos M. and it will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. for example storage site characteristics. Acknowledgement The Ministry of Economy. 2010. and Industry. Niu H. This work included polymeric. In: Metz B. 4.4–8. 12. Eccles JK. the results were distributed over a narrow range. Trade. The former group of researchers may have chosen the same conditions as in the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Research and Development Program report [47]. Nagayasu T.iea. and the local power demand. / Applied Energy 111 (2013) 710–720 gas separation. Liu L.108:66–73. Tao J. Appl Energy 2012. CO2 compression After capturing CO2 from a flue gas. Appl Energy 2013. Techno-economic evaluation of the evaporative gas turbine cycle with different CO2 capture options. Paris: IEA/OECD.120– 122]. but we did not find a significant advantage of it to reducing the energy requirement for CCS among sub-critical. Bolland and Undrum [119] and Lucquiaud and Gibbins [120] evaluated the energy requirements for various compression targets. Sanden K. [2] IEA. Large-scale carbon dioxide capture demonstration project at a coal-fired power plant in the USA. Energy Procedia 2011. These values are comparable to less than 0. If gaseous phase CO2 is pressurized. is urgently needed.5% for membrane CO2 capture for a post-combustion flue gas. Mitsubishi Heavy Ind Tech Rev 2012. CO2 is compressed to reduce volume and to allow transportation to storage sites. the physical state of CO2 becomes dense phase at 73. Appl Energy 2012. Industrial test and technoeconomic analysis of CO2 capture in Huaneng Beijing coal-fired power station. Their studies found that the energy requirements for a 10 bar increase in a compression target were 1. whereas others have selected target values of around 150 bar. 2005 [Chapter-3 Capture of CO2]. Kishimoto S. Energy 2010. In addition. researchers have been able to improve estimation accuracy by considering local factors such as the specific CO2 capture process.1 bar and 31. [9] Bin H. References [1] IEA. This illustrates how many researchers have assumed 110 bar as a compression target. Carbon dioxide capture and storage. Li H.pdf>. Fig. de Coninck H. functionality and emissions of the amine plant. pre. and preliminary estimates showed the potential of the membranes to lower the energy penalty by 5% or more. Enge Y.5 kW h/t-CO2 (Bolland and Undrum [119]) and 1.87:3347–54. [11] Strube R. 11 shows the effect of initial pressure (CO2 pressure after CO2 capture) on efficiency penalty. and the average value of the ratio of capture was about two thirds of the total efficiency penalty. Amundsen T. In the future. This figure implies that increasing regeneration pressure in a CO2 capture process reduces the efficiency penalty. Meyer L. One is the pressure of a compression target. Regarding efficiency penalty. . as shown in Fig. Merkel et al. and facilitated transport membranes. CO2 is compressed to 80–140 bars at the onshore LNG plant and transported offshore [123]. Gao S. Ditaranto M.2% for the Chembrane facilitated transport membrane hybrid process. CO2 pressure in the Weyburn pipeline was specified as 152 bar [124]. 5.1% of efficiency penalty. This earlier research addressed not only standalone power plants.718 K. 4. The bar chart represents the total efficiency penalty of the power plant and it is regarded as the sum of capture and compression penalties. [6] Kunze C. The most recent steam cycle for power generation has high power generation efficiency. the critical point. <http:// www. such as solid sorbents and membranes. Appl Energy 2012. This has been estimated without regard to the CO2 capture process [25. Conclusions CCS is a realistic countermeasure against global warming. Although the efficiency penalty heavily depends on site-specific factors. Contributions of capture and compression to efficiency penalty Previous researchers analyzed coal-fired power plants with CCS and determined the breakdown of efficiency penalty. By using a site-specific approach. Table 5 presents the compression target reported in previous papers. Yan J. [10] IPCC Special report.2 kW h/t-CO2 (Lucquiaud [120]). Xu S. [4] Hu Y. The development of advanced technologies. The data obtained from previous research indicate that an efficiency improvement of about 2% can be expected by reducing the regeneration energy of scrubbing solvent by 1 GJ/t-CO2. [8] de Koeijer G. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2011.3. 2011. This efficiency penalty was about 10%. functionalized composite. it is important to continue conducting research and development on coal-fired power plants with CCS. coal-fired power plants with CCS should be operated worldwide. compared with 22–29% for conventional solvent scrubbing. Carbon capture with low energy penalty: supplementary fired natural gas combined cycles. editors. Goto et al. and the ratio of efficiency penalty by CO2 capture to the total efficiency penalty was about two thirds. Assessment of oxy-fuel. The CO2 needs to be compressed to the supercritical state of a dense phase before transportation and storage. Zhao [34. et al.94:109–16. the power plant design and configuration.89:303–14. Kamijo T. Davidson O. Nearly the same efficiency penalty was found for various power plant and coal types. Carbon capture and storage roadmap. This review paper focused on the power plant efficiency penalty caused by installation of CO2 capture and compression facilities at coal-fired power plants. et al. Qin [115] reported that the energy penalty was 12. Spliethoff H. Graff OF. Two parameters are needed to estimate the energy requirements of a CO2 compression process. Yan J. [116] developed novel CO2 membranes. Manfrida G.4:1207–13.49:37–43. Appl.2. CO2 Technology Centre Mongstad – Design.97:164–9. Japan. there was no difference in efficiency penalty for coal types such as lignite and bituminous coal. Nakatani S. Falk-Pedersen O.and post-combustionbased carbon capture for future IGCC plants. The complex future of CO2 capture and storage: Variable electricity generation and fossil fuel power.

18:255–60.5:189–99. [29] Valenti G. PA. [31] Lucquiaud M. Tobiesen FA. The use of artificial neural network models for CO2 capture plants. 2007. Proc – Ann Int Pittsburgh Coal Conf. Andersson K. / Applied Energy 111 (2013) 710–720 [12] Dave N. Linnenberg S. 869–77.and blended amines into supercritical coal-fired power plants: Implications for emission and energy management. Energy Procedia 2009. US Department of Energy – Office of Fossil Energy.4:1276–85. NGCC and hard-coal power plant with CO2 capture based on adsorption. AIChE J 2009. In: Proc 31st int tech conf coal utilization and fuel systems. Liang X. Kather A. Energy Procedia 2011. Mitsubishi Heavy Ind Tech Rev 2010.%202010. Feron PHM. [40] Iea CIAB. Gibert A. Rubin ES. Webber ME. [36] Aroonwilas A. Jacquin M. Options for reducing a coal-fired plant’s carbon footprint: Part I.1:1067–74. Techno-economic assessment of flexible solvent regeneration & storage for base load coal-fired power generation with post combustion CO2 capture. 2006. Kather A. [44] Romeo LM.5:702–9. Hoadley A. Hoppock DC. Sakamoto K. [28] Jilvero H. Oexmann J. Cleanwater FL (USA). Impact of liquid absorption process development on the costs of post-combustion capture in Australian coal-fired power stations. (Ed. Energy Procedia 2010. [58] Folger P. Feron PHM. Analysis of flexible CO2 capture over an investment life using a dynamic electric grid model. Derivation of power loss factors to evaluate the impact of post-combustion CO2 capture processes on steam power plant performance. Built-in flexibility at retrofitted power plants: what is it worth and can we afford to ignore it? Energy Procedia 2011. Espatolero S. Normann F. [43] MIT. Liebenthal U. [19] Zhai H. The future of coal. Proc Instn Mech Engrs Part A J Power Energy 2004. Chem Eng Res Des 2011. Si F.4:15–22. Appl Therm Eng 2008. Jordal K. http:// dx. Environ Sci Technol 2012. congressional research service reports 2010. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2007. Hillestad M. Capture-ready supercritical coal-fired power plants and flexible post-combustion CO2 capture. Modeling of ultra super critical power plants integrated with the chilled ammonia process. 2000.pdf>. .K. Zie ˛ bik A. Screening of flowsheet modifications for an efficient monoethanolamine (MEA) based post-combustion CO2 capture. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2011. Energy Procedia 2011.4:1812–9.4:2596–603. 2010. [70] Sander MT. Abbas A. Croiset E. Crane RI. Tontiwachwuthikul P. [63] Chalmers H.218:231–9. Chem Eng Trans 2009. [20] Sanpasertparnich T.cmu. Bolea I. [56] IEA. Impact of post combustion capture of CO2 on existing and new Australia coal-fired power plants. [59] NETL. vol. The FLUOR DANIELÒ ECONAMINE FGTM Process: Past experience and present day focus.org/10. [69] Feron PHM. <http://web. Do T.4:1737–44. Ploumen P. Power 2008:28–33. Bolea I. Chalmers H. Turning CO2 capture on and off in response to electric grid demand: a baseline analysis of emissions and economics. P. Using overall process simulation to minimize the energy penelty of post-combustion CO2 capture processes in steam power plants. [34] Zhao L.doi. [42] IEA. [49] Franco F. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2010.2:563–70. J Clean Prod 2010. Effective retrofitting of post-combustion CO2 capture to coal-fired power plants and insensitivity of CO2 abatemant costs to base plant efficiency. [27] Oexmann J. [38] Rubin ES.55:3168–90. 2007. Versteeg PL. deMontigny D. 681–90. [45] Harkin T. Energy Procedia 2011. p. Goto et al.2:175–80.47:9–14. 739–48. Commercialization of clean coal technology with CO2 recovery. [64] Husebye J.php>. Report No. Integration of power plant and amine scrubbing to reduce CO2 capture costs. [18] Versteeg P. CA. A technical and economic assessment of ammoniabased post-combustion CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Ishii H. CCS Retrofit – analysis of the globally installed coal-fired power plant fleet. Mariz CL. Energy Procedia 2011.). High throughput screening of amine thermodynamic properties applied to postcombustion CO2 capture process evaluation.45:2479–85. Veawab A. DeLallo M. Energy Technology Perspectives 2008. Energy Procedia 2009. Lucquiaud M. Li J. Assadi M. [54] Lucquiaud M. CESAR.89:1625–38.edu/epp/iecm/index.3303/CET0918040. Parametric study and benchmarking of NGCC. Energy Procedia 2011. [35] NETL. Hoadley A. Blum L.edu/epp/iecm/rubin/PDF%20files/ 2010/CRS_Carbon%20Cap ture%20Tech%20Assessment_R41325_July%2019. Douglas PL. Germantown. [33] Harkin T.86:2109–23. et al. Semi-empirical model for the direct simulation of power plant with integrated post-combustion CO2 capture processes by wet chemical absorption. Paris: IEA/OECD. Reducing the energy penalty of CO2 capture and compression using pinch analysis.co2cesar. Gibbins J. Derivation of correlations to evaluate the impact of retrofitted post-combustion CO2 capture processes on steam power plant performance. Fujii T. Hasse H. Energy Procedia 2011.132:021003-1–3-8. Mougin P. Hoch S. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2011. Riensche E. [57] Gibbins J. Reducing the energy penalty costs of postcombustion CCS systems with amine-storage. Integration of a chemical process model in a power plant modelling tool for the simulation of an amine based CO2 scrubber.1:909–16. Water use at pulverized coal power plants with postcombustion carbon capture and storage.4:1835–42. In: 35th int tech conf clean coal & fuel systems. Integration of CO2 capture unit using single.1:143–50. [46] Le Moullec Y. [32] Linnenberg S. [24] Cifre PG. Koyama Y. Initial evaluation of the impact of post-combustion capture of carbon dioxide on supercritical pulverised coal power plant part load performance. Zaremsky CJ. [65] Cohen SM. Energy Procedia 2011. Xu Z. The potential for improvement of the energy performance of pulverized coal fired power stations with post-combustion capture of carbon dioxide. Energy Procedia 2009. Energy Procedia 2011. EPRI. Economic analysis of amine based carbon dioxide capture system with bi-pressure stripper in supercritical coal-fired power plant. HEN optimization for efficient retrofitting of coal-fired power plants with post-combustion carbon capture. Energy Convers Mgmt 1992. DOE/NETL2007/1281. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2007. Energy Procedia 2012. Berkenpas MB. Palfreyman D. Chalmers H. Fleten SE. Oexmann J. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2011. [26] Amann JMG. Technoeconomic assessment of CO2 capture retrofit to existing power plants. [51] Abu-Zahra MRM. Schoff R. Owens W.7:192–201. Derivation of power loss factors to evaluate the impact of post-combustion CO2 capture processes on steam power plant performance. et al.html>.5:1596–605.25:212/1–212/24. Environ Sci Technol 2011. Optimization of energy usage for fleet-wide power generating system under carbon mitigation options.28:1039–46. Hasenbein C. [61] Chalmers H.and gas-fired power plants.33(5– 8):341–8.4:2612–9. Chalmers M. Gibbins J. Versteeg GF. Carbon capture: a technology assessment. Rubin ES. Thermal integration and modelling of the chilled ammmonia process. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2011. [22] Ystad PAM. DOE/ NETL-401/110907.1:269–78. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2011. p. Johnsson F. [23] Liebenthal U. Bonalumi D. [67] Elkamel A. A parametric study of the economical performance based on mono-ethanolamine. Integration of post-combustion capture and storage into a pulverized coalfired power plant.5:727–40. Gibbins J. 2. [15] Berstad D.1:1411–8.4:1385–94. García H. Fuel 2009. Rocheele GT. 2010. coal and biomass power cycles integrated with MEA-based postcombustion CO2 capture. Hooper B.4:2005–19. Menzer R. Leach M. Escosa JM. Webber ME. Energy Procedia 2011. Asprion N. Hashim H.4:1713–20.edu/coal/>. Energy Procedia 2011. et al. CO2 capture from power stations running with natural gas (NGCC) and pulverized coal (PC): Assessment of a new chamical solvent based on aqueous solutions of N-MethylDiEthanolAmine+TriEthylene TetrAmine. Kather A. Liebenthal U. Pittsburgh. Designing a supercritical steam cycle to integrate the energy requirements of CO2 amine scrubbing. Brechtel K. Bolea I. <http://www. Retrofit of CO2 capture at coal. Power generation from coal. [30] Porcheron F. 2010. J Energy Resour Technol 2010. Paris: IEA/OECD.5:1232–9. Arasto A. White J. Energy Procedia 2009. 2008. 719 [39] Sipöcz N. MD and US Department of Energy/NETL.4. [60] Patiño-Echeverri D. [55] Linnenberg S. Feron PHM. Energy Mater: Mater Sci Eng Energy Syst 2007.88:2481–8. <http:// www. [41] Hashimoto T. Report Number PH4/33. 2007. [16] Holt NAH. Haugen G. Goulon A. User documentation: Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM) with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). [14] Khalilpour R. Rochelle GT. [52] Zachary J. Do T. [48] Liszka M. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants. [50] Meijer R. D2. Macchi E. 2007. Hooper B. Gibbins J. Gibbins J. [62] Lucquiaud M. Liebenthal U. Carbon dioxide capture from existing coal-fired power plants. Appl Energy 2011.4:1721–8. Kather A. Bolland O. Steam cycle options for the retrofit of coal and gas power plants with post-combustion capture. Thermoeconomic comparison of coal-based oxy-fuel and post-combustion CO2 capture – case study for Polish conditions.88:2368–76. Concepts and investment cost analyses of multi-stage membrane systems used in post-combustion processes. Linnenberg S.4:1385–94. Faraj A. Development and application of optimal design capability for coal gasification systems. [21] Romeo LM.3 European best practice guidelines for assessment of CO2 capture technologies. [17] Liang H.1:135–42. Potential for flexible operation of pulverized power plants with CO2 capture. McGlashan N. 1000316 December 2000.cmu. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2008.mit. Stolten D. Palo Alto. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2012. [66] Fyffe JR. Cohen SM.5:427–38. 2011. Oexmann J.eu/ site/en/downloads. November 2004. Wolk R. 2011. [13] Dave N. Gibbins J. Improvement in power generation with post-combustion capture of CO2. Evaluation of innovative fossil fuel power plants with CO2 removal. Niederer JPM. [25] Le Moullec Y. Idem R. [68] Kather A. 2011. Buchanan T.4:499–510. Fuel 2007. Assessment of carbon capture thermodynamic limitation on coal-fired power plant efficiency. <http://www. Bouallou C. Oexmann J.23:33–44. [53] Lucquiaud M. [47] IEAGHG. CO2 capture from power plants Part II.46:1243–52. In: ASME 4th int conf energy sustainability. Scope for reductions in the cost of CO2 capture using flue gas scrubbing with amine solvents.18:857–66. [37] Gibbins JR. Palfreyman D. DOE contract DE-AC21-92MC29094. Anantharaman R. Paris: IEA/OECD. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2011. Reducing the energy penalty of CO2 capture and storage using pinch analysis. Kanniche M.

DOE Report No.003. Gros-Bonnivard R.4:29–34. Thimsen D. Research and development on energy saving technology for flue gas carbon dioxide recovery and steam system in power plant. [119] Bolland O. Power plant post-combustion carbon dioxide capture: an opportunity for membranes. The capture of CO2 from fossil fuel power stations. [100] Figueroa JD. Sarkar P. Cansolv technologies: the value of integration. Aqueous piperazine as the new standard for CO2 capture technology.4:179–86. Kingsnorth CCS Project. Modeling pilot plant results for CO2 capture by aqueous piperazine.171:725–33. A survey of process flow sheet modifications for energy efficient CO2 capture from flue gase using chemical absorption. 2010 [Sec. Energy Procedia 2011. [84] Rochelle G. 2005 [paper 142]. Juliussen O. [118] Reimer P. Svendsen HF.03. POWER-GEN Europe. [110] Chaffee AL. Off-gas emission in CO2 capture process using aqueous monoethanolamine solution.4:5541–8. [102] Davidson RM.39:5609–20. The outlook for improved carbon capture technology. Energy Convers Mgmt 1997. Advances in CO2 capture technology: a patent review.1:1091–8. Iijima M. [77] Shaw D. Hirata T. Liquid-impregnated clay solid sorbents for CO2 removal from postcombustion gas streams. Energy Procedia 2009. Iijima M. J Membr Sci 2010. Development of carbon dioxide removal system from the flue gas of coal fired power plant. Freeman S. Energy Procedia 2009. Dye C. Høier L. Econamine FG PlusSM technology for Post-combustion CO2 capture. Effects of NOx in the flue gas degradation of MEA. [71] Reddy S. Efficient Carbon Capture for Coal Power Plants. Hoff KA. Klebes J. [126] Kingsnorth Carbon Capture & Storage Project.171:782–93. Black J. Appl Therm Eng 2010. van der Weijde G. Non-confidential FEED study report. Advances in CO2 capture technology – the US department of energy’s carbon sequestration program. [86] Hartono A. http:// dx. [123] Eiken O.1:963–70. Sieder G. Energy Policy 2011. 2010. Supap T. [87] Ohashi Y.. Appl Energy 2013. Yagi Y. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2011. Cologne Germany. [83] Plaza JM.5:605–19. Petig A. December 1993. Adsorbents for post-combustion capture of CO2 using rapid temperature swing or vacuum swing adsorption. Wei X. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pre-combustion. Energy Procedia 2011. Energy Procedia 2011. [90] Kozak F.4:1637–43. Chem Eng Res Des 2011. In: MEGA Symposium. Meyer L. Energy Procedia 2011. Cansolv CO2 capture: the value of integration. Weinheim. Austria. [94] Cousins A. 2009. Lessons learned from 14 years of CCS operations: Sleipner.V. Plasynski S. 2011. CCS with the alstom chilled ammonia process development program – field pilot results. Current status of MHI’s CO2 recovery technology and optimization of CO2 recovery plant with a PC fired power plant. Optimal power plant integration of post-combustion CO2 capture. Pedersen S. Energy Procedia 2011. Hoffman JS. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2007. Xu Z. Fauth DJ. Idem R.104:418–33. In: 11st IEAGHG meeting of international post-combustion CO2 capture network. [79] Stöver B. Kikkawa H.1:237–46. Zhao A. Riensche E. Canada. Mejdell T. Sjøvoll M. Hreha DC. Robinson C. Iijima M. J Membr Sci 2010. [82] Freeman SA.89:1553–71. [76] Just PE. Svendsen HF. [116] Merkel TC. [92] Chung TS. Fujioka Y. 2011. Marks A. Pilot plant experimental studies of post combustion CO2 capture by reactive absorption with MEA and new solvents. Sherrick B. Notz R. Nazarian B. Stolten D. [96] Fostås B. Kobayashi H.org/10. Post-combustion CO2 capture using solid sorbents: a review. Energy Procedia 2009. Chowdhury FA.135:378–85. in Salah and Snøhvit. [113] Hussain A. [103] Rubin ES. Hoff KA.1:11–8.359:140–8. [115] Qin Y. Optimized post combustion carbon capturing on coal fired power plants. Zhang J.2:9–20. New energy efficient processes and improvements for flue gas CO2 capture.05649T4. Garcia H.20:14–27. Xiao P. Ringrose P. Energy Procedia 2009. [73] Mimura T. [93] Jockenhoevel T. 2–3]. et al. Chem Eng J 2011. Higaki K. [72] Mimura T. [112] Brunetti A. Rochelle GT. [109] Sjostrom S. [95] Jackson P. Atmospheric chemistry of 2-aminoethanol (MEA). Energy Fuels 2009. Solutions.30:53–62. 2009.5:1214–9. Gibbins J. May 20–21.4:2245–52. Energy Procedia 2009.1:1489–96.38:S57–62. Hägg MB. Feron PHM. Karl M. Blum L. Ogawa T.23:4840–4. D’Anna B. van Wagener D. Energy Procedia 2011. IEA GHG R&D Program. Sjostrom S. Shimizu GKH.1:853–9. Post-combustion carbon capture – solid sorbents and membranes. Fout T. Ind Eng Chem Res 2008. Energy Convers Manage 2007. Carbon dioxide capture with concentrated. [101] Yang H. Selection of new absorbents for carbon dioxide capture. On the integration of CO2 capture with coal-fired power plant plants: a methodology to assess and optimize solvent-based post-combustion capture systems. Montreal. Graus M. [121] Abu Zahra MRM. 2009. Suda T. McIlvried H.4:1566–73. September 29. et al. [97] Chanchey A. Regina. [89] Aronu UE.4:273–81. Scherer V. Jaud P. 2005 [Chapter-4 Transport of CO2]. September 12–16.4:1051–7. [114] Favre E. Energy Procedia 2011. Development of energy saving technology for flue gas carbon dioxide recovery in power plant by chemical absorption method and steam system. Goto et al. Sandell M. Kitchin J. Loos M.359: 126–39. Adv Environ Res 2003. Bergins K. Goetheer ELV. [104] Samanta A. Bland AE.359:160–72. Carbon dioxide capture and storage. Sørensen AL. Undrum H. Schneider R. Xu Q. Baker R. Chem Eng J 2011.7:901–11. Mitchell R. August 30. ROAD Maasvlakte CCS Project C. Solvent selection for carbon dioxide absorption. Morris E. Ind Eng Chem Res 2012. In: 4th annual conf on carbon capture & sequestration. et al. Development of novel absorbents for CO2 capture from blast furnace gas.1:1043–50. Parametric study of solid amine sorbents for the capture of carbon dioxide. IEAGHG/SR2. Schneider R. Okabe H. Energy Procedia 2011. et al. Muraskin D. Webley PA. [85] Hartono A. Yan J. Saiwan C. Kinetics reaction of primary and secondary amine group in aqueous solution of diethylenetriamine (DETA) with carbon dioxide. Solid sorbents as a retrofit CO2 capture technology: results from 1kW pilot tests. [124] IPCC Special report. et al. Morreale B. Report No. J Membr Sci 2010. [117] Zhao L. Svendsen HF. Mitsuoka S. Membrane-based hybrid process to capture CO2 from warm flue gas. Development of an economic postcombustion carbon capture process. [120] Lucquiaud M. Tontiwachwuthikul P. . Environmental impacts of post-combustion capture – new insights. Gangstad A. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2008. Fan M. editors. Bouallou C. CO2 capture by adsorption: materials and process development.51:1438–63. Dugas R. Aspiron N. Special report for the GCCSI. Hedges SW. Technology options for clean coal power generation with CO2 capture. Voice A. et al. Progress in carbon dioxide separation and capture: a review. Johnson TL.doi.5M of diethylenetriamine (DETA) solution. Solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous 2. Davidson O. aqueous piperazine. Ratiño-Echeverri D. J Environ Sci 2008. van Wagener D. Fernandez ES.4:1347–52. 2008.2012. Wardhough LT. Bergström L.4:2277–84. Hermanrud C. Energy Procedia 2009. Energy Procedia 2011. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2012. J Environ Eng 2009. [88] Mangalapally HP. Mantripragada H. Liang Z. Egami N. Energy Procedia 2011. Membrane technologies for CO2 separation. Schlüter L.VA.102:1439–47. Baltimore USA. [98] Nielsen CJ. [125] Jockenhövel T. Gupta R. Natural gas processing with membranes: an overview. [108] Krutka H. Suda T. Energy Procedia 2011. Chen E. Energy Procedia 2009. Drioli E. Lokhandwala K. [128] Huizeling E.359:115–25. Juliussen O. Bergins C. Rhudy R. Richard M. Energy Procedia 2009. [74] Kishimoto S. e-on UK. Andersson L.36(6–9):397–400. [91] Telikapalli V. 2011. Valle-Marcos J. Energy Convers Mgmt 1995.48:251–8. King S. post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power plant for CO2 capture. [107] Siriwardane R. Scura F. Ohishi T. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2011. J Membr Sci 2010. de Coninck H. Shimayoshi S. Appl Energy 2013. Luebke D. [81] Goto K. Energy Procedia 2011. Leandri JF. Svendsen HF.pecs. Kaibara K. / Applied Energy 111 (2013) 710–720 [99] Li B. Multi-stage gas separation membrane processes used in post-combustion capture: energetic and economic analyses. Amann JM. Barbieri G. Germany: Wiley-VCH. Shimizu S. Expert assessments of retrofitting coal-fired power plants with carbon dioxide capture technologies.47:2109–21. 2–5 May.1016/j.720 K. Versteeg P. Vienna. Ohishi T. Slimane RB. Rochelle GT. [105] Hedin N. Hoff KA. In: 12th IEAGHG meeting of international post-combustion CO2 capture network. In: 21st world energy congress. ADA Environmental. Carbon Capture Readiness Report. Nguyen T.4:1593–600. [75] Tatsumi M.1:1051–7. Kawasaki T. Hoch S. Canada. Duan Y. A feasibility study of CO2 capture from flue gas by a facilitated transport membrane. [127] Kanniche M. Attalla M. Torp TA. Chilled ammonia process for CO2 capture.1:1419–26. London: IEA Clean Coal Centre CCC/144. Lin H. Rode H. Guidelines for process development and future cost reduction of CO2 post-combustion capture. Shimojo S. [80] Ma’mum S. [78] Wu S. Membrane processes and postcombustion carbon dioxide capture: challenges and prospects. Onoda M.4:504–11. [111] Baker RW. A novel methodology for comparing CO2 capture options for natural gas-fired combined cycle plants. Iijima M. Champagne KJ. Gupta R. Nenseter B. Kozak F. [122] Stolten D. [106] Gray ML. Mitsuoka S. Kadono K. USA. Knowles GP. 2011. In: Metz B.