Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Whether CCS technologies will exacerbate the water crisis in China? —A

full life-cycle analysis
Lin Yang a, b, Haodong Lv a, b, *, Dalin Jiang c, Jingli Fan d, Xian Zhang e, **, Weijun He f,
Jinsheng Zhou a, b, Wenjing Wu a, b
a
School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, 100083, Beijing, China
b
Key Laboratory on Resources and Environment Capacity Under Ministry of Land and Resources of People’s Republic of China, Beijing, 100083, China
c
China Energy Technology and Economics Research Institute, Changping District, Beijing, 102211, China
d
Faculty of Resources & Safety Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology, Beijing (CUMTB), Beijing, 100083, China
e
The Administrative Centre for China’s Agenda 21 (ACCA21), Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Beijing, 100038, China
f
Donlinks School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, 100083 Beijing, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an indispensable technology for achieving emission reduction targets, but it
Carbon capture and storage is a resource-intensive process requiring a large amount of water. Based on the full life-cycle analysis, this paper
Water withdrawal firstly reviews the existing research regarding not only the water withdrawal and consumption for pulverized
Water consumption
coal (PC), nature gas combined cycle (NGCC), and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants,
CO2-Enhanced water recovery
Full life cycle
but also the water production resulting from CO2-enhanced water recovery (CO2-EWR). And then a case study is
conducted using the practical data of 35 PC power plants satisfying source-sink matching principle. We found
that: (1) CCS can reduce 140 Mt/a CO2 emissions with a capture rate of 90%, whereas water withdrawal will
increase by 174.9%, and water consumption will increase by 150.5% (without EWR) and 36.9% (with EWR).
Obviously, the CO2-EWR can drastically reduce water consumption. (2) Capture process contributes most to the
water usage. Particularly, PC with circulating cooling requires plenty of water while the increase rate only
doubles with CCS. By contrast, although water withdrawal for PC with air cooling is relatively small, the increase
rate expands 9 times due to cooling the high-temperature flue gas during capture process. (3) The annual water
withdrawal in Ordos Basin and Bohai Bay Basin increases by 347% and 131%, respectively, while water con­
sumption increases only by 30.1% and 45.6%, respectively. Overall, enhancing the condensate recovery treat­
ment during the capture process and the CO2-EWR during the storage process can be considered to deal with
water scarcity challenge.

1. Introduction
Climate change represents an enormous threat to sustainable
development, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions has become an
international focus. Carbon capture and storage (CCS), which comprises
various options to capture CO2, and then pressurize and transport it to a
geological location for permanent storage, is an emerging technology
expected to achieve large-scale low carbonization of fossil energy. CCS
will contribute 32% of the total emission reductions through 2050 in the
1.5 ◦ C scenario (1.5DS) and 14% in the 2 ◦ C scenario (2DS) [1,2]. In
China, the contribution of CCS-related emissions reductions should
reach 50% by 2050 [1], and the annual emissions reduction should
reach at least 1 billion tons accordingly [3]. Overall, CCS has been
proved to be an indispensable tool to tackle climate change.
Global power generation reached 26.7 trillion kWh and its CO2
emissions reached 13 billion tons in 2018, accounting for 38% of the
total energy-related CO2 emissions [4]. China’s natural resources have
long been in the state of “rich in coal, low in gas and low in oil” and the
coal-dominated energy structure cannot be fundamentally altered in the
short term. Coal-fired plant power had exceeded 1000 GW in 2018,
which accounts for 60.2% of the total installed capacity in China [5].
IEA requires China to retrofit 185 GW of coal-fired power installed ca­
pacity by 2035 to achieve the 2 ◦ C target set at the Paris agreement [6].

* Corresponding author. Key Laboratory on Resources and Environment Capacity Under Ministry of Land and Resources of People’s Republic of China, Beijing,
100083, China.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lvhd318@163.com (H. Lv), zhangxian_ama@163.com (X. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110374
Received 8 March 2020; Received in revised form 15 September 2020; Accepted 15 September 2020
Available online 24 September 2020
1364-0321/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Yang et al.
Abbreviation definition
APH Air preheater
CCS Carbon capture and storage
CEC China Electricity Council
CO2 Carbon dioxide
DCC Direct contact cooler
E-Gas Two sections of coal water slurry gasification
EIA Energy Information Agency
EOR Enhanced oil recovery
ESP Electrostatic precipitator device
EWR Enhanced water recovery
FGD Flue gas desulfurization
GE General Electric Company
GTCC Gas turbine combined cycle
GW Gigawatts
Therefore, it is imperative to deploy CCS technology in China as soon as
possible.
Scarce water resources have become a severe environmental chal­
lenge for the development of energy industry [7,8]. In 2018, global
water withdrawal and water consumption of thermal power plant
occupied 38.7% and 20.7%, respectively, of the total industrial water
[9]. In addition, approximately 122.58 billion m3 of seawater is directly
used for cooling water of thermal power plants [5]. The full life-cycle of
CCS technology needs to consume water resources [10,11]. It is esti­
mated that CCS retrofitting will increase water usage of power industry
by 80% through 2030 in the U.S [12]. Moreover, CCS-related water
usage is also vulnerable to fuel production and transportation mode, as
well as power plant configuration [13]. Hence, water resources are most
likely to be a considerable constraint on the large-scale application of
CCS in China.
Life cycle analysis (LCA) has been widely used to assess the envi­
ronmental and resource impacts associated with CCS retrofitting of
power plants [14–16]. For example, Tang et al. (2014) [17] discussed
the environmental influence of coal-fired power plants with CCS, noting
that CCS has adverse effects on human health, biodiversity and pro­
duction operations. Additionally, some scholars investigated the distri­
bution of energy with or without CCS from the energy balance
perspective [18–21]. In terms of water resource demand, the previous
studies mostly focused on the carbon capture process (solvent injection,
CO2 absorption and CO2 precipitation) [22–24]. Among them,
Lim-Wavde et al. [25] and Sathre et al. [22] explored the water usage of
power plants with CCS by 2030 from the aspect of water equilibrium;
Tidwell et al. [23] discussed the CCS-related water resource stress in
some water-scarce areas of the United States, indicating that the daily
water usage may increase by nearly 1 million cubic meters; Court et al.
[26] noted that the cooling water demand for a CCS-retrofitted PC
power plant is approximately double that of the unmodified power
plant; Merschmann et al. [27] analyzed the effects of cooling systems on
water usage during the capture process, showing that water withdrawal
will increase by 102–121% and 93–113% in coal-fired power plants
installed with once-trough cooling and closed cooling systems,
respectively.
Nevertheless, the previous research conducted by the domestic and
international scholars is still limited to assess the water resource pres­
sure resulting from CCS deployment. Firstly, most of them focus on the
carbon capture process, while the entire life cycle has not been
adequately considered. Although CCS technology inevitably requires
excessive water resource, it is capable of exploiting the deep salt water
with CO2-EWR (Enhanced Water Recovery) technology so as to lighten
the water resources pressure to some extent. Secondly, all of the existing
literatures are theoretical discussions without empirical analysis in this
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374
IEA International Energy Agency
IECM Integrated Environmental Control Model
IGCC Integrated gasification combined cycle
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kWh Kilowatt hour
LCA Life cycle assessment
LNG Liquefied natural gas
MEA Monoethanolamine
MMBtu Million British thermal units
MMscf Million standard cubic feet
MWh Megawatt hour
NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory
NGCC Nature gas combined cycle
PC Pulverized coal
SCR Selective catalytic reduction
US United States
field. It is acknowledged that China is in extreme lack of water resource
and the water distribution of is uneven. Hence, China’s CCS deployment
should fully take the uneven distribution of regional water resources
into account. To fill the existing research gaps, firstly, this paper dis­
cusses the life cycle water usage for power plant with CCS. Specifically,
it includes the water withdrawal/consumption and water production for
pulverized coal power plants (PC), nature gas combined cycle power
plants (NGCC), and integrated gasification combined cycle power plants
(IGCC) with CCS retrofitting in terms of fuel production and trans­
portation, energy conversion, CO2 transportation and CO2 storage.
Moreover, the various technological options (e.g. capture technologies,
cooling technologies) are fully considered. Secondly, a case study is
conducted using the practical data of an electricity enterprise in which
35 PC power plants (39,140 MW) satisfy the source-sink matching in
different regions. The results aim at providing some recommendations
for the optimal CCS deployment under restriction of water resources in
the future.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces
the distribution of CO2 storage sites and power plants as well as the
status of arid areas water resources in China. Section 3 systematically
summarizes the water withdrawal and water consumption in the CCS
full life cycle. Section 4 provides a detailed evaluation of the water usage
for power plants in major basins through a case study. The conclusions
and policy implications are drawn in Section 5.
2. Distribution of carbon storage basins and water resources in
China
Distribution of underground saline aquifers is unevenness in China,
and the high-quality storage areas are mainly concentrated in the
northwest and northeast regions (see Fig. 1). Offshore storage may be a
suitable option for the power plants in southeast China in the future.
Referring to the location of major sedimentary basins, China has 17
major sedimentary basins (specific storage sites are oil and gas fields or
saltwater beds in the basin). The basins with considerable storage po­
tential are mainly concentrated in Tarim, Ordos, Songliao, the southern
part of northern China, Bohai bay, etc., while PC power plants are mainly
distributed in the northern China and the southeastern coastal areas. The
source and sink exhibit reverse distribution. The CO2 storage capacity in
the deep saline aquifers is approximately 1191.95 × 108 t, and the po­
tential water recovery is approximately 40.9 × 108 t, which is sufficient
for 10 coal chemical enterprises with 20 years of operation [28]. The
sedimentary basin has an extensive distribution in the western region of
China, including the Tarim Basin, Junggar Basin, and Qaidam Basin, and
the quantity of water resources recovery is abundant with a storage
capacity and potential water recovery of 661.53 × 108 t and 20.02 ×
L. Yang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374

Fig. 1. Distribution of CO2 storage locations in China. Data source: China Geological Survey.

108 t, accounting for approximately 55.49% and 48.96% of the total
storage capacity and water recovery, respectively. Obviously, enhancing
water resources recovery can be considered as an effective way to
alleviate the water resources shortage pressure resulting from CCS
deployment [28].
According to the distribution map of major power plants in China [6]
(see Fig. 2a), most thermal power plants are concentrated in power
centers which account for more than 60% of the total installed capacity,
especially in the eastern provinces which are huge consumers of elec­
tricity. By the end of 2018, China owned 1900 GW of installed
full-caliber power generation capacity and had a six-fold increase over
2000 (319 GW), including 1144 GW with thermal power and a 4.8-fold
increase over 2000 (237 GW) [29,30]. The installed power generation
structure has been further optimized with 113 coal-fired power units of
1000 MW and 44.7% of that of 600 MW or above [30]. With the further
expansion of the power spatial distribution, most of the new thermal
power capacity has been transferred to the water shortage areas in
northwest China, which has a serious influence on the water resources
and environment. Generally, severe drought arears easily occur in
northern China, southwestern China and parts of northeastern China
(see Fig. 2b). The development of coal-fired power plant has increased
the pressure on the fragile water resources ecosystem as the gradually

Fig. 2. Major coal mines sites and coal-fired power plants sites (a) and distribution of drought-plagued counties in China (b).

3
L. Yang et al.
increasing degree of drought, especially in the Ordos Basin where the
concentrated distribution of power plants causes a more serious water
crisis [6].
Inland arid areas in China are mainly distributed in Xinjiang, Gansu,
Ningxia, Qinghai and Inner Mongolia with a total area of 3.36 million km2
[31], accounting for about 1/3 of the land area. Nevertheless, surface
water and groundwater resources in these arears only account for 3.3%
and 5.5% of the total national resources, respectively [32]. The total
water resources of China in 2018 were 2746.3 billion m3, which is close
to the international standard of 1700 m3 per capita [33]. The State
Council [34] has established three red lines for controlling water in view
of the current water shortage: (1) The red line for the development and
usage of water is set to be below 700 × 108 m3 by 2030. (2) The red line
for water efficiency is set to be at or near the world’s advanced level by
2030, and water usage per 10,000 yuan industrial value-added (at
constant 2000 prices) should drop below 40 m3. (3) The red line for
effective utilization coefficients of irrigation water is set to increase to
above 0.6.
Note: The data source of (a) is the China Electricity Council, and the
data source of (b) is the MWR [35].
Overall, the distribution shows a tendency of more east and less west
for the power plants concentrated in the central region of north China
and a relatively decentralized distribution for the sedimentary basins.
For the distribution of drought-plagued counties, most of the them are
located in the general arid areas, whereas the severe arid areas are
mainly concentrated in the northeastern and southwestern regions. The
basins in the western region have a wide distribution range but few
power plants.
3. Full life-cycle analysis
The main processes of the full life cycle for power plants with CCS
retrofitting include fuel production and processing, fuel transportation,
energy conversion, CO2 transportation, and CO2 storage. To be specific,
fuel transportation refers to a rail for coal and pipeline for natural gas.
Energy conversion, as the most critical process, denotes carbon capture
Fig. 3. The full life cycle flow chart of power plants with CCS.
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374
including solvent selection (ammonia for environmental control sys­
tems), limestone and monoethanolamine (MEA), technical imple­
mentation, and cooling system transformation. CO2 transport generally
includes tank car transport, ship transport and pipeline transport, and
the CO2 storage process mainly refers to the CO2-EWR process. Fig. 3
describes the process [36,37].
Generally, there are two commonly indicators for measuring water
usage. One is water withdrawal, which indicates as the total amount of
water extraction from water sources and can either be depleted or
blowoff to other water sources, and the other is water consumption,
which regarded as the lost drainage [24,38–41]. Notably, water re­
sources are mainly consumed by cooling systems, steam circulation,
traditional environmental control and CO2 capture systems. Fig. 4
illustrated the water cycle and utilization during the capture process in
the power plant with CCS. Only four simplified processes (CO2 pre­
treatment, entering into absorption tower, regeneration tower, and
compression to precipitation) are drawn because the key stage of CCS is
CO2 capture, which accounts for a large proportion of water usage.
3.1. Fuel extraction and transportation
3.1.1. Coal mining and transportation
Inevitable demand for coal in China accounted for more than 70% of
its energy needs in 2012 [42], and coal utilization is projected to in­
crease by 30% over the next 20 years. Consequently, the capacity of the
coal-fired power plants will be raised by approximately 40% [19]. With
the increase in coal consumption, the total amount of water resource is
projected to reach the peak of 79.91 × 108 m3 in 2030 [43,44]. The
water withdrawal of the whole coal industry chain is still increasing
under the current situation [45], and fresh water extraction from mining
to power generation or coal chemical transformation is 5.56 × 1010 m3
with more than 10% of the national water withdrawal.
As a cheap and convenient semi-finished material for power gener­
ation, coal-based energy technologies have become increasingly devel­
oped in recent years [46]. The development modes include open-pit
mining and underground mining, and the transportation can be by train,
L. Yang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374

Fig. 4. Water flow diagram of the capture process. Note: FGD refers to flue gas desulfurization. DCC refers to the direct contact cooler.

car or mud pipeline [47,48]. Environmental controls such as dust sup­ acknowledged that coal resources are inflammable goods, and therefore
pression cause underground mining to consume more water than surface the constant friction between coal and carriages will continuously raise
mining. In addition, mining equipment has also led to more indirect the temperature of surrounding environment to pose a fire risk during
water usage in underground mining [49]. long-time transportation. Therefore, it is essential to wet coal by
Meldrum et al. [50] collected a large number of studies on fuel spraying water during transportation. In additional, coal attaches to a lot
production and water usage for power generation, and the water usage of dust and the dust will pollute the surrounding air with the continuous
coefficient of the fuel supply was expressed in the form of gallon/t. By movement of the train. Thus, the dust inside the coal will be agglom­
applying the Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM), the erated resulting from the sprinkling.
calculated water usage of fuel production is estimated as the water use According to the research on the relationship between CCS and coal
coefficient of fuel multiplied by its mass or volume. Table 1 lists the consumption [19], the average water usage for coal in power plants is
minimum, standard and maximum value of water usage for fuel supply 158.3 t/h, whereas it will increase to approximately 200.4 t/h due to
based on the hypothesis for a PC unit net efficiency of 35.4% and a fuel CCS retrofitting. The difference in maximum coal demand with and
calorific value of 21 MMBtu/t [36]. The coal mining mode and transport without CCS is 21–31% depending on the retrofitting approach [51],
type are mainly to be underground mining and train transportation, which is significantly higher than the current levels of coal consumption.
respectively, in order to ensure environmentally friendly and sustain­ Supposing water usage is calculated according to the standard coal life
able resource development. The water usage for transportation refers to cycle, the hourly water usage of power generation with and without CCS
the water consumption during the process of coal-related railway configuration in the whole coal supply process is expressed in Table 2.
transport and slurry transport [36]. To be specific, it is widely Overall, the water withdrawal and consumption of the coal supply stage
will increase by 4210.6 gal and 4164.8 gal, respectively, during the unit
hours of power generation with CCS retrofitting.
Table 1
Water usage during fuel supply stage.
3.1.2. Natural gas extraction and transportation
Process Water withdrawals Water consumption At present, the transportation mode of natural gas is mainly pipeline
(gal/t) (gal/t)
transportation characterized by long distances, fast speed, resource
(minimum, nominal, (minimum, nominal, saving and environmental protection [52]. Once the temperature of
maximum) maximum)
natural gas is approximately − 162 ◦ C, it will be converted into liquefied
Production Open-pit mining (1.09, 6.54, 28.3) (1.09, 6.54, 28.3) natural gas (LNG). As an essential means of natural gas transportation,
Underground (17.4, 58.8, 392) (14.7, 58.8, 392)
LNG transportation is a more flexible model that can save storage space
mining
Processing (19.6, 39.2, 2179.2) (19.6, 39.2, 2179.2)
Transport Train (1.09, 2.18, 4.36) (0.22, 1.09, 2.18) Table 2
Slurry (218, 240, 893) (218, 240, 893) Standard water usage accounting for coal supply.
Note: The above data were obtained from Ou et al. [36]; however, water con­ Without CCS With CCS Δ (Added value)
sumption is equivalent to water withdrawal due to the small water usage and the
Water withdrawals (gal/h) 15,860.5 20,071.1 4210.6
absence of relevant data. The reference value used in this paper is normal value
Water consumption (gal/h) 15,687.9 19,852.7 4164.8
for the maximum value, and minimum value are affected by the type of coal.

5
L. Yang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374

and cost [53]. Meldrum et al. [50] expressed the water usage coefficient Table 4
of the natural gas supply based on natural gas per million standard cubic Estimates of water usage for the different power plant equipment technologies.
feet of gallons (gallons/MMscf). Table 3 shows the water usage range of Technology Water withdrawals Water consumption Additional details
the natural gas supply process from exploitation to transportation based (gal/MWh) (gal/MWh) about estimate
on the hypothesis of an NGCC unit net efficiency of 51% and fuel calo­ PC 1.45–16.3 0.89–2.85 (construction only)
rific value of 1031 MMBtu/MMscf. PC + CCS 2.1–30.9 1.58–5.55 CCS retrofit
Natural gas demand per generation hour is the same with and (construction only)
without CCS because of the data deficiency, and it cannot calculate the IGCC 1.16 0.55 (construction only)
IGCC + CCS 2 1.49 CCS retrofit
specific amount of water increase. For the convenience of calculation, (construction only)
according to Ref. [36], the water withdrawal and consumption in the NGCC 0.61–5.62 0.39–1.03 (construction only)
natural gas supply process are 5.6 gal/MWh and 4.6 gal/MWh without NGCC + 1–14.1 0.76–2.59 CCS retrofit
CCS and 6.5 gal/MWh and 5.3 gal/MWh with CCS, respectively. CCS (construction only)

Data source: [36,50,59]. Note that there is a big gap in the water usage for
3.2. Energy conversion infrastructure transformation as the types of coal-fired PC are divided into or­
dinary sub-critical, supercritical and ultra-supercritical. Similarly, the water
usage for NGCC power plant infrastructure is also different considering that fuel
The energy conversion process mainly includes CCS infrastructure
sources are divided into conventional natural gas and shale gas. Due to the data
retrofitting and carbon capture. CCS infrastructure retrofitting refers to
deficiency, there is no range value for water usage in IGCC power plants.
the construction of components (such as adsorbent treatment systems
and combustion turbines) and power plants [54]. In addition, carbon
common unit of gal/MWh.
capture is affected by the unit type, the capture mode, the complement
solvent type, and the cooling system.
3.2.2. Water usage for CCS capture
The CCS full life cycle consumed a great deal of water resource,
3.2.1. Water usage for CCS infrastructure retrofitting
especially during the carbon capture process. Moreover, carbon capture
The water withdrawal and consumption factors for PC power plants
patterns and types affect water demand to some extent [60–62].
are mainly affected by three kinds of water: boiler make-up water, flue
gas desulfurization make-up water and cooling water [55]. Water de­
(1) Capture modes and types
mand for IGCC power plants and NGCC power plants came from
fundamental research programmed by NETL [12] in 2007. The water
Some studies have estimated water usage in different capture sys­
requirement of NGCC and IGCC power plants is different from that of
tems and power plants, including power plant types, capture technology
coal-fired power plants. Although all need cooling water, the water
and cooling modes. Carbon capture mainly consists of post-combustion
demand of NGCC and IGCC is minimal due to the fact most of the output
capture, pre-combustion capture and oxy-combustion capture.
is generated by gas turbine, which consumes less fuel and water than the
Post-combustion technology is generally applied in traditional PC
old-fashioned steam turbine technology. In addition, since IGCC relies
and NGCC power plants [24]. The purpose of the pre-combustion cap­
on water only in important processes, saline water is generally not
ture system is to segregate carbon dioxide from the high-pressure syngas
required [56].
released by the IGCC power plant while the oxy-combustion capture
Ou et al. [36] calculated the total water usage of the infrastructure
system is also commonly applied in traditional PC power plants [56].
construction and CCS retrofitting in power plants on the basis of water
Recent analyses by Marion et al. [63], IEAGHG [64] have shown that
usage estimation of various economic sectors by applying the economic
oxy-combustion with CO2 capture is conventional air-based combustion
input-output combined life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA) model [57].
utilizing amine scrubbing for CO2 control. The post-combustion capture
Water usage for parts manufacturing and construction of the power
system does not require major transformation to the boiler, and how­
plant mainly depends on the scale, structure and process design. Ac­
ever, the reconfiguration is necessary for steam cycle must be recon­
cording to the assumptions of NETL [58], the net installed capacity of
figured so as to extract low-pressure steam and use for solvent
the PC and IGCC power plant is 550 MW with or without CCS retrofit­
reconstruction [6,65,66]. Moreover, flue gas must undergo a purifica­
ting, whereas the net installed capacity of the NGCC plant with and
tion process before CO2 capture to remove sulfur, nitrous oxide, dust
without CCS is 474 MW and 555 MW, respectively. Meldrum et al. [50]
[51]. Post-combustion capture system is envisioned to be a promising
summarized the water demand of equipment construction life cycle for
model for near-term, state-of-the-art carbon capture technologies. There
different PC, IGCC and NGCC power plants (see Table 4) based on the
are three simplified process flow diagrams of different CO2 capture types
hypothesis for the power plant capacity of 85% and the lifetime of 60
shown in Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, respectively, which describe the water
years. All values were converted into units so that the water usage for
flow during the capture process.
CCS infrastructure retrofitting could be uniformly converted into a
The fundamental reason for the difference in capture mode lies in the
power plant type. That is the power plant determines the CO2 capture
Table 3
technology to be adopted in the future. In addition, compared with
Water usage during natural gas supply stage.
power generation technology, the influence of cooling system on water
Process Water withdrawals Water consumption withdrawal and water consumption is more prominent. Koornneef et al.
(gal/MMscf) (gal/MMscf)
[67] summarized the water usage of three carbon capture technologies
(minimum, nominal, (minimum, nominal, and further explained the range of capture efficiency corresponding to
maximum) maximum)
each technology (see Table 5).
Production Traditional (15.4, 154, 2927) (15.4, 154, 2927) Pre-combustion carbon capture is a potential decarbonization tech­
drilling nology at present; however, the selection of capture solvent would affect
Hydraulic (154, 1849, 28,655) (154, 1849, 28,655)
fracturing
the water usage of the CCS full life cycle to a certain extent. Pre-
Processing (77, 77, 77) (77, 77, 77) combustion capture can also be divided into the membrane separa­
Transport Pipeline (616, 616, 2003) (154, 462, 924) tion, adsorption, physical absorption, low-temperature separation and
Note: The water consumption is equivalent to water withdrawal due to the small chemical absorption technology from the perspective of capture tech­
water usage and the absence of relevant data. Based on Meldrum et al. [50], the nology [69]. Based on the above classification, Sharma et al. [70]
minimum nominal values are equal. Normal values are referenced in this paper. analyzed the average water usage and unit generation of coal-fired

6
L. Yang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374

Fig. 5. Brief process flow chart of the post-combustion CO2 capture system. Note that the SCR is short for selective catalytic reduction, APH is short for air preheater,
ESP is short for electrostatic precipitator device, and FGD is the abbreviation of flue gas desulfurization.

Fig. 6. Process diagram of the pre-combustion capture system.

power plants in India under different capture solvent configurations
(amine, ammonia and membrane) (see Table 6). Amine based capture is
the most common. However, the cost of membrane capture technology
is relatively high, and ammonia capture technology requires more
water.
A once-through system or cooling tower is often applied in tradi­
tional power plants. A once-through system typically takes water from
rivers or lakes and drains it back after generating while a cooling tower
system can recycle the water many times [66]. Compared with the two
cooling systems, cooling tower evaporates a great quantity of water so
that water usage average is 30%–70% more than that of the
once-through system [71]. A study from EPRI [72] estimated that the
water consumption of once-through cooling system and closed-loop
cooling system is 300 gal/MWh and 480 gal/MWh, respectively. How­
ever, it did not account for the evaporative loss.
Brandl et al. [73] evaluated the cooling water requirement for the
post combustion capture in PC power plants. The result describes the
additional cooling water demand of power plants with subcritical, su­
percritical and ultra-supercritical increased by 47%, 33% and 31%
compared with power plants without CO2 capture, respectively. Sharma
et al. [70] analyzed the impact of various capture technologies on the
total water demand for power plants. The cooling system has a different
influence on water demand of PC power plant. Notably, the air-cooling
system has more advantages than wet cooling towers under a highly
water-stressed condition.
Subcritical and supercritical boilers for PC power plants use different
water use scaling factors. Concerning the same amount of power output,
the supercritical boiler has higher efficiency with less cooling water. The
schematic diagram of three different cooling systems is shown in Fig. 8.
Based on the original literature, professor Macknick [74] and
Lim-Wavde [25] estimated the water usage factors of power generation
technology operation, which provided a basis for the electric power

7
L. Yang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374

Fig. 7. Brief process flow chart of the oxy-combustion capture system.

3.3. Transport and processing with CO2

Table 5
Water usage and capture performance with different capture modes.
CO2 transportation refers to the process of transporting captured CO2
CO2 capture Power plant Water usage Water usage Capture to a storage or utilization site; this is similar to oil and gas transportation
technology w/o capture with capture efficiency
in some respects [76,77]. Some power plants do not have sufficient CO2
(gal/MWh) (gal/MWh) (%)
storage capacity due to the geological structure; therefore, it is crucial
Post- PC 676 1331 85–90
for suitable transportation approaches to meet the storage needs of large
combustion subcritical
PC 594 1146 85–90 amounts of CO2. Several studies and reports [78–80] have published
supercritical CO2 transport system cases. There are two ways of CO2 transportation
NGCC 269 486 85–90 from power plants to storage sites: 1) by ship for liquefied carbon di­
Pre- IGCC 356–375 478 85–90 oxide, and 2) by pipeline. The transport distance is about 700–1000 km
combustion
by ships and 120 km by pipeline [81].
Oxyfuel PC – 784–795 90–100
combustion At present, pipelines are the primary mode of CO2 transportation
NGCC – 50–100 [82]. To calculate the water usage of the CCS full life cycle more
effectively, this paper refers to the basic parameters of natural gas
Data source: [12,68]. Note that the water usage for post-combustion, pre-
combustion and oxyfuel capture is on the basis of power plants with cooling transportation (see Table .3). It assumes that water withdrawal and
towers system, and the ranges refer to kinds of gasifier technologies and the water consumption are similar, taking the standard value of 616
oxygen purity. gal/MMscf as the water withdrawal for CO2 transportation and 465
gal/MMscf as the water consumption value. Table .8 shows the values
with the unit conversion of gal/t CO2.
Table 6 However, a more consistent and transparent multi-standard analysis
Water usage of PC power plants with different capture solvents. should be conducted to ensure complete evaluation of all stages of the
(2) Cooling system CCS full process transformation, which can provide the best support for
Water withdrawal (gal/MWh) Water consumption (gal/ decision-makers to make CCS commercial application as early as
MWh) possible and make the sustainable development of CO2 transport chain
Min Average Max Min Average Max possible.
Without capture 6110 6113 6115 214 215 217
Amine capture 11,094 11,210 11,671 514 524 534
Ammonia capture 14,419 14,531 14,644 411 416 421
3.4. Carbon storage with CO2-EWR
Membrane capture 12,711 12,780 12,872 417 421 426
CO2 geologic storage in deep salt water aquifers is the best storage
approach currently [83,84]. At present, many scholars have put forward
sector to assess the impact of water use (see Table 7). According to the a CO2-enhanced water recovery technology, that is CO2-EWR [85–87],
results from IECM [75], due to the increased production load of CCS which could greatly relieve the reservoir pressure and the CO2 leakage
deployment, the net power generation capacity of the retrofitted hazard. More importantly, it would enable the exploitation of deep salt
coal-fired power plant decreased from 550 MW to 468 MW. For the same water so as to reduce regional water resource pressure [83,88].
reason, the net generation capacity of NGCC plants decreases from 555 Although CO2-EWR technology is still under development in China,
MW to 474 MW with CCS retrofitting. CCS retrofitting is unlikely to its direct and indirect economic benefits are inestimable. Applying the
adopt the once-through cooling system due to its huge water demand. techno-economic resource-reserve pyramid evaluation method [50], the
CO2 storage capacity in deep saline salt water aquifers from 17 signifi­
cant basins in China reached 1191.95 × 108 t. The main application

8
L. Yang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374

Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of three cooling systems. Note: (a) Once-through cooling; (b) Recirculating cooling; (c) Air Cooled.

Table 7 Table 8
Statistics of water usage in power plants under different cooling system Water usage assessment of the CO2 pipeline transport in CCS.
conditions. Water usage (gal/t CO2) Pipeline transport
Plant Technology Rate of water Rate of water
Water withdrawal 11.2
type withdrawal (gal/ consumption (gal/
Water consumption 8.4
MWh) MWh)
Data source: Meldrum et al. [50].
W/O With W/O With
CCS CCS CCS CCS

PC Once-through 28,864 / 132 /

areas are the central and western regions and the southern regions with
Recirculating 583 1098 494 846 capacities of 66.153 billion tons and 11.064 billion tons, respectively.
Hybrid (wet-dry) 345 929 292 716 CO2-EWR would extract fresh water for 715.17 × 108 m3 based on the
cooling projection that 1.5 m3 of salt water is produced by 1 t of CO2 with a 40%
Dry type air cooler 86 732 73 563
recovery rate [89]; fresh water is undoubtedly a very valuable treasure
IGCC Recirculating 424 662 381 550
NGCC Once-through 13,057 / 119 / for the eastern and western regions with huge waters demand and a
Recirculating 243 576 204 431 serious shortage of water. In addition, this technology can effectively
Hybrid (wet-dry) 124 512 104 383 solve the water shortage crisis caused by power plants and coal chemical
cooling
enterprises in the Great Western Development Strategy so as to ensure
Dry type air cooler 6 418 2 313
the energy security and balanced development of regional economies.
Data source: [25,58,74]. Note that wet flue gas desulfurization technology (Wet
FGD) is assumed to be adopted.

9
L. Yang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374

3.5. Summary of water usage for the CCS full life cycle
Through reviewing the existing research on water usage in each stage
of the CCS full life cycle, the water withdrawal and consumption of PC
power plants, NGCC power plants and IGCC power plants with CCS
technologies were presented in Table 9.
It should be noted that the increased water withdrawal and con­
sumption of different cooling systems depends on the wet desulfuriza­
tion technologies [56,66,90,91]. In addition, the type and performance
of the power plant also affect water usage during the process of fuel
supply. For CO2 transportation and storage, the factors affecting water
withdrawal and consumption usually involve the transportation mode
and storage approach.
4. Case study for power plants
4.1. Design and selection
Generally, the new PC power generation units should adopt ultra-
supercritical units with a capacity of 600 MW or above according to
the upgrade and renovation plan for coal power conservation and
emissions reduction (2014–2020) [92]. Therefore, in the construction of
CCS reserved power plants, the total capacity in the future should be
considered to be no less than 600 MW, and the average annual gener­
ation time is 4500 h. The CO2 emission source selection criteria refer to
the IEA report in 2016 on CCS retrofitting of PC power plants. The
capture rate is set based on the emission standard of gas turbine com­
bined cycle (GTCC) plants with the CO2 emission intensity of 450 g/kWh
[93,94]. Currently, the maximum CO2 capture rate is 90%, and the cycle
of operation with CO2 capture and EWR project is 20 years [6,95]. The
transportation distance of CO2 is set as the upper limit of 250 km in order
to achieve source-sink matching [86,96].
The unit of an enterprise power plant was selected for research ac­
cording to the evaluation conditions of carbon capture transformation;
the capacity of each unit was required to be more than 300 MW, and the
operation life of the unit was selected after 2005. The unit parameters
were subject to the actual operating conditions in 2016, including
cooling mode, operating hours, power generation, coal consumption,
carbon dioxide emission, etc. A total of 99 units and 42 power plants met
the requirements of CCS transformation, with an entire installed ca­
pacity of 55,890 MW under the conditions above. At the same time, the
power plants distributed throughout the country will be used as emis­
sion sources of CO2 and the storage sites of CO2-EWR in the onshore
saline aquifer will be used as sinks. According to the preliminary results
of source-sink matching in Fig. 9, the bottom figure is the suitability
evaluation for storage sites of CO2 saline aquifers in the basin. CO2
emissions are divided into three levels, with the number of units with
CO2 emissions greater than 1 Mt accounting for 80.8% of the total unit.
Within the search radius of 250 km, 79 units of 35 power plants (44,140
MW) found suitable storage sites with geological storage and utilization
conditions, whereas 20 units of 7 power plants indicated by the orange
circle found no suitable storage sites with an average CO2 emissions of
5.9 Mt and a total emission of 40.9 Mt. Based on the actual power
generation in 2016, the total emissions is 165.0 Mt, and the trans­
portation distance is 20.4 km–244.4 km. In terms of regional distribu­
tion, northern China and eastern China have the largest number of
power plants with a total of 22 PC power plants and an installed capacity
of 27,460 MW, accounting for 62.2% of the total installed capacity.
Data source: Jiang et al. [97].
The site suitability of CO2-EWR was divided into 6 levels, with white
indicating areas not recommended and green indicating high suitability
(see Fig. 9) with the potential for CCS retrofitting. Preliminary studies
show good storage sites (very suitable to the appropriate level) in the
Zhugeer Basin, Tarim Basin, Qaidam Basin, Songliao Basin, Ordos Basin,
Sichuan Basin, Erlian Basin, Subei Basin and Bohai Bay Basin for the
storage of CO2 saline aquifers. PC power plants were used as an example
considering that the types in this enterprise are all coal-fired power
plants. Notably, a range of values will appear in the statistical data
affected by the power plant scale and coal type, and the range should be
averaged in order to facilitate calculation (based on Table 9). The CO2
capture is mainly post-combustion, whereas the cooling style is mainly
recirculating cooling and air cooling according to the power plant
performance.

Table 9
Life cycle water usage of power plant with CCS.
Plant type CCS stage Unit Water withdrawal Water consumption

W/O CCS With CCS (Δ) W/O CCS With CCS (Δ)

PC
Coal supply gal/h 15,860.50 20,071.06 4210.56 15,687.93 19,852.68 4164.75
Energy conversion
Infrastructure retrofitting gal/MWh 1.45–16.3 2.1–30.9 0.65–14.6 0.89–2.85 1.58–5.55 0.69–2.70
Post-combustion capture (recirculating) gal/MWh 583 1098 515 494 846 352
Post-combustion capture (hybrid cooling) gal/MWh 345 929 584 292 716 424
Post-combustion capture (air cooler) gal/MWh 86 732 646 73 563 490
CO2 transportation gal/t CO2 / 11.2 11.2 / 8.4 8.4
CO2 storage gal/t CO2 / − 396 − 396 / − 396 − 396
IGCC
Coal supply gal/h 15,860.50 20,071.06 4210.56 15,687.93 19,852.68 4164.75
Energy conversion
Infrastructure retrofitting gal/MWh 1.16 2 0.84 0.55 1.49 0.94
Pre-combustion capture (recirculating) gal/MWh 424 662 238 381 550 169
CO2 transportation gal/t CO2 / 11.2 11.2 / 8.4 8.4
CO2 storage gal/t CO2 / − 396 − 396 / − 396 − 396
NGCC
Gas supply gal/MWh 5.6 6.5 0.9 4.6 5.3 0.7
Energy conversion
Infrastructure retrofitting gal/MWh 0.61–5.62 1–14.1 0.39–8.48 0.39–1.03 0.76–2.59 0.37–1.56
Post-combustion capture (recirculating) gal/MWh 243 576 333 204 431 227
Post-combustion capture (hybrid cooling) gal/MWh 124 512 388 104 383 279
Post-combustion capture (air cooler) gal/MWh 6 418 412 2 313 311
CO2 transportation gal/t CO2 / 11.2 11.2 / 8.4 8.4
CO2 storage gal/t CO2 / − 396 − 396 / − 396 − 396

10
L. Yang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374

Fig. 9. Preliminary results of power plant source-sink matching in enterprise. Note that the red dot represents power plants position. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

4.2. Case methodology standard coal, and QLnet denotes the low calorific value of coal used by PC
power plants. Car refers to the carbon content as received basis. MCO2 and
The total life-cycle water usage of power plants with CCS retrofitting MC refer to the molar mass of CO2 and C, respectively. tCO2 is the pro­
can be calculated as follows: portion of carbon in coal that is oxidized into CO2 [98,99].
FLCW = WUFS + WUIR + WUCC + WUCT + WUCS (1) Qcapture
CO2 = Qemit
CO2 × ηCO2 (3)

where FLCW is the annual water usage in the full life cycle (gal/a). WUFS where Qcapture is the amount of captured CO2, and ηCO2 refers to the CO2
co2
is the water usage for the fuel supply process (gal/a). WUIR refers to the
capture rate (%).
water usage amounts for power plant infrastructure. WUCC refers to the
Because the statistical caliber of water withdrawal intensity and
water usage for CO2 capture in the energy conversion process (gal/a),
water consumption intensity is not uniform in each CCS, the CO2
which accounts for the largest proportion in CCS. WUCT refers to the
emission was calculated according to power plant operating parameters
water usage of the captured CO2 in the transportation process (only
so as to accurately measure the water usage of the full CCS life cycle.
pipeline transportation is considered in the case study). WUCS refers to
There are separate calculation formulas and required parameters in each
the water replaced with CO2-EWR.
CCS stage with the definitions and values shown in Table 10.
To figure up the water consumption in the supplementary process,
the CO2 emissions of the PC power plant should first be calculated. ∑
n
WU wFS = wuwfs ⋅RTi (4)
QSnet Mco2 i=1
Qemit
co2 = PSCC × Pinst × RT × L × Car × × tCO2 (2)
Qnet Mc
∑
n
WU cFS = wucfs ⋅RTi (5)
where Qemit
CO2 is
the annual CO2 emissions from PC power plants (t/a). i=1

PSCC is the coal consumption per unit of power supply (t/MWh). Pinst
where wuwfs andwucfs refers to the water withdrawal and water con­
refers to the installed capacity for PC power plants (MW). RT is the
annual operating hours (h/a). QSnet refers to the low calorific value of sumption per unit of generation hour within the coal supply,

11
L. Yang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374

Table 10
∑
n
Parameter information involved in calculating CO2 emissions. WU cCC = wuccc ⋅ETi (9)
Parameters Description Value Sources i=1

wuwfs Water withdrawal per unit of 15,860.5–20,071.1 [19,36,51] where wuwcc and wuccc refer to the water withdrawal and consumption per
power generation hour in
coal supply process (gal/h)
unit of generation with CCS capture during the energy conversion,
wucfs Water consumption per unit 15,687.9–19,852.7 [19,36,51] respectively.
of power generation hour in
∑
n
coal supply process (gal/h)
WU wCT = wuwct ⋅Qcapture (10)
wuwir Water withdrawal per unit of 8.88–16.5 [36,50,59]
i,co2
i=1
power generation for
infrastructure retrofitting ∑
n
(gal/MWh) WU cCT = wucct ⋅Qcapture (11)
i,co2
wucir Water consumption per unit 1.9–3.6 [36,50,59] i=1
of power generation for
infrastructure retrofitting where wuwct andwucct refer to the water withdrawal and consumption for
(gal/MWh)
wuwcc Water withdrawal per unit of 583-1098 a
[28,58,74]
transport per unit mass during the CO2 transportation, respectively.
power generation for CCS 86–732b ∑
n
capture (gal/MWh) WUcs = wucs ⋅Qcapture
i,co2 (12)
a
wuccc water consumption per unit 494–846 [28,58,74] i=1
of power generation for CCS 73–563b
capture (gal/MWh) where wucs refers to the amount of salt water that can be replaced by 1
wuwct Water withdrawal for 11.2 [50]
transport per unit mass of
ton of CO2 during CCS storage.
CO2 (gal/t CO2)
wucct Water consumption for 8.4 [50]
transport per unit mass of 4.3. Case results
CO2 (gal/t CO2)
wucs Salt water replaced by 1 t of 396 [89]
Combined with the source-sink matching results of the power plant
CO2 stored (gal/t CO2)
SPCC Coal consumption per unit 272.1–409.4 Enterprise
(see Fig. 9), this paper calculated the water withdrawal with CCS full
power supply (g/kWh) statistics life-cycle retrofitting of power plants in the six basins; this was regarded
Pinst Installed capacity for coal- 300/600/1000 as the evaluation objective (the other two basins in the figure only
fired power plant (MW) contain oil fields, so we will not analyze them for the moment) within a
RT Annual operating hours of 378.2–8370.4
range of 250 km. When implementing the CO2-EWR project, the CO2
PC power plant (h/a)
ET Annual output of power 2501,311–7260,000 emitted is piped to the suitable deep salt water aquifer for saltwater
plant (MWh/a) replacement, which may greatly reduce the water pressure caused by
QLnet Low calorific value of coal 13.1–23.1 CCS.
used by power plant (MJ/kg) The total water usage of CCS in the whole process is expressed in the
QSnet Low calorific value of 29.3 [98]
standard coal (MJ/kg)
six basins (Junggar Basin, Ordos Basin, Hailar basin, Bohai Bay Basin,
Car Average carbon content as 56.6 (average) [100–103] Hehuai basin, and Sichuan Basin) where the power plants and storage
received basis (%) sites are concentrated (see Fig. 10). The higher the CO2 emissions, the
MCO2 Molar mass of CO2 (g/mol) 44 [98,104] greater water consumption and correspondingly, the greater water re­
MC Molar mass of C element (g/ 12 [98,104] sources displaced by CO2-EWR. Firstly, all power plants can reduce CO2
mol)
emissions by approximately 140 Mt per year at a 90% replacement rate
tCO2 Carbon percentage oxidized 98 [105]
to CO2 in coal (%) with CCS retrofitting, which produces a positive emission reduction ef­
ηCO2 Capture rate (%) 90 [36] fect. However, considering the water usage in the full life cycle of CCS,
water withdrawal will be raised by 174.9%, and consumption will in­
Data source: The water withdrawal and consumption per unit were obtained
crease by 150.5% (without EWR) and 36.9% (with EWR), respectively.
from a literature review, the performance data of power plant were obtained
With the geographical constraints in the Junggar Basin, Hailar Basin and
from enterprises, and other data were obtained from relevant studies. Note that a
refers to the water usage for recirculating cooling while b refers to the water
Ordos Basin, most power plant units adopt air-cooling for cooling, while
usage for air cooling. the high-temperature flue gas from capture process needs a great
quantity of water to cool down, resulting in a large increase in water
demand. Therefore, it is necessary for the promotion and application of
respectively, and i represents different power plants.
CO2-EWR technology in the carbon sequestration process and gratifying
∑
n
that the replacement of underground salt water by CO2-EWR can reduce
WU wIR = wuwir ⋅ETi (6)
i=1
water consumption to a large extent, with the overall reduction reaching
75.5%. CCS can still minimize water consumption and effectively relieve
∑
n water stress in key coal supply areas to some extent; however, less water
WU cIR = wucir ⋅ETi (7) can be developed through CO2-EWR in terms of quantity.
Specifically, the considerable generating units in the Ordos Basin and
i=1

where wuwir andwucir refer to the water withdrawal and consumption per Bohai Bay Basin increase the local water demand. The total annual water
unit of generation for infrastructure retrofitting of power plants, withdrawal increases by 35.5 (347%) and 42.4 (131%) billion gal,
respectively, and ETi refers to the annual output of power plant i (MWh/ whereas water consumption increases by 2.6 (30.1%) and 12.5 billion
a). gal (45.6%), respectively, due to CO2-EWR technology. Water with­
drawal by power plants can be used repeatedly or even completely
∑ reused, while water consumption is usually non-recyclable; therefore,
n
WU wCC = wuwcc ⋅ETi (8)
i=1 water consumption in power plants is regarded as the controlling factor
from the perspective of water resource protection. In parts of the Ordos
Basin and Bohai Bay Basin (see Fig. 3), which are located in severe arid

12
L. Yang et al.
Fig. 10. Water usage for full CCS life-cycle retrofitting and water recovery potential for CO2-EWR under the scenario of source-sink matching. The location of the red
dots represents the power plant. Unit: B gal = billion gal. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version
of this article.)
areas, the increased total water consumption of the CCS full life cycle
can be reduced by 90% and 59%, respectively, with CO2-EWR.
The annual water consumption in Junggar Basin and Hailar Basin will
increases by 4.6 and 4.7 billion gal, respectively, without considering
storage process, while it can be reduced 96.8% and 95.5%, respectively,
with CO2-EWR. The water resources flow in the Junggar Basin, Tuha
Basin and Tarim Basin can be improved by expanding the matching area
of source-sink or extending the distance of pipeline transportation in the
future. Similarly, the Hailar Basin located in northeastern China has a
relatively suitable CO2-EWR storage condition for CCS retrofitting,
which will increase the potential for underground salt water develop­
ment surrounding the Songliao Basin. Moreover, further expansion of the
source-sink matching area will also promote the environmental pro­
tection and sustainable development of water resources. CCS retrofitting
has little impact on the water withdrawal and consumption of the
Sichuan Basin in general arid areas (increases of 87.5% and 10%,
respectively), and the water consumption during CCS whole process is
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374
reduced by 86.1% when applying CO2-EWR technology. The water de­
mand of the Subei Basin is not as great as other basins from its location in
a coastal area; however, water withdrawal and consumption with CCS
retrofitting increased by 87.5% and 34.5%, respectively, under such
geographical conditions. By implementing the CO2-EWR, water con­
sumption during CCS whole process is reduced by 51%.
Coal supply, infrastructure retrofitting and carbon capture all have
water requirements with and without CCS. According to the contribu­
tion of increased water demand to the full life cycle of CCS (see Fig. 11),
water withdrawal and consumption within carbon capture processes
account for the largest proportion of water usage, 95.9% and 96.2%,
respectively. They are the critical factors for the increase in CCS water
consumption. The increased water consumption during fuel supply and
CO2 transport is slightly greater than the increased water withdrawal
with a similar proportion of water usage; this is a necessary reason for
CO2-EWR to reduce water demand. During the infrastructure retrofitting
process, increased water consumption accounts for only 0.38% less than
L. Yang et al.
Fig. 11. Increased proportion of water withdrawal and consumption in
different stages of CCS. Note: FS = fuel supply, IR= Infrastructure retrofit, CC =
carbon capture, CT = carbon transportation.
the increased water withdrawal. The results above can provide an
essential judgment on water usage at different stages of CCS.
5. Conclusion and policy implications
5.1. Conclusions
CCS has been widely recognized as a critical role in reducing CO2
emissions. Nevertheless, it is a resource-intensive process that requires a
large amount of water resource. Based on the full life cycle analysis, this
paper investigates the China’s water resource stress resulting from CCS
deployment through reviewing the existing research on water with­
drawal and consumption of power plant with CCS technologies. The
main conclusions can be drawn as follows:
(1) According to characteristics of CCS technologies, the main pro­
cesses of the full life cycle for power plants with CCS retrofitting
are divided into fuel production and processing, fuel trans­
portation, energy conversion, CO2 transportation, and CO2 stor­
age. This paper summarizes the unit water withdrawal and water
consumption of PC, NGCC and IGCC power plants with and
without CCS retrofitting. The water demand for the capture
process contributes most to the total water usage and is signifi­
cantly affected by the cooling type. Specifically, increased water
withdrawal and consumption for recirculating cooling have a
range of 333.4–529.6 gal/MWh and 227.4–266 gal/MWh,
respectively, while it for air cooling is 412.4–660.6 gal/MWh and
311.4–492.7 gal/MWh, respectively. The type of power plant also
causes a difference in water withdrawal and consumption with
average increases of 588.1 gal/MWh and 422.7 gal/MWh for PC
power plants, 238.9 gal/MWh and 170 gal/MWh for IGCC power
plants, and 376.9 gal/MWh and 270 gal/MWh for NGCC power
plants, respectively. Water consumption during the trans­
portation and storage process is 11.2 gal/t CO2 and 8.4 gal/t CO2,
respectively. The potential of CO2-EWR to exploit subsurface salt
water is 396 gal/t CO2.
(2) Taking a Chinese energy enterprise as a case study, the rough
water resource pressure resulting from CCS deployment is
investigated in line with the source-sink matching principle.
Moreover, the mitigation effect of CO2-EWR on water consump­
tion is also been fully taken into consideration. Specifically, water
withdrawal will increase by 174.9%, and water consumption will
increase by 36.9% (with EWR) and 150.5% (without EWR) for PC
power plant with CCS retrofitting. Notably, the recovery of un­
derground saline water through CO2-EWR can effectively reduce
water consumption by 75.5%. The water usage at all stages of
CCS technology indicates that the water withdrawal and con­
sumption in the carbon capture process account for the largest
proportion, with the percentage of 95.9% and 96.2%, respec­
tively. It should be noted that the Ordos Basin and Bohai Bay Basin
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374
have a large number of generating units, and the total annual
water withdrawal will increase by 35.5 (347%) and 42.4 (131%)
billion gal, respectively, while water consumption will only in­
crease by 2.6 (30.1%) and 12.5 (45.6%) billion gal, respectively,
as a result of CO2-EWR technology.
In comparison, the water resource pressures in Junggar Basin, Tuha
Basin and Tarim Basin are relatively small, while the Ordos Basin and
Bohai Bay Basin in the North China are face with the dilemma of more
power plants and storage potential and less water resource. In addition,
the overall water usage in capture process increases greatly because the
air-cooling technology needs to cool the high-temperature flue gas
generated within CO2 capture. More importantly, regarded as a signif­
icant approach to reduce CO2 emissions, CCS can reduce approximately
140 Mt per year with a capture rate of 90%, with a significant effect on
emission reduction.
5.2. Policy implications
(1) Expanding the scope of CCS research to comprehensively and
systematically consider the water demand of the CCS full life
cycle. It is necessary to explore not only the upstream water usage
of CCS (fuel supply, carbon capture) but also the downstream
water usage of CCS (CO2 transport and storage) with an emphasis
on the water recovery characteristics in the carbon storage pro­
cess. Through policy advocacy, the negative opinions on CCS-
related water consumption should be reversed, and the positive
effect on mitigation can be further popularized.
(2) Upgrading and optimizing each stage of CCS technology from a
technical perspective in combination with the water consumption
factor to reduce the water usage of the full life cycle. Water
consumption control should be implemented during fuel extrac­
tion and transportation. Burning high-quality coal for power
generation in PC power plants could reduce the water demand.
The technology of condensate water recovery and treatment in
the CO2 capture process should be improved to reduce the cooling
load and promote water recycling in the life cycle. Moreover,
better carbon capture processes or better solvent choices should
take into consideration that could reduce steam consumption in
the reboiler of the stripper column to achieve water savings.
Furthermore, pipeline transport technology needs to be opti­
mized during the CO2 transport process, and the improvement of
CO2-EWR technology during the CO2 storage process would
provide potential for underground saltwater development.
(3) Reasonable design of CCS retrofitting deployment. The govern­
ment should attach great importance to the water recovery effect
generated by CO2-EWR technology and integrate it into the CCS
retrofitting potential evaluation system. The CCS technology
should be optimized under the guidance of the full life cycle
concept combined with the distribution characteristics of China’s
arid water resources to accurately grasp the CCS potential and
geological storage conditions in key areas; this would promote
the deployment of a CCS demonstration project in accordance
with local conditions to reduce the regional water resource
pressure.
Overall, this study debunks the view that CCS retrofitting would
consume large amounts of water and is probably to create the water
crisis in some area of China, while the role of CO2-EWR technology in
reducing water consumption during the carbon storage process should
also not be ignored. Moreover, the water-saving technologies applied in
capture and storage process are bound to have a significant impact on
CCS retrofit deployment. Overall, our results can provide further theo­
retical and practical support for CCS projects, provide a reference for the
future implementation of CCS related water resources evaluation man­
agement from an enterprise perspective, and provide a reference for
L. Yang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374

water resources development planning for the CCS full life cycle from [22] Sathre R, Breunig H, Greenblatt J, Larsen P, Masanet E, McKone T, et al. Spatially-
explicit water balance implications of carbon capture and sequestration. Environ
the governmental perspective, resulting in the optimal CCS deployment
Model Software 2016;75:153–62.
for China in the future. [23] Tidwell VC, Malczynski LA, Kobos PH, Klise GT, Shuster E. Potential impacts of
electric power production utilizing natural gas, renewables and carbon capture
and sequestration on U.S. Freshwater resources. Environ Sci Technol 2013;47:
Declaration of competing interest 8940–7.
[24] Zhai H, Rubin ES, Versteeg PL. Water use at pulverized coal power plants with
postcombustion carbon capture and storage. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 2479–85.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [25] Lim-Wavde K, Zhai H, Kauffman RJ, Rubin ES. Assessing carbon pollution
standards: electric power generation pathways and their water impacts. Energy
the work reported in this paper. Pol 2018;120:714–33.
[26] Court B, Celia MA, Nordbotten JM, Elliot TR. Active and integrated management
of water resources throughout CO2 capture and sequestration operations. Energy
Acknowledgements
Procedia 2011;4:4221–9.
[27] Merschmann PRdC, Vasquez E, Szklo AS, Schaeffer R. Modeling water use
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Founda­ demands for thermoelectric power plants with CCS in selected Brazilian water
basins. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2013;13:87–101.
tion of China (No. 71804166, 71991481, 71991480, 71772167), the
[28] Li Q, Wei Y-N, Liu G, Jing M, Zhang M, Fei W, et al. Feasibility of the combination
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. of CO2 geological storage and saline water development in sedimentary basins of
2652019082) and the National Key Research and Development Program China. Energy Procedia 2013;37:4511–7.
of China (No. 2017YFC04046044). [29] China Electricity Council (CEC). Annual report on the development of China’s
power industry 2010. Beijing: China Electric Power Press; 2010.
[30] China Electricity Council (CEC). Annual report on the development of China’s
References power industry 2018. Beijing: China Market Press; 2018.
[31] Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China (MWR). Chinese
water resources bulletin 2017. Beijing: China Water-Power Press; 2017.
[1] International Energy Agency (IEA). Technology roadmap: carbon capture and
[32] Chen Y, Li B, Li Z, Li W. Water resource formation and conversion and water
storage 2013 edition. https://www.iea.org/tcep/. [Accessed 10 November 2019].
security in arid region of Northwest China. J Geogr Sci 2016;26:939–52.
[2] International Energy Agency (IEA). Tracking clean energy progress. https:
[33] World water resources assessment program (WWAP). The 2016 United Nations
//www.iea.org/tcep/. [Accessed 10 November 2019].
world water development report (WWDR). https://www.preventionweb.net/publ
[3] Department of S&T for Social Development. Ministry of Science and Technology
ications/view/26135. [Accessed 8 August 2019].
of the People’s Republic of China (DSTSD-MST),The Administrative Center for
[34] General Office of the State Council (GOSC). Opinions of the State Council on the
China’s Agenda 21(ACCA21). Technology roadmap study on carbon capture,
implementation of the strictest water resources management system. http://
utilization and storage in China. Beijing: Science Press; 2019.
www.gov.cn/zhuanti/2015-06/13/content_2878992.htm. [Accessed 9 August
[4] International Energy Agency (IEA). Global energy & CO2 status report. 2018.
2019].
https://www.iea.org/tcep/. [Accessed 10 November 2019].
[35] Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China (MWR).
[5] China Electricity Council (CEC). Annual report on the development of China’s
Implementation plan of national drought relief plan (2014-2016). http://www.
power industry 2019. Beijing: China Building Materials Press; 2019.
mwr.gov.cn/zwgk/zfxxgkml/201705/t20170509_966301.html. [Accessed 9
[6] International Energy Agency (IEA). Ready for Retrofit: analysis of the potential
August 2019].
for equipping CCS to the existing coal fleet in China. https://www.iea.org/tcep/.
[36] Ou Y, Zhai H, Rubin ES. Life cycle water use of coal- and natural-gas-fired power
[Accessed 2 August 2019].
plants with and without carbon capture and storage. International Journal of
[7] Khan Z, Linares P, Rutten M, Parkinson S, Johnson N, García-González J. Spatial
Greenhouse Gas Control 2016;44:249–61.
and temporal synchronization of water and energy systems: towards a single
[37] Yang B, Wei Y-M, Hou Y, Li H, Wang P. Life cycle environmental impact
integrated optimization model for long-term resource planning. Appl Energy
assessment of fuel mix-based biomass co-firing plants with CO2 capture and
2018;210:499–517.
storage. Appl Energy 2019;252:113483.
[8] Zhang C, Zhong L, Wang J. Decoupling between water use and thermoelectric
[38] Zhai H, Rubin ES. Performance and cost of wet and dry cooling systems for
power generation growth in China. Nature Energy 2018;3:792–9.
pulverized coal power plants with and without carbon capture and storage.
[9] Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China (MWR). Chinese
Energy Pol 2010;38:5653–60.
water resources bulletin 2019. Beijing: China Water-Power Press; 2019.
[39] Bolorinos J, Yu Y, Ajami NK, Rajagopal R. Balancing marine ecosystem impact
[10] IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG). Environmental evaluation of
and freshwater consumption with water-use fees in California’s power markets:
CCS using life cycle assessment. https://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/
an evaluation of possibilities and trade-offs. Appl Energy 2018;226:644–54.
2010-TR2.pdf. [Accessed 2 August 2019].
[40] Nouri N, Balali F, Nasiri A, Seifoddini H, Otieno W. Water withdrawal and
[11] Marx J, Schreiber A, Zapp P, Haines M, Hake JF, Gale J. Environmental
consumption reduction for electrical energy generation systems. Appl Energy
evaluation of CCS using Life Cycle Assessment–A synthesis report. Energy
2019;248:196–206.
Procedia 2011;4:2448–56.
[41] Hylkema H, Read A. Reduction of freshwater usage of a coal fired power plant
[12] National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Cost and performance baseline
with CCS by applying a high level of integration of all water streams. Energy
for fossil energy plants- volume 1: bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity.
Procedia 2014;63:7187–97.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/baseline_studies.html. [Accessed 9
[42] Gao X, Chen Q, Lu S, Wang Y, An T, Zhuo L, et al. Impact of virtual water flow
August 2019].
with the energy product transfer on sustainable water resources utilization in the
[13] Ali B, Kumar A. Development of life cycle water-demand coefficients for coal-
main coal-fired power energy bases of Northern China. Energy Procedia 2018;
based power generation technologies. Energy Convers Manag 2015;90:247–60.
152:293–301.
[14] Li S, Gao L, Jin H. Life cycle energy use and GHG emission assessment of coal-
[43] Shang Y, Lu S, Li X, Hei P, Lei X, Gong J, et al. Balancing development of major
based SNG and power cogeneration technology in China. Energy Convers Manag
coal bases with available water resources in China through 2020. Appl Energy
2016;112:91–100.
2017;194:735–50.
[15] Corsten M, Ramírez A, Shen L, Koornneef J, Faaij A. Environmental impact
[44] Shang Y, Hei P, Lu S, Shang L, Li X, Wei Y, et al. China’s energy-water nexus:
assessment of CCS chains – lessons learned and limitations from LCA literature.
assessing water conservation synergies of the total coal consumption cap strategy
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2013;13:59–71.
until 2050. Appl Energy 2018;210:643–60.
[16] Singh B, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG. Comparative life cycle environmental
[45] Xiang XZ, Jia SF. Estimation and trend analysis of water demand of energy
assessment of CCS technologies. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
industry in China. J Nat Resour 2016;31:114–23.
2011;5:911–21.
[46] Zhao G, Chen S. Greenhouse gas emissions reduction in China by cleaner coal
[17] Tang L, Yokoyama T, Kubota H, Shimota A. Life cycle assessment of a pulverized
technology towards 2020. Energy Strategy Reviews 2015;7:63–70.
coal-fired power plant with CCS technology in Japan. Energy Procedia 2014;63:
[47] Zhu M, Zhuang D, Li T. Spatial characteristics of coal transportation network in
7437–43.
China during 1990-2014. J Nat Resour 2018;33:454–66.
[18] Yi Q, Zhao Y, Huang Y, Wei G, Hao Y, Feng J, et al. Life cycle energy-economic-
[48] Yadav M, Sahu SP, Singh NK. Multivariate statistical assessment of ambient air
CO2 emissions evaluation of biomass/coal, with and without CO2 capture and
pollution in two coalfields having different coal transportation strategy: a
storage, in a pulverized fuel combustion power plant in the United Kingdom. Appl
comparative study in Eastern India. J Clean Prod 2019;207:97–110.
Energy 2018;225:258–72.
[49] Fthenakis V, Kim HC. Life-cycle uses of water in U.S. electricity generation.
[19] Petrescu L, Bonalumi D, Valenti G, Cormos A-M, Cormos C-C. Life Cycle
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2039–48.
Assessment for supercritical pulverized coal power plants with post-combustion
[50] Meldrum J, Nettles-Anderson S, Heath G, Macknick J. Life cycle water use for
carbon capture and storage. J Clean Prod 2017;157:10–21.
electricity generation: a review and harmonization of literature estimates.
[20] Petrescu L, Cormos C-C. Environmental assessment of IGCC power plants with
Environ Res Lett 2013;8.
pre-combustion CO2 capture by chemical & calcium looping methods. J Clean
[51] Thorbjornsson A, Wachtmeister H, Wang J, Hook M. Carbon capture and coal
Prod 2017;158:233–44.
consumption: implications of energy penalties and large scale deployment.
[21] Morrison B, Golden JS. Life cycle assessment of co-firing coal and wood pellets in
Energy Strategy Reviews 2015;7:18–28.
the Southeastern United States. J Clean Prod 2017;150:188–96.

15
L. Yang et al.
[52] Smith AJ, Murphy MMJE, HIiU Oil, Development G. Chapter 9 – transportation of
shale gas and oil resources. Environmental and health issues in unconventional
oil and gas development. 2016.
[53] Oglend A, Kleppe TS, Osmundsen P. Trade with endogenous transportation costs:
the case of liquefied natural gas. Energy Econ 2016;59:138–48.
[54] Ruether JA, Ramezan M, Balash PC. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal
gasification power generation systems. J Infrastruct Syst 2004;10:111–9.
[55] Gu A, Teng F, Lv Z. Exploring the nexus between water saving and energy
conservation: insights from industry sector during the 12th Five-Year Plan period
in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;59:28–38.
[56] Kanniche M, Gros-Bonnivard R, Jaud P, Valle-Marcos J, Amann J-M, Bouallou C.
Pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power plant for
CO2 capture. Appl Therm Eng 2010;30:53–62.
[57] Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute (CMUGDI). Economic input-
output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA), U.S. 2002 (428 sectors) purchaser model.
https://www.eiolca.net. [Accessed 12 August 2019].
[58] National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Cost and performance baseline
for fossil energy plants volume 1a: bituminous coal (PC) and natural gas to
electricity revision 3. https://www.netl.doe.gov/projects/files/. [Accessed 8
August 2019].
[59] National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Life cycle analysis: supercritical
pulverized coal (SCPC) power plant. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1489521-li
fe-cycle-analysis-supercritical-pulverized-coal-scpc-power-plant. [Accessed 8
August 2019].
[60] Mancuso L, Cotone P. Water usage and loss of power in power plants with CO2
capture. https://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/IEAGHG_Presentations.
[Accessed 18 August 2019].
[61] Domenichini R, Arienti S, Cotone P, Santos S. Evaluation and analysis of water
usage and loss of power in plants with CO2 capture. Energy Procedia 2011;4:
1925–32.
[62] Delgado AHH. Simple model to help understand water use at power plants. https
://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf. [Accessed 20 August 2019].
[63] Marion JNN, Mcwhinnie R. Greenhouse gas emissions control by oxygen firing in
circulating fluidized bed boilers: phase 1-A preliminary systems evaluation. https
://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/883158. [Accessed 20 August 2019].
[64] IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG). Oxy combustion processes for
CO2 capture from power plant. https://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/
Report%202005-9%20oxycombustion.pdf. [Accessed 20 August 2019].
[65] International Energy Agency (IEA). CO2 capture ready plants. https://www.iea.
org/tcep/. [Accessed 20 August 2019].
[66] Magneschi G, Zhang T, Munson R. The impact of CO2 capture on water
requirements of power plants. Energy Procedia 2017;114:6337–47.
[67] Koornneef J, Ramírez A, Turkenburg W, Faaij A. The environmental impact and
risk assessment of CO2 capture, transport and storage – an evaluation of the
knowledge base. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2012;38:62–86.
[68] Damen K, Troost Mv, Faaij A, Turkenburg W. A comparison of electricity and
hydrogen production systems with CO2 capture and storage. Part A: review and
selection of promising conversion and capture technologies. Prog Energy
Combust Sci 2006;32:215–46.
[69] Zhao HY. Experimental investigation on carbon dioxide absorption by aqueous
ammonia in dual-path reactor. Jinlin: Harbin Institute of Technology; 2011.
[70] Sharma N, Mahapatra SS. A preliminary analysis of increase in water use with
carbon capture and storage for Indian coal-fired power plants. Environmental
Technology & Innovation 2018;9:51–62.
[71] Newmark RL, Friedmann SJ, Carroll SA. Water challenges for geologic carbon
capture and sequestration. Environ Manag 2010;45:651–61.
[72] Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Water & sustainability. U.S. Water
consumption for power production – the next half century, ume 3; 2002. http
s://www.circleofblue.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/EPRI-Volume-3.pdf.
[Accessed 4 September 2019].
[73] Brandl P, Soltani SM, Fennell PS, Dowell NM. Evaluation of cooling requirements
of post-combustion CO2 capture applied to coal-fired power plants. Chem Eng Res
Des 2017;122:1–10.
[74] Macknick J, Newmark R, Heath G, Hallett KC. Operational water consumption
and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of
existing literature. Environ Res Lett 2012;7.
[75] IECM. Integrated environmental control model version 9.1. Pittsburgh, PA:
Carnegie Mellon Univ; 2015. https://energy.duke.edu/content/integrated-enviro
nmental-control-model-iecm. [Accessed 2 August 2019].
[76] Costa I, Rochedo P, Costa D, Ferreira P, Araújo M, Schaeffer R, et al. Placing hubs
in CO2 pipelines: an application to industrial CO2 emissions in the Iberian
Peninsula. Appl Energy 2019;236:22–31.
[77] Choi S, Park J, Kang YT. Experimental investigation on CO2 hydrate formation/
dissociation for cold thermal energy harvest and transportation applications. Appl
Energy 2019;242:1358–68.
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110374
[78] Roussanaly S, Bureau-Cauchois G, Husebye J. Costs benchmark of CO2 transport
technologies for a group of various size industries. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control 2013;12:341–50.
[79] Jakobsen J, Roussanaly S, Anantharaman R. A techno-economic case study of CO2
capture, transport and storage chain from a cement plant in Norway. J Clean Prod
2017;144:523–39.
[80] Mikulcic H, Skov IR, Dominkovic DF, Alwi SRW, Manan ZA, Tan R, et al. Flexible
Carbon Capture and Utilization technologies in future energy systems and the
utilization pathways of captured CO2. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;114.
[81] Suzuki T, Toriumi M, Sakemi T, Masui N, Yano S, Fujita H, et al. Conceptual
design of CO2 transportation system for CCS. Energy Procedia 2013;37:2989–96.
[82] Wei N, Li X, Wang Q, Gao S. Budget-type techno-economic model for onshore CO2
pipeline transportation in China. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
2016;51:176–92.
[83] Li X, Wei N, Jiao Z, Liu S, Dahowski R. Cost curve of large-scale deployment of
CO2-enhanced water recovery technology in modern coal chemical industries in
China. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2019;81:66–82.
[84] Li Q, Wei Y-N, Liu G, Shi H. CO2-EWR: a cleaner solution for coal chemical
industry in China. J Clean Prod 2015;103:330–7.
[85] Bergmo PES, Grimstad A-A, Lindeberg E. Simultaneous CO2 injection and water
production to optimise aquifer storage capacity. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control 2011;5:555–64.
[86] Wei N, Li X, Wang Y, Dahowski RT, Davidson CL, Bromhal GS. A preliminary sub-
basin scale evaluation framework of site suitability for onshore aquifer-based CO2
storage in China. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2013;12:
231–46.
[87] Niu Z, Li Q, Wei X, Li X, Li X. Numerical simulation of a hidden fault at different
stages of evolution in a carbon dioxide-enhanced saline water recovery site.
J Petrol Sci Eng 2017;154:367–81.
[88] Ma X, Li X, Yang G, Huang W, Diao Y, Hu L, et al. Study on field-scale of CO2
geological storage combined with saline water recovery: a case study of east
Junggar Basin of Xinjiang. Energy Procedia 2018;154:36–41.
[89] Li Q, Liu G, Zhang J, Jia L, Liu H. Status and suggestion of environmental
monitoring for CO2 geological storage. Adv Earth Sci 2013;28:718–27.
[90] Ayoub A, Gjorgiev B, Sansavini G. Cooling towers performance in a changing
climate: techno-economic modeling and design optimization. Energy 2018;160:
1133–43.
[91] Martín M, Martín M. Cooling limitations in power plants: optimal multiperiod
design of natural draft cooling towers. Energy 2017;135:625–36.
[92] National Energy Administration (NEA). Upgrade and renovation action plan for
coal power energy saving and emission reduction. http://zfxxgk.nea.gov.cn/aut
o84/201409/t20140919_1840.htm. [Accessed 6 September 2019].
[93] Bachu S, Bonijoly D, Bradshaw J, Burruss R, Holloway S, Christensen NP, et al.
CO2 storage capacity estimation: methodology and gaps. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control 2007;1:430–43.
[94] Baik E, Sanchez DL, Turner PA, Mach KJ, Field CB, Benson SM. Geospatial
analysis of near-term potential for carbon-negative bioenergy in the United
States. Proc Natl Acad Sci Unit States Am 2018;115:3290–5.
[95] Fan J-L, Xu M, Li F, Yang L, Zhang X. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) retrofit
potential of coal-fired power plants in China: the technology lock-in and cost
optimization perspective. Appl Energy 2018;229:326–34.
[96] Wei N, Li X, Fang Z, Bai B, Li Q, Liu S, et al. Regional resource distribution of
onshore carbon geological utilization in China. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2015;
11:20–30.
[97] Jiang D, Yang L, Wei N, Liu S, Nie L, Li X. Suitability of retrofitting CCUS to
existing coal-fired power plants: a case study of former shenhua group.
Proceedings of the CSEE 2019;39.
[98] World Resources Institute (WRI). Guidelines for calculating greenhouse gas
emissions from coal-fired power plants in China. http://wri.org.cn/node/464.
[Accessed 13 September 2019].
[99] Liu R, Zhai X. Calculation of carbon emissions from China coal plants and the
reduction suggestion. Ecology and Environmental Sciences 2014;23:1164–9.
[100] Zheng J. Research on U.S. greenhouse gas inventory compilation system. Jiangsu:
Zhejiang University; 2011.
[101] Wei D. Calculation methods on carbon dioxide emission of Chinese coal-fired
power plants. Beijing: Beijing Jiaotong University; 2014.
[102] Long Y. Study on calculation model and method of carbon dioxide emissions for
coal-fired power plant. Chongqing: Chongqing University; 2016.
[103] Wang N, Ren Y, Zhu T, Meng F, Wen Z, Liu G. Life cycle carbon emission
modelling of coal-fired power: Chinese case. Energy 2018;162:841–52.
[104] IPCC. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. https://www.ipcc.
ch/report/2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/.
[Accessed 16 October 2019].
[105] Climate Change Department of the National Development and Reform
Commission (CCD-NDRC). Guidelines for compiling provincial greenhouse gas
inventories (Trial). https://wenku.baidu.com/view/7ae95325f111f18583d0
5a67.html. [Accessed 16 October 2019].