Biomass and Bioenergy 85 (2016) 109e118

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy

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

Research paper

Environmental analysis of bio-CCS in an integrated oxy-fuel

combustion power plant with CO2 transport and storage
Paweł Gładysz*, Andrzej Zie˛ bik
Silesian University of Technology, Institute of Thermal Technology, 44-100 Gliwice, Konarskiego 22, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Oxy-fuel combustion (OFC) belongs to one of the three commonly known clean coal technologies for
Received 17 February 2015 which practical application may be in the offing. Similarly to conventional power plants, there is a
Received in revised form possibility of biomass co-firing, thus an additional reduction of CO2 emission is possible. Including the
18 October 2015
biomass in the fuel mixture of an integrated OFC power plant allows to obtain the so called “neutral” CO2
Accepted 7 December 2015
Available online 18 December 2015
status as biomass combustion does not contribute to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In OFC power plants
without biomass co-firing, even if 100% of CO2 is captured, there are still additional CO2 emissions in
processes like fossil fuel extraction, transportation and preparation. The same assumption applies also to
Keywords:
Oxy-fuel combustion
biomass and other materials (e.g. limestone or raw water). A higher share of biomass in the fuel mixture
Biomass can lead to “negative” CO2 emissions with may be helpful to compensate the unfulfilled goals in other
Thermoecological cost sectors where reduction is required. The paper presents the system approach to the environmental
Cumulative CO2 emission analysis based on the “inputeoutput” method and both the index of the thermoecological cost and
cumulative CO2 emissions. Thermoecological cost includes, the cumulative exergy consumption of non-
renewable energy sources and additional exergy consumption due to harmful emissions to the atmo-
sphere. In order to investigate the impact of bio-CCS (both biomass co-firing and dedicated biomass
boilers) on the net thermoecological cost of electricity production and cumulative CO2 emissions five
cases have been analyzed.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent years interest has grown in CO2 capture and storage
technologies as a possible technology to mitigate CO2 emissions.
They are planned to be mid-term technologies which should help
to meet the required CO2 emission reduction goals, keeping the
fossil fuel based electricity production in global energy mix.
Generally three types of carbon capture and storage (CCS) tech-
nologies can be distinguished, namely: post-combustion, pre-
combustion and oxy-fuel combustion [1]. Within the oxy-fuel
combustion technologies different approaches can be distin-
guished, viz. atmospheric and elevated pressure combustion. For
the coal-fired oxy-fuel combustion the elevated pressure gives an
opportunity for further NOx reduction and increase of the net
thermal efficiency of the boiler [2].
Even if all CO2 is captured (no direct CO2 emissions from the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pawel.gladysz@polsl.pl (P. Gładysz), andrzej.ziebik@polsl.pl
(A. Zie˛ bik).
power plant) instead of being emitted to the atmosphere, there are
still sources of the emissions in the preceding processes like
extraction, processing and delivery of fuels and materials (e.g.
limestone). Also when the whole life cycle is considered, CO2
emissions associated with the production of construction materials
should be included. Thus a conventional power plant with the CCS
cannot be considered as a zero emission one [3]. In order to achieve
the so called “neutral” status of the CCS technology, biomass co-
firing is proposed. As biomass it is understood forestry wastes,
fast-growing plants from an energy farm, wastes from agriculture
and food industry and biogas. Co-firing can be realized directly or
indirectly (Dutch oven or gasifier installation). Biomass co-firing in
large coal based power plants gives is well established in Europe
and gives an opportunity to increase the share of renewable energy
sources in energy mix of given country [4]. The negative feature of
biomass is high and fluctuating moisture and in consequence lower
and fluctuating lower heating value (LHV). The lower LHV causes
necessity switching the additional coal pulverizers. The positive
feature is a much lower content of sulphur and ash. But in com-
parison with coal, biomass has a higher content of alkalies and in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.12.008
0961-9534/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
110 P. Gładysz, A. Zie˛ bik / Biomass and Bioenergy 85 (2016) 109e118

Nomenclature Greek symbols

r unit thermoecological cost, MJex/MJ or MJex/Mg,
g fuel component of the thermoecological cost, J/J
Main symbols x coefficient concerning additional consumption of
a coefficient of consumption exergy of non-renewable natural resources due to the
ASU air separation unit necessity of compensation the environmental losses
CCS carbon capture and storage caused by the harmful emissions, MJex/Mg of harmful
Com. compressor emission
CPU CO2 processing unit s emission component of the thermoecological cost, J/J.
D external supplies, MJ or Mg
DEA deaerator Subscripts
ESP electrostatic precipitators agro agrochemical
F by-production, MJ or Mg ch chemical energy of fuel
f coefficient of by-production cut cutting
F fan D external supply not supplementing the main
FGD flue gas desulphurization production
G generator df diesel fuel
G main production, MJ or Mg el electricity
K final production, MJ or Mg em emissions
LHV lower heating value ex exergy
OFC oxy-fuel combustion F by-product not supplementing the main production
p coefficient denoting the amount of harmful emissions f fuel
released to the atmosphere fw forestry waste
T turbine G main product
TEC thermoecological cost. ng natural gas
src short rotation coppice
srp steel rolled product.

some kind of biomass (e.g. straw) chlorine causing corrosion of the
heating surfaces. The changes of chemical composition and flux of
combustion gases leads to the change of radiation properties and
velocity of flow, as well as viscosity of combustion gases. In con-
sequences energy efficiency of pulverized fuel boilers drops [5].
Biomass combustion does not contribute to direct anthropogenic
CO2 emissions, thus its capture leads to decreasing the CO2 emis-
sions during the entire lifetime. With a certain share of biomass in
the fuel mixture (around 15e20%), we can already achieve “nega-
tive” CO2 emissions [6]. In comparison with boilers fired only with
coal it was stated that the co-firing of biomass leads to a decrease of
emissions of CO, SOx, NOx and flue dust by about 12e16% [5]. The
idea of a biomass CCS plant (bio-CCS) was proposed in official
documents of the European Union [7] and supported by the orga-
nizations like International Energy Agency [8] or Global CCS Insti-
tute [9]. The bio-CCS may help to meet the global CO2 reduction
goals, providing negative emissions and compensation for the lack
of reduction in some other industrial sectors [10]. The paper focuses
on the oxy-fuel combustion power plant. The technology is based
on utilization of high purity oxygen instead of atmospheric air in
the combustion process. Thus, the high concentration of CO2 in flue
gases is obtained which allows to resign of the energy intensive flue
gas separation process. Although, due to the additional necessity of
oxygen production, the overall energy penalty of CO2 capture
process is comparable with the other two carbon dioxide capture
technologies. In order to maintain the proper temperature in the
boiler, some of the CO2 must be recycled. The rest of the CO2 stream
is further purified (if necessary) and compressed to the required
pressure.
The paper deals with oxy-fuel combustion power plants with
co-firing of biomass, as well as dedicated for only biomass firing.
The aim of this analysis is to show how the co-firing of biomass in
an integrated OFC power plant affects the environmental
performance (thermoecological cost and cumulative CO2 emis-
sions). An integrated OFC power plant is a large energy system,
consisting of eight technological modules (Fig. 1): boiler island,
steam cycle, flue gas quality control module (FGQC), cooling water
module, water treatment module, air separation unit (ASU), CO2
processing unit (CPU) and CO2 transport and storage module (T&S).
Due to the numerous interconnections between the technological
modules the “inputeoutput” balance method based on the system
approach to integrate clean coal technologies was proposed [11]. In
accordance with the approach to the life cycle assessment (LCA) the
analysis in principle should include the following main phases: (a)
construction phase, (b) operation phase and (c) decommissioning
phase. Based on the previous analysis elaborated by the authors,
the construction and decommissioning phases are responsible for
about 0.3% of the life cycle thermoecological cost of electricity
production [12], thus they will be neglected in this study.
In this paper the system approach (“inputeoutput” analysis) in
LCA analysis is proposed. Next the thermoecological cost and cu-
mulative CO2 emission as measures of the environmental impacts
of the analyzed systems in LCA analysis are taken into account. The
core of those analyses is the “inputeoutput” model of direct energy
(and material) consumption, which was described in Ref. [11]. In
the analyzed integrated OFC power plants certain groups of energy
carriers can be distinguished. The first group consists of energy
carriers and materials being the main products whose global pro-
duction sometimes may be supplemented by external supplies. The
second group consists of energy carriers and materials manufac-
tured as by-products not supplementing the main products. The
third group consists of energy carriers and materials which are
external supplies not supplementing the main products. Those
three groups have been presented in Ref. [13].
The balance equations concerning the main products, by-
products and external supplies form a mathematical
 P. Gładysz, A. Zie˛ bik / Biomass and Bioenergy 85 (2016) 109e118
Fig. 1. Block-diagram of an integrated OFC power plant.
“inputeoutput” model of direct energy and materials consumption
[11]. This model contains the matrices of the consumption of the
main products (AG), the by-production of energy carriers and ma-
terials not supplementing the main production (FF), the con-
sumption of energy carriers and materials manufactured as by-
products (AF) and the consumption of external supplies (AD).
2. Evaluation of thermoecological costs of wood chips from
short rotation coppice and from forestry wastes
Production of wood chips from short rotation coppice and from
forestry wastes are a still increasing way of gaining biomass, a
renewable energy source for power plants [14,15]. In the case of
short rotation coppice the input data and results of calculations
concerns willow. The indices of cumulative energy consumption for
gaining of cuttings, charging the production of steel rolled products
and their conservation as well as diesel oil are related to the tonne
of dried wood chips (the mass fraction of moisture - 25%). The
agrochemical component includes the consumption of energy for
the production of vegetation protection chemicals and fertilizers.
The share of the fuel in the cumulative energy consumption is the
greater and amounts to 50%. The predominant production (about
95%) of dried wood chips from forestry wastes is based on firewood
which after gaining is transported and next storage and dried. The
remaining part of wood chips are produced from sawmill wastes.
Both firewood and sawmill wastes partly dried to the mass fraction
of moisture amounts to 25% and next chipping [16]. Production of
wood chips in both ways is connected with the consumption of
non-renewable energy carriers both directly (cultivation,
111
harvesting, chipping, transport and drying) and indirectly (e.g.
production of agrochemicals) [15]. Therefore, the thermoecological
cost [17,18] as a measure of depletion of non-renewable natural
resources due to not only consumption but also compensation of
harmful effects of emissions is an adequate tool for environmental
analysis. The evaluation of thermoecological cost of biomass has
been carried out based on the assumption that the influence
gaining of biomass on average values of indices of thermoecological
cost concerning fundamental products (e.g. non-renewable fuels)
may be neglected. This means that these indices are assumed as the
values known a'priori. The results of calculation are the indices of
thermoecological cost concerning the two kinds of biomass
mentioned above.
In the case of non-renewable fuels (diesel fuel, natural gas),
components of indices of the thermoecological cost of biomass,
indices of thermoecological cost are the sum of two parts, namely
the fuel part and the emission part:


rf ¼ ech , gf þ sem (1)
The emission component results from the following relation:
X
sem ¼ pi ,2i (2)
i
The fuel and emissions parts of thermoecological costs of non-
renewable fuels consumed in the production of biomass are as
follows [17,18]:
diesel fuel: gdf ¼ 1.1 J/J, sem df ¼ 0.0131 J/J,
112 P. Gładysz, A. Zie˛ bik / Biomass and Bioenergy 85 (2016) 109e118

natural gas: gng ¼ 0.9 J/J, sem ng ¼ 0.00383 J/J. The given cumulative CO2 emissions for the chosen biomass
sources where calculated for the same process of acquiring them as
The evaluation of the index of the thermoecological cost of in the case of the index of the thermoecological cost.
wood chips from short rotation coppice is based on the data from
Ref. [16]. In the calculation procedure, the following stages have
been distinguished: cultivation, harvesting, chipping, transport,
3. Mathematical models to evaluate the indices of
storage and drying (weathering). Direct unit consumption of the
thermoecological cost and cumulative CO2 emissions
chemical energy diesel fuel in those stages amounts to 292 MJ/Mg
of wood chips, hencerdf ¼ 325 MJ/Mg of wood chips [15].
Fig. 2 presents a diagram of calculating the index of the ther-
It was assumed that the energy consumption charging cuttings
moecological cost concerning the j-th module of an integrated
amounted to 93 MJ/Mg of wood chips is equivalent to consumption
power plant. The set of balance equations used to calculate the
of diesel fuel. It means that rcut ¼ 103.5 MJ/Mg of wood chips.
indices of the thermoecological cost takes the following form:
The energy consumption related to steel rolled products and
their conservation amounts to 130 MJ/Mg of wood chips. It was n

X  m

X 
assumed that it was the same amounts of exergy, hence Lnj¼1 « aG
i j Gj $rG i þ aFl j Gj $rF l
rsrp ¼ 130 MJ/Mg of wood chips. i¼1 l¼nþ1
The unit consumption of energy concerning agrochemicals X
s
 X
q m

X 
amounts to 242 MJ/Mg of wood chips. Assuming that it concerns þ aD
p j Gj $rD p þ Gj ph j zh þ flF j Gj $rFW l
the chemical energy of natural gas we haveragro ¼ 218.7 MJ/Mg of p¼mþ1 h¼1 l¼nþ1
wood chips. m

X 
The sum of those components determines the index of the ¼ Gj rG j þ flF j Gj $rF l
thermoecological cost of wood chips from short rotation coppice: l¼nþ1
(4)

rdf þ rcut þ rsrp þ ragro where:

rsrc ¼ ¼ 0:061 J=J (3)
LHV Pk G
j¼1 ai j Gj e consumption of i-th main products in j-th module,
where LHV ¼ 12 725 MJ/Mg of wood chips e lower heating value of rG i e index of thermoecological cost of the i-th main product
wood chips. (used in j-th module),
Pk F
A similar approach has been applied in the case of wood chips j¼1 al j Gj e consumption of l-th by-product not supplement-
from forestry wastes. Firewood after extraction is transported, ing main production in j-th module,
dried and next put to chipping. In the exploitation component of rF l e index of thermoecological costs of l-th by-products not
the thermoecological cost dominates the chemical energy of diesel supplementing the main products,
Pk D
fuel [16] the consumption of which amounts to 313 MJ/Mg of wood j¼1 ap j Gj e consumption of p-th external supply not supple-
chips. Hence, the component of the index of the thermoecological menting main production in j-th module,
cost connected with diesel fuel determined by means of Eqs. (1) rPD p e index of thermoecological cost of p-th external supply,
k F
and (2) is rdf ¼ 348 MJ/Mg of wood chips. j¼1 fl j Gj e by-production of l-th by-product in j-th module not
The energy consumption related to steel rolled products and supplementing main production,
their conservation amounts to 30 MJ/Mg of wood chips. It was Gj e main production concerning j-th module,
assumed that it was the same amounts of exergy. ph j e the h-th kind of emissions burdening the j-th module,
Hencersrp ¼ 30 MJ/Mg of wood chips. zh e additional consumption of exergy of non-renewable natural
The sum of those two components divided by the same LHV of resources due to the h-th emission,
wood chips determines the index of the thermoecological cost of
wood chips from forestry wastes.rfw ¼ 0.0297 J/J.
In both considered cases of the production of dried wood chips
the share of investment and exploitation parts are at the same level,
viz. 30% and 70%, respectively. Fuel component and cumulative
energy consumption charging machinery and spare parts are pre-
dominant (about 90%) in the case of dried wood chips from forest
wastes. The sum of fuel component and agrochemical part of cu-
mulative energy consumption concerning the way of the produc-
tion of dried wood chips from short rotation coppice is similar to
fuel components in the way of the production of dried wood chips
from forestry wastes [15].
Both those values of the thermoecological cost of biomass
together with the index of the thermoecological cost of hard coal
are the input data in the thermoecological analysis of oxy-fuel
combustion power plants.
As also the cumulative CO2 emission is considered calculations
for the biomass where performed. The cumulative CO2 emission
factors concerning the acquiring of the biomass concern [19]:

 wood chips from short rotation coppice e

p*CO2 srt ¼ 0:0034 kgCO2 =MJ;
 wood chips from forestry wastes e p*CO2 srt ¼ 0:002 kgCO2 =MJ: Fig. 2. Diagram of calculating the indices of thermoecological costs.
 P. Gładysz, A. Zie˛ bik / Biomass and Bioenergy 85 (2016) 109e118 113

DD p e p-th external supply not supplementing main

production,
KF l e final production of l-th by product not supplementing
main production,
KG j e final production of j-th main product (KG net el. denotes
the net electricity production).

Fig. 3 present diagram of calculating the indices of cumulative

CO2 emissions concerning the j-th module of an integrated power
plant. The set of balance equations used to calculate the indices of
the cumulative CO2 emissions takes the following form:

n

X  m

X 
*
Lnj¼1 « aG
i j Gj $pG i þ aFl j Gj $p*F l
i¼1 l¼nþ1
X
s
 m

X 
*
þ aD
p j Gj $pD p þ Gj pCO2 j þ flF j Gj $p*FW l
p¼mþ1 l¼nþ1
Fig. 3. Diagram of calculating the indices of cumulative CO2 emission. m

X 
¼ Gj p*G j þ flF j Gj $p*F l (6)
l¼nþ1
rFW l e index of thermoecological costs of utilization (treat-
ment) of l-th by-products not supplementing the main products, where:
rG j e index of thermoecological cost of the j-th main product (in
j-th module). p*G i e index of cumulative CO2 emission of the i-th main
product (used in j-th module),
The Eq. (4) is an algorithm to calculate the indices of the ther- p*F l e index of cumulative CO2 emission of l-th by-products not
moecological cost. The indices of rD p concerning external supplies supplementing the main products,
not supplementing the main production have to be known (average p*D p e index of cumulative CO2 emission of p-th external supply,
values in the whole country). Also the indices rF l concerning by- pCO2 j e the direct CO2 emission from fossil fuels (e.g. hard coal)
production not supplementing the main production have to be burdening the j-th module,
pre-set and assessed basing on the principle of replaced processes p*FW l e index of cumulative CO2 emission of utilization (treat-
[11e13]. The indices rFW l concerning the waste treatment of the ment) of l-th by-products not supplementing the main products,
by-products have to be known based on the information's con- p*G j e index of cumulative CO2 emission of the j-th main
cerning the way of utilization (if necessary) of each given by- product (in j-th module).
product.
When we apply the idea of thermoecological cost to the The Eq. (6) is an algorithm to calculate the indices of the cumu-
“inputeoutput” analysis, from the algorithm presented above, we lative CO2 emissions. As in the case of the thermoecological cost the
get the thermoecological cost of each of the main products. When indices of cumulative CO2 emissions concerning external supplies
the whole integrated OFC power plant is considered, we have to not supplementing the main production, by-production not sup-
take into account the energy carriers or materials intersecting the plementing the main production and concerning the waste treat-
cover the balance. This can be calculated based on the general ment of the by-products have to be known. Also as in the case of the
balance equation of the thermoecological cost [17] or based on the thermoecological cost analysis the algorithm presented above al-
obtained results concerning the TEC of the main products. For a lows to calculate the indices of cumulative CO2 emissions of each to
more clear interpretation of the results, the unit thermoecological the main products. The unit cumulative CO2 emission of net elec-
tricity production can be calculated by means of the equation (Eq. 7):

Ps Pm Pn Pm Pn
p¼mþ1 Dp $p*D p  l¼nþ1 KF l $p*F þ j¼1 Gj $pCO2 j þ l¼nþ1 KF l $p*FW j¼1 KG j $p*G j
p*CO2
l l
net el: ¼ ¼ (7)
KG 2 KG 2

cost of net electricity production can be introduced, which is

defined as (Eq. 5): both based on the general balance equation of the cumulative CO2
where: emission or based on the obtained results concerning the indices of

Ps Pm Pq Pn Pm Pn
p¼mþ1 DD p $rD p  l¼nþ1 KF l $rF l þ h¼1
Gj j¼1 ph j $zh þ l¼nþ1 KF l $rFW l j¼1 KG j $rG j
rnet el: ¼ ¼ (5)
KG net el: KG net el:
114 P. Gładysz, A. Zie˛ bik / Biomass and Bioenergy 85 (2016) 109e118

Table 1
Case description e reference cases [6].

Variants/case name in Ref. [6] Coal fired without CCS/B.N.1 Biomass fired without CCS/P.N.1

Case REF_COAL REF_BIO

Gross power 580 400 kWel 616 100 kWel

Net power 549 990 kWel 550 030 kWel
 
Live steam 24.1 MPa/600 C/620 C
Fuel hard coal biomass
FGQC wet FGD/ESP no FGD/ESP
Air emissions; kg/MWhgross SO2: 0.3204; NOx: 0.261; PM: 0.049; CO2: 759.6 SO2: 0.2774; NOx: 0.27; PM: 0.05; CO2: 879.6

Table 2
Case description e oxy-fuel combustion cases [6].

Variants/case name in Ref. [6] Coal fired with CCS/B.O.0 Biomass co-firing with CCS/P.O.3 Biomass fired with CCS/P.O.1

Case OFC_COAL OFC_COAL/BIO OFC_BIO

Gross power 580 400 kWel 791 500 kWel 796 700 kWel
Net power 549 990 kWel 549 810 kWel 550 000 kWel
 
Live steam 24.1 MPa/600 C/620 C
Fuels hard coal hard coal & biomass biomass
ASU conventional cryogenic technology/O2 purity 95%
FGQC wet FGD/ESP no FGD/ESP no FGD/ESP
CPU only dehydration/100% CO2 capture rate/CO2 purity 83e85 mol.%/CO2 compressed to 15.3 MPa
Air emissions; kg/MWhgross SO2: 0; NOx: 0; PM: 0; CO2: 0 (assumed 100% CO2 capture rate and co-sequestration of impurities)

cumulative CO2 emission of the main products, respectively.
The presented algorithm (Eqs. (4) and (5)) concerning the TEC
and the algorithm (Eqs. (6) and (7)) concerning the cumulative CO2
emission may be applied to investigate the influence of a given
configuration of an integrated OFC power plant on the depletion of
non-renewable natural resources and CO2 emissions, respectively.
Both of them are the elements of the environmental analysis pro-
posed in this paper.
4. Examples of calculating the indices of thermoecological
cost and cumulative CO2 emission
The examples presented in this paper are based on [6] where
several bio-CCS technologies are analyzed. Two reference variants
(without CCS) and three oxy-fuel combustion variants (with CCS)
have been chosen, where characteristic parameters are listed in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Two reference cases, without CCS, have been analyzed in order
to establish base case performance of both coal and biomass fired
power plant with supercritical steam parameters.
In the analyzed OFC power plant with biomass co-firing
(OFC_COAL/BIO) the share of chemical energy of biomass in the
fuel mixture is about 13% (based on LHV), which corresponds to a
30% mass share of biomass in the fuel mixture. The LHV of coal
(bituminous) is 26.172 MJ/kg and for biomass (hybrid poplar) is
8.796 MJ/kg, both on as received basis [6].
In order to take into account whole CCS process the transport
and storage option was proposed in Ref. [1] and presented in
Table 3. It results in additional energy demand of around 63.4 MW/
Mg CO2 stored and CO2 emission of 1% due to the leakage in
transport and injection process [1].
The “inputeoutput” models of direct energy and material con-
sumption where elaborated based on the process models described
in Ref. [6] and proposed CO2 transport and storage option. Also the
coefficient ph j denoting the amount of harmful emissions released
to the atmosphere from each module was assumed based on the
process models. In the configurations of an integrated OFC power
plant, the mentioned coefficients for the OFC power plant are zero,
due to the assumed 100% CO2 capture rate and co-sequestration of
impurities. This assumption has been taken over from the process
model description. The coefficients concerning an additional con-
sumption of exergy of non-renewable natural resources due to the
necessity of compensating for the environmental losses caused by
the release of harmful emissions were taken over from literature
based on the macroeconomic and environmental data and pro-
posed methodology of their estimation [17]. Only three pollution
are considered: SO2, NOx and PM, as only those were well described
and the values for Poland have been quoted in Ref. [20]. They results
from the monetary index of external cost of h-th harmful emission,
annual exergy of the domestic non-renewable natural resources
extraction, gross domestic product of the given country and annual
h-th harmful emission released to the atmosphere. The values of
monetary indices of external cost and additional consumption of
exergy of non-renewable natural resources due to the necessity of
compensating of environmental losses have been presented in
Table 4.

Table 3
Case description e CO2 transport and storage.

Transport option Onshore pipeline

Pipeline length 100 km
Electricity consumption 0 MWh/MgCO2 (no recompression along the way)
Storage site Saline aquifer
Electricity consumption 0.013 MWh/Mg CO2
Brine water management Reinjection without treatment
Brine water production 1.4 Mg/Mg CO2
Electricity consumption 0.0033 MWh/Mg of brine water
 P. Gładysz, A. Zie˛ bik / Biomass and Bioenergy 85 (2016) 109e118 115

Table 4
Monetary indices and additional exergy consumption due to the harmful emissions.

h-th emission Monetary indices of external cost Additional consumption of exergy

SO2 12.81 V/kg 118.26 MJex/kg

NOx 9.40 V/kg 86.87 MJex/kg
PM 7.00 V/kg 64.62 MJex/kg

Table 5
Indices of the thermoecological cost and cumulative CO2 emission of main external supplies, by-products and waste treatment.

Energy carrier or material/process Index of the thermoecological cost Index of the cumulative CO2 emission

hard coal 1.202 MJex/MJ 0.0042 kgCO2/MJ

biomass 0.061 MJex/MJ 0.0034 kgCO2/MJ
raw water 104.6 MJex/Mg 6.2 kgCO2/Mg
limestone 61 MJex/Mg 2.5 kgCO2/Mg
gypsum 180 MJex/Mg 2.6 kgCO2/Mg
ash utilization 305 MJex/Mg 8.5 kgCO2/Mg
wastewater utilization 6.7 MJex/Mg 0.002 kgCO2/Mg

The indices concerning external supplies (hard coal, raw water
and limestone) have been taken over from the literature and
EcoInvent database, concerning the average values for Poland
[17,21e25]. Also the indices concerning by-production have to be
pre-set and assessed basing on the principle of replaced processes.
For the analyzed cases the utilization gypsum was considered,
where the value have been taken over from the EcoInvent database.
In the case of fly ash and bottom ash they were assumed as waste
and burdened with the additional exergy consumption and CO2
emission resulting from the treatment of ashes in residual material
landfill for which the index of the thermoecological cost was taken
from literature [1] and index of CO2 emission from EcoInvent
database. The main indices of thermoecological cost and cumula-
tive CO2 emission have been presented in Table 5.
First, the indices of thermoecological cost and cumulative CO2
emission of main products where calculated by means of Eqs. (4)
and (6), respectively. Then the indices concerning the net elec-
tricity production where calculated by means of Eqs. (5) and (7).
The results were presented in Table 6 and Figs. 4 and 5 concerning
all five analysed cases.
The results indicate that the introduction of the CCS technology
causes an increase in the thermoecological cost of the net electricity
production. As the thermoecological cost corresponds to the
depletion of non-renewable resources, the co-firing of biomass
improves the TEC of the net electricity production. The dedicated
biomass firing allows to obtain very low values of the TEC of net
electricity production, although in case of the power plant with CCS
the values are higher due to the lower net energy efficiency.
The presented results concerning the unit cumulative CO2
emission of net electricity production indicates that even if only
biomass is fired, without CCS it is not possible to achieve the
“neutral” status of CO2 emission. Also even if 100% capture rate is
proposed when the coal fired oxy-fuel combustion is realized, there
are still some not negligible emissions in coal extraction, prepara-
tion and transport process. As presented in Fig. 5 the 30 wt.% share
of biomass in fuel mixture allows already to achieve the “negative”
status of CO2 emissions related to net electricity production.
Fig. 6 presents the unit cumulative CO2 emission of net elec-
tricity production for all OFC cases in relation to the weight share of
biomass in the fuel mixture. Similarly as in Ref. [6] where the LCA
GHG emissions where considered the “neutral” status can be ach-
ieved with about 20 wt.% share of biomass.
Then the CCS technology is concerned, the most important
thermodynamic parameter is the drop of the net energy efficiency
in comparison with the reference case. In Fig. 7 the net energy ef-
ficiency as well as drops of the net energy efficiency in comparison
with the coal fired reference case (REF_COAL) are presented for all
analyzed cases. The drop of the net energy efficiency due to the CO2
capture is around 11% points. The CO2 transport and storage add
another 0.5% point to the drop of the net energy efficiency.
In the presented analysis of a TEC certain input values have to be
given. Thus, the sensitivity analysis should help to estimate the
influence of the preset values on the thermoecological cost of the
net electricity production. Based on the previous papers by the
authors, the influence of raw water and limestone can be neglected.
Thus, the influence of changes of the indices of the thermoeco-
logical cost of fuels (external supplies) in the index of the ther-
moecological cost of the net electricity production has been
investigated. As the thermoecological cost is not so widely spread,
only few data for the values of coal and biomass can be found. Based
on the literature review [17,21e25], minimum and maximum
values have been found and taken into account. The results are
presented in Fig. 8, where the minimum, maximum and reference
values for coal and biomass were assumed. As expected, based on
the previous analysis concerning TEC [12,13] the highest influence
can be observed when the index of the TEC of coal is considered.
The values presented in Fig. 8 of the TEC of coal (hard coal) and
biomass (wood type) show large discrepancies in the values con-
cerning both of them. Thus a further study concerning the TEC of
fuels has to be performed, taking into account not only the type of

Table 6
Indices of the thermoecological cost and cumulative CO2 emissions concerning the net electricity production.

Case The unit thermoecological cost of net electricity production The unit cumulative CO2 emission of net electricity production

REF_COAL 3.0223 MJex/MJel 0.2361 kgCO2/MJel

REF_BIO 0.2207 MJex/MJel 0.0696 kgCO2/MJel
OFC_COAL 4.1737 MJex/MJel 0.0215 kgCO2/MJel
OFC_COAL/BIO 3.7193 MJex/MJel 0.0157 kgCO2/MJel
OFC_BIO 0.2790 MJex/MJel 0.2722 kgCO2/MJel
116 P. Gładysz, A. Zie˛ bik / Biomass and Bioenergy 85 (2016) 109e118

Fig. 4. Results of analysis concerning unit thermoecological cost of net electricity production.

Fig. 5. Results of analysis concerning unit cumulative CO2 emission of net electricity production.

Fig. 6. The unit cumulative CO2 emission of net electricity production as a function of the share of biomass in fuel mixture for the oxy-fuel combustion cases.

coal and biomass but also its source and the detailed preparation
process.
In the analysed scenarios the input data concerning the TEC and
CCEM where take from Ref. [15] as the average values concerning
the biomass acquisition. The reference distance of biomass trans-
port was around 150 km, but as mentioned by the Author [15] the
biomass become a global product, thus the sensitive analysis con-
cerning the impact of transport distance on the TEC or CCEM of net
electricity production can be made only for the analysis of specific
location of the power plant.
In the reference scenario both bottom ash and fly ash where
burdened with the additional exergy consumption and CO2
 P. Gładysz, A. Zie˛ bik / Biomass and Bioenergy 85 (2016) 109e118 117

Fig. 7. The net energy efficiency (LHV) and drop of the net energy efficiency for analysed cases.

production of cement. The appropriate input data have been taken

over from the literature [1] and EcoInvent database in order to
investigate the influence of ash treatment or utilization on the unit
thermoecological cost and unit cumulative CO2 emission of net
electricity production in the case of a coal fired oxy-fuel combus-
tion power plant.
In Fig. 9 the results of sensitivity analysis concerning the utili-
zation (or treatment) of coal ashes have been presented. It is clearly
presented that the higher the useful utilization of both coal ashes
the lower are the ecological indices. It results from both avoided
energy consumption and CO2 emission concerning the treatment
(in residual material landfill) but also from the replaced process in
economy (bottom ash - aggregate, fly ash - clinker).
Fig. 8. Results of sensitivity analysis concerning fuels (case OFC_COAL/BIO).

Fig. 9. Results of sensitivity analysis concerning bottom and fly ash utilization (case OFC_COAL).

emission resulting from the treatment of ashes in residual material 5. Conclusions

landfill. Although it should be mentioned that both of those by-
products can be usefully utilized in the economy of the given The mathematical models of calculating the thermoecological
country. The most common application of bottom ash is to be used cost and cumulative CO2 emission of the main products, particu-
as aggregate. For the fly ash the most favourable is to use in the larly net electricity production have been elaborated. Both of them
118 P. Gładysz, A. Zie˛ bik / Biomass and Bioenergy 85 (2016) 109e118
are based on the “inputeoutput” mathematical model of direct
energy and material consumption and allow to calculate the
ecological impact of an integrated oxy-fuel combustion power
plant with CO2 transport and storage as well as the reference power
plants (without CCS). Thermoecological costs is a measure of
depletion of non-renewable natural resources and cumulative CO2
emission indicates imminence of climate changes.
The values obtained for the non-CCS coal-fired case are lower
than those quoted in literature (3.42 MJex/MJel) [20]. It is due to the
higher net efficiency of the analyzed power plant than the average
value in Poland. The introduction of the OFC technology caused an
increase of the TEC by 38%, resulting in a higher value of TEC of net
electricity production than the value concerning Poland. But still
the obtained values for the oxy-fuel combustion technology are
lower than those found in the literature when post-combustion
technology is applied (4.39 MJex/MJel) [20]. The aim of intro-
ducing the OFC technology is to reduce the CO2 emission. If the coal
fired case is concerns the cumulative CO2 emission was reduced by
over 10 times. So on one hand we have a drastic reduction of CO2
emission (over 90%) and on the other hand more intensive deple-
tion of non-renewable natural resources (almost 40%).
The dedicated biomass fired non-CCS power plants proves a
much lower impact on the depletion of non-renewable natural
resources, but even with 100% share of biomass in fuel mixture, the
cumulative CO2 emission charging the net electricity production is
above zero. It results from the preceding processes of biomass
acquiring, transport and processing, as well as other external sup-
plies like raw water or limestone. When biomass is co-fired in an
integrated OFC power plant, the value of the thermoecological cost
of net electricity production drops compared to the coal fired OFC
power plant. But it is still higher than the value for a non-CCS case.
It clearly shows that the application of biomass co-firing with the
CCS technologies leads to a lower impact on the depletion of non-
renewable natural resources, and with the assumed share of
biomass in the fuel mixture (30 wt.%) bio-CCS may lead to a
“negative” CO2 emission, which proves that the biomass co-firing is
favourable from the sustainable development point of view. A
linear approximation between the cumulative CO2 emission of net
electricity production concerning the coal and biomass co-fired
OFC power plants, the estimated share of biomass in the fuel
mixture when the “neutral CO2 emission” status is achieved
amounts to about 20 wt.%. When the dedicated biomass fired OFC
power plant is concerned the cumulative CO2 emission
is 0.272 kgCO2/MJel which might help to compensate the unful-
filled coals of CO2 reduction in other industrial sectors.
Acknowledgement
This scientific work was supported by the National Centre for
Research and Development, within the confines of Research and
Development Strategic Program “Advanced Technologies for En-
ergy Generation” project no. 2 “Oxy-combustion technology for PC
and FBC boilers with CO2 capture”. Agreement no. SP/E/2/66420/10.
The support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] P. Gładysz, System Analysis of an Integrated Oxy-fuel Combustion Power Plant
(In Polish), Gliwice: PhD thesis, 2015.
[2] J. Lasek, M. Janusz, J. Zuwała, K. Gło
d, A. Iluk, Oxy-fuel combustion of selected
solid fuels under atmospheric and elevated pressures, Energy 62 (2013)
105e112.
[3] J. Gibbins, H. Chalmers, Is all CCS equal? classifying CCS applications by their
potential climate benefit, Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 5715e5720.
[4] F. Al-Mansour, J. Zuwała, An evaluation of biomass co-firing in Europe,
Biomass Bioenergy 34 (2010) 620e629.
[5] J. Zuwała, M. Scia
˛ zko,
_ Fullescale co-firing trial tests of sawdust and bio-waste
in pulverized coalefired 230 t/h steam boiler, Biomass Bioenerg. 34 (2010)
1165e1174.
[6] M. Matuszewski, et al., Greenhouse Gas Reductions in the Power Industry
Using Domestic Coal and Biomass e Volume 2: Pulverized Coal Plants (DOE/
NETL-2012/1547). National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Report, 2012.
[7] European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants,
Biomass with CO2 Capture and Storage (Bio-CCS). The Way Forward for
Europe. Report, 2012.
[8] Internation Energy Agency, Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Potential for
Biomass and Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage 2001/06. Report, 2011.
[9] The Climate Institute, Global CCS Institute. Moving below Zero: Understand-
ing Bioenergy with Carbon Capture & Storage. Report, 2014.
[10] P. Viebahn, D. Vallentin, S. Holler, Integrated assessment of carbon capture
and storage (CCS) in the German power sector and comparison with the
deployment of renewable energies, Appl. Energy 97 (2012) 238e248.
[11] A. Zie˛ bik, P. Gładysz, System approach to the energy analysis of an integrated
oxy-fuel combustion power plant, Rynek Energii 101 (4) (2012) 137e146.
[12] P. Gładysz, A. Zie˛ bik, Life cycle assessment of an integrated oxy-fuel com-
bustion power plant with CO2 capture, transport and storage, in: Procedding
of the 1st South East European Conference on Sustainable Development of
Energy, Water and Environment Systems, 2014, pp. 6401e6421.
[13] A. Zie˛ bik, P. Gładysz, Thermoecological analysis of an oxy-fuel combustion
power plant integrated with a CO2 processing unit, Energy 88 (2015) 37e45.

˛ zko,
[14] A. Zie˛ bik, J. Zuwała, M. Scia _ Energy and ecological effectiveness of biomass
co-firing in CHP plants, Archives Thermodyn. 30 (2) (2014) 29e44.
[15] J. Zuwała, Evaluation of Energy and Ecological Effects of Fossile Fuels and
Biomass Co-firing in Cogeneration Technologies (In Polish). Reports of Central
Mining Institute, No. 889, 2013.
[16] M.A. Elsayed, R. Matthews, N.D. Mortiner, Carbon and Energy Balance for a
Range of Biofuel Options. Report DTI No B/B6/00784/REP URN03/836, Re-
sources Research Unit Sheffield Hallam University, 2003. Crown Copyright.
[17] W. Stanek, Methodology of Evaluation of Ecological Effects in Thermal Pro-
cesses with the Application of Exergy Analysis (In Polish), Wydawnictwo
Politechniki Sla
˛ skiej, Gliwice, 2008.
[18] J. Szargut, A. Zie˛ bik, Fundamentals of Thermal Engineering (In Polish), WNT,
Warsaw, 2000.
[19] J. Zuwała, Life cycle approach for energy and environmental analysis of
biomass and coal co-firing in CHP plant with backpressure turbine, J. Clean.
Prod. 35 (2012) 164e175.
[20] W. Stanek, L. Czarnowska, Environmental externalities and its influence on
the thermo-ecological cost, Int. J. Sustain. Water Environ. Syst. 4 (1) (2012)
51e58.
[21] L. Czarnowska, W. Stanek, K. Pikon
, J. Nadziakiewicz, Environmental quality
evaluation of hard coal using LCA and exergo-ecological cost methodology,
Chem. Eng. Trans. 42 (2014) 139e144.
[22] W. Piekarczyk, L. Czarnowska, K. Ptasin
ski, W. Stanek, Thermodynamic eval-
uation of biomass-to-biofuels production, Energy 62 (2013) 95e104.
[23] W. Stanek, Examples of application of exergy analysis for the evaluation of
ecological effects in thermal processes, Int. J. Thermodyn. 15 (1) (2012)
11e16.
[24] J. Szargut, W. Stanek, Fuel part and mineral part of the thermoecological cost,
Int. J. Thermodyn. 15 (4) (2012) 187e190.
[25] J. Szargut, A. Zie˛ bik, W. Stanek, Depletion of the non-renewable natural exergy
resources as a measure of the ecological cost, Energy Convers. Manag. 43
(2002) 1149e1163.