International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 12 (2013) 502–509

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc

CO2 capture in natural gas combined cycle with SEWGS. Part B: Economic
assessment
Giampaolo Manzolini ∗ , Ennio Macchi, Matteo Gazzani
Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Energia, Via Lambruschini 4, 20156 Milano, Italy

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

Article history: This two part-paper investigates the adoption of an innovative CO2 capture concept named SEWGS (sorp-
Received 3 January 2012 tion enhanced water gas shift) in natural gas combined cycle. In Part A, SEWGS working conditions were
Received in revised form 25 June 2012 optimized in terms of carbon capture ratio as well as CO2 purity and two different sorbent performances
Accepted 29 June 2012
were analyzed. Part B presents the economic assessment of investigated SEWGS cases together with
Available online 28 July 2012
three reference cases selected for electricity production: without carbon capture, with post-combustion
carbon capture by MEA and with pre-combustion carbon capture by MDEA. Results shows that with ref-
Keywords:
erence sorbent performances the calculated cost of CO2 avoided is about 58 D/tCO2 , which is lower than
CAESAR
SEWGS
reference MDEA (64 D/tCO2 ) but higher than MEA (48.5 D/tCO2 ). The adoption of a sorbent with improved
MDEA performances brings down the cost of CO2 avoided down to 49 D/tCO2 , which is comparable to post com-
Pre-combustion capture bustion technology. This is a consequence of reforming sections costs which penalizes pre-combustion
Natural gas combined cycles technologies: specific investment costs for SEWGS cases are 15% higher than MEA. Finally, as far as SEWGS
Cost of electricity working conditions are concerned, the optimal CO2 capture rate depends on the sorbent cyclic capacity
Cost of CO2 avoided ranging from 90% to 95%, while the selected CO2 purity is 99%. This activity was carried out under the
FP7 project CAESAR financed by the EU community.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction technology competitive in natural gas applications or if Sorbent Alfa

In this paper, the economic assessment of SEWGS (sorption
enhanced water gas shift) as an innovative technology for CO2 cap-
ture, will be addressed. The SEWGS technology was investigated
within CAESAR project (CAESAR, 2010). Thermodynamic perfor-
mances discussed in Part A of this work showed the potential of
SEWGS to reduce the Specific Primary Energy Consumption for
CO2 avoided (SPECCA) compared to reference technologies with
CO2 capture (the power balances and CO2 avoidance of investi-
gated cases will be summarized in the next sections). In particular,
two different types of sorbent were investigated: Sorbent Alfa
and Sorbent Beta. Sorbent Beta has an adsorption capacity about
60% higher than the adsorption capacity of the Sorbent Alfa, (at
2.7 bara CO2 partial pressure). However, no long run tests or multi-
column experiment have been carried out for Sorbent Beta, yet,
while Sorbent Alfa demonstrated its reliability and mechanical
strength during an endurance test. For these reasons, economic
assessment of both solutions will be investigated in order to ver-
ify if Sorbent Beta performances are required to make the SEWGS
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 02 2399 3810; fax: +39 02 2399 3913.
E-mail address: giampaolo.manzolini@polimi.it (G. Manzolini).
is sufficient.
The economic performances will be compared to conventional
natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) and reference technologies with
CO2 capture: pre-combustion technology with MDEA and post-
combustion technology via amine scrubbing.
As a comparison, recent studies indicated that the cost of
CO2 avoided with amine scrubbing technology is in the range of
50–70 D/tCO2 (GCCSI, 2011; Finkenrath, 2011; European Benchmark
Task force, 2011; Valenti et al., in press), while there are less ref-
erences for pre-combustion technology. As a term of comparison
the cost of CO2 avoided for renewable technologies such as wind
and solar are in the range of 80–250 D/tCO2 (Financing Renewable
Energy in the European Energy Market, 2010).
2. Economic assessment methodology
The template for the economic assessment methodology is the
EBTF work which deals with the reference power plants with and
without carbon capture (Franco et al., 2010, 2011). Transport and
storage costs are not taken into account in this analysis since they
do not depend on the capture technique. For the considered plant
sizes, that are relatively large (the flow rates of captured CO2 are
about 250 t/h),reference costs for transport and storage are in the
range of 1–4 $/tCO2 and 6–13 $/tCO2 , respectively. The variation

1750-5836/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.06.021
 G. Manzolini et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 12 (2013) 502–509 503

2.1. Total plant costs assessment

Nomenclature and acronyms
Total plant costs are calculated with the so-called bottom-up
ATR autothermal reformer approach (BUA) which consists of breaking down the power plant
CAESAR carbon-free electricity by SEWGS: advanced mate- into basic components or equipment, and adding installation and
rials, reactor and process design indirect costs. This approach is a general one since it can be applied
CCR CO2 capture ratio to any power plant but requires a reference equipment cost for
COE cost of electricity [D/MWh] each considered item. The reference can come from the supplier,
COT combustor outlet temperature [◦ C] literature or can be calculated through dedicated tools.
EBTF European benchmarking task force The first step consists of calculating the total direct plant costs
EPC engineering, procurement and construction cost (TDPC) which are the sum of the bare equipment costs and the
GHR gas heated reformer corresponding installation costs such as piping, erection, and out-
GT gas turbine side battery limits. TDPC plus the indirect costs (IC), calculated as
HRSG heat recovery steam generator a percentage of the direct plant costs, leads to engineering, pro-
HTS/LTS high temperature shift/low temperature shift curement and construction costs (EPC). Finally, the total plant cost
MDEA N-methyldiethanolamine (TPC), which results from EPCplus owner’s cost and contingencies,
MEA monoethanolamine is calculated.
NG natural gas The individual installation costs are calculated as a percentage
NGCC natural gas combined cycle of the corresponding equipment one. A rigorous methodology usu-
O&M operation and maintenance ally implies the adoption of dedicated coefficients for each item
SEWGS sorption enhanced water gas shift and plant component. However, this approach would require many
SPECCA specific primary energy consumption for CO2 arbitrary assumptions and could cause misleading results when
avoided [MJLHV /kgCO2 ] applied to different, unconventional power plants. For this reason,
TDPC total direct plant cost only two coefficients for installation costs are applied depending on
TEC total equipment cost plant component: CO2 capture section/hydrogen island and power
TIT turbine inlet temperature (total temperature ahead section. This is because the formers are more similar to chemi-
of the first rotor) [◦ C] cal plants requiring higher installation costs, while power section
TITiso turbine inlet temperature (defined according to ISO installation costs are typical of NGCC and equal to 68% of the TDPC.
standard) [◦ C] This number is calculated as a weighted average from coefficients
TOT turbine outlet temperature [◦ C] adopted in (DOE-NETL, 2007). For installation costs in CO2 capture
TOP turbine outlet pressure [bar] section/hydrogen islands, they are increased and assumed equal to
WGS water gas shift reactor 80% of the TDPC.
 Efficiency [%] Total plant costs aggregate and other coefficient adopted are
shown in Table 1.
Subscripts
For each component/subsystem, a scaling parameter was
El electrical
selected and the actual erected cost C was derived from the cost
REF reference
C0 of a reference component of size S0 by the relationship:
 S f
C = nC0 (1)
(nS0 )
depends on power plant distance from the storage site and the where S is the actual size and f is the scale factor. The coefficient n
considered storage site (GCCSI, 2011). refers to the number of components for the base case.
The economic analysis is carried out according to the method- The conversion factor (D/US$) adopted for values originally
ology agreed within EBTF. The cost of electricity (COE) is calculated given in US$ was 1.25 and currency refers to 2008 value. The power
using IEA models by setting the net present value (NPV) of the plant cost index according to IHS CERA Power capital cost (recom-
power plant to zero (IEA, 2000, 2004). This can be achieved by vary- mended by Gas Turbine World for power plant cost assessment)
ing the plant COE until the revenues balance the cost over the whole was used to adapt the costs to 2008 figures (Cambridge Energy
life time of the power plant. Research Associaters, 2010).
An economic analysis will be also presented for two reference
cases with capture and one case without capture already discussed 2.2. O&M and consumable costs
in a previous work (Manzolini et al., 2011). Reference NGCC is
based on two gas turbines with two heat recovery steam gener- Cost assumptions about fuel, operation and maintenance (O&M)
ator and one steam turbine. For CO2 capture, conventional amine and consumables are summarized in Table 2.
scrubbing technology is assumed. An additional reference case with Labor costs refer to an average European rate. Capture case
pre-combustion CO2 capture is presented, since it has the same requires more employees because of the higher plant complex-
capture route of SEWGS. ity. For maintenance and insurance costs, they are taken from IEA
The required investment including fixed and variable O&M costs (2000, 2004).
are derived from various references: most of the data are taken from
EBTF work (Franco et al., 2010, 2011) and they are consistent with 3. Equipment cost database
the reference cases. Components which are not part of the EBTF
assessment (e.g. SEWGS) are taken from literature or calculated by The specific gas turbine equipment cost for the NGCC reference
dedicated software (ThermoFlowTM ; AspenTM ). plant is calculated as an average of PG9351 (FA) and SGT5-4000F
Pre-combustion technology cases have fewer references, mainly models price per kW given in Gas Turbine World Handbook (Gas
because of higher uncertainties in component costs (e.g. reform- Turbine World Handbook, 2010). For the scale up factor, consider-
ing section that will be deeply investigated in a dedicated ing the assumption of constant mass flow rate exhaust gases, all
section). the gas turbines investigated in this work have the same size; the
504 G. Manzolini et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 12 (2013) 502–509

Table 1
Total plant costs assessment methodology.

only difference is related to the generator power output. For this GT, eight trains are necessary for the Sorbent Alfa, while it can be
reason, a relatively low scale factor of 0.3 is assumed. Costs related reduced to six for Sorbent Beta (a detailed description of these sor-
to combustor modifications required by syngas compositions are bents and explanation on the number of vessel are given in Part A
neglected. of this work).
Most of the other data used for power section total investment For the air compressor, a conservative specific cost of an axial
cost calculation are derived from results presented by DOE (2007), air compressor was assumed even if, considering the low pressure
recently updated adopting a cost index variation and are consis- ratio and volumetric flow, it would probably be a radial type, and
tent with EBTF public report on economic assessment (Franco et al., consequently less expensive.
2011). The equipment costs database is summarized in Table 3. The expander specific cost was set equal to the steam turbine,
Estimated cost of a SEWGS train, which is composed of 9 ves- because of the similar working conditions in terms of pressure and
sels, is 8.7 MD based on previous studies carried out in CCP (Project, temperature.
Carbon Capture, 2010). For the adopted configuration with two
3.1. GHR–ATR cost assessment
Table 2
O&M and consumable costs.
For the GHR–ATR cost, in open literature the few references are
also scattered (see Table 4).
Natural gas costs D/GJLHV 6.5 In addition to wide variability, it was difficult to understand
O&M
Labor costs, no capture case MD 6
what cost included (e.g. installation or indirect cost). For this rea-
Labor costs, capture case MD 9 son, it was decided to calculate the GHR–ATR cost as the sum of
Maintenance costs % of total plant cost 2.5 the two separate components: ATR and GHR. For the ATR, costs are
Insurance % of total plant cost 2 taken from the CACHET project, while GHR is determined starting
Consumables
from a conventional external fired reformer and scaling down for
Evaporative tower blow-off % of evaporated water 100
Cooling water make-up costs D/m3 0.35 the reaction heat duty. It must be outlined that this is a conser-
HRSG water blow-off % of steam produced 1 vative assumption, because a conventional fired tubular reformer
Process water costs D/m3 2 works with hot gases at significantly higher temperature than this
MEA make-up (Franco et al., 2011) kgMEA /tCO2 1.5 case (i.e. 1250 ◦ C vs. 950 ◦ C). The maximum size of the GHR–ATR,
MEA make-up costs (Franco et al., 2011) D/tMEA 1042
Catalyst and sorbent replacement
according to references is 1500 MWth (INC, Fluor Daniel, 2000),
Reforming catalyst lifetime Years 5 thus it can be assumed that one reactor will feed two gas turbines.
Reforming catalyst cost kD/m3 50 Resulting costs are summarized in Table 5 (cases considered refer
Water gas shift lifetime Years 5 to Part A of this work and performances are summarized in the cost
Water gas shift cost kD/m3 14
of electricity section).
 G. Manzolini et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 12 (2013) 502–509 505

Table 3
Equipment costs for main components.

Plant component Scaling parameter Reference erected Reference size, S0 Scale factor, f N
cost, C0 (MD)

Gas turbine, generator and auxiliaries GTNet power [MW] 49.4 272.12 0.3 2
(DOE-NETL, 2007; Gas Turbine World
Handbook, 2010)
HRSG, ducting and stack (DOE-NETL, 2007; Gas U * S [MW/K] 32.6 12.9 0.67 2
Turbine World Handbook, 2010)
Steam turbine, generator and auxiliaries STGross power [MW] 33.7 200.0 0.67 1
(DOE-NETL, 2007; Gas Turbine World
Handbook, 2010)
Cooling water system and BOP (DOE-NETL, Q rejected [MW] 49.6 470.0 0.67 1
2007)
MEA CO2 separation system (Project Carbon CO2 captured [kg/s] 29.0 38.4 0.8a 2
Capture, 2010)
MDEA CO2 separation system CO2 captured [kg/s] 68.2 46.14 0.8 2
CO2 compressor and condenser (Project Compressor power [MW] 9.9 13.0 0.67 1
Carbon Capture, 2010)
Desulfurization process Thermal input LHV [MW] 0.66 413.82 0.67 4
Gas heated reformer–auto thermal reformer Thermal input LHV [MW] See below
(GHR–ATR)
Waste heat boiler Heat transferred [MW] 1.8 57.2 0.9 2
High temperature shift + low temperature shift Thermal power input LHV [MW] 3.71 815.2 0.67 2
(HTS + LTS)
High temperature shift (HTS) Thermal power input LHV [MW] 3.33 827.6 0.67 2
Sorption enhanced water gas shift (SEWGS) No. of trains 8.74 1 1 -
Air blower (DOE-NETL, 2007; Gas Turbine Compressor power [MW] 14.77 47.61 0.67 1
World Handbook, 2010)
Expander (DOE-NETL, 2007) Expander power [MW] 33.7 200 0.67 2
a
The adoption of two GT and two HRSG requires two separated carbon capture system, one for each HRSG.

Table 4
Installed cost database for reforming sections.

Type Source Year Scaling parameter Size Cost 2008 [MD] f Update specific cost
2008 [D/kW]

ATR Cachet 2009 MWth LHV 413.82 13.94 0.44 33.7

ATR Tijmensen (Tijmensen et al., 2002) 2001 MWth LHV 400.0 47.75 0.7 119.4
Steam reformer Manzolini (Manzolini et al., 2006) 2006 MWth LHV 360.7 56.63 0.75 156.9
GHR–ATR Fluor (INC, Fluor Daniel, CO2 capture via partial 2000 MWth LHV 1537.0 106.5 0.67 69.3
oxidation of natural gas, IEA, 2000)
GHR–ATR van Vliet (van Vliet et al., 2009) 2009 MWth LHV 400.0 48.0 0.7 120.0
ATR Kreutz (Kreutz, 2007) 2007 m3 /s 5.337 23.56 0.67 11.7

The resulting total capital requirement and specific cost is sum- In SEWGS cases, TEC increases about 80% compared to NGCC,
marized in Table 6. Component size presented in Part A of the paper half of which depends on SEWGS process costs. This assessment
is summarized in the next section. shows that SEWGS equipment cost in NG applications looks as
Specific investment costs for capture plant are significantly expensive as amine scrubbing, thus reducing advantages of this
higher than reference NGCC without capture. In particular, they technology from an investment point of view.
range from 54% of MEA and 100% of MDEA; SEWGS cases are Finally, the adoption of CO2 -steam expansion accounts for
between these two figures. Higher investment costs of MEA than 20 MD plus 5 MD for a larger CO2 compressor. Cost of Electricity
NGCC are mainly due to CO2 capture island (80%) and to CO2 com- will indicate if these additional costs are more than balanced by
pressor (20%). It must be outlined that assumed cost for MEA, taken the higher efficiency and consequently fuel cost savings.
from EBTF work, seems to be on the optimistic side compared to
other references (e.g. another EU project named DEMOYS indicated
a specific investment cost of 1100 D/kW compared to 979 D/kW 4. Cost of electricity and CO2 avoided calculation
given here). Most of the MDEA reference case additional costs are
due to the capture section which accounts for 28% of the total plant As anticipated, the aim of the economic assessment is to make
cost. an estimation of the final cost of electricity (COE).
The time required for power plant construction, also for carbon
capture cases, is assumed to be 3 years (with payment distributed
Table 5 40% in the first year, and the remaining evenly distributed in the
GHR–ATR costs assumed for the considered cases. second and third years).
Plant component MDEA capture SEWGS Case 2 The main economic assumptions are reported in Table 7.
(Manzolini et al., 2011) The assumed operating hours per annum are typical of early
GHR size [reaction duty, MWth] 72.3 61.7
2000, where large scale fossil fuel power plant worked predom-
ATR size [thermal input, MWth] 1506.4 1428.5 inantly at base load, with hydro-power and small scale plants
GHR cost [MD] 10.0 8.9 as peak-load. Recently, because of the increasing penetration of
ATR cost [MD] 29.0 27.9 non-dispatchable renewable energy generation, this value has sig-
Overall GHR–ATR cost [MD] 39.1 36.9
nificantly decreased. However, it is difficult to predict what the
506 G. Manzolini et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 12 (2013) 502–509

Table 6
Total capital requirement (MD) calculation.

NGCC reference NGCC MEA NGCC MDEA SEWGS Case 1 SEWGS Case 2 SEWGS Case 3 SEWGS Case 4 SEWGS Case 5

Cost [MD]
Desulfurizer – 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
GHR–ATR/ATR – – 29.3 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7
WGS HTS + LTS – – 11.2 – – – – –
HTS – – – 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4
MEA – 56.7 – – – – – –
MDEA – – 132.2 – – – – –
SEWGS – – – 69.6 69.6 69.6 69.6 69.6
Gas turbine 98.8 98.8 101.2 99.3 99.1 99.0 99.4 99.2
HRSG 45.7 44.8 59.7 51.4 51.6 52.8 51.5 52.1
Steam turbine 43.2 35.1 44.2 39.9 38.2 36.0 39.5 37.8
Heat rejection 49.4 54.9 55.1 54.8 52.8 55.4 54.8 55.1
CO2 compressor – 14.4 17.0 22.1 22.8 23.3 22.0 22.8
Air blower – – 7.9 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
CO2 + steam exp. – – – 16.7 19.4 22.5 17.0 19.7
Heat exchangers 0.3 0.3 6.0 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.9 5.9
BOP 0.1 0.1 4.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8
TEC [MD] 237.5 307.4 468.3 404.1 406.3 409.0 404.6 407.0
TIC [MD] 161.5 217.8 342.5 292.9 294.9 297.1 293.3 295.3
TDPC [MD] 399.0 525.2 810.7 697.0 701.2 706.2 697.8 702.3
Indirect cost [MD] 55.9 73.5 113.5 97.6 98.1 98.9 97.7 98.3
EPC [MD] 454.9 598.7 924.2 794.6 799.4 805.0 795.5 800.6
C&OC [MD] 68.2 89.8 138.6 119.2 119.9 120.8 119.3 120.1
Total plant cost [MD] 523.1 688.5 1062.9 913.8 919.3 925.8 914.9 920.7
Net power output [MW] 829.9 709.92 830.0 795.41 786.99 779.20 795.47 786.9
Specific costs [D/kW] 630.4 969.9 1280.6 1148.7 1168.1 1188.1 1150.1 1170.1

Table 7 CO2 avoided is achieved for Case 2 and Case 5 which have a CO2
Main economic assumptions (Franco et al., 2011).
avoidance of about 90% (95% CCR of SEWGS). The reason is that
Discount rate, % 8 Case 3, which has a higher CO2 avoidance, is penalized by system
First year operating hours, h 5700 efficiency (a higher energy is required to regenerate the sorbent)
Rest of lifetime operating hours, h 7500
which is not balance by the lower emissions. While Case 1 and Case
Operating lifetime, years 25
Construction time, years 3
4 have a lower CO2 avoidance which is penalized by investment
costs: the SEWGS system cost is not influenced by CCR, so its specific
costs for CO2 captured is higher. Since the difference in terms of CO2
future will be and if power plant with CO2 capture will be assimi- avoided between Case 2 and Case 5 is negligible (0.2 D/tCO2 ), Case
lated to green-energy sources or not.1 5 that has the CO2 purity of 99% is the preferred option reducing
The estimated COE and cost of CO2 avoided for investigated transport and storage costs.
cases is summarized in Table 8 where cost of CO2 avoided is defined Compared to NGCC with MDEA, SEWGS cases have a lower
as: investment, fixed operating and fuel cost thanks to the higher
efficiency; only consumables costs, which are mainly related to
(COE)CO2 cap − (COE)Ref
Cost of CO2 avoided = sorbent replacement, are higher than MDEA. The resulting cost
(CO2 kWh−1 )Ref − (CO2 kWh−1 )CO2 cap of CO2 avoided is about 59 D/tCO2 , which is about 7% lower than
MDEA. Compared to MEA, SEWGS higher efficiency cannot balance
where Ref is the power plant without carbon capture and CO2 cap
the penalties arising from higher investment costs rising the CO2
is the plant with carbon capture. Calculated cost of electricity for
avoidance costs by12 D/tCO2 .
SEWGS and reference cases are summarized in Table 8.
One of the optimization parameters investigated in Part A was
The resulting levelized cost of electricity for NGCC without CO2
the CO2 -steam expander outlet pressure. This analysis is here pro-
capture is 54.10 D/MWh. As shown in Table 8, most of LCOE depends
posed in terms of COE and cost of CO2 avoided (see Fig. 1) showing
on fuel costs (as typical of NG based power plants), while the sum
that the optimal condition occurs for 0.15 bara which coincides
of fixed and variable costs accounts for less than 10%. In CO2 cap-
with the thermodynamic assessment. Additional investment costs
ture case, LCOE increases by 15–20 D/MWh as a consequence of the
are balanced by the higher efficiency and consequently lower fuel
higher investment costs and lower efficiency which leads to higher
costs.
specific fuel consumption. The calculated cost of CO2 avoided for
To summarize, the assessment of SEWGS in NGCC showed that
MEA and MDEA cases are 48.5 D/tCO2 and 63.8 D/tCO2 respectively.
Sorbent Alfa performances has a lower cost of CO2 avoided than
The cost of CO2 avoided for the MEA case is lower than similar stud-
MDEA which belongs to the same capture route. However, Sorbent
ies in the literature (GCCSI, 2011; Finkenrath, 2011; Valenti et al.,
Alfa performances are not competitive with the amine scrubbing
in press), however it can represent amine scrubbing with advanced
technology; higher efficiency of SEWGS configuration is not enough
solution.
to balance 20% additional investment costs.
Among all investigated SEWGS cases, COE is almost constant
For this reason, SEWGS economic assessment was also per-
and higher than reference NGCC of about 33%. The lowest cost of
formed assuming Sorbent Beta which has an improved capacity of
62% more than Sorbent Alfa (at 2.7 bara CO2 partial pressure). First,
the same cases as Sorbent Alfa will be presented to evaluate the
1
Plants with CO2 capture have limited emissions and reduced impact on the impact of thermodynamic advantages on COE (number of vessels
environment; for this reason, they are closer to renewable energy rather than con-
equal to 72 and CO2 purity 99%). Considering the higher capac-
ventional fossil fuel power stations. However, at present time, no plant has ever
been built and there is no directive and/or law on this subject. ity, the overall steam usage is reduced by about 80%, thus optimal
 G. Manzolini et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 12 (2013) 502–509 507

Table 8
Cost of electricity and cost of CO2 avoided for SEWGS and reference cases.

Plant component NGCC reference NGCC MEA NGCC MDEA SEWGS SEWGS SEWGS SEWGS SEWGS
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

SEWGS CCR/CO2 purity – – – 90/98 95/98 98/98 90/99 95/99

Net power output [MW] 829.9 709.7 830.0 795.4 787.0 779.2 795.5 791.3
Thermal power inputLHV [MW] 1422.6 1422.6 1651.0 1555.3 1551.9 1550.1 1555.5 1552.1
Net electric efficiency (LHV base) [%] 58.34 49.90 50.30 51.14 50.72 50.27 51.14 50.70
CO2 avoided [%] – 88.3 91.5 85.7 91.1 94.3 85.7 91.1
SPECCA [MJLHV /kgCO2 ] – 3.36 3.07 2.88 2.90 2.99 2.88 2.90
Investment cost [D/MWh] 9.55 15.59 19. 89 17.68 18.05 18.42 17.70 18.08
Fixed O&M costs [D/MWh] 3.85 5.24 7.31 6.49 6.52 6.55 6.49 6.52
Consumables [D/MWh] 0.59 1.43 1.39 2.08 2.11 2.14 2.08 2.11
Fuel costs [D/MWh] 40.11 46.89 46.55 45.76 46.14 46.55 45.76 46.16
COE [D/MWh] 54.10 69.10 74.63 72.01 72.82 73.66 72.03 72.87
Cost of CO2 avoided [D/tCO2 ] N/A 48.5 63.8 59.4 58.4 59.0 59.5 58.6

Table 9
Comparison between different SEWGS numbers with Sorbent Beta in terms of cost of electricity and cost of CO2 avoided.

No. of vessels 72 54

CCR/CO2 purity 90/99 95/99 98/99 90/99 95/99 98/99

Net power output [MW] 800.0 793.6 790.1 805.3 797.9 790.2
Net electric efficiency [%] 51.58 51.27 51.05 51.93 51.55 51.06
CO2 avoided [%] 86.2 91.4 94.6 85.7 91.1 94.6
SEWGS costs [MD] 69.6 69.6 69.6 52.2 52.2 52.2
Total equipment costs [MD] 395.9 396.8 397.8 378.4 379.4 382.2
Total plant costs [MD] 895.2 895.5 897.8 852.8 855.4 861.9
Specific investment costs [D/kW] 1119.0 1128.3 1136.4 1058.9 1072.0 1090.8
Investment cost [D/MWh] 17.17 17.40 17.56 16.23 16.49 16.84
Fixed O&M costs [D/MWh] 6.38 6.39 6.40 6.15 6.16 6.20
Consumables [D/MWh] 2.07 2.09 2.10 1.79 1.81 1.84
Fuel costs [D/MWh] 45.36 45.64 45.84 45.06 45.39 45.83
COE [D/MWh] 70.98 71.52 71.90 69.23 69.85 70.70
Cost of CO2 avoided [D/tCO2 ] 55.7 54.2 53.5 49.9 49.0 49.9

expander outlet pressure increases from 0.15 bara to 0.3 bara. The
calculated results, summarized in Fig. 2 and Table 9, show that the
improved capacity of the sorbent can reduce COE and the cost of
CO2 avoided by 1 D/MWh and 5 D/tCO2 , respectively. These costs are
determined keeping the same SEWGS vessel number of Sorbent Alfa
case, and consequently equipment costs, hence they are only due
to the higher efficiency (about 1% points).
Lower specific investment costs result mainly from higher
efficiency, but also on lower cost of the CO2 compressor and CO2 -
expander as a consequence of the reduced steam flow-rate and
higher pressure at expander outlet and consequently at compressor
inlet.
Focusing on the cost of CO2 avoided, Sorbent Beta shows the
lowest value for 98% CCR in SEWGS; for Sorbent Alfa, the optimum
occurred at 95%.
A lower number of SEWGS trains (6 vs. 8) was also investigated
to determine investment cost reduction on COE. The adoption of
a higher capacity allows investigating fewer number of vessels, 6
trains instead of 8, which means 54 vessels vs. 72 with advantages
both in terms of efficiency (see Part A), and investment costs.
Results, summarized in Table 9, show that a reduced number of
vessels allows to achieve a CO2 avoidance costs of 49 D/tCO2 with
95% CCR; this result is very similar to MEA case. Main advantages
of 54 vessels compare to 72 vessels case are in terms of investment
and consumables cost; these two costs only depend on the SEWGS
volume. Another consideration is that the optimum CCR is not 98%
as in cases with 72 vessels, but occurs at 95%. This is because the
number of vessel reduction requires an exponential increase of
the steam to regenerate the sorbent causing higher efficiency

Fig. 1. Cost of electricity and cost of CO2 avoided as a function of expander outlet Fig. 2. Comparison between Sorbent Alfa and Sorbent Beta in terms of cost of elec-
pressure for Sorbent Alfa with CCR 95% and CO2 purity 99%. tricity and cost of CO2 avoided (CO2 purity 99%) with 72 vessels.
508 G. Manzolini et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 12 (2013) 502–509
Fig. 3. Cost of CO2 avoided for different fuel and SEWGS prices (SEWGS 95% CCR
and 54 vessels).
penalties. It can be noted that optimum CCR is not easily
predictable, since it depends on several parameters.
From these results, it can be deduced that SEWGS technology
can be competitive vs. MEA only if Sorbent Beta demonstrates its
reliability, performances and mechanical stability in long run tests.
Finally, a sensitivity analysis on fuel and SEWGS costs is shown
in Fig. 3 together with reference MEA. A reduction of SEWGS costs
of 50% leads to a lower cost of CO2 avoided by “only” 5 D/tCO2 ,
which corresponds to a 10% reduction. This is because the impact of
SEWGS costs on total equipment costs, when 54 vessels configura-
tion is adopted, is less than 15%, while other components cost such
as GHR–ATR, and CO2 compressor, remain constant and account for
more than 20%. Therefore, the cost of SEWGS is not the critical part
of this application, but it is the overall cost of the pre-combustion
section.
A variation of fuel costs from 4 to 9 D/GJLHV increases the cost of
CO2 avoided about 12 D/tCO2 ; efficiency penalties are more signifi-
cant for high fuel costs.
For fuel costs of 7.5 D/GJLHV , SEWGS cost of CO2 avoided matches
MEA, since the efficiency becomes more important than investment
costs
Finally, the impact on COE and cost of CO2 avoided of finan-
cial support for CCS development from government/institution
is evaluated. In particular, the proposal of European Commu-
nity to finance 15% of the overall investment costs (European
Commission communication C, 2012) is considered. This support
reduces the COE from 70.7 D/MWh (SEWGS case with 54 vessels
and 95% CCR) to 67.5 D/MWh, which is still 13 D/MWh above the
reference NGCC without capture. The cost of CO2 avoided will
reduce to 41.5 D/tCO2 from 49.0 D/tCO2 . Actually, the financial sup-
port can help the CCS development, but it cannot balance additional
costs since the increase of COE is mostly related to higher fuel
costs.
5. Conclusions
The economic assessment of an innovative CO2 capture sys-
tem based on the SEWGS technology (sorption enhanced water gas
shift) was investigated and compared with a number of selected
reference cases. In particular, a post-combustion scheme based on
amine scrubbing and a pre-combustion lay-out with MDEA are
taken as reference: the first one is closer to commercialization,
while the second one is more similar to SEWGS schemes. Two
different SEWGS sorbents, named Sorbent Alfa and Sorbent Beta,
were compared together from an economic point of view in order
to determine whether the reference sorbent performances (Sor-
bent Alfa) are competitive with those of the reference cases or
an improvement is necessary. Results showed that SEWGS with
Sorbent Alfa has a significantly lower cost of CO2 avoided than
the reference pre-combustion technology MDEA (58.6 D/tCO2 vs.
63.8 D/tCO2 ), but it has 9 D/tCO2 higher costs compared to the post-
combustion technology. This is due to the fact that the increased
costs incurred in the pre-combustion systems cannot be balanced
by the higher efficiency figures of the SEWGS integration. More-
over, the system requires a reformer unit which negatively affects
the specific investments costs. The adoption of an improved sorbent
like Sorbent Beta brings the cost of CO2 avoided down to 49 D/tCO2 .
In connection with CO2 purity, results showed that there is a neg-
ligible impact from economic point of view, thus the higher CO2
purity is preferred to reduce transport and storage issues. The opti-
mal SEWGS CO2 capture ratio, depends on sorbent capacity, and
is 95% for Sorbent Beta. A sensitivity analysis showed that even by
reducing SEWGS investment costs of 50%, the resulting cost of CO2
avoided would decrease by only 5 D/tCO2 , since SEWGS costs share
is about 15% of the total investment costs. To summarize, SEWGS
has several advantages compared to reference cases which are:
(i) higher efficiency, (ii) lower CO2 emissions, (iii) lower SPECCA
and (iv) no environmental issues. From economic point of view,
the cost of CO2 avoided is comparable to amine scrubbing technol-
ogy although pre-combustion technologies have higher investment
costs. SEWGS may be the most cost-effective option in NGCC for fuel
prices higher than 7.5 D/GJLHV .
A future work will show that SEWGS has further advantages
when applied to coal base power plants.
Acknowledgement
The CAESAR project has received funding from the European
Community’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007–2013
under grant agreement no. 213206.
References
Aspentech website, 2011. http://www.aspentech.com/. Visited October.
CAESAR, 2010. D4.7 test cases and preliminary benchmarking results from the three
projects.
Cambridge Energy Research Associaters, 2010. http://www.cera.com/aspx/
cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=10429 June
(Online).
DOE-NETL, 2007. Cost and performance baselines for fossil energy plants, vol. 1.
2007-1281.
EPCCI website. http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/client/knowledgeArea/
serviceDescription.aspx?KID=229 (Online).
European Benchmark Task Force, 2011. European best practice guide for
assessment of CO2 capture technologies, volume. http://www.energia.
polimi.it/news/D%204 9%20best%20practice%20guide.pdf.
European Commission communication C, 2012. 3230 Final, Strasbourg 22.5.2012
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/energy/legislation en.html.
Financing Renewable Energy in the European Energy Market, 2010. Project Number
PECPNL084659, October.
Finkenrath, M., 2011. Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture for Power
Generation. International Energy Agency.
Franco F, Anantharaman R, Bolland O, Booth N, van Dorst E, Ekstrom C, Sanchez E,
Macchi E, Manzolini G, Prins M, Pfeffer A, Rezvani S, Robinson L, Zahra A.M., 2011.
http://caesar.ecn.nl/fileadmin/caesar/user/documents/D 4.9 best practice
guide.pdf.
Franco, F., Anantharaman, R., Bolland, O., Booth, N., van Dorst, E., Ekstrom, C.,
Sanchez, E., Macchi, E., Manzolini, G., Prins, M., Pfeffer, A., Rezvani, S., Robin-
son, L., Zahra, A.M., 2010. Common framework and test cases for transparent
and comparable techno-economic evaluations of CO2 capture technologies – the
work of the European Benchmarking Task Force. In: Proceedings of GHGT-10,
September 2010, Amsterdam. (NL).
Gas Turbine World Handbook, 2010. Southport 06890 USA: Pequot Publishing INC.,
2009–2010.
GCCSI, Global CCS Institute, 2011. http://cdn.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/
files/publications/22562/global-status-ccs-2011.pdf (accessed June 2011).
IEA, 2000. Leading options for the capture of CO2 emissions at power stations. IEA,
Februray. PH3/14.
IEA, 2004. Improvement in power generation with post-combustion capture of CO2 .
IEA, November. PH4/33.
INC, Fluor Daniel, 2000. CO2 capture via partial oxidation of natural gas. IEA. PH3/21.
Kreutz, T., 2007. Princeton University, personnal communication.
Manzolini, G., Dijkstra, J.W., Macchi, E., Jansen, D., 2006. Technical Economic Evalu-
ation of a system for electricity production with CO2 capture using a membrane
 G. Manzolini et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 12 (2013) 502–509
reformer with permeate side combustion. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo,
May 2006, Barcelona (Spain).
Manzolini, G., Macchi, E., Binotti, M., Gazzani, M., 2011. Integration of SEWGS for
carbon capture in natural gas combined cycle. Part B: reference case comparison.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (2), 214–225.
Project, Carbon Capture, 2010. http://www.co2captureproject.org/ccp2 capture.html
(cited: January 7 (Online)).
Thermoflow Inc., 2011. http://www.thermoflow.com. Thermoflow website. Visited
June (Online).
509
Tijmensen, M.J.A., et al., 2002. Exploration of the possibilities for production of Fis-
cher Tropsch liquids and power via biomass gasification. Biomass and Bioenergy
23, 129–152.
Valenti, G., Bonalumi, D., Macchi, E. A parametric investigation of the
Chilled Ammonia Process from energy and economic perspective. Fuel,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.06.035, in press.
van Vliet, O.P.R., Faaij, A.P.C., Turkenburg, C., 2009. Fischer–Tropsch diesel produc-
tion in a well-to-wheel perspective: a carbon, energy flow and cost analysis.
Energy Conversion and Management 50, 855–876 (Elsevier).