Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1a: Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity (Rev. 3)

Chou, Vincent; Haslback, John; Kyle, Allison; Kuehn, Norma; Lewis, Eric; Pinkerton, Lora L.; Shah, Vasant; Varghese, Elsy; Woods, Mark; Turner, Marc J.

doi:10.2172/1480987

Cited by 158 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the validated simulation of the referenced plant and cooling system are provided in Tables and . The results predicted by the present study are in good agreement with the documented values in the NETL report; indicating the model and method utilized are validated.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…A validation test was conducted using a reference 630 MW NGCC plant with a closed cooling system, as documented in the 2015 NETL's report . The combined cycle includes a gas turbine package with a 422‐MW capacity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The IDACT is found to be the best hybrid cooling system compared to the other proposed hybrid cooling systems. However, despite having the best performance, IDACT cooling system is a cost‐effective design due to a number of additional equipment added . Having more equipments increases both capital and operating and maintenance costs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Water usage and energy penalty of different hybrid cooling system configurations for a natural gas combined cycle power plant—Effect of carbon capture unit integration

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Electric power generation from thermoelectric power plants is associated with a negative impact on water availability, referenced as the water‐energy nexus, which is aggravated by climate change. In the present study, the effect of four different hybrid cooling system configurations on water usage and power penalty of a natural gas combined cycle has been investigated. The hybrid cooling system with a parallel connected indirect dry cooling system and wet cooling system is the most conventional studied hybrid cooling system in the literature, while the other studied hybrid configurations in the present study are novel regarding their effect on water requirement and power penalty. Simulations were conducted using the COCO 3.3 software and have been validated using data sets from a reference natural gas combined cycle plant, both with and without carbon capture unit, which is available in the literature. Four hybrid cooling system configurations were explored to evaluate their water requirements and power penalty. Other conventional cooling systems such as closed cooling, once‐through, and direct and indirect dry cooling methods were simulated with and without postcombustion carbon capture (PCCC) integration for comparison. It was found that the hybrid configuration, including indirect air‐cooled condenser and natural draft wet cooling tower, has the best performance as compared to the other conventional and hybrid cooling systems, amounting to 2.038 (gal/min)/MWnet, 1.573 (gal/min)/MWnet, and 12.29 MW for water withdrawal, consumption, and energy penalty, respectively, for the case of a unit without PCCC unit and 3.9 (gal/min)/MWnet, 2.928 (gal/min)/MWnet, and 15.177 MW for water withdrawal, consumption, and energy penalty, respectively, for a unit with carbon capture unit. It was confirmed that the PCCC integration approximately doubles the water withdrawal and consumption for all cooling systems. In addition, the indirect air‐cooled condenser and wet cooling tower is still the best performing cooling system with PCCC integration.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Water usage and energy penalty of different hybrid cooling system configurations for a natural gas combined cycle power plant—Effect of carbon capture unit integration

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Investment costs of $ 350 million in 2011 currency are described in for a 2‐stage Rectisol® unit for treatment of ca. 539 Gmol a −1 of crude syngas.…”

Section: Processing Steel Mill Gases Into Syngas For Methanol Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Investment costs for methanol plants were derived from Goellner's case no. 3 . All line items from Goellner's cost sheet that were not required for our case were eliminated, i.e., mostly costs for reformer equipment (gasifier & accessories).…”

Section: Processing Steel Mill Gases Into Syngas For Methanol Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coupled Production of Steel and Chemicals

Bender

Roussière

Schelling

et al. 2018

Chemie Ingenieur Technik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within Carbon2Chem® the presented subproject focused on oxymethylene ethers (OME) as possible diesel fuel components. Six different scenarios for CO2 emission reduction in steel mills were calculated, in four of which methanol is generated as an OME intermediate from steel mill gases. Potential synergies in raw material and energy streams of the coupled processes were identified. Shared process streams and equipment could lead to savings in capital and operational expenditure. CO2 reduction volumes and avoidance costs were calculated for the six scenarios. If coupled with methanol production, natural gas‐based direct reduced iron processes offer the chance for quantitative CO2 emission reduction at the lowest CO2 avoidance costs. Energy required for this process could be co‐fed, e.g., as renewable electricity.

show abstract

Carbon Capture and Storage

Forbes¹,

Benson²,

Friedmann³

2010

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

is a leading geoscientist of his generation, venture capitalist, and a significant figure in the politics of Colorado. In this article he reviews some inconvenient truths about the timely implementation of CCS projects in the US, some of which may resonate in other countries seeking CO 2 reduction measures.T he greatest challenge to carbon capture and storage (CCS) is likely to be economic rather than technical. A September 2008 McKinsey report estimated that the first commercial scale CCS projects, potentially to be built soon after 2020, would cost €35-50 per metric ton of CO 2 abated. They assume that if 500+ projects were built by 2030, the cost might fall to €25-40 per ton. About two-thirds of that cost is for CO 2 capture.It is interesting to consider those costs on a global scale. A study by Pacala and Socolow implies that we need to cut a cumulative 25 Gton of CO 2 over the next 50 years just to cap the CO 2 concentration in the atmosphere at a modest 500 ppm (we are now at 390 ppm). If all of our solutions cost €25 per ton, the economic impact would be €625 billion ($833 billion) over the next 50 years.Reducing CO 2 is a global issue, but the US creates 20% of the problem. It also offers an interesting case study on the difficulty of finding practical solutions in a challenging political and economic environment. Hopefully along the way the reader will discover opportunities as well as pitfalls to avoid.According to the US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (DOE-EIA), 98% of America's human-generated CO 2 comes from energy use, with 40% of that from electricity (coal and natural gas) and 33% from transportation (mostly petroleum). Coal produces 45% of America's electricity and natural gas produces 23% (see Figure 1).McKinsey's study notes that 'Retrofitting of existing power plants is likely to be more expensive than new installations, and economically feasible only for relatively new plants (with high efficiencies).' But according to the DOE-EIA, over the past 20 years coal contributed only 3.7% of total added US capacity while natural gas accounted for 88%. Few modern, efficient US coal plants have been added in the past 20 years.'Efficiency' is a term used to define the conversion of the theoretical energy content of a fuel into electricity. The McKinsey report notes that the energy required for the CCS CO 2 capture process increases the amount of coal that must be burned per MW-hour delivered, and estimates a CCS 'efficiency penalty' of 10%. This means that if a future coal plant could be built to achieve a 50% thermal efficiency, CCS would decrease that efficiency to 40%. Such a plant would be burning 50/40=1.25 times as much coal per MW-hour. And burning 25% more coal would also increase harmful emissions since CCS captures only about 90% of CO 2 and none of the other pollutants.CCS also faces storage challenges, such as site selection, CO 2 transportation costs, pipeline and CCS site permits, and uncertainties in monitoring CO 2 sequestration. Leakage of just 0.5% per year w...

show abstract

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1a: Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity (Rev. 3)

Cited by 158 publications

References 0 publications

Water usage and energy penalty of different hybrid cooling system configurations for a natural gas combined cycle power plant—Effect of carbon capture unit integration

Water usage and energy penalty of different hybrid cooling system configurations for a natural gas combined cycle power plant—Effect of carbon capture unit integration

Coupled Production of Steel and Chemicals

Carbon Capture and Storage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About