Dry cooling retrofits at existing fossil fuel-fired power plants in a water-stressed region: Tradeoffs in water savings, cost, and capacity shortfalls

Zhai, Haibo; Rubin, Edward S.; Grol, Eric; O'Connell, Andrew C.; Wu, Zitao; Lewis, Eric

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117997

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, CCS implementation at coal-fired power plants would nearly as much as double consumptive water use . Deployment of dry cooling systems in lieu of wet cooling systems in water-stressed regions can cope with this potential water challenge . The cost of CCS retrofits can be adversely affected by site-specific difficulty factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…42 Deployment of dry cooling systems in lieu of wet cooling systems in water-stressed regions can cope with this potential water challenge. 31 The cost of CCS retrofits can be adversely affected by site-specific difficulty factors. Compliance with the HB0200 emission limit requires the CO 2 capture rates of 79−84% for existing coal-fired EGUs, which are less than 90%, a capture rate often designed for amine-based capture systems.…”

Section: ■ Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They are defined as where LCOE is the levelized cost of electricity generation ($/MWh); (tCO 2 /MWh) is the CO 2 emission rate (t/MWh); (tCO 2 /MWh) Cap is the total mass of CO 2 captured per net MWh for the plant with CCS (t/MWh); and the subscripts “CCS” and “Ref” refer to plants with and without CCS, respectively. The LCOE of an EGU retrofitted with CCS varies with its remaining lifetime, as well as financial and other cost parameters . The avoidance cost metric covers all CO 2 captured, transport and storage (T&S) costs, whereas the cost of CO 2 captured metric does not include CO 2 T&S costs .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The LCOE of an EGU retrofitted with CCS varies with its remaining lifetime, as well as financial and other cost parameters. 31 The avoidance cost metric covers all CO 2 captured, transport and storage (T&S) costs, whereas the cost of CO 2 captured metric does not include CO 2 T&S costs. 30 The cost of CO 2 avoided also equals the CO 2 emission tax and is selected to evaluate the economic impact of carbonsequestration tax incentives.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Policy-Driven Potential for Deploying Carbon Capture and Sequestration in a Fossil-Rich Power Sector

Dindi

Coddington

Garofalo

et al. 2022

Environ. Sci. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2020, the Wyoming Legislature enacted House Bill No. 0200 (HB0200), which requires utilities to generate a percentage of dispatchable and reliable low-carbon electricity by 2030. This state requirement must take into consideration “any potentially expiring federal tax credits”, such as the federal Section 45Q tax credit. This study aims to examine the potential role of economic and policy incentives that facilitate carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) deployment. A unit-level retrofit analysis shows that deploying CCS at existing coal-fired power plants in Wyoming to meet the HB0200 emission limit would decrease the net efficiency by 29% and increase the levelized cost of electricity by 237% on the fleet average. The CO2 avoidance cost varies by unit from $65/t to 201/t, which reveals economic challenges for CCS retrofits. However, the current tax credit of $50 per metric ton of CO2 for saline-reservoir storage can lower the avoidance cost by 47% on the fleet average. The proposed enhancement of the tax credit to $85/t would offset the added cost for CCS deployment for a total capacity of 3.4 GW. Joint policy and economic incentives can encourage fossil fuel abatement to play a firm role in energy transition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ■ Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Policy-Driven Potential for Deploying Carbon Capture and Sequestration in a Fossil-Rich Power Sector

Dindi

Coddington

Garofalo

et al. 2022

Environ. Sci. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as discussed in section 2.2, the capital costs, energy requirements, and ambient air temperatures required for dry cooling may make dry cooling impractical. For example, Zhai et al 138 reported a 1.2% average monthly reduction in net capacity for dry cooling at NGCC facilities, which, if translated to Cherokee, would reduce NGCC capacity from 591 to 584 MW. On the other hand, reducing water withdrawals by 18% though ZLD implementation is comparable to efforts to reduce water withdrawals through increasing cycles of concentration.…”

Section: Case-study Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zero Liquid Discharge and Water Reuse in Recirculating Cooling Towers at Power Facilities: Review and Case Study Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zero liquid discharge (ZLD) systems installed at power facilities with the primary purpose of meeting water discharge regulations have the added benefit of providing high quality effluent that can be reused in the facility. This paper provides a review of water use in power sector recirculating cooling towers and a baseline assessment of on-site water reuse at natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power facilities. Two NGCC facilities with reverse-osmosis (RO) or brine-concentrator processes followed by evaporation ponds were selected as case studies; data from these facilities were used to quantify the water, energy, and cost implications of implementing conventional and emerging ZLD technologies. At one case study facility, model results show that implementation of ZLD would reduce water withdrawals by 18%, which is less than savings associated with implementation of dry cooling but comparable to current efforts to reduce water withdrawals by increasing cycles of concentration. Implementation of ZLD using high-recovery RO resulted in a doubling of the levelized cost of water (LCOW). LCOW increased more when a brine concentrator was used. For both case studies, the ZLD system using high-recovery RO required less than 0.1% of a facilitiy's annual electricity generation and the ZLD system using a brine concentrator process required less than 0.8%. Additionally, increasing the evaporation pond area to minimize required ZLD system recovery rates and reduce system electricity costs does not reduce the LCOW. Instead, the LCOW increases because less water is recovered and more water is lost to evaporation. However, if water availability decreases or water competition/cost increases, facilities may be incentivized to maximize water recovery from ZLD systems.

show abstract

Parametric and heuristic optimization of multiple schemes with double-reheat ultra-supercritical steam power plants

Opriş

Cenușă

2023

Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dry cooling retrofits at existing fossil fuel-fired power plants in a water-stressed region: Tradeoffs in water savings, cost, and capacity shortfalls

Cited by 8 publications

References 19 publications

Policy-Driven Potential for Deploying Carbon Capture and Sequestration in a Fossil-Rich Power Sector

Policy-Driven Potential for Deploying Carbon Capture and Sequestration in a Fossil-Rich Power Sector

Zero Liquid Discharge and Water Reuse in Recirculating Cooling Towers at Power Facilities: Review and Case Study Analysis

Parametric and heuristic optimization of multiple schemes with double-reheat ultra-supercritical steam power plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About