Valuing flexible operation of power plants with CO2 capture

Optimization of the various modes of flexible operation for post-combustion CO2 capture plant

“…It is shown that, for the given plant and scenarios, the use of flexible operation mode can lead to significant cost savings (as much as 5.22% of the total cost), even after the capital cost increase is considered. Several researchers have already presented results for the various modes of flexible operation in the past (Chalmers, 2010;Chalmers et al, 2009aChalmers et al, , 2011Chalmers and Jon, 2007;Cohen et al, 2011bCohen et al, , 2012Domenichini et al, 2013;Fyffe et al, 2011;Husebye et al, 2011;Patiño-Echeverri and Hoppock, 2012;Qixin et al, 2010;Wiley et al, 2011;Ziaii et al, 2009). Our work has the following novel features when compared to the previous works.…”

“…This is in comparison to the simple screening analysis, e.g., using first order models with cost equations based on performance and economic parameters to determine CO 2 emissions, capture cost, and operating profits (Chalmers, 2010;Chalmers et al, 2011;Cohen et al, 2011bCohen et al, , 2012Fyffe et al, 2011;Husebye et al, 2011;Patiño-Echeverri and Hoppock, 2012;Qixin et al, 2010;Ziaii et al, 2009). (c) Many previous works treated the captured CO 2 as a product with certain market value (Arce et al, 2012;Chalmers, 2010;Chalmers et al, 2009aChalmers et al, , 2011Chalmers and Jon, 2007;Cohen et al, 2011aCohen et al, ,b, 2012Fyffe et al, 2011;Zhang et al, 2012;Ziaii et al, 2009). They then posed the problem as optimizing the flexible operation in light of varying electricity price and CO 2 market price.…”

“…This strategy of flexible operation can be useful when strict emission regulations are imposed (Chalmers et al, 2009a), as it allows for a constant rate of CO 2 capture. Various authors have shown the benefits of the solvent storage mode based on a first order screening analysis, where simple energy and cost equations are used and the capture cost is estimated as a percentage of the power plant output instead of using a complete absorption/ regeneration model of the capture process (Chalmers et al, 2011;Chalmers and Jon, 2007;Cohen et al, 2012;Wiley et al, 2011).…”

“…In flexible operation, on the other hand, some of the variables can be varied dynamically in response to fluctuating electricity market price in order to meet the electricity demand and improve the overall profit. This can be done, for example, either by reducing the capture level (CO 2 venting, by-passing a part of the flue gas, CO 2 capture level reduction) (Chalmers, 2010;Chalmers et al, 2009aChalmers et al, ,b, 2011Chalmers and Jon, 2007;Cohen et al, 2011bCohen et al, , 2012Fyffe et al, 2011;Khalilpour, 2014a,b;Qixin et al, 2010;Wiley et al, 2011;Ziaii et al, 2009), or by reducing the rate of spent solvent regeneration (e.g., by storing a part or all of the CO 2 rich solvent in a tank and using the already regenerated solvent stored in another tank (Arce et al, 2012;Bui et al, 2014;Chalmers, 2010;Chalmers et al, 2009aChalmers et al, ,b, 2011Chalmers and Jon, 2007;Cohen et al, 2011bCohen et al, , 2012Domenichini et al, 2013;Husebye et al, 2011;Khalilpour, 2014b;Patiño-Echeverri and Hoppock, 2012;Qixin et al, 2010;Ziaii et al, 2009)) during times of high electricity price/demand. These two operation modes are illustrated in Figs.…”

An analysis of the investment risk related to the integration of a supercritical coal-fired combined heat and power plant with an absorption installation for CO 2 separation

“…One of the most effective methods of the risk level assessment is the Monte Carlo method, which is widely used in reference literature for analyses of power generation systems integrated with CO 2 separation installations. Example analyses are the subject of papers [29][30][31][32].…”