5 KGGGN 8 WK 05 L

2011
Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture from Power Generation
InternatIonal energy agency

MatthIas FInkenrath
WO R K I N G PA P E R
2011
Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture from Power Generation
InternatIonal energy agency

MatthIas FInkenrath
The views expressed in this working paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policy of the International Energy Agency (IEA) Secretariat or of its individual member countries. This paper is a work in progress, designed to elicit comments and further debate; thus, comments are welcome, directed to the author at: matthias.finkenrath@iea.org
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

The International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous agency, was established in November 1974. Its mandate is two-fold: to promote energy security amongst its member countries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply and to advise member countries on sound energy policy. The IEA carries out a comprehensive programme of energy co-operation among 28 advanced economies, each of which is obliged to hold oil stocks equivalent to 90 days of its net imports. The Agency aims to: n Secure member countries access to reliable and ample supplies of all forms of energy; in particular, through maintaining effective emergency response capabilities in case of oil supply disruptions. n Promote sustainable energy policies that spur economic growth and environmental protection in a global context particularly in terms of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to climate change. n Improve transparency of international markets through collection and analysis of energy data. n Support global collaboration on energy technology to secure future energy supplies and mitigate their environmental impact, including through improved energy efficiency and development and deployment of low-carbon technologies. n Find solutions to global energy challenges through engagement and dialogue with non-member countries, industry, international organisations and other stakeholders.
OECD/IEA, 2010 International Energy Agency

9 rue de la Fdration 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France
www.iea.org
Please note that this publication is subject to specific restrictions that limit its use and distribution. The terms and conditions are available online at www.iea.org/about/copyright.asp
IEA member countries: Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Korea (Republic of) Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States
The European Commission also participates in the work of the IEA.
OECD/IEA2011
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Tableofcontents
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................5 Executivesummary........................................................................................................................7 Introduction....................................................................................................................................9 Scopeofanalysis ..........................................................................................................................11 . Analysedtechnoeconomicdataandkeytargetmetrics...........................................................11 EvaluatedCO2captureprocesses...............................................................................................12 Dataselectedforanalysis...........................................................................................................12 Approachandmethodology ........................................................................................................15 . Costofgeneratingelectricitycalculation...................................................................................15 Conversionandcalibrationofcostdata.....................................................................................16 Conversionandcalibrationofperformancedata ......................................................................18 . Boundaryconditionsandassumptions......................................................................................19 Costandperformanceresultsanddiscussion.............................................................................22 Maincasestudies..........................................................................................................................22 PostcombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines.......................23 PrecombustionCO2capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles.......................27 OxycombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration.........................................30 PostcombustionCO2capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles........................................34 Summaryofresults.....................................................................................................................37 Futurecostandperformancepotential.....................................................................................38 Uncertaintyandsensitivityofresults.........................................................................................39 Conclusionsandrecommendations.............................................................................................41 References....................................................................................................................................43 Annex:Studycaseswithlimitedavailabledata............................................................................45 PostcombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia...................45 Acronyms,abbreviationsandunitsofmeasure..........................................................................47 Listoffigures Figure1.Illustrationofthemethodologyfordataanalysis..........................................................15 Figure2.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration byamines:CO2captureimpact.....................................................................................................25 Figure3.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombined cycles:CO2captureimpact............................................................................................................28 Figure4.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration:CO2captureimpact.......32
Page|3
OECD/IEA2011
Figure5.Postcombustioncapturefromnaturalgasfiredpower generation:CO2captureimpact....................................................................................................35 Figure6.Impactofa50%variationinkeyassumptionsonLCOE..............................................40 Figure7.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration byammonia:CO2captureimpact.................................................................................................46

Page|4
Listoftables Table1.Overviewofgeneralboundaryconditionsofreviewedstudies.....................................18 Table2.Technoeconomicassumptionstypicallyusedbydifferentorganisations, andinthisanalysis........................................................................................................................20 Table3.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines .......................24 . Table4.Postcombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes............................26 Table5.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles........................27 Table6.Precombustioncapture:influenceofcoals...................................................................30 Table7.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration..........................................31 Table8.Oxycombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes.............................33 Table9.Postcombustioncapturefromnaturalgasfiredpowergeneration..............................34 Table10.AveragecostandperformancedatabyCO2captureroute..........................................38 Table11.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia..................45 Listofboxes Box1.Fuelpriceassumptions ......................................................................................................20 .
OECD/IEA2011
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared by Matthias Finkenrath, Energy Analyst in the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Unit under the Directorate of Sustainable Energy Policy and Technology at the InternationalEnergyAgency(IEA). Theauthorwouldliketothankseveralindividualsforreviewingthemanuscriptofthisworking paper and for providing invaluable feedback: John Davison and Mike Haines from the IEA Implementing Agreement for a Cooperative Programme on Technologies Relating to Greenhouse Gases Derived from Fossil Fuel Use (Greenhouse Gas Implementing Agreement); John Kessels from the Implementing Agreement for the IEA Clean Coal Centre; Christopher Short from the Global CCS Institute; Clas Ekstrm from Vattenfall; John Chamberlain from gasNatural fenosa; Trygve Utheim Riis and Aage Stangeland from the Research Council of Norway; Tore Hatlen from Gassnova; Howard Herzog from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology;andJeffreyPhillipsandGeorgeBoorasfromtheElectricPowerResearchInstitute (EPRI).SpecialthankstoEPRIsCoalFleetforTomorrowR&Dprogrammeforsharingdatafrom theirpublication. The author would also like to thank his colleagues at the IEA, in particular Juho Lipponen for overarching guidance and support, and also Uwe Remme, Dennis Volk, Brendan Beck, Justine GarrettandJulianSmithforreviewingthedraftandprovidingveryhelpfulcomments.Additional thankstoMarilynSmithforhereditorialsupportandBertrandSadinandAnneMayneofthe IEACommunicationandInformationOfficeforcoverdesignandfinallayout. Formoreinformationonthisdocument,contact: MatthiasFinkenrath,IEASecretariat Tel.+33(0)140576779 Email:matthias.finkenrath@iea.org
Page|5
OECD/IEA2011
Executivesummary
Energy scenarios developed by the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggest that carbon capture and storage (CCS) from power plants might contribute by 2050 to around 10% of the energyrelated carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reduction required to stabilise global warming (IEA,2010). Since CO2 capture from power generation is an emerging technology that has not Page|7 beendemonstratedonacommercialscale,relatedcostandperformanceinformationisbased onfeasibilitystudiesandpilotprojectsandisstilluncertain. This paper analyses technoeconomic data for CO2 capture from power generation, including CO2 conditioning and compression, in order to support energy scenario modelling and policy making.Costandperformancetrendsareshownbasedonestimatespublishedoverthelastfive years in major engineering studies for about 50 CO2 capture installations at power plants. Capitalcostandlevelisedcostofelectricity(LCOE) arereevaluatedandupdatedto2010cost levels to allow for a consistent comparison. Presented data account for CO2 capture but not transportation and storage of CO2. They are estimates for generic, early commercial plants basedonfeasibilitystudies,whichhaveanaccuracyofonaverage30%.Thedatadonotreflect projectspecificcostorcostforfirstlargescaledemonstrationplants,whicharelikelyhigher. For coalfired power generation, no single CO2 capture technology outperforms available alternative capture processes in terms of cost and performance. Average net efficiency penalties for post and oxycombustion capture are 10 percentage points relative to a pulverisedcoalplantwithoutcapture,andeightpercentagepointsforprecombustioncapture compared to an integrated gasification combined cycle. Overnight costs of power plants with CO2captureinregionsoftheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD) are about USD3800 per kW (/kW) across capture routes, which is 74% higher than the referencecostswithoutcapture.Costfiguresvarysubstantiallydependingonthetypeofpower planttypeandfuelused.Therelativeincreaseinovernightcostscomparedtoareferenceplant withoutCO2 captureisacomparablystablemetric acrossstudies.Itisthusrecommendedfor estimating cost if limited data are available. Projected LCOE is on average USD105 per megawatthour(/MWh).AveragecostsofCO2avoidedareUSD55pertonneofCO2 (/tCO2)ifa pulverisedcoalpowerplantwithoutCO2captureisusedasareference. For natural gasfired power generation, postcombustion CO2 capture is most often analysed and appears the most attractive nearterm option. Average cost and performance projections include net efficiency penalties of eight percentage points for postcombustion CO2 capture fromnaturalgascombinedcycles.OvernightcostsareUSD1700/kWincludingCO2capture,or 82%higherthanthereferenceplantwithoutcapture.LCOEisUSD102/MWhandcostsofCO2 avoidedareUSD80/tCO2ifanaturalgascombinedcycleisusedasareference. CostestimatesstatedaboveareaveragefiguresforOECDregions.Costdataforinstallationsin Chinaindicatesignificantlylowercostscomparedtotheabovementionedfigures.Allovernight costs include a contingency for CCS plants to account for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties.LCOEandcostsofCO2avoideddonotincludeaCO2emissionprice. Harmonisationofcostingmethodologiesisneededinordertosimplifytechnologycomparisons. Thoughasimilarapproachisusedforestimatingcostandperformanceacrossstudies,specific methodologies,terminologiesandunderlyingassumptionsareinconsistent. Broader assessments of CO2 capture from power generation in nonOECD countries are still underrepresented, though according to global energy scenarios deployment of CCS in these regionsmighthavetoexceedexpectedlevelsinOECDcountries.
OECD/IEA2011
Introduction
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes a significant reduction of worldwidegreenhousegas(GHG)emissionsisrequiredinordertostabilisetheglobalaverage temperature increase at 2.0C to 2.4C above preindustrial levels. Equivalent CO2 emissions Page|9 needtobecutbyatleast50%by2050comparedtotheyear2000(IPCC,2007). TheIEAregularlyanalysespathwaysforreducingenergyrelatedCO2emissions.Comparedtoa businessasusualBaselineScenario,carboncaptureandstorage (CCS)from powergeneration could contribute in 2050 to 10% of the required global reduction in energyrelated CO2 emissions (IEA,2010). Apart from CCS in power generation, CCS from industrial and upstream applications is expected to provide a similar emission reduction. CCS is thus a potential key contributortoCO2emissionmitigation,inadditiontootherimportantaimssuchasimproving energyefficiencyandincreasingrenewablepowergeneration. CCShasbeenappliedcommerciallyintheoilandgasindustryforseveraldecades.Thisincludes technologies along the CCS value chain such as solventbased separation of CO2 from gas streams,transportationofCO2bypipelineandstorageofCO2inaquifers.CO2isalsousedfor enhancedoilrecovery(EOR). CCS is however still an emerging technology in the power sector, where it has not yet been demonstrated at large scale. Applying CCS to fullsize power plants requires scaleup of commercially available CO2 capture processes. Consequently, current cost and performance information related to CCS from power generation is limited to estimates from engineering studiesandpilotprojects.Thisisdifferenttoestablishedpowertechnologiesforwhichcostand performancedataofcommercialunitsarewellknownandregularlysummarised(OECD,2010). AdedicatedreviewofpublisheddataisneededtotracklatestCCSdevelopments.Thequalityof technoeconomic data for CCS will likely improve once additional information from the first commercialscale demonstration plants, which are currently in planning, become available. Meanwhile, bestpossible estimates of cost and performance of power plants with CCS are requiredasinputforenergyscenariosandasabasisforcleanenergypolicymaking.Againstthis background, this paper summarises and analyses technoeconomic data on CO2 capture from powergenerationthatwerepublishedoverthelastfiveyears.
OECD/IEA2011
Scopeofanalysis
CCS applied to power generation is an emerging technology. Technoeconomic data for CO2 capturefrompowergenerationthusremainuncertain;afactthatisfurtheramplifiedbycurrent unprecedentedeconomicuncertaintiesresultingfromtherecentglobalfinancialcrisis. MostenergyscenariosthatanalyseclimatechangemitigationpathsexpectthatCO2capturewill contributesubstantiallytoglobalCO2emissionreductioninthecomingdecades.TheIEAEnergy TechnologyPerspectives2010(ETP2010)publicationestimatesthatby2050around10%ofthe emission reduction will stem from CO2 capture from power generation alone compared to a businessasusualBaselineScenario(IEA,2010). This analysis aims to illustrate cost and performance trends related to CO2 capture from powergenerationoverthelastfiveyears.Thischaptergivesanoverviewabouttypesofdata thatareanalysedanddescribeswhichspecificcapturecasesandpublicationsareconsidered inthisstudy.
Page|11
Analysedtechnoeconomicdataandkeytargetmetrics
Thisworkingpaperevaluateskeydatathatarecommonlyrequiredasinputforenergyscenario modellingandgeneralenergypolicysupport,suchas: powerplanttype fueltype capacityfactor netpoweroutput netefficiency overallCO2capturerate Publishedtechnoeconomicinformationisreviewedandreevaluatedinordertocompareresults ofdifferentstudies.Updateddataareprovidedforthefollowingkeymetrics: overnightcosts levelisedcostofelectricity(LCOE) costofCO2avoided Costandperformancedataarerequiredforboththepowerplantwithoutcapture(alsoreferred toasreferenceplant)andforthepowerplantwithcapture. This analysis focuses on fundamental technoeconomic information typically used for cross technology comparisons under consistent boundary conditions. Cost data presented in this studyaregenericinnatureandnotmeanttorepresentcostsofspecificCO2captureprojects, whicharelikelytobedifferent.InvestmentdecisionsaboutindividualCCSplantswilldepend on numerous casespecific boundary conditions such as (among others): national or regional policyandregulatoryframeworks;emissionandpowermarkets;theexperienceandriskprofile of the investor; or available incentive and financing structures. In addition, local ambient conditions and available fuel qualities can have a strong impact on the capture technology choiceanditsviability. netCO2emissions capitalcost operationandmaintenance(O&M)cost yearofcostdata locationofpowerplant
OECD/IEA2011
Cost and performance information for the transport and storage of captured CO2 will need to complement data for CO2 capture. Transportation and storage data are even more difficult to generalisecomparedtoCO2captureprocessdata,giventhattheyareverysitespecificoreven unique for every single project. Because of this complexity, available storage capacities and associatedcostsstillremainsubjecttosignificantresearchinmanyregionsoftheworld.Unlike Page|12 CO2capturefrompowergeneration,anumberoflargescaleCO2transportandstorageprojects howeverexiststhatareoperatingtodayandwhichcanprovidesome,albeitlimited,dataonthe associatedcosts.TechnoeconomicdatarelatedtothetransportandstorageofCO2,inparticular relatedtoCO2storagecapacities,arenotcoveredinthispaper,butimprovingrelatedknowledge is essential. Consequently, the IEA and other organisations are addressing this challenge in separate,dedicatedworkstreams.
EvaluatedCO2captureprocesses
This working paper analyses CO2 capture from power generation. CO2 capture from industrial applications is evaluated through the forthcoming United Nations Industrial Development Organisation(UNIDO)roadmap,andisthusnotdiscussed(UNIDO,2010). The study focuses on CO2 capture from newbuild coal and natural gasfired power generationplantswithatleast80%overallcapturerate.Onlycommercialscalepowerplants over 300MW net power output are considered. Data for biomassfired installations are still scarce in comparison to coal and natural gasfired power plants. They are thus not systematically evaluated in this working paper, but a case study with biomass cofiring is includedforcomparison. ThispaperfocusesonearlycommercialinstallationsofCO2capturefrompowergenerationand does not cover demonstration plants. Cost and performance information related to firstofa kindCO2capturedemonstrationplantsisoftennotrepresentativeofcommercialunitsthatare installedlater,forexamplesincethey aresuboptimallyoroverdesigned.Significantlargescale commercialdeploymentofCCStechnologyforpowergenerationapplicationsisnotexpectedto takeplacepriortotheyear2020.Therefore,costandperformancedataconsideredinthisstudy are primarily estimates for early commercial CO2 capture processes from power plants that wouldbeinservicearound2020.1 Onlycapturetechnologiesthathavebeendemonstratedonasignificantpilotscale(orevenata commercial size in other industries) are considered in this analysis. Novel technologies for CO2 capturefrompowergenerationthatareinanearlyphaseofdevelopment,suchasmembrane based processes, are not covered. The general improvement potential for CO2 capture from powergenerationinthefuturebytechnologicallearningisdiscussedinChapter4.
Dataselectedforanalysis
Technoeconomic studies on CO2 capture from power generation are numerous. In this paper, CO2 capture cost and performance data of selected studies are reviewed, reevaluated and updatedtocurrentcostlevels.Onlystudiesbyorganisationsthatperformedbroadcomparisons acrossallcaptureroutesareconsidered.Publicationsbyauthorsthatarefocusingtheiranalyses onindividualoraverylimitednumberofcapturetechnologiesarenotincluded.Inordertolimit the reevaluation of older data to a reasonable time horizon, only studies that were published
Not all of the reviewed studies provide explicit timelines or a definition of the level of commercial deployment associated to their performance and cost estimates, and some reports envision fullscale commercial deployment alreadyearlier.
OECD/IEA2011
over the last five years (between 2006 and 2010) are covered. In rare cases, the underlying originaldatamightstemfromearlieryears. Reevaluating and comparing cost and performance data across studies presents a major challenge. There are differences in the types of data published, and in the cost estimation methodologiesused.Inaddition,thereisoftenlimitedtransparencywithrespecttounderlying Page|13 boundaryconditionsandassumptions. The studies selected for further analysis in this working paper exhibit a broad coverage of evaluated capture routes and used a consistent evaluation methodology for assessing their individualcapturecases.Inaddition,theyaretypicallybasedonanengineeringlevelanalysisand provide detailed cost and performance estimates and information on key boundary conditions, which allow for further processing and analysis.2 Technoeconomic data from studies by the followingorganisationsareincludedinthisworkingpaper: CarnegieMellonUniversityCMU(Rubin,2007;Chen,2009;Versteeg,2010) ChinaUKNearZeroEmissionsCoalInitiativeNZEC(NZEC,2009) CO2CaptureProjectCCP(Melien,2009) ElectricPowerResearchInstituteEPRI(EPRI,2009) GlobalCCSInstituteGCCSI(GCCSI,2009) GreenhouseGasImplementingAgreementGHGIA(Davison,2007;GHGIA,2009) NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratoryNETL(NETL,2008;NETL,2010af) MassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyMIT(MIT,2007;Hamilton,2009) Intheeventseveralevaluationsweremadebyorganisationsonthesamecaptureprocessover thelastfiveyears,onlythemostrecentlypublisheddataareincludedinthisanalysis. It is likely there are additional studies that should be considered in future analysis. The author wouldappreciatesuggestionsofadditionalstudiesthatmatchthegeneralselectioncriteriaand should be considered in potential updates of this review. Since similarly broad and detailed studies were not found for other regions, the analysed studies are limited to CO2 capture installationsintheUnitedStates,theEuropeanUnionandChina. Theselectedstudiesarebasedondatafrombottomupengineeringstudies,whichperformcost and performance estimates based on detailed process flow sheet data that account for main equipmentorprocessunitislands.Theyprovide,ataminimum,themaincostandperformance data for the base power plant, the CO2 capture process and a CO2 compression unit for compressing and pumping the separated CO2 to a supercritical pressure for transportation. Besides the core CO2 capture and compression units, other additional major equipment and utility systems are required. This includes equipment for oxygen generation, fluid handling, exhaust pretreatment for drying or purification, and compression and pumping, which is accountedforinalltheselectedstudies. CO2 transport and storage are not evaluated in most of the publications, and any data on CO2 transportandstorageisnotconsideredinthispaper.Mostcostestimatesusedinthisstudyare basedontheassumptionthatprocessesandprocessequipmentareproventechnologiesor,at least, have been demonstrated on a commercial scale. Thus costs required for research, developmentandinitialdeploymentindemonstrationplantsarenotincluded.
Several studies are not considered as the level of detail regarding costs or boundary conditions is insufficient for furtheranalysisunderthisstudy(e.g.ENCAP,2009;McKinsey,2007).
OECD/IEA2011
Thoughitisoftennotexplicitlystated,thegroupofanalysedstudiesgenerallyassumesthatCO2 capture and compression is integrated into a new power plant and benefits from at least a minimum infrastructure, which is typical for an industrial site. This includes availability of engineeringandlocalhumanresources,equipment,utilityandfuelsupply,accesstothepower grid and appropriate options for transporting and storing separated CO2. In addition, for such Page|14 newbuild,brownfieldinstallations,thestudyassumesfullflexibilityintermsofplantintegration andoptimisation. This working paper does not analyse the impact of retrofitting CO2 capture to existing power plants. Incremental costs of adding CO2 capture to those plants could be higher than the incrementalcostsshowninthereviewedstudies,sincetheseexistingplantsweredesignedwith noconsiderationsforfutureCO2capture.
OECD/IEA2011
Approachandmethodology
Thefundamentalapproachusedinthisstudytoreviewandanalysepublishedtechnoeconomic informationonCO2captureisillustratedinFigure 1.Inafirststep,applicableliteratureonthe subjectisresearchedand reviewed. In ordertoallowacomparisonofcostdatafromdifferent years, economic data of the selected studies are calibrated by aligning their scope and by Page|15 updatingtheircostto2010USDcostlevelsusingmarketexchangeratesandprocessequipment costindices.Performancerelateddataarenotrecalibratedforreasonsthatareoutlinedinmore detailfurtherbelow. Subsequently, updated cost data are used to reevaluate LCOE and cost of CO2 avoided of the different capture cases. To provide consistency with previous work by the OECD, the methodologyandunderlyingassumptionsarebasedonthesameapproachthatwastakenbythe OECD Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 analysis, which for simplicity is hereafter referredtoasPCGE2010(OECD,2010). Common financial and operating boundary conditions and fuel prices are applied for all cases. Cost and performance trends across studies are identified based on the updated data. Further detailsofthecalibrationmethodology,includingadescriptionoflimitationsoftheanalysis,are providedinthischapter. Figure1.Illustrationofthemethodologyfordataanalysis
Reviewofindividualtechnoeconomicstudies
Coversonlymajorstudiesacrosscaptureroutespublishedwithinthelastfiveyears(200610) Focusonlargescale(>300MWnetpower )coal andnaturalgasfiredpowergeneration Limitedtonewbuilt,earlycommercialtechnologieswithmorethan80%overallCO 2 capture
Calibrationofeconomicdataofmajorstudies
Costingscopealignedacrossstudies(totalcapitalrequirement,overnightcosts,etc.) CurrenciesofstudiesupdatedtoUSD Costsupdatedto2010costlevelusingcostindices
ReevaluationofcostofelectricityandCO2 avoidance
BasedonOECDProjectedCostofGeneratingElectricity2010methodology Standardised financialandfuelcostassumptionsused Commonsetofoperationandmaintenancecostdata
Dataanalysisanddiscussionofresults
Originalandrecalibratedcostdatareported Comparisonofresults Discussionofkeycosttrends
Conclusionsandrecommendations
Costofgeneratingelectricitycalculation
LCOE is commonly used as a measure of comparing generating costs of different power generation and capture technologies over a plants economic life. LCOE is equal to the present valueofthesumofdiscountedcostsdividedbythetotalelectricityproduction. This study uses a LCOE model that was jointly developed by the IEA and the Nuclear Energy Agency(NEA)withsupportofadiversegroupofinternationalexpertsandorganisationsforthe
OECD/IEA2011
PCGE2010 publication. The underlying philosophy and methodology behind the calculation is discussedindetailintheOECDpublicationandnotrepeatedinthispaper. Based on IEA and NEA convention, a key assumption of the LCOE approach is that the interest rateusedfordiscountingcostsdoesnotvaryoverthelifetimeoftheprojectunderconsideration. Arealdiscountrateof10%isusedforallcasesinthisstudy,whichisthehigheroftwodiscount Page|16 rates defined in the PCGE 2010 study. This figure is chosen for this study because of an anticipatedhighertechnicalandfinancialriskassociatedwithinvestmentsinCCStechnologiesin the early phase of commercialisation. It should be noted that apart from considerations about technology maturity, other factors (such as the type of plant ownership) influence the cost of financingaproject.Thiswouldbereflectedintheapplicablediscountrates. LCOE is also used as a basis for providing estimates of costs of CO2 avoidance for different capture technologies. Further background on the terminology, including how to derive CO2 avoidance costs are extensively discussed in previous publications. This includes important considerationsrelatedtoselectingameaningfulreferencepowerplantwithoutCCSforcalcula tingcostofCO2avoided(IPCC,2005;GCCSI,2009). ItisimportanttonotethatincontrasttotheOECDPCGE2010publication,reportedLCOEdata do not include a USD30/tCO2 emission price, since this approach is less common for CCS related cost comparisons. Hence in this working paper no CO2 emission price is added for calculatingLCOE.
Conversionandcalibrationofcostdata
Several methodologies are used to estimate economic data, in particular capital costs, of CO2 capture from power generation. There is neither a standardised methodology nor a set of commonlyagreedonboundaryconditions,whichaddstothecomplexityofcomparingdatafrom different studies. Moreover, some factors are often not fully transparent, such as costing methodologies, sources of costs, the exact scope of data as well as assumptions on individual cost parameters. As a consequence, it is not straightforward to transform technoeconomic informationfromdifferentstudiesintoacomparablesetofdata. Though there is no consistently applied approach for cost evaluation, similarities exist throughoutstudiesintermsofhowCO2capturecostsareconceptuallyassessed.Costdataare usuallysplitintocapitalcosts(relatedtotheconstructionofequipment),fuelcosts,andnon fueloperatingandmaintenancecosts(relatedtotheprocessanditsequipment).Thesecosts are commonly used together to calculate the first year cost of electricity (COE) or LCOE over thelifetimeoftheplant. Sourcesofcapitalcostsareoftennotclearlystatedinpublications.Typically,costsarebasedon estimates for main equipment or process islands that are provided by vendors or taken from equipment cost databases. Often equipment costs are readjusted (using scaling laws) to the specific process conditions, and costs are added for installation and indirect expenses required forthecompleteconstructionoftheplant. Assumptions about additional capital expenses vary across studies or are not clearly reported. Examplesoftheseadditionalcapitalcostsincludeengineeringandoverhead,commissioningexpenses, orprocessandequipmentcontingencies.Insomeinstances,thesametermsareuseddifferently. For consistency with previous OECD studies and in order to reduce the impact of project specificcostelementsthisstudyusesovernightcostsasthekeymetricforquantifyingcapital cost.AccordingtoOECDterminology,overnightcostsinclude:
OECD/IEA2011
preconstructionorownerscosts; engineering,procurementandconstruction(EPC)costs;and contingencycosts. Overnight costs assume a power plant could be constructed in a single day. They reflect technological and engineering costs in a particular country but avoid impacts of the specific Page|17 financialstructurethatisinplacetorealiseconstruction.Whileforrealprojectsinvestorsneedto pay close attention to total capital requirements, overnight costs are useful in particular for energyscenariomodellers,policymakersandutilitiesforcomparisonsofcostsatanearlystage ofassessment. Overnightcostsexcludeinterestduringconstruction(IDC).IDCisaddedforLCOEcalculationsin order to account for the actual time it takes to construct the power plant. This also includes related equipment outside the power plant boundary (such as transmission lines or railroads for coal transportation), and the costs of financing construction before the power plant becomesoperational. Preconstruction or owners costs are miscellaneous additional costs directly incurred by the ownerofaprojectsuchasownersstaff,land,permitting,environmentalreportingandfacilities. Ownerscostsaresubjecttomuchconfusion.MostCCSrelatedcoststudiesdonotprovidethe precisescopeandcontentofownerscosts.Or,sometimesothercostelementssuchasstartup costs, contingencies or fees are lumped into a single owners cost factor on top of EPC costs. Owners costs can vary widely from project to project depending on whether it is publicly or privatelyowned.Theyremainamajoruncertaintyacrossallstudies. Engineering, procurement and construction costs typically cover the required total process capital. This includes direct and indirect costs for equipment and labour, general supporting facilities,butalsocostsrelatedtoengineeringandprojectmanagement,homeoffice,overhead ortechnologyfees. Contingency costs are included in order to reflect cost uncertainties due to the level of project definition, the risk related to technology maturity and performance, or unforeseen regulatorydifficulties. Overnight costs are used as a basis for LCOE calculations in this working paper. Several studiesreviewedusealternativeterminologiesorhaveadifferentscopewithrespecttokey capitalcostfigures. CapitalcostdatapublishedbyMITandGCCSIalreadyincludeIDC;thesecostsarerecalculatedin this paper to represent overnight costs without IDC. If originally published cost data do not include owners costs, these are added to capital cost. This applies to data by MIT and NETL.3 TotalcapitalrequirementandtotalplantcostsarepublishedbyEPRI.Totalplantcostswithout ownerscostsareusedfromEPRIasabasisfortheanalysisperformedunderthisstudy.Owners costareaddedinthiscase. The currency for reporting economic data used in this report is US dollar (USD). Cost data reportedinothercurrenciesareconvertedtoUSDusingtheconversionrateoftheyearofthe costsaspublished,unlessaconversionrateisprovidedintheoriginalpublication.4 Apart from a currency conversion, it is also necessary to account for changes in installed equipmentcostovertime.Sincepublishedinformationdoesnotallowforadetailedescalation onacomponentbycomponentbasis,generalcostindicesareusedtorecalibratecosttocurrent
3 4
ApartfromdatafromNETL(2010a),whichalreadyincludeownerscost. Resultingexchangerates:USD0.146perCNY(NZEC,2009)andUSD1.35perEUR(GHGIA,2009).
OECD/IEA2011
levels. In this study, published cost data are updated to 2010 cost levels using the Chemical EngineeringPlantCostIndex,CEPCI(CE,2010). Insummary,calibrationofcapitalcostdataincludes: Calibrationtoovernightcostsestimates(byaddingownerscostsorsubtractingIDC);
Page|18
ConversionoftheoriginalcurrencytoUSD;and Calibrationofcostsasquotedto2010costlevelsbyusingcostindices. Unless otherwise stated (e.g. with respect to fuel cost assumptions), the same boundary conditionsareappliedtoalldataregardlessofthelocationofthepowerplantforeseenbythe authorsofthestudies.Publicationyears,projectlocationsandcurrenciesofthereviewedstudies areshowninTable1. Table1.Overviewofgeneralboundaryconditionsofreviewedstudies
Organisation Publicationyear(s) Projectlocation Currency CCP 2009 EU USD CMU 2007, 2009, 2010 US USD EPRI 2009 US USD GCCSI 2009 US USD GHGIA 2007, 2009 EU USD,EUR NETL 2008, 2010 US USD NZEC 2009 CHN CNY MIT 2007, 2009 US USD
Cost location factors are not applied in this study. Instead, for each data point shown in this workingpaperthelocationofthepowerplantisprovidedasspecifiedintheoriginalstudy.Thisis helpfulsincedifferencesinlocalcostlevels,inparticularrelatedtolabourcostandproductivity, are expected for different locations. A sensitivity analysis of locationspecific costs for CO2 captureinstallationscanbefoundintheliterature(GCCSI,2009).
Conversionandcalibrationofperformancedata
ThetechnicalperformanceofpowerplantswithCO2captureistypicallysummarisedintermsof plant efficiencies, power output and CO2 emissions. Terminology related to performance evaluation is used consistently throughout technoeconomic studies. Key performance and operationalparametersreportedincludethenetefficiencyorheatrate,thenetpoweroutput, specificCO2emissions,andtheplantcapacityfactororloadfactor. Performanceestimatesinpublishedstudiesareusuallybasedonfundamentalmassandenergy balances from process flow sheets of the power plant and the CO2 capture and compression process. Analyses are commonly based on process simulation as it is typically performed to assess general feasibility or for frontend engineering and design (FEED) studies. Standardised (ISO)ambientconditionsareusuallyassumedforthestudies. Nonetheless,importantdifferencesinrelevanttechnicalassumptionscanapply,forexamplein terms of fuel types or qualities, CO2 compression and pumping discharge pressures, or assumptions regarding cooling water characteristics (e.g. Zhai, 2010). Due to the complexity of theprocessesorlimiteddetailprovidedinpublishedinformation,itwasimpossibletorecalibrate performance results across the breadth of studies under consideration. Though performance related data are not reevaluated in this analysis, it is important to note that differences in performanceassumptionscanhaveasubstantialimpactonresults.Thepotentialimpactvaries
OECD/IEA2011
across capture and power plant technologies, and is discussed in more detail in the scientific literature(e.g.Rubin,2007). Published overall CO2 capture rates are between 85% and 100%. Data are not scaled to a standardised capture rate, since reported cases likely represent the most costeffective or advantageous operating conditions. Furthermore, some capture processes would be limited in their flexibility in terms of achievable capture rates. To enable a comparison (on a consistent Page|19 level)ofcostdataacrosstechnologiesatslightlydifferentcapturerates,costsofCO2avoidedare includedinthispaper. CO2 purity is above 99.9% for solventbased post and precombustion capture processes. Oxy combustion can achieve a similar purity level. However, some oxycombustion capture plants result in a higher level of noncondensable gases and contaminants in the separated CO2. This dependsonthepurityofsuppliedoxygenandfuel,thelevelofairinleakageintotheboiler,the process design and intensity of purification. This study does not calibrate cost or performance data with respect to CO2 purity. However, oxycombustion data with CO2 purities lower than 99.9%aremarkedaccordinglywhenresultsarepresented. Rescalingofcostandperformancedatatoacommonnetpowerplantoutput,forexampleby using powerscaling laws, was considered even though reported net power outputs show a relativelymoderatespreadacrossdatapoints.However,itisnotappliedsincescalingcanleadto misleadingresultsforcaptureprocessesthatrelyonusingmultipletrainsofequipmentdueto currentsizelimitations.
Boundaryconditionsandassumptions
Financialandoperationalboundaryconditions,suchasconstructiontimes,projectlifetimesand capacityfactorsareadoptedfromtheOECDPCGE2010publication.Theparametersusedinthis working paper are listed in Table 2, together with assumptions typically used by different organisations. Contributionsofownerscostsrangebetween5%and25%acrossindividualstudies.Thisstudy assumes an average contribution of owners costs to overnight costs of 15%. For reevaluating LCOE,IDCiscalculatedseparatelyforeachcase. ThePCGE2010studyassumesa15%contingencycostforpowerplantswithonlyasmallnumber ofinstalledfacilities.Thiscontingencyaccountsforunforeseentechnicalorregulatorydifficulties, andisaddedtotheLCOEcalculationinthelastyearofconstruction.InthePCGE2010study,itis applied for nuclear power plants, offshore wind and CCS.5 For all other technologies, a 5% contingency is added. This working paper follows the same approach. Contingency cost calculationsarebasedonEPCcost.
ThisdoeshowevernotapplytodatafornuclearpowerplantsinFrance,Japan,KoreaandtheUnitedStates,wherea largenumberofnuclearplantsarealreadyinstalled.
OECD/IEA2011
Table2.Technoeconomicassumptionstypicallyusedbydifferentorganisations,andinthisanalysis
Thisstudy Organisation CCP 10% 75% 95% 75% CMU EPRI 910% 57% 80% GCCSI GHGIA NETL 9% 15% 85% 10% 7% 85% 85% 10% 1525% 85% 85% NZEC 10% 7% 85% 10% 85% MIT
(basedon OECD,2010)
Page|20
Discountrates Owner'scost Capacityfactor,coal Capacityfactor,naturalgas Economiclife,coal Economiclife,naturalgas Constructiontime,coal Constructiontime,naturalgas ContingencieswithCCS
10% 15% 85% 85% 40yrs 30yrs 3yrs 4yrs 2yrs 15%
30yrs 30yrs 30yrs 25yrs 30yrs 25yrs 20yrs 25yrs 30yrs 4yrs 20% 30yrs 25yrs 30yrs 4yrs 3yrs 3yrs 530% 1314% 520% 10% 1520% 10% 3yrs
Valuesofbyproductsorwastegeneratedinthepowerplants,suchassulphur,gypsumandslag orash,areassumedazeronetcost.Attheendoftheprojectlifetime,5%ofovernightcostsis appliedincostcalculationsfordecommissioning.Assumptionsonfuelpricesvaryacrossregions andaresummarisedinBox1. Box1.Fuelpriceassumptions

Common fuel prices that remain constant over the entire lifetime of the plant are assumed for evaluatingelectricitygenerationcosts.Thisstudyusesforconsistencyfuelpricesforbituminouscoals andnaturalgasasdefinedintheOECDPCGE2010publication(eventhoughinparticularnaturalgas prices are currently lower). Subbituminous coals and lignite are typically not traded on an internationallevel.Henceforthesecoalsnationalfuelpriceassumptionsareused.Sinceacrossthe datacoveredbythisreviewsubbituminouscoalsandligniteareonlyusedinUSplants,fuelpricesas reportedbyDOE/NETLareassumed(NETL,2010e).Followingsimilarconsiderations,thefuelpricefor biomass,whichisonlyusedinasinglecaseforcofiring,isbasedonassumptionsfromtheunderlying study(GHGIA,2009). Insummary,thefollowingfuelpricesareassumedinthisstudy: OECDEurope Bituminouscoal:USD3.60pergigajoule(/GJ)(USD90/tonne) Naturalgas:USD9.76/GJ(USD10.30/MBtu) Biomass:USD11.32/GJ UnitedStates Bituminouscoal:USD2.12/GJ(USD47.60/tonne) Naturalgas:USD7.40/GJ(USD7.78/MBtu) Subbituminouscoal:USD0.72/GJ(USD14.28/tonne) Lignite:USD0.86/GJ(USD13.19/tonne) China Bituminouscoal:USD2.95/GJ(USD86.34/tonne) Naturalgas:USD4.53/GJ(USD4.78/MBtu) Conversion between lower (LHV) and higher heating value (HHV) thermal plant efficiencies is simplifiedbasedonIEAconventions,witha5%differenceforcoaland10%fornaturalgas.
OECD/IEA2011
LCOE also accounts for variable and fixed O&M costs. In contrast to fixed O&M costs, variable O&M costs include all consumable items, spare parts, and labour that are dependent on the outputlevelatagivenplant.Forprocessesthatarenotyetcommerciallyavailable,itiscommon to approximate both variable and fixed O&M costs by a using a percentage estimate of the capital cost. This approach was also taken in the abovementioned OECD study. O&M costs of largescale,commercialCO2captureinstallationsatpowerplantsstillremainuncertain.Hencea Page|21 constantfractionof4%oftheinstalledcapitalcostsforreferenceplantswithoutCO2captureand forplantswithcaptureisappliedasthebasisforO&Mcostassumptionsacrossallcasestudies. Since the impact of individual O&M assumptions is reduced, this approach also simplifies comparisonsbetweenLCOEresults. ReportedCO2emissionsincludeonlyemissionsrelatedtothepowerplantcombustionprocess. Equivalent lifecycle CO2 emissions are higher due to additional emissions from the acquisition and transport of raw materials, power transmission and depending on the specific enduse. Recentlifecycleanalysesofcoalandnaturalgasfiredpowerplantshavebeenpublishedbythe USDepartmentofEnergy(NETL,2010be). In addition, LCOE figures provided in this report reflect private costs only, without considering externalcostswithrespecttoenvironmentalandhealthrelatedimpactswhichareparticularly difficulttoquantify.Externalcostscoverexternalitiesatallstagesoftheproductionprocesssuch as construction, dismantling, the fuel cycle and operation, which are converted into monetary value. A recent European study provides estimates of external LCOE associated with power generationtechnologies.Theimpactassessmentfocusesonpotentialdamageonhumanhealth, buildingmaterials,cropsandecosystems,andduetoclimatechange.ForGermanyexternalcosts of fossilfuelled power generation with CCS are estimated in the order of USD1.8/MWh in the year2025(usingyear2000costlevels),comparedtoaboutUSD4.6/MWhforfossilfuelpower generationwithoutCCS(NEEDS,2009).
OECD/IEA2011
Costandperformanceresultsanddiscussion
In this working paper cost and performance data for CO2 capture from power generation are reviewed,recalibratedandupdatedto2010costlevels.Theresultsofthisanalysisarepresented anddiscussedinthischapter.
Page|22
Maincasestudies
Only CO2 capture cases that are covered by several studies are included in this report. The evaluationofcoalfiredpowergenerationfocusesonpostandoxycombustionCO2capturefrom supercritical (SCPC) and ultrasupercritical pulverised coal (USCPC) boilers as well as pre combustion CO2 capture from integrated gasification combined cycles (IGCC). Postcombustion CO2captureisalsoanalysedfornaturalgascombinedcycles(NGCC).6 Hence,resultsforfourmainCO2capturecasesarepresented: PostcombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationusingamines PrecombustionCO2capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles OxycombustionCO2capturefrompulverisedcoalpowergeneration PostcombustionCO2capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles PostcombustionCO2captureusingammoniaisapotentialneartermalternativetoaminebased solvents.Asimilarlydetailedanalysisisnotpossibleforammoniabasedsolventssinceonlyfew related data arepresentedin theanalysedstudies.Availabledataarenonethelesslisted inthe Annexofthisworkingpaperforreference. BiomassfiredpowergenerationwithCO2captureisnotevaluatedindepthsinceinformationis rare compared to coal and natural gasfired plants. A single data point for postcombustion capture from coalfired power plants with 10% cofiring of biomass is however added in the resultspresentedinthischapterforcomparison. As outlined above, results report cost and performance estimates for newbuild, early commercialplants.Allcostdata,includingLCOEandcostofCO2avoided,covercostsrelatedto thecaptureandcompressionofCO2tosupercriticalpressures,aswellastheconditioningofCO2 for transportation (but not for CO2 transport and storage). Generally, CO2 capture costs are considered to represent the bulk of the costs of integrated CCS projects. CO2 transport and storage costs can still be significant depending on the local availability and characteristics of storagesites,andarethuscrucialadditionaleconomicfactorstoconsiderinanyprojectspecific evaluationorenergyscenariomodellingwork. Toillustratecostandtechnologydevelopmenttrends,CO2capturedatashowninthefollowing tables and figures are sorted by the year of the cost information as provided in the original publication.Keydataareshownforreferencecaseswith(w/)CO2captureandwithout(w/o)CO2 capture.CostofCO2avoidedisausefulmetricforcomparingeconomicsofaspecificCO2capture processagainstalternativeCO2capturetechnologies.AnappropriatereferencecasewithoutCO2 capture needs to be chosen for specific assessments. In a specific newbuild CCS project, this referencewouldbethemosteconomicalpowergenerationalternativewithoutCCSthatmeets all projectspecific requirements (e.g. regarding plant availability or operating flexibility). This
Acrossreviewedstudies,onlyasinglecaseisavailableforeachpreandoxycombustioncapturefromNGCC;thus, thesecaptureroutesarenotincludedinthisreview.
OECD/IEA2011
referenceplantdoesnotnecessarilyhavetobebasedonthesamepowergenerationtechnology orusethesamefuel. Sinceitisdifficulttodefineauniversallyapplicablereferencetechnology,costofCO2avoidedin thisstudyiscalculatedusingthesamepowerplanttypewithandwithoutcapture.ForIGCCwith CO2capture,costofCO2avoidedisalsopresentedusingaPCreferencebasedondatapublished bythesameorganisation.CostofCO2avoidedforcoalbasedoxycombustioncaptureisbasedon Page|23 aPCreferencecasewithoutCO2capture,withdatafromthesameorganisation. Mosttechnoeconomicdataavailablefromthereviewedstudiesdescribecaptureinstallationsin the United States, followed by studies on European power plants.7 An analysis of CO2 capture costandperformanceinChinaisincludedinthisanalysis.BroadassessmentsacrossCO2capture routesarehoweverscarceforinstallationsinnonOECDcountries. In some of the following tables, different power plant and coal types are shown next to each otherforthesamecaptureroute.Whilethedifferenttypesarelistedexplicitly,thisisimportant tonotesincecoaltypescanvarywidelyfromthepredominantlyanalysedbituminouscoalstothe lesscommon subbituminous coals or lignite. In addition, some organisations published several setsoftechnoeconomicdataforthesamefueltypeandcaptureroute.Averagedataprovidedin thefarrightcolumnofthetablesareaddedtoguidethereader,butshouldbeinterpretedwith some care against this background. Additional tables illustrate the influence of the type of the powerplantandthespecificfuelusedforeachcaptureroute.
PostcombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines
Cost and performance data for postcombustion CO2 capture from coalfired power generation are shown in Table3. Technoeconomic data for 14 different cases from 7 organisations are analysed,includingacasestudyforaninstallationinChina. All postcombustion capture cases are using aminebased solvents for CO2 capture, typically monoethanolamine (MEA). Data for aqueous ammoniabased processes are provided in the Annex. Postcombustion CO2 capture from SCPC or USCPC boilers that operate on bituminous coals(labelledasBitcoal)areanalysedmostoften.Additionaldatacoversubcritical(SubPC) orcirculatingfluidisedbed(CFB)boilers,andplantsthatoperateonsubbituminouscoals,lignite orwith10%cofiringofbiomassinadditiontobituminouscoal.8 Averagepublishedcapacityfactorsare83%forthecasesshown;CO2captureratesare87%.Net power outputs including CO2 capture range from 399MW to 676 MW, at an average net efficiencyof30.9%(LHV)acrossOECDregions.Thecostandperformanceimpactofaddingpost combustionCO2capturetoacoalfiredreferenceplantwithoutCO2captureisgiveninFigure2. Net efficiency penalties between 8.7 and 12.0 percentage points (LHV) are estimated for post combustionCO2captureinOECDregions,whichisonaveragea25%reductioninefficiency.The netefficiencypenaltyestimatedforaninstallationinChinais10.8percentagepoints.
Another study on CCS performance and cost by the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel PowerPlants(ZEP)isannouncedfor2011,butwasnotyetavailableatthetimeofthispublication. 8 Forbiomasscofiring,actualCO2emissionsarestatedinTable3.Nopriceforagreencertificateisassumed.
Page|24
OECD
2005 2007 CMU MIT GHGIA GHGIA EPRI EPRI EPRI MIT NETL NETL GCCSI GCCSI GHGIA NZEC 2007 2007 2007 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2005 2005 2005 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2009 2009 2009 2009
Regionalfocus
China
Average (OECD)
Yearofcostdata
Yearofpublication
Organisation
ORIGINALDATAASPUBLISHED(convertedtoUSD)
US
Bitcoal SCPC CFB USCPC USCPC SCPC USCPC SCPC SCPC SCPC SubPC SCPC USCPC Lignite Bitcoal Bitcoal Subbit Subbit Bitcoal coal coal Bitcoal Bitcoal Bitcoal Bitcoal Bitcoal
Region
US
EU
EU
US
US
US
US
US
US
US
US
EU
Bit+10% Biomass
CHN
Bitcoal
Specificfueltype
Powerplanttype 528 493 41.3 31.4 811 107 1442 2345 24% 27% 21% 20% 28% 28% 2270 1979 2043 3439 3485 3354 27% 1330 1408 1408 2061 2089 2007 141 117 92 124 121 126 109 1910 3080 24% 1030 743 743 879 865 836 830 802 111 2024 3570 28% 26.7 34.8 35.3 28.2 28.8 29.1 30.7 29.9 36.5 44.0 44.0 39.2 39.8 40.0 40.4 41.2 38.6 27.5 856 121 1996 3610 29% 500 666 676 550 550 550 500 550 550 550 41.4 29.7 804 112 2587 4511 28% 500 758 758 600 600 600 500 550 550 550
SCPC
USCPC
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW)
550 550 46.8 34.9 707 95 2716 4279 26%
519 399 44.8 34.5 754 73 1710 2790 23%
824 622 43.9 33.1 797 106 856 1572 25%
582 545 41.4 30.9 820 111 1899 3135 25%
Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW)
Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%)
Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%)
CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh)
CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh)
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW)
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW)
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency
REEVALUATEDDATA(2010USD)
1508 2664 50 80 43 77% 59% 82% 73% 40 42 50% 38% 84 95 49 69 69 97 42 55% 40% 3404 2581 2664 1868 1720 1720 2580 4596 62 107 60 78% 72% 2615 4657 63 109 61 78% 72% 2512 4482 73 121 68 78% 67% 2391 4116 70 112 58 72% 60% 2203 4148 65 113 69 88% 73% 2172 4195 66 117 69 93% 77% 2409 4485 70 121 74 86% 73% 2529 4255 70 112 68 68% 59% 1873 3263 78 118 59 74% 52% 938 1838 51 80 42 96% 57% 2162 3808 66 107 58 75% 63%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW)
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW)
Table3.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines
LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh)
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh)
CostofCO2avoided(USD/tCO2)
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost
OECD/IEA2011
RelativeincreaseinLCOE
Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ betweenregions.
OECD/IEA2011
Figure2.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines:CO2captureimpact
2500 2000 1500 1000 500
CMU GHGIA GHGIA GHGIA EPRI EPRI EPRI GCCSI GCCSI NZEC NETL NETL MIT MIT
Increase inovernightcost(2010USD/kW)
120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost(%)
Page|25
GHGIA
GHGIA
GHGIA GHGIA GHGIA
EPRI
EPRI
EPRI
GCCSI
GCCSI GCCSI GCCSI
2005
2007
2009
2005
2007
2009
70 60 50 40 30 20 10
IncreaseinLCOE(2010USD/MWh)
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE (%)
GHGIA
GHGIA
EPRI
EPRI
EPRI
GCCSI
GHGIA
GHGIA
GHGIA
GCCSI
GCCSI
2005
2007
2009
NZEC
NETL
NETL
CMU
2005
2007
2009
14 12 10 8 6 4 2
CMU
Netefficiencypenalty(percentagepoints,LHV)
50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency (%)
GHGIA
GHGIA
GHGIA
EPRI
EPRI
EPRI
GCCSI
GCCSI
NZEC
NETL
NETL
MIT
MIT
EPRI
EPRI
CMU
GHGIA
GHGIA
EPRI
GCCSI
MIT
MIT
2005
2007
2009
2005
2007
2009
NZEC
NETL
NETL
0%
NZEC
NETL
NETL
CMU
MIT
EPRI
EPRI
EPRI
MIT
MIT
MIT
NZEC
NETL
NETL
CMU
MIT
MIT
0%
Notes:DatacoveronlyCO2captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.Datasortedbyyearofcostinformationas published;whitebarsshowdataforinstallationsinChina.Overnightcostsincludeowners,EPCandcontingencycosts,butnotIDC.A 15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingencyappliedfornonCCScases.IDCisincludedinLCOEcalculations.Fuelpriceassumptionsdifferbetweenregions.
OECD/IEA2011
By adding CO2 capture, overnight costs updated to 2010 cost levels increase on average by USD1647/kW, but vary substantially by a factor of more than two between USD861/kW and USD2076/kW.ForChinaovernightcostsareexpectedtoincreasebyUSD900/kW. Incomparison,therelative(percentagewise)increaseofovernightcostscomparedtoovernight costsofthereferencepowerplantismorestableacrossstudies.Overnightcostsincreasebyon Page|26 average75%whenaddingCO2capture.Thistrendiscomparablyrobustacrossawiderangeof powerplanttypes(SCPC,USCPC,CFB),coalsused(bituminous,subbituminousandlignite),and tosomeextentevenregions(e.g.theUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanUnion). InOECDregions,LCOEincreasesonaveragebyUSD41/MWh,butvariesbetweenUSD26/MWh andUSD51/MWh.TherelativeincreaseofLCOEcomparedtoLCOEofthereferenceplantison average63%.CostsofCO2avoidedareonaverageUSD58/tCO2butvarybetweenUSD40/tCO2 and USD74/tCO2 for case studies across OECD regions. Costs of CO2 avoided for China are estimatedUSD42/tCO2. Table4.Postcombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes(OECDonly)
Specificfueltype
Powerplanttype Numberofcasesincluded USCPC 3
Bitcoal
SCPC 5 SubPC 1
Subbit&Lignite
USCPC 1 SCPC 1 CFB 1
Overall Average
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 689 631 44.9 35.0 731 101 1844 2767 22% 581 553 41.4 31.0 804 109 1896 3151 25% 550 550 38.6 27.5 856 121 1996 3610 29% 600 550 39.8 28.8 865 121 2089 3485 28% 600 550 39.2 28.2 879 124 2061 3439 28% 500 500 36.5 26.7 1030 141 1330 2270 27% 582 545 41.4 30.9 820 111 1899 3135 25%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 1990 3166 69 101 51 58% 46% 2124 3760 66 107 59 76% 62% 2172 4195 66 117 69 93% 77% 2615 4657 63 109 61 78% 72% 2580 4596 62 107 60 78% 72% 1868 3404 49 84 40 82% 73% 2162 3808 66 107 58 75% 63%
CostofCO 2avoided(USD/tCO2) Relativeincreaseinovernightcost RelativeincreaseinLCOE
Notes: Data cover only CO 2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingencyappliedfornonCCScases.IDCisincludedinLCOEcalculations.Fuelpriceassumptionsdifferbetweenregions.
TheinfluenceofspecificpowerplantandfueltypesisshowninTable4.Thenumberofsamples perpowerplantandfuelcombinationislimited,however,andresultsshouldnotberegardedas representative.
OECD/IEA2011
Overnight costs for USCPC plants running on bituminous coals are in comparison quite low. It shouldbenotedthoughthattwooutofthethreeunderlyingdatasetsarebasedonupdatedcost informationfromasinglereferencefrom2005. Data for SubPC bituminous coalfired power plants, as well as all subbituminous and lignite firedinstallations,areeachbasedjustonasinglepublication(Figure4).Theythusshouldnotbe Page|27 interpretedinfavouroforagainstalternativeoptions.
PrecombustionCO2capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles
Cost and performance data for precombustion CO2 capture from integrated gasification combinedcycles(IGCC)areshowninTable5.Technoeconomicdatafor11differentcasesfrom7 organisationsareanalysed,includingacasestudyforaninstallationinChina. Table5.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles
Regionalfocus
Yearofcostdata Yearofpublication Organisation 2005 2007 MIT 2005 2007 2005 2007 2007 2010
OECD
2007 2010 NETL 2007 2010 NETL 2008 2009 CMU 2008 2009 EPRI 2008 2009 EPRI 2009 2009
China
2009 2009
Average (OECD)
GHGIA GHGIA NETL
GCCSI NZEC
Region Specificfueltype Powerplanttype Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) US EU EU US US US US US US US
Bitcoal
CHN
Bitcoal TPRI
Bitcoal Bitcoal Bitcoal Bitcoal Bitcoal Bitcoal Bitcoal GE Shell GE Quench CoPE GER+Q GasFSQ Shell
Subbit Bitcoal coal
GE (Generic) (Generic) Quench
Shell IGCC
500 500 40.3 32.7 832 102 1430 1890 19%
776 676 43.1 34.5 763 142 1613 2204 20%
826 730 38.0 31.5 833 152 1439 1815 17%
622 543 40.9 34.3 782 93 2447 3334 16%
625 514 41.7 32.6 776 98 2351 3466 22%
629 497 44.2 32.8 723 99 2716 3904 26%
538 495 40.0 34.5 819 94 1823 2513 14%
573 482 41.0 32.3 845 141 3239 4221 21%
603 507 41.2 32.3 805 135 2984 3940 22%
636 517 43.2 33.6 753 90 3521 4373 22%
662 36.8 95 1471
633 546 41.4 33.1 793 115 2356 3166 20%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 2009 2834 62 83 29 18 41% 35% 1970 2874 69 102 53 53 46% 48% 1758 2367 75 95 30 38 35% 27% 2663 3874 76 104 42 57 45% 38% 2559 4027 73 109 53 64 57% 49% 2956 4536 81 120 62 86 53% 48% 1551 2323 52 71 26 28 50% 37% 3702 5150 86 118 45 64 39% 37% 3410 4808 92 126 51 79 41% 37% 3279 2586 3714 75 104 43 55 44% 39%
4348 1721 88 115 41 64 33% 31% 73 32
CostofCO2 avoided(USD/tCO2) CostofCO2 avoidedvsPCbaseline

(USD/tCO2)
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost RelativeincreaseinLCOE
Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ between regions. Generic data shown for EPRI; further details for individual gasifier designs, including data forSiemensgasifiersareavailableinEPRI(2009).
OECD/IEA2011
Figure3.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles:CO2captureimpact
2000 1500 80% 1000 500 20% 0 0% 60% 40%
120% 100%
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost (%)
Page|28
EPRI
EPRI
GHGIA
GHGIA
GCCSI
NETL
NETL
NETL
CMU
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
NETL
NETL
NETL
EPRI
EPRI EPRI EPRI
2005
2007
2008
2009
2005
2007
2008
2009
70 60 50 40 30 20 10
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
GHGIA
GHGIA
EPRI
GHGIA
GHGIA
2005
2007
2008
2009
GCCSI
2005
2007
2008
2009
14 12 10 8 6 4 2
50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
EPRI
EPRI
GHGIA
GHGIA
GCCSI
NETL
NETL
NETL
CMU
MIT
GHGIA
GHGIA
NETL
NETL
NETL
EPRI
2005
2007
2008
2009
2005
2007
2008
2009
GCCSI
CMU
MIT
0%
GCCSI
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
CMU
NETL
CMU
EPRI
EPRI
MIT
MIT
GCCSI
CMU
MIT
Notes:DatacoveronlyCO2captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.Datasortedbyyearofcostinformationas published;nofullsetofdataavailableforinstallationsinChina.Overnightcostsincludeowners,EPCandcontingencycosts,butnot IDC.A15%contingencybasedonEPCcostisaddedforunforeseentechnicalorregulatorydifficultiesforCCScases,comparedtoa5% contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ between regions. IGCC referenceplantdataarenotprovidedintheNZEC(2009)publication.
OECD/IEA2011
AllreviewedstudiesapartfromoneevaluateprecombustionCO2capturefromIGCCplantsthat operateonbituminouscoals.GasifiertechnologiesbyConocoPhillips(CoP),GeneralElectric(GE), ShellandtheChineseThermalPowerResearchInstitute(TPRI)areanalysed. Averagepublishedcapacityfactorsare81%forthecasesshown;CO2captureratesare88%.Net poweroutputsincludingCO2capturerangefrom482MWto730MWacrossOECDregions,atan averagenetefficiencyof33.1%(LHV).TheimpactofaddingprecombustioncapturetoanIGCC Page|29 referenceplantwithoutCO2captureisillustratedinFigure3. Net efficiency penalties between 5.5 and 11.4 percentage points (LHV) are estimated for pre combustionCO2captureinOECDregions,whichisonaveragea20%reductioninefficiency.No IGCCreferenceplantdataareprovidedinthecasestudyonprecombustionCO2captureinChina (NZEC,2009). By adding CO2 capture, overnight costs updated to 2010 cost levels increase on average by USD1128/kW compared to an IGCC reference case. However, the increase varies substantially byafactorofmorethantwobetweenUSD609/kWandUSD1580/kW.9 The relative (percentagewise) increase of overnight costs is more stable across studies. Overnightcostsincreasebyonaverage44%comparedtoanIGCCreferencepowerplantwhen adding CO2 capture. This trend appears comparably robust across the range of gasifier technologiesandbetweentheUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanUnion. LCOE figures follow a similar pattern. In OECD regions LCOE increases on average by USD29/MWh relative to an IGCC reference plant, but varies between USD19/MWh and USD39/MWh.TherelativeincreaseofLCOEcomparedtotheLCOEofthereferenceplantison average39%. Costs of CO2 avoided are on average USD43/tCO2 if an IGCC reference plant is used, but vary betweenUSD26/tCO2andUSD62/tCO2forOECDregionsacrossstudycases. If a pulverised coal power plant reference case is used, average costs of CO2 avoided rise to USD55/tCO2. The cost of CO2 avoided in China is estimated USD32/tCO2 relative to a Chinese pulverisedcoalpowerplant,orabouthalfofthecostsinOECDregions. Table 6 illustrates the influence of specific fuel types. However, only a single data point is available for subbituminous and lignitefired installations, which is insufficient for drawing conclusionsregardingtechnologycompetitivenesscomparedtobituminouscoalfiredoptions.
Asstatedbytheauthorsinafollowuppublication(MIT,2009),IGCCcostestimatespublishedinMIT(2007)might havebeentoooptimistic.
OECD/IEA2011
Table6.Precombustioncapture:influenceofcoals(OECDonly)
Subbit& Overall Lignite Average
1
Specificfueltype
Page|30
Numberofcasesincluded
Bitcoal
9
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 639 553 41.4 33.2 787 112 2258 3049 20% 573 482 41.0 32.3 845 141 3239 4221 21% 633 546 41.4 33.1 793 115 2356 3166 20%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 2462 3555 74 103 43 54 45% 39% 3702 5150 86 118 45 64 39% 37% 2586 3714 75 104 43 55 44% 39%
CostofCO 2avoided(USD/tCO2) CostofCO 2avoidedvsPCbaseline

(USD/tCO2)
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost RelativeincreaseinLCOE
Notes: Data cover only CO 2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptionsdifferbetweenregions.
OxycombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration
Cost and performance data for oxycombustion CO2 capture from coalfired power generation are shown in Table7. Technoeconomic data for 11 different cases from 5 organisations are analysed,includingacasestudyforaninstallationinChina.Itshouldbenotedaparticularlylarge numberofdatastemfromasinglerecentUSDepartmentofEnergyassessment(NETL,2010e). Oxycombustion capture from SCPC and USCPC boilers that operate on bituminous coals are most often evaluated in the reviewed studies. Additional data cover CFB boilers, and plants operatingonsubbituminouscoalsorlignite. Averagepublishedcapacityfactorsare85%forthecasesshown;CO2captureratesare92%.Net poweroutputsincludingCO2capturerangefrom500MWto550MWinOECDcountries,atan averagenetefficiencyof31.9%(LHV).
OECD/IEA2011
Table7.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration
Regionalfocus
Yearofcostdata Yearofpublication Organisation 2005 2007 GHGIA 2005 2007 MIT 2007 2008 NETL 2007 2010 NETL
OECD
2007 2010 NETL 2007 2010 NETL 2007 2010 NETL 2007 2010 NETL 2009 2009 2009 2009
China
2009 2009 NZEC
Average (OECD)
GCCSI GCCSI
Page|31
Region Specificfueltype Powerplanttype Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) EU
Bitcoal USCPC
US
Bitcoal SCPC
US
Bitcoal SCPC
US
US
US
Lignite SCPC
US
Subbit coal CFB
US
Lignite CFB
US
Bitcoal SCPC
US
Bitcoal USCPC
CHN
Bitcoal USCPC
Subbit Subbit coal coal SCPC SCPC
758 532 44.0 35.4 743 84 1408 2205 20%
500 500 40.4 32.1 830 104 1330 1900 21%
550 550 41.4 30.7 800 0 1579 2660 26%
550 550 40.6 32.5 859 98 1851 3093 20%
550 550 40.6 29.5 859 0 1851 3086 27%
550 550 39.4 31.4 925 103 2003 3163 20%
550 549 40.9 31.6 846 99 1938 3491 23%
550 550 40.2 30.7 884 105 2048 3821 24%
550 550 41.4 30.8 800 0 2587 4121 26%
550 550 46.8 34.7 707 0 2716 3985 26%
824 673 43.9 35.6 797 98 856 1266 19%
566 543 41.6 31.9 825 59 1931 3153 23%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 1720 2875 69 101 49 67% 47% 1868 2849 59 84 35 53% 43% 1976 3555 61 100 49 80% 65% 2317 4133 56 96 52 78% 71% 2317 4124 56 97 47 78% 72% 2507 4227 62 100 46 69% 62% 2426 4665 59 108 66 92% 84% 2563 5106 63 119 72 99% 89% 2409 4098 70 112 52 70% 60% 2529 3962 70 106 50 57% 51% 938 1481 51 69 27 58% 36% 2263 3959 62 102 52 74% 64%
Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ between regions. CO 2 purities >99.9% apart from GHG IA (96%), GCCSI (83%) and NETL case with 29.5% (LHV) efficiency(83%).
TheimpactofaddingoxycombustionCO2capturerelativetoacoalfiredreferenceplantwithout CO2captureisillustratedinFigure4. Net efficiency penalties between 7.9 and 12.2 percentage points (LHV) are estimated for oxy combustionCO2captureinOECDregions,whichisonaveragea23%reductioninefficiency.The netefficiencypenaltyestimatedforaninstallationinChinais8.3percentagepoints. By adding CO2 capture, overnight costs updated to 2010 cost levels increase on average by USD1696/kW but vary substantially by a factor of more than two between USD981/kW and USD2543/kW.ForChinaovernightcostsareexpectedtoincreasebyUSD542/kW.Therelative (percentagewise)increaseofovernightcostsisonaverage74%comparedtoovernightcostsof thereferencepowerplant.
OECD/IEA2011
Figure4.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration:CO2captureimpact
3000 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 2500 2000 1500 1000 500
Page|32
GHGIA
GCCSI
GCCSI
NZEC
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
MIT
GCCSI
GHGIA
2005
2007
2009
2005
2007
2009
70 60 50 40 30 20 10
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE(%)
GHGIA
GCCSI
GCCSI
2009 2009
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
GHGIA
GCCSI
GCCSI
2005
2007
2009
NZEC
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
2005
2007
14 12 10 8 6 4 2
50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
GCCSI
GHGIA
GCCSI
MIT
NZEC
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
GCCSI
GHGIA
2005
2007
2009
2005
2007
GCCSI
NZEC
MIT
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
0%
NZEC
MIT
MIT
0%
GCCSI
NZEC
MIT
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
NETL
0%
Notes:DatacoveronlyCO2captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.Datasortedbyyearofcostinformationas published;whitebarsshowdataforinstallationsinChina.Overnightcostsincludeowners,EPCandcontingencycosts,butnotIDC.A 15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingencyappliedfornonCCScases.IDCisincludedinLCOEcalculations.Fuelpriceassumptionsdifferbetweenregions.
OECD/IEA2011
InOECDregions,LCOEincreasesonaveragebyUSD40/MWh,butvariesbetweenUSD25/MWh andUSD56/MWh.TherelativeincreaseofLCOEcomparedtoLCOEofthereferenceplantison average64%.CostsofCO2avoidedareonaverageUSD52/tCO2butvarybetweenUSD35/tCO2 and USD72/tCO2 for OECD regions across study cases. Costs of CO2 avoided for China are estimatedtobeUSD27/tCO2,orabouthalfofaveragecostsinOECDregions. Table8illustratestheinfluenceofthespecificpowerplantandfueltype.Samplesizesarequite Page|33 similar across power plant and fuel variations but still limited; hence results should not be considered representative. Total plant overnight costs of power plants including CO2 capture tendtobelowerforbituminouscoalscomparedtosubbituminousorlignitecoals.CostsofCO2 avoidedaresimilarthough,apartfromoxycombustioncapturefromCFBboilers. Table8.Oxycombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes(OECDonly)
Specificfueltype
Powerplanttype Numberofcasesincluded
Bitcoal
USCPC 2 SCPC 3
Subbit&Lignite
SCPC 3 CFB 2
Overall Average
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 654 541 45.4 35.0 725 42 2062 3095 23% 533 533 41.0 31.2 810 35 1832 2894 24% 550 550 40.2 31.2 881 67 1902 3114 22% 550 549 40.5 31.2 865 102 1993 3656 23% 566 543 41.6 31.9 825 59 1931 3153 23%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 2125 3419 70 103 50 62% 49% 2085 3500 63 99 45 67% 56% 2380 4161 58 98 49 75% 68% 2495 4885 61 114 69 96% 86% 2263 3959 62 102 52 74% 64%
CostofCO2 avoided(USD/tCO2) Relativeincreaseinovernightcost RelativeincreaseinLCOE
Notes: Data cover only CO 2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuelpriceassumptionsdifferbetweenregions.
OECD/IEA2011
PostcombustionCO2capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles
CostandperformancedataforpostcombustionCO2capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles byaminesareshowninTable9.Technoeconomicdatafor9differentcasesfrom5organisations areanalysed.
Page|34
Table9.Postcombustioncapturefromnaturalgasfiredpowergeneration(OECDonly)
Regionalfocus
Yearofcostdata Yearofpublication Organisation 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 2007 2010
OECD
2008 2009 CCP 2008 2009 CCP 2008 2009 CCP 2008 2009 CCP 2009 2009 GCCSI
Average
CMU GHGIA GHGIA NETL
Region Specificfueltype Powerplanttype Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) US
NG Fclass
EU
NG Fclass
EU
NG Fclass
US
NG Fclass
EU
NG Fclass
EU
NG Fclass
EU
NG Fclass
EU
NG Fclass
US
NG Fclass
507 432 55.2 47.1 367 43 671 1091 15%
776 662 55.6 47.4 379 66 499 869 15%
776 692 55.6 49.6 379 63 499 887 11%
555 474 55.2 47.1 365 43 718 1497 15%
395 322 58.0 47.3 370 60 1245 2358 18%
395 367 58.0 49.3 370 60 1245 1741 15%
395 360 58.0 49.7 370 60 1245 1786 14%
395 361 58.0 49.7 370 60 1245 1767 14%
560 482 55.9 48.1 362 42 957 1870 14%
528 461 56.6 48.4 370 55 925 1541 15%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 749 1313 64 84 62 75% 31% 609 1133 76 98 69 86% 29% 609 1157 76 95 60 90% 25% 781 1740 64 92 87 123% 44% 1237 2502 86 126 128 102% 46% 1237 1847 86 110 75 49% 27% 1237 1895 86 110 76 53% 27% 1237 1875 86 110 75 52% 27% 944 1969 67 96 90 109% 43% 960 1715 77 102 80 82% 33%
CostofCO2avoided(USD/tCO2) Relativeincreaseinovernightcost RelativeincreaseinLCOE
Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ between regions. The GHG IA case with the lower efficiency penalty assumes KS1 as a solvent. Two CCP cases (with 360 MW and 361 MW power output) make use of exhaust gas recirculation and/or advanced heatintegration,whichareasoftodaynotyetcommerciallyavailabletechnologies.
Averagepublishedcapacityfactorsare88%forthecasesshown;CO2captureratesare87%.Net poweroutputsincludingcapturerangefrom322MWto692MW,atanaveragenetefficiencyof 48.4%(LHV)acrossOECDregions.
OECD/IEA2011
TheimpactofaddingpostcombustionCO2capturetoanaturalgascombinedcyclecomparedto anNGCCreferenceplantwithoutCO2captureisillustratedinFigure5. Figure5.Postcombustioncapturefromnaturalgasfiredpowergeneration:CO2captureimpact

1500 1200 900 600 300 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
Page|35
GHGIA
GHGIA
CMU
GCCSI
NETL
CCP
CCP
CCP
CCP
GHGIA
GHGIA
2005
2007
2008
2009
2005
2007
2008
2009
70 60 50 40 30 20 10
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
GHGIA
GHGIA
GHGIA
GHGIA
GCCSI
2005
2007
2008
2009
2005
2007
2008
2009
12 10 8 6 4 2
50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
GHGIA
GHGIA
GCCSI
CMU
NETL
CCP
CCP
CCP
CCP
GHGIA
GHGIA
2005
2007
2008
2009
2005
2007
2008
2009
GCCSI
CMU
NETL
CCP
CCP
CCP
CCP
0%
GCCSI
CMU
NETL
CCP
CCP
CCP
CMU
NETL
CCP
CCP
CCP
CCP
CCP
0%
GCCSI
CMU
NETL
CCP
CCP
CCP
CCP
0%
Notes:Datacoveronly CO2capture andcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.Overnight costsincludeowners,EPCand contingencycosts,butnotIDC.A15%contingencybasedonEPCcostisaddedforunforeseentechnicalorregulatorydifficultiesforCCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ betweenregions
OECD/IEA2011
Net efficiency penalties between 6.0 and 10.7 percentage points (LHV) are estimated for post combustionCO2captureinOECDregions,whichisonaveragea15%reductioninefficiency. By adding CO2 capture, overnight costs updated to 2010 cost levels increase on average by USD754/kW but vary substantially by a factor of more than two between USD524/kW and USD1264/kW.
Page|36
The relative (percentagewise) increase of overnight costs compared to overnight costs of the reference power plant is less stable than the trend observed for data for coalfired power generation.Overnightcostsincreasebyonaverage82%whenaddingCO2capture.Incontrastto coalfired power generation, using the relative increase of overnight costs as a key metric appearstoofferalessclearbenefitoverusingabsolutecostincreases,giventhelargevariation ofdataacrossstudies. InOECDregionsLCOEincreasesonaveragebyUSD25/MWh,butvariesbetweenUSD19/MWh andUSD40/MWh.TherelativeincreaseofLCOEcomparedtoLCOEofthereferenceplantison average33%. Costs of CO2 avoided are on average USD80/tCO2, but vary between USD60/tCO2 and USD128/tCO2forOECDregionsacrossstudycases.
OECD/IEA2011
Summaryofresults
Publishedcostandperformancedatavarysignificantlyovertime,acrossstudiesandsometimes evenwithincountriesorregions.Thisspreadalsoreflectscurrentmacroeconomicuncertainties thatresultfromtherecentglobalfinancialcrisis,duringwhichenergyandsupplierpricesreached Page|37 historicallevels.Asaconsequence,costsforCO2captureprocessesandcostsforreferenceplants withoutCO2capturefluctuatesignificantlyacrossstudies. CostandperformancefiguresfortheUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanUnion,whichrepresent the bulk of the analysed data, are summarised in Table 10. These data are average figures acrossaverydiversesetofCO2captureapplicationsandreferences.Theynonethelessprovide asnapshotofcurrentestimatesforgenericcostsandperformancerelatedtoCO2capturefrom powergeneration. Takingintoaccount thelevelofuncertaintyacross casestudies,thefollowinggeneral costand performancetrendscanbeidentifiedforearlycommercialCO2capturefrompowergeneration: Forcoalfiredpowerplants(averagefigures): Netefficiencypenaltiesofaround10percentagepointsareestimatedforpostandoxy combustionCO2capturecomparedtoapulverisedcoalplantwithoutCO2capture.Penal ties for precombustion are about eight percentage points relative to an integrated gasificationcombinedcyclewithoutCO2capture. Overnight costs with CO2 capture on average are USD3800/kW in OECD regions. Average figures vary very little across capture routes. Within single CO2 capture routes however, variation between different power plant and fuel types can be substantial. AverageLCOEestimatesareUSD105/MWh. CostsofCO2avoidedareonaverageUSD55/tCO2acrossCO2captureroutes,provideda pulverisedcoalpowerplantwithoutCO2captureisusedasareferencecase. Fornaturalgasfiredpowerplants(averagefigures): Net efficiency penalties of about eight percentage points are estimated for post combustionCO2capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles. Overnight costs for power plants with postcombustion CO2 capture are on average USD1700/kW,whiletheLCOEisUSD102/MWh. CostsofCO2avoidedareonaverageUSD80/tCO2forpowerplantswithpostcombustion CO2capture. For comparison, average overnight costs for SCPC and USCPC plants with CO2 capture in the OECD PCGE 2010 analysis are USD3804/kW at 2010 cost levels, or 86% above the average overnight costs of SCPC and USCPC plants without CO2 capture. The results of the OECD PCGE 2010analysisarethussimilartothefindingsofthisstudy,althoughtheOECDstudyisnotbased onareviewofengineeringstudiesbutinsteadondatasubmissionsbyOECDmembercountries andindustryassociations.10

10
CCS data of the PCGE 2010 study include in total eight data points for USCPC and SCPC power plants that were submitted by the Czech Republic, Germany and the United States, as well as the industry associations Eurelectric andtheEnergySupplyAssociationofAustralia.
OECD/IEA2011
Table10.AveragecostandperformancedatabyCO2captureroute(OECDonly)
Fueltype Captureroute
Page|38
COAL
NG
Post Pre Oxy Post combustion combustion combustion combustion PC 30.9 10.5 25% 3808 1647 75% 107 41 63% 58 IGCC(PC) 33.1 7.5 20% 3714 1128(1566) 44%(71%) 104 29(37) 39%(55%) 43(55) PC 31.9 9.6 23% 3959 1696 74% 102 40 64% 52 NGCC 48.4 8.3 15% 1715 754 82% 102 25 33% 80
Referenceplantw/ocapture Netefficiencyw/capture(LHV,%) Netefficiencypenalty(LHV,percentagepoints) Relativenetefficiencypenalty Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) Overnightcostincrease(USD/kW) Relativeovernightcostincrease LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) LCOEincrease(USD/MWh) RelativeLCOEincrease CostofCO2avoided(USD/tCO 2)
Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. The accuracy of feasibility study capital cost estimates is on average 30%, hence for coal the variation in average overnight costs, LCOE and cost of CO 2 avoided between capture routes is within the uncertainty of the study. Underlying oxycombustion data include some cases with CO2 purities <97%. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for nonCCScases.IDCisincludedinLCOEcalculations.Fuelpriceassumptionsdifferbetweenregions.
TheIEAplanstoregularlyupdatefindings,andincludeadditionaltechnoeconomicdataforother CO2captureapplicationsfrompowergeneration,includingbioenergywithCCS(BECCS).Inmany globalclimatescenarios,BECCSplaysacrucialroleforreducingCO2emissionsintheatmosphere. CommercialattractivenessofBECCSiscurrentlylimitedsincenospecificmechanismsareinplace thatwouldincentivisethepotentialofBECCStogeneratenegativeCO2emissions.
Futurecostandperformancepotential
CostandperformanceestimatesforneartermCO2capturefrompowergenerationaretypically based on currently available technologies. Characteristics of future CO2 capture installations deployedinthelongertermwilllikelydifferincomparisontoneartermdesigns.Thougharisein cost is not uncommon for technologies in early phases of demonstration, cost reduction and performanceimprovementaretypicallyexpectedovertimeandwithincreasingdeployment. Potential cost and performance improvement can be assessed based on bottomup techno economic engineering models of advanced capture approaches. An alternative approach is to applytheconceptofhistoricallearningcurvesbyusingdataforalreadyestablishedtechnologies thatareextrapolatedtoCO2captureprocesses. Experiencecurvesareusedtodescribecostreductionasafunctionofcumulativedeployment, which for CO2 capture technologies derives from energy scenarios. Studies have analysed the
OECD/IEA2011
historicaldeploymentandcostdevelopmentofpowergenerationrelatedtechnologiessuchas flue gas desulphurisation, selective catalytic reduction, gas turbine combined cycles, pulverised coalboilers,oxygenproductionplantsandsteammethanereformingasabasisforestimating similarlearningeffectsforCO2captureprocesses.Itshouldbenotedthatcostestimatesinitially oftenincreaseratherthandecreasewhennoveltechnologiesmoveintofirstuse. Based on a scenario that assumes 100 GW of CCS have been deployed the improvement Page|39 potential through learning effects was analysed (Rubin,2007). For different power plants with CO2capture,reductionsareestimatedatbetween9.1%and17.8%incapitalcosts,andbetween 9.7%and17.6%incostofelectricity.ReferencepowerplantswithoutCCScouldalsobenefitfrom further improvement, but net reductions of overall CO2 mitigation costs are identified. Further informationontheunderlyingmethodologyandworkthatextendsthisapproachtoalsoinclude potentialimprovementofpowerplantperformancedatacanbefoundintheliterature(vanden Broek,2009).
Uncertaintyandsensitivityofresults
Giventheirgenericnatureorearlystageofdevelopment,mostofthepublisheddataevaluated in this report should be considered as feasibility study estimates. Typical accuracy ranges of feasibilitystudycostestimatesare15%to30%onthelowside,and+20%to+50%onthehigh side (AACE,2005). This uncertainty applies to capital cost estimates, but extends also to corresponding LCOE figures, in particular for coal power plants that are traditionally capital intensive.Consideringtheuncertaintylevelofcostestimates,differencesinovernightcostsand LCOEacrossdifferentCO2captureroutesforcoalfiredpowergenerationcannotbeinterpreted asacompetitiveadvantageofonetechnologyrouteoverthealternativeroutes. Total capital requirement of a reallife project will be significantly different from generic estimates. Important considerations for a specific project include (among others) financing structuresandconditions,companyandsitespecificrequirements,geographiccostdifferences orcostsrelatedtopermitting,siteandtechnologyapproval. Project and sitespecific costs should not be underestimated. This report assumes newbuild powerplantswithintegratedCO2capturethatcanuseexistingutilitysystemsonabrownfield industrialsite.Ifthisisnotthecase,projectandsitespecificcostsmayaddsignificantlytothe totalprojectcosts.Gassnovamadeacostestimateforaretrofitofpostcombustioncapturetoa naturalgaspowerplantinaruralareainNorway,andfoundthatprojectandsitespecificcosts added 30% to the EPCcontract costs for the CO2 capture plant. The project and sitespecific costs included site preparation, connections for flue gas and other utilities, sea water cooling system,powersupply,firewatersupply,trainingofpersonnelandmiscellaneousothercostsin theconstructionphase.11 Across the reviewed studies, it is often not fully transparent which sources and methodologies areusedforestimatingcost.Wheninterpretingresults,readersshouldkeepinmindthatoften estimates will not be based on original source data from plant suppliers but might be derived fromotherpublishedsources,orhavebeenprovidedbythesameengineeringcontractor.Asan example,thestudybyGCCSIusesNETLcapitalcostdataasastartingpointforfurtheranalysis andreevaluation. ThetoolsandmethodologiesusedforthisstudyarebasedonthePCGE2010analysis,whichalso discussesindetailsensitivitiesofresultstovariationsofkeyinputparameters.Forexample,this analysis uses assumptions on capacity factors that are representative of baseline operation of
11
PersonalcommunicationwithToreHatlen,Gassnova,2011.
OECD/IEA2011
powerplants.Itisimportanttonotethatinfuturescenarioswithsubstantialelectricitysupplyby variablerenewableenergy,otherpowergenerationoptionsincludingthosewithCO2capture mighthavetooperateatloadfactorsthataresignificantlylower.GiventhesensitivityofLCOEto the capacity factor, this would lead to higher LCOE figures than those provided in the results sectionofthisworkingpaper.Inaddition,onceinstalled,themarginaloperatingcostsofpower Page|40 plantswillplayanimportantrolefordeterminingthecapacity factorofaspecificpowerplant. Due to higher fuel costs, marginal operating costs of natural gasfired power plants are often higherthanthoseforcoalfiredplans,whichcouldresultinlowercapacityfactors.Thesensitivity of LCOE to variations in the capacity factor and other key parameter is discussed in the PCGE 2010publication. Inaddition,sensitivitiesofLCOEresultsfromthisstudyareillustratedinFigure6.Theverticalaxis denotestheaveragebaselineLCOEresultforcoalandnaturalgasfiredpowergenerationwith CCS.Thehorizontalbarsindicatethepercentageincreaseordecreaseofthisvaluecausedbya 50% variation in the assumptions for fuel cost, O&M, overnight costs and discount rate. The graphsquantifythegenerallyknownstrongsensitivityofLCOEtocapitalcostrelatedfactorssuch asovernightcostsandthediscountrateforcoalfiredpowergeneration,andfuelcostfornatural gasfiredpowergeneration. Figure6.Impactofa50%variationinkeyassumptionsonLCOE
CoalfiredpowergenerationwithCCS
Fuelcost
NaturalgasfiredpowergenerationwithCCS
O&M
Overnightcost
Discountrate 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
In general, CO2 capture cost estimates published before 2007 are comparably low. While this coincides with low cost indices for power and chemical installations at that time, costs remain lower than more recent estimates even after updating them to current levels. Hence, simple recalibrationofoldercostfiguresoftencannotfullyclosethegapbetweenolderandlatestcost estimatesforCO2capture.Reasonsforthisdifferencemightinclude: Fundamental differences in prices of individual core equipment, for example for gas turbines or other key cost components that are not fully reflected by generalised cost indicesusedinthisstudy; Increased and more detailed knowledge about processes and required auxiliary installationsleadingtohighercost;and Changesinpricingstrategiesbytechnologyprovidersandengineeringcompanies.
ImpactonLCOE
ImpactonLCOE
OECD/IEA2011
Conclusionsandrecommendations
This study discusses cost and performance trends for CO2 capture from power generation. Estimates for about 50 different CO2 capture installations at power plants are included in the analysis,withafocusongeneric,newbuildCO2captureprocessesthatwouldbelocatedinthe UnitedStates,EuropeandChina.Technoeconomicdatapublishedoverthelastfiveyearsarere Page|41 calibratedandupdatedtocurrentcostlevels. Most cost and performance estimates are available for post, pre and oxycombustion CO2 capture from coalfired power generation, and for postcombustion CO2 capture from natural gasfiredpowergeneration. Based on the reevaluated cost and performance estimates, the following observations and recommendationscanbesummarisedforearlycommercialCO2capturefrompowergeneration: Considering uncertainties of current cost and performance data, no single technology for CO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationclearlyoutperformstheavailablealternative capture routes. This applies in particular to average overnight costs and levelised cost of electricitybutalsoincludescostofCO2avoided,providedthesameplantwithoutcaptureis chosen as a reference. This conclusion is also reflected by current CCS demonstration activities,whichcoverallcaptureroutes. WhileabsoluteCO2capturecostestimatesforcoalfiredpowergenerationvaryoveryears, figuresthatdescribetherelativeincreaseofcostcomparedtoareferenceplantwithoutCO2 captureareoftenmorestableacrossstudies.Forprovidinginitialgenericcostestimatesof coalfired power plants with CO2 capture, especially for regions with limited available data, relativecost increasescompared toactualreferenceplant costthusshould beconsidereda primary option. If no detailed sitespecific data are available, this approach appears more appropriatethanusingconstantabsolutecostincrements. For natural gasfired power plants, postcombustion CO2 capture is the option most predominantly considered across studies. Based on data provided in the reviewed studies, postcombustionappearsthemostattractiveoptionforneartermCO2capturefromnatural gascombinedcycles.Variationacrossdata,however,isparticularlyhighfornaturalgasfired power plants. Since this trend includes latest publications, additional analysis is required to secureabetterunderstandingofrelatedcosts. Harmonisationofcostingmethodologiesandformatsofreportingdataisdesirableinorder to increase transparency, and further simplify comparisons of data across studies. Though many studies use a conceptually similar approach in estimating CO2 capture cost and performance, specific methodologies, terminologies and underlying assumptions are not consistentlyusedacrossallstudies.Insupportofenergyscenariomodelling,overnightcostsis the preferable metric for capital costs, since it minimises the impact of projectspecific financingstructures. Additionalanalysisisneededacrosscaptureroutestofurtherquantifydifferencesbetween generic cost estimates (as presented in this report) and project and sitespecific costs of CO2 capture projects. Generic cost estimates provide a first orientation regarding likely averagecoststhatcanbeexpectedforearlycommercialCO2capturesystems.Furtherworkis required to better understand the cost spreads that could be expected due to project and sitespecificconditions. Additional cost and performance estimates are desirable for bioenergy with CCS (BECCS). ThoughBECCSisplayinganimportantroleinseveralglobalclimatemodels,engineeringlevel
OECD/IEA2011
technoeconomicdatacomparablewiththoseforcoalornaturalgasfiredpowergeneration arestillscarceintheliterature.Inthiscontext,mechanismsneedtobeevaluatedthatcould incentivisenegativeCO2emissionsgeneratedbyBECCS. Availability of data for CO2 capture from power generation in nonOECD countries is very limited,thoughglobalenergyscenariosforeseethatdeploymentofCCSinthesecountries Page|42 might have to exceed levels in OECD countries. It remains challenging to find broader assessmentsonCO2capturefrompowergenerationthatstemfromdomesticorganisationsin developing countries. Given the potential importance of CCS technology in nonOECD countries,additionaltechnoeconomicstudiesareneeded,includingcasestudiesthatanalyse the retrofit of CCS. In this context, appropriate capacity building in nonOECD countries is important.Highqualityinformationisrequiredforglobalenergyscenariomodels.Moreover, domesticknowhowwillbecriticalfordevelopingcountriesinordertoevaluatethepotential roleofCCSintheirnationalenergycontexts. InadditiontoCO2capturedata,accurateinformationonCO2transportandstorageiscrucial forevaluatingtheviabilityofCCSgloballyandinspecificregions.Itisimportanttofurther validatethepracticallyachievableandeconomicallyaffordablestoragecapacitiesandrelated costs based on internationally standardised assessment methodologies. Though CO2 transportationandstoragearenotcoveredbythisworkingpaper,theIEAisaddressingthis subjectinotherworkstreams.
OECD/IEA2011
References
AACE(AssociationfortheAdvancementofCostEngineering)(2005),CostEstimateClassificationSystem AsAppliedinEngineering,Procurement,andConstructionfortheProcessIndustries,International RecommendedPracticeNo.18R97,AACE,Morgantown,UnitedStates. CE(ChemicalEngineering)(2010),EconomicIndicatorsDecember2010,ChemicalEngineering, Vol.117(13),p.13. Chen,C.andE.S.Rubin(2009),CO2ControlTechnologyEffectsonIGCCPlantPerformanceandCost, EnergyPolicy,Vol.37,pp.915924. Davison,J.(2007),PerformanceandCostsofPowerPlantswithCaptureandStorageofCO2,Energy,Vol. 32,pp.11631176. ENCAP(EnhancedCaptureofCO2)(2008),PowerSystemsEvaluationandBenchmarkingPublicVersion, www.encapco2.org/publications/D_1_2_4_SummaryReport.pdf,accessed22February2011. EPRI(ElectricPowerResearchInstitute)(2009)UpdatedCostandPerformanceEstimatesforCleanCoal TechnologiesIncludingCO2Capture2009.EPRI,PaloAlto,California:2009.1017495. GCCSI(GlobalCCSInstitute)(2009),StrategicAnalysisoftheGlobalStatusofCarbonCaptureandStorage Report2:EconomicAssessmentofCarbonCaptureandStorageTechnologies. www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/Report%202 Economic%20Assessment%20of%20Carbon%20Capture%20and%20Storage%20Technologies_0.pdf, accessed22February2011. GHGIA(GreenhouseGasImplementingAgreement)(2009),BiomassCCSStudy,ReportNumber20099. Hamilton,M.R.,H.J.HerzogandJ.E.Parsons(2009),CostandU.S.PublicPolicyforNewCoalPowerPlants withCarbonCaptureandSequestration,EnergyProcedia,Vol.1(1),pp.44874494. Hildebrand,A.N.andH.J.Herzog(2009),OptimisationofCarbonCapturePercentageforTechnicaland EconomicImpactofNearTermCCSImplementationatCoalFiredPowerPlants,EnergyProcedia, Vol.1(1),pp.41354142. IEA(InternationalEnergyAgency)(2010),EnergyTechnologyPerspectives2010,OECD/IEA,Paris,France. IPCC(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange)(2005),CarbonDioxideCaptureandStorage,Metzetal. (Eds.),CambridgeUniversityPress,UnitedKingdom. IPCC(2007),ContributionofWorkingGroupIIItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmental PanelonClimateChange,Metzetal.(Eds.),CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UnitedKingdom andNewYork,UnitedStates. Melien,T.andS.BrownRoijen(2009),Economics,CarbonDioxideCaptureforStorageinDeep GeologicFormationsResultsfromtheCO2CaptureProjectVolume3,Eide(Ed.),CPLPress, Berkshire,UnitedKingdom. McKinsey(2007),CarbonCaptureandStorageAssessingtheEconomics,McKinsey&Company, www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/sustainability/pdf/CCS_Assessing_the_Economics.pdf,accessed22 February2011. MIT(MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology)(2007),TheFutureofCoal,MassachusettsInstituteof Technology,Massachusetts,UnitedStates. NEEDS(NewEnergyExternalitiesDevelopmentforSustainability)(2009),NewEnergyExternalities DevelopmentsforSustainability,EUFP6,FinalActivityReportApril2009, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/transparency/doc/2010_06_28/needs_finalpublishable activityreportrevised.pdf,accessed22February2011.
Page|43
OECD/IEA2011
NETL(NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory)(2010a),CostandPerformanceBaselineforFossilEnergy PlantsVolume1:BituminousCoalandNaturalGastoElectricity,Revision2,November2010, DOE/NETL2010/1397,www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalyses/pubs/BitBase_FinRep_Rev2.pdf,accessed 22February2011. NETL(2010b),LifeCycleAnalysis:IntegratedGasificationCombinedCycle(IGCC)PowerPlant,September 30,2010,DOE/NETL403/110209,http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy analyses/pubs/IGCC_LCA_Report_093010.pdf,accessed22February2011. NETL(2010c),LifeCycleAnalysis:NaturalGasCombinedCycle(NGCC)PowerPlant,September30,2010, DOE/NETL403110509,www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalyses/pubs/NGCC_LCA_Final.zip,accessed22 February2011. NETL(2010d),LifeCycleAnalysis:SupercriticalPulverisedCoal(SCPC)PowerPlant,September30,2010, DOE/NETL403110609,http://www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalyses/pubs/SCPC_LCA_Final.zip,accessed 22February2011. NETL(2010e),CostandPerformanceforLowRankPulverisedCoalOxycombustionEnergyPlants,Final Report,September2010,DOE/NETL401/093010,http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy analyses/pubs/LRPC_Oxycmbst_093010.pdf,accessed22February2011. NETL(2010f),CoalFiredPowerPlantsintheUnitedStates:ExaminationoftheCostsofRetrofittingwith CO2CaptureTechnology,Revision3,January4,2011,DOE/NETL402/102309, http://www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalyses/pubs/GIS_CCS_retrofit.pdf,accessed22February2011. NETL(2008),PulverisedCoalOxycombustionPowerPlants,FinalReport,August2008,DOE/NETL 2007/1291,www.netl.doe.gov/energy analyses/pubs/PC%20Oxyfuel%20Combustion%20Revised%20Report%202008.pdf,accessed22 February2011. NZEC(2009),ChinaUKNearZeroEmissionsCoalInitiativeCarbonDioxideCapturefromCoalfiredPower PlantsinChina,SummaryReportforNZECWorkPackage3,September,2009, www.nzec.info/en/assets/Reports/TechnoeconomicComparisonWP3FinalEnglish.pdf,accessed22 February2011. OECD(OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment)(2010),ProjectedCostofGenerating Electricity2010,OECD,Paris,France. Rubin,E.S.,C.ChenandA.B.Rao(2007a),CostandPerformanceofFossilFuelPowerPlantswithCO2 CaptureandStorage,EnergyPolicy,Vol.35(9),pp.44444454. Rubin,E.S.,etal.(2007b),UseofExperienceCurvestoEstimatetheFutureCostofPowerPlantswithCO2 Capture,InternationalJournalofGreenhouseGasControl,Vol.1(2),pp.188197. vandenBroek,M.,etal.(2009),EffectsofTechnologicalLearningonFutureCostandPerformanceof PowerPlantswithCO2Capture,ProgressinEnergyandCombustionScience,Vol.35(6),pp.457480. UNIDO(UnitedNationsIndustrialDevelopmentOrganization)(2010),CarbonCaptureandStoragein IndustrialApplications:TechnologySynthesisReport,WorkingPaperNovember2010,UNIDO,Vienna, Austria,www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Services/Energy_and_Climate_Change/Energy_Efficienc y/CCS_%20industry_%20synthesis_final.pdf,accessed22February2011. Versteeg,P.andE.S.Rubin,TechnicalandEconomicAssessmentofAmmoniabasedPostcombustionCO2 Capture,Proc.10thInternationalConferenceonGreenhouseGasControlTechnologies(GHGT10), Amsterdam,TheNetherlands,2010. Zhai,H.andE.S.Rubin(2010),PerformanceandCostofWetandDryCoolingSystemsforPulverised CoalPowerPlantswithandwithoutCarbonCaptureandStorage,EnergyPolicy,Vol.38(10), pp.56535660.
Page|44
OECD/IEA2011
Annex:Studycaseswithlimitedavailabledata
PostcombustionCO2capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationby ammonia
While aminebased today is the most mature technology for postcombustion CO2 capture, ammoniabased solvents are considered a potentially attractive alternative. Only two of the reviewed studies evaluate ammoniabased CO2 capture in detail. In contrast to aminebased capture,whichisknownfordecadesfromindustrialprocesses,assessingcostandperformance ofammoniabasedCO2captureremainschallengingduetolimitedavailabledataandsimulation tools. Data for ammonia capture systems that are summarised should be thus considered preliminaryandmoreuncertain.TheyarenonethelessshowninTable11forreference. Table11.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia
Regionalfocus
Yearofcostdata Yearofpublication Organisation 2007 2010 CMU
Page|45
OECD
2007 2010 CMU
China
2009 2009 NZEC
Average (OECD)
Region Specificfueltype Powerplanttype Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) CO2emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) CO2emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) US
Bitcoal SCPC
US
Bitcoal SCPC
CHN
Bitcoal USCPC
550 475 41.1 24.9 811 107 1601 3753 39%
550 561 41.1 29.4 811 107 1601 2841 28%
824 670 43.9 35.7 797 98 856 1318 19%
550 518 41 27 811 107 1601 3297 34%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 1491 3799 50 111 86 155% 121% 1491 2875 50 87 52 93% 73% 938 1541 51 71 28 64% 39% 1491 3337 50 99 69 124% 97%
Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and contingency costs, but not IDC. A 15% contingency based on EPC cost is added for unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties for CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differ between regions. CMU data includealow(leftcolumn)andhigh(rightcolum)concentrationammoniasystemoperatingw/oandw/solids.
OECD/IEA2011
Figure7.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia:CO2captureimpact
2500 140% 120% 100% 1500 1000 500 0 80% 60% 40% 20%
Page|46
2000
NZEC
CMU
CMU
CMU
CMU
2007
2009
2007
2009
70 60 50 40 30 20 10
140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE(%)
2007
NZEC
CMU
CMU
2009
2007
2009
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
CMU
CMU
NZEC
CMU
CMU
2007
2009
2007
2009
NZEC
0%
NZEC
CMU
CMU
0%
NZEC
0%
Notes:DatacoveronlyCO2captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.Overnightcostsincludeowners,EPCand contingencycosts,butnotIDC.A15%contingencybasedonEPCcostisaddedforunforeseentechnicalorregulatorydifficultiesfor CCS cases, compared to a 5% contingency applied for nonCCS cases. IDC is included in LCOE calculations. Fuel price assumptions differbetweenregions.CMUdataincludealow(leftcolumn)andhigh(rightcolum)concentrationammoniasystemoperatingw/o andw/solids.
OECD/IEA2011
Acronyms,abbreviationsandunitsofmeasure
Acronymsandabbreviations AACE Bio Bit CCP CCS CEPCI CFB CHN CMU CNY CO2 COE CoP EPC EPRI EU FEED GCCSI GE GHG AssociationfortheAdvancementof CostEngineering biomass bituminous CO2CaptureProject carboncaptureandstorage ChemicalEngineeringPlantCostIndex circulatingfluidisedbed China CarnegieMellonUniversity YuanRenminbi(Chinacurrency) carbondioxide costofelectricity ConocoPhillips engineering,procurementand construction ElectricPowerResearchInstitute EuropeanUnion frontendengineeringanddesign GlobalCCSInstitute GeneralElectricCompany GreenhouseGas NG NGCC NZEC OECD O&M PC PCGE SCPC TPRI NEA NETL LCOE LHV MEA MIT levelisedcostofelectricity lowerheatingvalue monoethanolamine MassachusettsInstituteof Technology NuclearEnergyAgency NationalEnergyTechnology Laboratory naturalgas naturalgascombinedcycle NearZeroEmissionsCoalInitiative OrganisationforEconomic CooperationandDevelopment operationandmaintenance pulverisedcoal ProjectedCostsofGenerating Electricity2010(OECDpublication) supercriticalpulverisedcoal ThermalPowerResearchInstitute
Page|47
SubPC subcriticalpulverisedcoal UNIDO UnitedNationsIndustrial DevelopmentOrganization US USD w/ w/o UnitedStates UnitedStatesDollar with without USCPC ultrasupercriticalpulverisedcoal
GHGIA GreenhouseGasImplementing Agreement HHV IDC IEA IGCC IPCC ISO
higherheatingvalue interestduringconstruction InternationalEnergyAgency integratedgasificationcombined cycle IntergovernmentalPanelonClimate Change InternationalOrganizationfor Standardization
Unitsofmeasure GJ kW MBtu MW t Gigajoule Kilowatt millionBritishthermalunits Megawatt tonne(metric)
InternatIonal energy agency 9 rue de la FdratIon 75739 ParIs cedex 15
www.iea.org

5 KGGGN 8 WK 05 L

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

5 KGGGN 8 WK 05 L

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2011

Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture from Power Generation

InternatIonal energy agency

Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture from Power Generation

InternatIonal energy agency

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

OECD/IEA, 2010 International Energy Agency

Discountrates Owner'scost Capacityfactor,coal Capacityfactor,naturalgas Economiclife,coal Economiclife,naturalgas Constructiontime,coal Constructiontime,naturalgas ContingencieswithCCS

Valuesofbyproductsorwastegeneratedinthepowerplants,suchassulphur,gypsumandslag orash,areassumedazeronetcost.Attheendoftheprojectlifetime,5%ofovernightcostsis appliedincostcalculationsfordecommissioning.Assumptionsonfuelpricesvaryacrossregions andaresummarisedinBox1. Box1.Fuelpriceassumptions

550 550 46.8 34.9 707 95 2716 4279 26%

519 399 44.8 34.5 754 73 1710 2790 23%

824 622 43.9 33.1 797 106 856 1572 25%

582 545 41.4 30.9 820 111 1899 3135 25%

120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

GHGIA GHGIA GHGIA

GCCSI GCCSI GCCSI

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

CostofCO 2avoided(USD/tCO2) Relativeincreaseinovernightcost RelativeincreaseinLCOE

TheinfluenceofspecificpowerplantandfueltypesisshowninTable4.Thenumberofsamples perpowerplantandfuelcombinationislimited,however,andresultsshouldnotberegardedas representative.

GHGIA GHGIA NETL

Subbit Bitcoal coal

GE (Generic) (Generic) Quench

500 500 40.3 32.7 832 102 1430 1890 19%

776 676 43.1 34.5 763 142 1613 2204 20%

826 730 38.0 31.5 833 152 1439 1815 17%

622 543 40.9 34.3 782 93 2447 3334 16%

625 514 41.7 32.6 776 98 2351 3466 22%

629 497 44.2 32.8 723 99 2716 3904 26%

538 495 40.0 34.5 819 94 1823 2513 14%

573 482 41.0 32.3 845 141 3239 4221 21%

603 507 41.2 32.3 805 135 2984 3940 22%

636 517 43.2 33.6 753 90 3521 4373 22%

662 36.8 95 1471

633 546 41.4 33.1 793 115 2356 3166 20%

4348 1721 88 115 41 64 33% 31% 73 32

CostofCO2 avoided(USD/tCO2) CostofCO2 avoidedvsPCbaseline

EPRI EPRI EPRI

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

CostofCO 2avoided(USD/tCO2) CostofCO 2avoidedvsPCbaseline

Subbit Subbit coal coal SCPC SCPC

758 532 44.0 35.4 743 84 1408 2205 20%

500 500 40.4 32.1 830 104 1330 1900 21%

550 550 41.4 30.7 800 0 1579 2660 26%

550 550 40.6 32.5 859 98 1851 3093 20%

550 550 40.6 29.5 859 0 1851 3086 27%

550 550 39.4 31.4 925 103 2003 3163 20%

550 549 40.9 31.6 846 99 1938 3491 23%

550 550 40.2 30.7 884 105 2048 3821 24%

550 550 41.4 30.8 800 0 2587 4121 26%

550 550 46.8 34.7 707 0 2716 3985 26%

824 673 43.9 35.6 797 98 856 1266 19%

566 543 41.6 31.9 825 59 1931 3153 23%

CostofCO 2avoided(USD/tCO2) Relativeincreaseinovernightcost RelativeincreaseinLCOE

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

CostofCO2 avoided(USD/tCO2) Relativeincreaseinovernightcost RelativeincreaseinLCOE

CMU GHGIA GHGIA NETL

507 432 55.2 47.1 367 43 671 1091 15%

776 662 55.6 47.4 379 66 499 869 15%

776 692 55.6 49.6 379 63 499 887 11%