Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage

CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is receiving considerable attention as a potential greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation option for fossil fuel power plants. Cost and performance estimates for CCS are critical factors in energy and policy analysis. CCS cost studies necessarily employ a host of technical and economic assumptions that can dramatically affect results. Thus, particular studies often are of limited value to analysts. researchers, and industry personnel seeking results for alternative cases. In this paper, we use a generalized modeling tool to estimate and compare the emissions. efficiency, resource requirements and current costs of fossil fuel power plants with CCS on a systematic basis. This plant-level analysis explores a broader range of key assumptions than found in recent studies we reviewed for three major plant types: pulverized coal (PC) plants, natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants, and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems using coal. In particular, we examine the effects of recent increases in capital costs and natural gas prices, as well as effects of differential plant utilization rates, IGCC financing and operating assumptions, variations in plant size, and differences in fuel quality, including bituminous, sub-bituminous and lignite coals. Our results show higher power plant and CCS costs than prior studies as a consequence of recent escalations in capital and operating costs. The broader range of cases also reveals differences not previously reported in the relative costs of PC, NGCC and IGCC plants with and without CCS. While CCS can significantly reduce power plant emissions of CO, (typically by 85-90%), the impacts of CCS energy requirements on plant-level resource requirements and multi-media environmental emissions also are found to be significant, with increases of approximately 15-30% for current CCS systems. To characterize such impacts, an alternative definition of the "energy penalty" is proposed in lieu of the prevailing use of this term. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.