Abstract
Calcium looping combustion (CaLC) is a new class of low–CO 2 –emission technologies for thermochemical conversion of carbonaceous fuels that can help achieve the emissions reduction targets set out in the Paris Agreement. Compared to mature CO 2 capture technologies, which cause net efficiency penalties higher than 7% points, CaLC results in a net efficiency penalty of 2.9% points. However, a thorough economic assessment of CaLC needs to be undertaken to evaluate its economic viability. The levelised cost of electricity is commonly used to assess the economic performance of clean energy systems. However, this method does not account for commercially important parameters, such as tax, interest, and depreciation charges. This study aimed to improve the reliability and accuracy of economic assessments of clean energy systems by implementing the net present value (NPV) approach. This approach was applied to assess the economic performance of two concepts of the CaLC-based power plant with either the conventional steam cycle (SC) or the supercritical CO 2 cycle (s-CO 2 ) for heat utilisation along with the bottom-up approach to total capital cost estimation. A parametric study for both concepts was also conducted to assess the impact of the key thermodynamic parameters on the economic performance. Although the s-CO 2 case with revised assumptions was shown to result in a 1%-point lower net efficiency compared to the SC case, its break-even cost of electricity was lower by 0.81 €/MWh. Further improvements of the techno-economic performance can be sought by optimisation of the s-CO 2 cycle structure.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 540-551 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Journal of Cleaner Production |
| Volume | 219 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 10 May 2019 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This publication is based on research conducted within the “Redefining power generation from carbonaceous fuels with carbonate looping combustion and gasification technologies” project funded by UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC reference: EP/P034594/1 ). Data underlying this study can be accessed through the Cranfield University repository at https://doi.org/10.17862/cranfield.rd.7700915 . A H E heat exchanger surface area C C cost of CO 2 compressor C C C T investment cost of CCT C C T cost of cooling tower C C a l cost of calciner C C a L C investment cost of CaLC C C a L C , e x CaLC unit exploitation cost C C a r cost of carbonator C E cost of CO 2 expander C E G cost of electric generator C F capacity factor C F P cost of fuel preparation system C F a n cost of fan C F t annual cash flow C H E cost of heat exchanger C I n v investment cost C L & O land and owner's cost C O p operating cost C P cost of CO 2 pump C S C , e x steam cycle exploitation cost C T a x income tax c C h e m unit price of chemical c C a C O 3 unit price of fresh sorbent c C a l unit price of calciner c C a r unit price of carbonator c D unit cost of disposal c F P unit price of the fuel preparation system c H 2 O unit price of the water D depreciation F C F fixed charge factor F O M fixed operating and maintenance cost H H V higher heating value I E l income from electricity sales I S a salvage value i E & P C engineering and project cost indicator i L C labour cost indicator i P & C integration costs indicator i T A S C total as-spent cost (TASC) multiplier LCOE levelised cost of electricity m ˙ A E equivalent mass flow rate of air m ˙ C h e m chemical flow rate for water treatment m ˙ C a C O 3 fresh sorbent make-up flow rate m ˙ D , A s h disposed ash flow rate m ˙ D , S o r b disposed sorbent flow rate m ˙ F fuel flow rate N P V net present value n ˙ L R molar flow rate of solid looping n ˙ M U molar flow rate of fresh limestone make-up P A U X total auxiliary power requirement P C C T auxiliary power of CCT P C a L C auxiliary power of CaLC P F a n fan break power P G gross power output P N net power output P P pump brake power p H E heat exchanger operating pressure Q ˙ C a l calciner heat flux Q ˙ C a r carbonator heat flux R M U relative sorbent make-up ratio r discount rate r T a x income tax rate S F C specific fuel cost T C R total capital requirement V ˙ H 2 O flow rate of make-up water V O M specific variable operating and maintenance cost η N net efficiency of power plant η i isentropic efficiency τ annual operating time
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Authors