Costperf Ccs Powergen

Cost and Performance of
Carbon Dioxide Capture

from Power Generation
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY
MATTHIAS FINKENRATH
WORKI NG PAPER
2011

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
Cost and Performance of
Carbon Dioxide Capture
from Power Generation
MATTHIAS FINKENRATH
2011
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
efciency 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. 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.
Please note that this publication
is subject to specifc restrictions
that limit its use and distribution.
The terms and conditions are available
online at www.iea.org/about/copyright.asp
OECD/IEA, 2010
International Energy Agency
9 rue de la Fdration
75739 Paris Cedex 15, France
www.iea.org
OECD/IEA2011 CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration
Page|3
Tableofcontents
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................5
Executivesummary........................................................................................................................7
Introduction....................................................................................................................................9
Scopeofanalysis...........................................................................................................................11
Analysedtechnoeconomicdataandkeytargetmetrics...........................................................11
EvaluatedCO
2
captureprocesses...............................................................................................12
Dataselectedforanalysis...........................................................................................................12
Approachandmethodology.........................................................................................................15
Costofgeneratingelectricitycalculation...................................................................................15
Conversionandcalibrationofcostdata.....................................................................................16
Conversionandcalibrationofperformancedata.......................................................................18
Boundaryconditionsandassumptions......................................................................................19
Costandperformanceresultsanddiscussion.............................................................................22
Maincasestudies..........................................................................................................................22
PostcombustionCO
2
capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines.......................23
PrecombustionCO
2
capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles.......................27
OxycombustionCO
2
capturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration.........................................30
PostcombustionCO
2
capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles........................................34
Summaryofresults.....................................................................................................................37
Futurecostandperformancepotential.....................................................................................38
Uncertaintyandsensitivityofresults.........................................................................................39
Conclusionsandrecommendations.............................................................................................41
References....................................................................................................................................43
Annex:Studycaseswithlimitedavailabledata............................................................................45
PostcombustionCO
2
capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia...................45
Acronyms,abbreviationsandunitsofmeasure..........................................................................47
Listoffigures
Figure1.Illustrationofthemethodologyfordataanalysis..........................................................15
Figure2.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration
byamines:CO
2
captureimpact.....................................................................................................25
Figure3.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombined
cycles:CO
2
captureimpact............................................................................................................28
Figure4.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration:CO
2
captureimpact.......32
CostandPerformanceofCarbonDioxideCapturefromPowerGeneration OECD/IEA2011
Page|4
Figure5.Postcombustioncapturefromnaturalgasfiredpower
generation:CO
2
captureimpact....................................................................................................35
Figure6.Impactofa50%variationinkeyassumptionsonLCOE..............................................40
Figure7.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration
byammonia:CO
2
captureimpact.................................................................................................46
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.AveragecostandperformancedatabyCO
2
captureroute..........................................38
Table11.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia..................45
Listofboxes
Box1.Fuelpriceassumptions.......................................................................................................20
Page|5
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; and Jeffrey Phillips and George Booras from the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI). Special thanks to EPRIs CoalFleet for Tomorrow R&D programme for sharing data from
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|7
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 (CO
2
) emission reduction required to stabilise global warming
(IEA,2010). Since CO
2
capture from power generation is an emerging technology that has not
been demonstrated on a commercial scale, related cost and performance information is based
onfeasibilitystudiesandpilotprojectsandisstilluncertain.
This paper analyses technoeconomic data for CO
2
capture from power generation, including
CO
2
conditioning and compression, in order to support energy scenario modelling and policy
making.Costandperformancetrendsareshownbasedonestimatespublishedoverthelastfive
years in major engineering studies for about 50 CO
2
capture installations at power plants.
Capital cost and levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) are reevaluated and updated to 2010cost
levels to allow for a consistent comparison. Presented data account for CO
2
capture but not
transportation and storage of CO
2
. They are estimates for generic, early commercial plants
basedonfeasibilitystudies,whichhaveanaccuracyofonaverage30%.Thedatadonotreflect
projectspecificcostorcostforfirstlargescaledemonstrationplants,whicharelikelyhigher.
For coalfired power generation, no single CO
2
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
CO
2
captureinregionsoftheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)
are about USD3800 per kW (/kW) across capture routes, which is 74% higher than the
referencecostswithoutcapture.Costfiguresvarysubstantiallydependingonthetypeofpower
planttypeandfuelused.Therelativeincreaseinovernightcostscomparedtoareferenceplant
without CO
2
capture is a comparably stable metric across studies. It is thus recommended for
estimating cost if limited data are available. Projected LCOE is on average USD105 per
megawatthour(/MWh).AveragecostsofCO
2
avoidedareUSD55pertonneofCO
2
(/tCO
2
)ifa
pulverisedcoalpowerplantwithoutCO
2
captureisusedasareference.
For natural gasfired power generation, postcombustion CO
2
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 CO
2
capture
fromnaturalgascombinedcycles.OvernightcostsareUSD1700/kWincludingCO
2
capture,or
82% higher than the reference plant without capture. LCOE is USD102/MWh and costs of CO
2
avoidedareUSD80/tCO
2
ifanaturalgascombinedcycleisusedasareference.
CostestimatesstatedaboveareaveragefiguresforOECDregions.Costdataforinstallationsin
Chinaindicatesignificantlylowercostscomparedtotheabovementionedfigures.Allovernight
costs include a contingency for CCS plants to account for unforeseen technical or regulatory
difficulties.LCOEandcostsofCO
2
avoideddonotincludeaCO
2
emissionprice.
Harmonisationofcostingmethodologiesisneededinordertosimplifytechnologycomparisons.
Though a similar approach is used for estimating cost and performance across studies, specific
methodologies,terminologiesandunderlyingassumptionsareinconsistent.
Broader assessments of CO
2
capture from power generation in nonOECD countries are still
underrepresented, though according to global energy scenarios deployment of CCS in these
regionsmighthavetoexceedexpectedlevelsinOECDcountries.

Page|9
Introduction
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes a significant reduction of
worldwide greenhousegas (GHG) emissions is required in order to stabilise the global average
temperature increase at 2.0C to 2.4C above preindustrial levels. Equivalent CO
2
emissions
needtobecutbyatleast50%by2050comparedtotheyear2000(IPCC,2007).
TheIEAregularlyanalysespathwaysforreducingenergyrelatedCO
2
emissions.Comparedtoa
businessasusual Baseline Scenario, carbon capture and storage (CCS) from power generation
could contribute in 2050 to 10% of the required global reduction in energyrelated CO
2
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
contributor to CO
2
emission mitigation, in addition to other important aims such as improving
energyefficiencyandincreasingrenewablepowergeneration.
CCShasbeenappliedcommerciallyintheoilandgasindustryforseveraldecades.Thisincludes
technologies along the CCS value chain such as solventbased separation of CO
2
from gas
streams, transportation of CO
2
by pipeline and storage of CO
2
in aquifers. CO
2
is also used for
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
capture from
powergenerationthatwerepublishedoverthelastfiveyears.

Page|11
Scopeofanalysis
CCS applied to power generation is an emerging technology. Technoeconomic data for CO
2
capturefrompowergenerationthusremainuncertain;afactthatisfurtheramplifiedbycurrent
unprecedentedeconomicuncertaintiesresultingfromtherecentglobalfinancialcrisis.
MostenergyscenariosthatanalyseclimatechangemitigationpathsexpectthatCO
2
capturewill
contributesubstantiallytoglobalCO
2
emissionreductioninthecomingdecades.TheIEAEnergy
TechnologyPerspectives2010(ETP2010)publicationestimatesthatby2050around10%ofthe
emission reduction will stem from CO
2
capture from power generation alone compared to a
businessasusualBaselineScenario(IEA,2010).
This analysis aims to illustrate cost and performance trends related to CO
2
capture from
powergenerationoverthelastfiveyears.Thischaptergivesanoverviewabouttypesofdata
thatareanalysedanddescribeswhichspecificcapturecasesandpublicationsareconsidered
inthisstudy.
Analysedtechnoeconomicdataandkeytargetmetrics
Thisworkingpaperevaluateskeydatathatarecommonlyrequiredasinputforenergyscenario
modellingandgeneralenergypolicysupport,suchas:
powerplanttype
fueltype
capacityfactor
netpoweroutput
netefficiency
overallCO
2
capturerate
netCO
2
emissions
capitalcost
operationandmaintenance(O&M)cost
yearofcostdata
locationofpowerplant
Publishedtechnoeconomicinformationisreviewedandreevaluatedinordertocompareresults
ofdifferentstudies.Updateddataareprovidedforthefollowingkeymetrics:
overnightcosts
levelisedcostofelectricity(LCOE)
costofCO
2
avoided
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
study are generic in nature and not meant to represent costs of specific CO
2
capture projects,
which are likely to be different. Investment decisions about individual CCS plants will depend
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.
Page|12
Cost and performance information for the transport and storage of captured CO
2
will need to
complement data for CO
2
capture. Transportation and storage data are even more difficult to
generalise compared to CO
2
capture process data, given that they are very sitespecific or even
unique for every single project. Because of this complexity, available storage capacities and
associated costs still remain subject to significant research in many regions of the world. Unlike
CO
2
capturefrompowergeneration,anumberoflargescaleCO
2
transportandstorageprojects
howeverexiststhatareoperatingtodayandwhichcanprovidesome,albeitlimited,dataonthe
associatedcosts.TechnoeconomicdatarelatedtothetransportandstorageofCO
2
,inparticular
relatedtoCO
2
storagecapacities,arenotcoveredinthispaper,butimprovingrelatedknowledge
is essential. Consequently, the IEA and other organisations are addressing this challenge in
separate,dedicatedworkstreams.
EvaluatedCO
2
captureprocesses
This working paper analyses CO
2
capture from power generation. CO
2
capture from industrial
applications is evaluated through the forthcoming United Nations Industrial Development
Organisation(UNIDO)roadmap,andisthusnotdiscussed(UNIDO,2010).
The study focuses on CO
2
capture from newbuild coal and natural gasfired power
generation plantswithat least80%overall capture rate. Onlycommercialscale powerplants
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.
This paper focuses on early commercial installations of CO
2
capture from power generation and
does not cover demonstration plants. Cost and performance information related to firstofa
kindCO
2
capturedemonstrationplantsisoftennotrepresentativeofcommercialunitsthatare
installed later, for example since they are suboptimally or overdesigned. Significant largescale
commercialdeploymentofCCStechnologyforpowergenerationapplicationsisnotexpectedto
takeplacepriortotheyear2020.Therefore,costandperformancedataconsideredinthisstudy
are primarily estimates for early commercial CO
2
capture processes from power plants that
wouldbeinservicearound2020.
1
Onlycapturetechnologiesthathavebeendemonstratedonasignificantpilotscale(orevenata
commercial size in other industries) are considered in this analysis. Novel technologies for CO
2
capture from power generation that are in an early phase of development, such as membrane
based processes, are not covered. The general improvement potential for CO
2
capture from
powergenerationinthefuturebytechnologicallearningisdiscussedinChapter4.
Dataselectedforanalysis
Technoeconomic studies on CO
2
capture from power generation are numerous. In this paper,
CO
2
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
1
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.
Page|13
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
methodologies used. In addition, there is often limited transparency with respect to underlying
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)
CO
2
CaptureProjectCCP(Melien,2009)
ElectricPowerResearchInstituteEPRI(EPRI,2009)
GlobalCCSInstituteGCCSI(GCCSI,2009)
GreenhouseGasImplementingAgreementGHGIA(Davison,2007;GHGIA,2009)
NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratoryNETL(NETL,2008;NETL,2010af)
MassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyMIT(MIT,2007;Hamilton,2009)
In the event several evaluations were made by organisations on the same capture process over
thelastfiveyears,onlythemostrecentlypublisheddataareincludedinthisanalysis.
It is likely there are additional studies that should be considered in future analysis. The author
would appreciate suggestions of additional studies that match the general selection criteria and
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 CO
2
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 CO
2
capture process and a CO
2
compression unit for
compressing and pumping the separated CO
2
to a supercritical pressure for transportation.
Besides the core CO
2
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.
CO
2
transport and storage are not evaluated in most of the publications, and any data on CO
2
transportandstorageisnotconsideredinthispaper.Mostcostestimatesusedinthisstudyare
based on the assumption that processes and process equipment are proven technologies or, at
least, have been demonstrated on a commercial scale. Thus costs required for research,
developmentandinitialdeploymentindemonstrationplantsarenotincluded.
2
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).
Page|14
Thoughitisoftennotexplicitlystated,thegroupofanalysedstudiesgenerallyassumesthatCO
2
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
engineering and local human resources, equipment, utility and fuel supply, access to the power
grid and appropriate options for transporting and storing separated CO
2
. In addition, for such
newbuild,brownfieldinstallations,thestudyassumesfullflexibilityintermsofplantintegration
andoptimisation.
This working paper does not analyse the impact of retrofitting CO
2
capture to existing power
plants. Incremental costs of adding CO
2
capture to those plants could be higher than the
incrementalcostsshowninthereviewedstudies,sincetheseexistingplantsweredesignedwith
noconsiderationsforfutureCO
2
capture.
Page|15
Approachandmethodology
Thefundamentalapproachusedinthisstudytoreviewandanalysepublished technoeconomic
information on CO
2
capture is illustrated in Figure 1. In a first step, applicable literature on the
subject is researched and reviewed. In order to allow a comparison of cost data from different
years, economic data of the selected studies are calibrated by aligning their scope and by
updatingtheircostto2010USDcostlevelsusingmarketexchangeratesandprocessequipment
costindices.Performancerelateddataarenotrecalibratedforreasonsthatareoutlinedinmore
detailfurtherbelow.
Subsequently, updated cost data are used to reevaluate LCOE and cost of CO
2
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
details of the calibration methodology, including a description of limitations of the analysis, are
providedinthischapter.
Figure1.Illustrationofthemethodologyfordataanalysis
Calibrationofeconomicdataofmajorstudies
Reviewofindividualtechnoeconomicstudies
Coversonlymajorstudiesacrosscaptureroutespublishedwithinthelastfiveyears(200610)
Focusonlargescale(>300MWnetpower )coal andnaturalgasfiredpowergeneration
Limitedtonewbuilt,earlycommercialtechnologieswithmorethan80%overallCO
2
capture
Costingscopealignedacrossstudies(totalcapitalrequirement,overnightcosts,etc.)
CurrenciesofstudiesupdatedtoUSD
Costsupdatedto2010costlevelusingcostindices
1
2
ReevaluationofcostofelectricityandCO
2
avoidance 3
Dataanalysisanddiscussionofresults 4
Originalandrecalibratedcostdatareported
Comparisonofresults
Discussionofkeycosttrends
Conclusionsandrecommendations 5
BasedonOECDProjectedCost ofGeneratingElectricity2010methodology
Standardised financialandfuelcostassumptionsused
Commonsetofoperationandmaintenancecostdata
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) with support of a diverse group of international experts and organisations for the
Page|16
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
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 CO
2
avoidance for different
capture technologies. Further background on the terminology, including how to derive CO
2
avoidance costs are extensively discussed in previous publications. This includes important
considerations related to selecting a meaningful reference power plant without CCS for calcula
tingcostofCO
2
avoided(IPCC,2005;GCCSI,2009).
ItisimportanttonotethatincontrasttotheOECDPCGE2010publication,reportedLCOEdata
do not include a USD30/tCO
2
emission price, since this approach is less common for CCS
related cost comparisons. Hence in this working paper no CO
2
emission price is added for
calculatingLCOE.
Conversionandcalibrationofcostdata
Several methodologies are used to estimate economic data, in particular capital costs, of CO
2
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
throughoutstudiesintermsofhowCO
2
capturecostsareconceptuallyassessed.Costdataare
usually split into capital costs (related to the construction of equipment), fuel costs, and non
fuel operating and maintenance costs (related to the process and its equipment). These costs
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
specific cost elements this study uses overnight costs as the key metric for quantifying capital
cost.AccordingtoOECDterminology,overnightcostsinclude:
Page|17
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
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.
Owners costs are subject to much confusion. Most CCSrelated cost studies do not provide the
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, but also costs related to engineering and project management, home office, 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
studies reviewed use alternative terminologies or have a different scope with respect to key
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
Total capital requirement and total plant costs are published by EPRI. Total plant costs without
ownerscostsareusedfromEPRIasabasisfortheanalysisperformedunderthisstudy.Owners
costareaddedinthiscase.
The currency for reporting economic data used in this report is US dollar (USD). Cost data
reported in other currencies are converted to USD using the conversion rate of the year of the
costsaspublished,unlessaconversionrateisprovidedintheoriginalpublication.
4
Apart from a currency conversion, it is also necessary to account for changes in installed
equipment cost over time. Since published information does not allow for a detailed escalation
onacomponentbycomponentbasis,generalcostindicesareusedtorecalibratecosttocurrent
3
ApartfromdatafromNETL(2010a),whichalreadyincludeownerscost.
4
Resultingexchangerates:USD0.146perCNY(NZEC,2009)andUSD1.35perEUR(GHGIA,2009).
Page|18
levels. In this study, published cost data are updated to 2010 cost levels using the Chemical
EngineeringPlantCostIndex,CEPCI(CE,2010).
Insummary,calibrationofcapitalcostdataincludes:
Calibrationtoovernightcostsestimates(byaddingownerscostsorsubtractingIDC);
ConversionoftheoriginalcurrencytoUSD;and
Calibrationofcostsasquotedto2010costlevelsbyusingcostindices.
Unless otherwise stated (e.g. with respect to fuel cost assumptions), the same boundary
conditions are applied to all data regardless of the location of the power plant foreseen by the
authorsofthestudies.Publicationyears,projectlocationsandcurrenciesofthereviewedstudies
areshowninTable1.
Table1.Overviewofgeneralboundaryconditionsofreviewedstudies
Organisation CCP CMU EPRI GCCSI GHGIA NETL NZEC MIT
Publicationyear(s) 2009
2007,
2009,
2010
2009 2009
2007,
2009
2008,
2010
2009
2007,
2009
Projectlocation EU US US US EU US CHN US
Currency USD USD USD USD USD,EUR USD CNY 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 CO
2
captureinstallationscanbefoundintheliterature(GCCSI,2009).
Conversionandcalibrationofperformancedata
ThetechnicalperformanceofpowerplantswithCO
2
captureistypicallysummarisedintermsof
plant efficiencies, power output and CO
2
emissions. Terminology related to performance
evaluation is used consistently throughout technoeconomic studies. Key performance and
operational parameters reported include the net efficiency or heat rate, the net power output,
specificCO
2
emissions,andtheplantcapacityfactororloadfactor.
Performance estimates in published studies are usually based on fundamental mass and energy
balances from process flow sheets of the power plant and the CO
2
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, important differences in relevant technical assumptions can apply, for example in
terms of fuel types or qualities, CO
2
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
performance assumptions can have a substantial impact on results. The potential impact varies
Page|19
across capture and power plant technologies, and is discussed in more detail in the scientific
literature(e.g.Rubin,2007).
Published overall CO
2
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
level)ofcostdataacrosstechnologiesatslightlydifferentcapturerates,costsofCO
2
avoidedare
includedinthispaper.
CO
2
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 CO
2
. This
dependsonthepurityofsuppliedoxygenandfuel,thelevelofairinleakageintotheboiler,the
process design and intensity of purification. This study does not calibrate cost or performance
data with respect to CO
2
purity. However, oxycombustion data with CO
2
purities lower than
99.9%aremarkedaccordinglywhenresultsarepresented.
Rescaling of cost and performance data to a common net power plant output, for example by
using powerscaling laws, was considered even though reported net power outputs show a
relativelymoderatespreadacrossdatapoints.However,itisnotappliedsincescalingcanleadto
misleading results for capture processes that rely on using multiple trains of equipment due to
currentsizelimitations.
Boundaryconditionsandassumptions
Financialandoperationalboundaryconditions,suchasconstructiontimes,projectlifetimesand
capacityfactorsareadoptedfromtheOECDPCGE2010publication.Theparametersusedinthis
working paper are listed in Table 2, together with assumptions typically used by different
organisations.
Contributions of owners costs range between 5% and 25% across individual studies. This study
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.
5
ThisdoeshowevernotapplytodatafornuclearpowerplantsinFrance,Japan,KoreaandtheUnitedStates,wherea
largenumberofnuclearplantsarealreadyinstalled.
Page|20
Table2.Technoeconomicassumptionstypicallyusedbydifferentorganisations,andinthisanalysis
Organisation CCP CMU EPRI GCCSI GHGIA NETL NZEC MIT
Thisstudy
(basedon
OECD,2010)
Discountrates 10% 910% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Owner'scost 57% 15% 7% 1525% 7% 10% 15%
Capacityfactor,coal 75% 80% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%
Capacityfactor,naturalgas 95% 75% 85% 85% 85%
Economiclife,coal 30yrs 30yrs 30yrs 25yrs 30yrs 25yrs 20yrs 40yrs
Economiclife,naturalgas 25yrs 30yrs 30yrs 25yrs 30yrs 30yrs
Constructiontime,coal 4yrs 4yrs 3yrs 3yrs 3yrs 4yrs
Constructiontime,naturalgas 3yrs 2yrs
ContingencieswithCCS 20% 530% 1314% 520% 10% 1520% 10% 15%

Valuesofbyproductsorwastegeneratedinthepowerplants,suchassulphur,gypsumandslag
or ash, are assumed a zero net cost. At the end of the project lifetime, 5% of overnight costs is
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
international level. Hence for these coals national fuel price assumptions are used. Since across the
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)
Subbituminouscoal:USD0.72/GJ(USD14.28/tonne)
Lignite:USD0.86/GJ(USD13.19/tonne)
China
Bituminouscoal:USD2.95/GJ(USD86.34/tonne)
Conversion between lower (LHV) and higher heating value (HHV) thermal plant efficiencies is
simplifiedbasedonIEAconventions,witha5%differenceforcoaland10%fornaturalgas.
Page|21
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,commercialCO
2
captureinstallationsatpowerplantsstillremainuncertain.Hencea
constantfractionof4%oftheinstalledcapitalcostsforreferenceplantswithoutCO
2
captureand
forplantswithcaptureisappliedasthebasisforO&Mcostassumptionsacrossallcasestudies.
Since the impact of individual O&M assumptions is reduced, this approach also simplifies
comparisonsbetweenLCOEresults.
Reported CO
2
emissions include only emissions related to the power plant combustion process.
Equivalent lifecycle CO
2
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
year 2025 (using year 2000 cost levels), compared to about USD4.6/MWh for fossil fuel power
generationwithoutCCS(NEEDS,2009).
Page|22
Costandperformanceresultsanddiscussion
In this working paper cost and performance data for CO
2
capture from power generation are
reviewed,recalibratedandupdatedto2010costlevels.Theresultsofthisanalysisarepresented
anddiscussedinthischapter.
Maincasestudies
Only CO
2
capture cases that are covered by several studies are included in this report. The
evaluationofcoalfiredpowergenerationfocusesonpostandoxycombustionCO
2
capturefrom
supercritical (SCPC) and ultrasupercritical pulverised coal (USCPC) boilers as well as pre
combustion CO
2
capture from integrated gasification combined cycles (IGCC). Postcombustion
CO
2
captureisalsoanalysedfornaturalgascombinedcycles(NGCC).
6
Hence,resultsforfourmainCO
2
capturecasesarepresented:
PostcombustionCO
2
capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationusingamines
PrecombustionCO
2
capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles
OxycombustionCO
2
capturefrompulverisedcoalpowergeneration
PostcombustionCO
2
capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles
PostcombustionCO
2
captureusingammoniaisapotentialneartermalternativetoaminebased
solvents. A similarly detailed analysis is not possible for ammoniabased solvents since only few
related data are presented in the analysed studies. Available data are nonetheless listed in the
Annexofthisworkingpaperforreference.
Biomassfired power generation with CO
2
capture is not evaluated in depth since information is
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
commercial plants. All cost data, including LCOE and cost of CO
2
avoided, cover costs related to
thecaptureandcompressionofCO
2
tosupercriticalpressures,aswellastheconditioningofCO
2
for transportation (but not for CO

2
transport and storage). Generally, CO
2
capture costs are
considered to represent the bulk of the costs of integrated CCS projects. CO
2
transport and
storage costs can still be significant depending on the local availability and characteristics of
storagesites,andarethuscrucialadditionaleconomicfactorstoconsiderinanyprojectspecific
evaluationorenergyscenariomodellingwork.
To illustrate cost and technology development trends, CO
2
capture data shown in the following
tables and figures are sorted by the year of the cost information as provided in the original
publication.Keydataareshownforreferencecaseswith(w/)CO
2
captureandwithout(w/o)CO
2
capture.CostofCO
2
avoidedisausefulmetricforcomparingeconomicsofaspecificCO
2
capture
processagainstalternativeCO
2
capturetechnologies.AnappropriatereferencecasewithoutCO
2
capture needs to be chosen for specific assessments. In a specific newbuild CCS project, this
reference would be the most economical power generation alternative without CCS that meets
all projectspecific requirements (e.g. regarding plant availability or operating flexibility). This
6
Acrossreviewedstudies,onlyasinglecaseisavailableforeachpreandoxycombustioncapturefromNGCC;thus,
thesecaptureroutesarenotincludedinthisreview.
Page|23
referenceplantdoesnotnecessarilyhavetobebasedonthesamepowergenerationtechnology
orusethesamefuel.
Sinceitisdifficulttodefineauniversallyapplicablereferencetechnology,costofCO
2
avoidedin
thisstudyiscalculatedusingthesamepowerplanttypewithandwithoutcapture.ForIGCCwith
CO
2
capture,costofCO
2
avoidedisalsopresentedusingaPCreferencebasedondatapublished
bythesameorganisation.CostofCO
2
avoidedforcoalbasedoxycombustioncaptureisbasedon
aPCreferencecasewithoutCO
2
capture,withdatafromthesameorganisation.
Mosttechnoeconomicdataavailablefromthereviewedstudiesdescribecaptureinstallationsin
the United States, followed by studies on European power plants.
7
An analysis of CO
2
capture
costandperformanceinChinaisincludedinthisanalysis.BroadassessmentsacrossCO
2
capture
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.
PostcombustionCO
2
capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines
Cost and performance data for postcombustion CO
2
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 CO
2
capture, typically
monoethanolamine (MEA). Data for aqueous ammoniabased processes are provided in the
Annex. Postcombustion CO
2
capture from SCPC or USCPC boilers that operate on bituminous
coals(labelledasBitcoal)areanalysedmostoften.Additional datacoversubcritical (SubPC)
orcirculatingfluidisedbed(CFB)boilers,andplantsthatoperateonsubbituminouscoals,lignite
orwith10%cofiringofbiomassinadditiontobituminouscoal.
8
Averagepublishedcapacityfactorsare83%forthecasesshown;CO
2
captureratesare87%.Net
power outputs including CO
2
capture range from 399MW to 676 MW, at an average net
efficiencyof30.9%(LHV)acrossOECDregions.Thecostandperformanceimpactofaddingpost
combustionCO
2
capturetoacoalfiredreferenceplantwithoutCO
2
captureisgiveninFigure2.
Net efficiency penalties between 8.7 and 12.0 percentage points (LHV) are estimated for post
combustionCO
2
captureinOECDregions,whichisonaveragea25%reductioninefficiency.The
netefficiencypenaltyestimatedforaninstallationinChinais10.8percentagepoints.
7
Another study on CCS performance and cost by the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel
PowerPlants(ZEP)isannouncedfor2011,butwasnotyetavailableatthetimeofthispublication.
8
Forbiomasscofiring,actualCO
2
emissionsarestatedinTable3.Nopriceforagreencertificateisassumed.
Page|24
Table3.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
f
o
c
u
s
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
(
O
E
C
D
)
Y
e
a
r
o
f
c
o
s
t
d
a
t
a
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
9
Y
e
a
r
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
9
O
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
C
M
U
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
G
H
G
I
A
N
Z
E
C
O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L
D
A
T
A
A
S
P
U
B
L
I
S
H
E
D
(
c
o
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
t
o
U
S
D
)
R
e
g
i
o
n
U
S
U
S
E
U
E
U
U
S
U
S
U
S
U
S
U
S
U
S
U
S
U
S
E
U
C
H
N
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
f
u
e
l
t
y
p
e
B
i
t
c
o
a
l
L
i
g
n
i
t
e
B
i
t
c
o
a
l
B
i
t
c
o
a
l
S
u
b
b
i
t
c
o
a
l
S
u
b
b
i
t
c
o
a
l
B
i
t
c
o
a
l
B
i
t
c
o
a
l
B
i
t
c
o
a
l
B
i
t
c
o
a
l
B
i
t
c
o
a
l
B
i
t
c
o
a
l
B
i
t
+
1
0
%
B
i
o
m
a
s
s
B
i
t
c
o
a
l
P
o
w
e
r
p
l
a
n
t
t
y
p
e
S
C
P
C
C
F
B
U
S
C
P
C
U
S
C
P
C
S
C
P
C
U
S
C
P
C
S
C
P
C
S
C
P
C
S
C
P
C
S
u
b
P
C
S
C
P
C
U
S
C
P
C
S
C
P
C
U
S
C
P
C
N
e
t
p
o
w
e
r
o
u
t
p
u
t
w
/
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
(
M
W
)
5
2
8
5
0
0
7
5
8
7
5
8
6
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
1
9
8
2
4
5
8
2
N
e
t
p
o
w
e
r
o
u
t
p
u
t
w
/
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
(
M
W
)
4
9
3
5
0
0
6
6
6
6
7
6
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
5
0
3
9
9
6
2
2
5
4
5
N
e
t
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
w
/
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
,
L
H
V
(
%
)
4
1
.
3
3
6
.
5
4
4
.
0
4
4
.
0
3
9
.
2
3
9
.
8
4
0
.
0
4
0
.
4
4
1
.
2
3
8
.
6
4
1
.
4
4
6
.
8
4
4
.
8
4
3
.
9
4
1
.
4
N
e
t
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
w
/
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
,
L
H
V
(
%
)
3
1
.
4
2
6
.
7
3
4
.
8
3
5
.
3
2
8
.
2
2
8
.
8
2
9
.
1
3
0
.
7
2
9
.
9
2
7
.
5
2
9
.
7
3
4
.
9
3
4
.
5
3
3
.
1
3
0
.
9
C
O
2
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
w
/
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
(
k
g
/
M
W
h
)
8
1
1
1
0
3
0
7
4
3
7
4
3
8
7
9
8
6
5
8
3
6
8
3
0
8
0
2
8
5
6
8
0
4
7
0
7
7
5
4
7
9
7
8
2
0
C
O
2
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
w
/
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
(
k
g
/
M
W
h
)
1
0
7
1
4
1
1
1
7
9
2
1
2
4
1
2
1
1
2
6
1
0
9
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
9
5
7
3
1
0
6
1
1
1
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
c
o
s
t
w
/
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
(
U
S
D
/
k
W
)
1
4
4
2
1
3
3
0
1
4
0
8
1
4
0
8
2
0
6
1
2
0
8
9
2
0
0
7
1
9
1
0
2
0
2
4
1
9
9
6
2
5
8
7
2
7
1
6
1
7
1
0
8
5
6
1
8
9
9
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
c
o
s
t
w
/
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
(
U
S
D
/
k
W
)
2
3
4
5
2
2
7
0
1
9
7
9
2
0
4
3
3
4
3
9
3
4
8
5
3
3
5
4
3
0
8
0
3
5
7
0
3
6
1
0
4
5
1
1
4
2
7
9
2
7
9
0
1
5
7
2
3
1
3
5
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
n
e
t
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
2
4
%
2
7
%
2
1
%
2
0
%
2
8
%
2
8
%
2
7
%
2
4
%
2
8
%
2
9
%
2
8
%
2
6
%
2
3
%
2
5
%
2
5
%
R
E
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
E
D
D
A
T
A
(
2
0
1
0
U
S
D
)
O
v
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
c
o
s
t
w
/
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
(
U
S
D
/
k
W
)
1
5
0
8
1
8
6
8
1
7
2
0
1
7
2
0
2
5
8
0
2
6
1
5
2
5
1
2
2
3
9
1
2
2
0
3
2
1
7
2
2
4
0
9
2
5
2
9
1
8
7
3
9
3
8
2
1
6
2
O
v
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
c
o
s
t
w
/
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
(
U
S
D
/
k
W
)
2
6
6
4
3
4
0
4
2
5
8
1
2
6
6
4
4
5
9
6
4
6
5
7
4
4
8
2
4
1
1
6
4
1
4
8
4
1
9
5
4
4
8
5
4
2
5
5
3
2
6
3
1
8
3
8
3
8
0
8
L
C
O
E
w
/
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
(
U
S
D
/
M
W
h
)
5
0
4
9
6
9
6
9
6
2
6
3
7
3
7
0
6
5
6
6
7
0
7
0
7
8
5
1
6
6
L
C
O
E
w
/
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
(
U
S
D
/
M
W
h
)
8
0
8
4
9
5
9
7
1
0
7
1
0
9
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
8
8
0
1
0
7
C
o
s
t
o
f
C
O
2
a
v
o
i
d
e
d
(
U
S
D
/
t
C
O
2
)
4
3
4
0
4
2
4
2
6
0
6
1
6
8
5
8
6
9
6
9
7
4
6
8
5
9
4
2
5
8
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
o
v
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
c
o
s
t
7
7
%
8
2
%
5
0
%
5
5
%
7
8
%
7
8
%
7
8
%
7
2
%
8
8
%
9
3
%
8
6
%
6
8
%
7
4
%
9
6
%
7
5
%
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
L
C
O
E
5
9
%
7
3
%
3
8
%
4
0
%
7
2
%
7
2
%
6
7
%
6
0
%
7
3
%
7
7
%
7
3
%
5
9
%
5
2
%
5
7
%
6
3
%
O
E
C
D
C
h
i
n
a
N
o
t
e
s
:
D
a
t
a
c
o
v
e
r
o
n
l
y
C
O
2
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
b
u
t
n
o
t
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
.
O
v
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
c
o
s
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
,
E
P
C
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
c
o
s
t
s
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
I
D
C
.
A
1
5
%
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
E
P
C
c
o
s
t
i
s
a
d
d
e
d
f
o
r
u
n
f
o
r
e
s
e
e
n
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
o
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
C
C
S
c
a
s
e
s
,
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
a
5
%
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
f
o
r
n
o
n
C
C
S
c
a
s
e
s
.
I
D
C
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
L
C
O
E
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
F
u
e
l
p
r
i
c
e
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
d
i
f
f
e
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
r
e
g
i
o
n
s
.
Page|25
Figure2.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyamines:CO
2
captureimpact
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
C
M
U
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
G
H
G
I
A
N
Z
E
C
Increase inovernightcost(2010USD/kW)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
C
M
U
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
G
H
G
I
A
N
Z
E
C
IncreaseinLCOE(2010USD/MWh)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
C
M
U
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
G
H
G
I
A
N
Z
E
C
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost(%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
C
M
U
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
G
H
G
I
A
N
Z
E
C
Netefficiencypenalty(percentagepoints,LHV)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
C
M
U
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
G
H
G
I
A
N
Z
E
C
RelativeincreaseinLCOE (%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
C
M
U
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
G
H
G
I
A
N
Z
E
C
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency (%)
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
Notes:DatacoveronlyCO
2
captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.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.
Page|26
By adding CO
2
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
average 75% when adding CO
2
capture. This trend is comparably robust across a wide range of
power plant types (SCPC, USCPC, CFB), coals used (bituminous, subbituminous and lignite), and
tosomeextentevenregions(e.g.theUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanUnion).
InOECDregions,LCOEincreasesonaveragebyUSD41/MWh,butvariesbetweenUSD26/MWh
and USD51/MWh. The relative increase of LCOE compared to LCOE of the reference plant is on
average 63%. Costs of CO
2
avoided are on average USD58/tCO
2
but vary between USD40/tCO
2
and USD74/tCO
2
for case studies across OECD regions. Costs of CO
2
avoided for China are
estimatedUSD42/tCO
2
.
Table4.Postcombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes(OECDonly)
Specificfueltype
Powerplanttype USCPC SCPC SubPC USCPC SCPC CFB
Numberofcasesincluded 3 5 1 1 1 1
ORIGINALDATAASPUBLISHED(convertedtoUSD)
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 689 581 550 600 600 500 582
Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 631 553 550 550 550 500 545
Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 44.9 41.4 38.6 39.8 39.2 36.5 41.4
Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 35.0 31.0 27.5 28.8 28.2 26.7 30.9
CO
2
emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 731 804 856 865 879 1030 820
CO
2
emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 101 109 121 121 124 141 111
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1844 1896 1996 2089 2061 1330 1899
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 2767 3151 3610 3485 3439 2270 3135
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 22% 25% 29% 28% 28% 27% 25%
REEVALUATEDDATA(2010USD)
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1990 2124 2172 2615 2580 1868 2162
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3166 3760 4195 4657 4596 3404 3808
LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) 69 66 66 63 62 49 66
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 101 107 117 109 107 84 107
CostofCO
2
avoided(USD/tCO
2
) 51 59 69 61 60 40 58
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 58% 76% 93% 78% 78% 82% 75%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE 46% 62% 77% 72% 72% 73% 63%
Overall
Average
Bitcoal Subbit&Lignite
Notes: Data cover onl y CO2 capture and compressi on but not transportati on and storage. Overni ght costs i ncl ude owners, EPC and conti ngency
costs, but not IDC. A 15% conti ngency based on EPC cost i s added for unforeseen techni cal or regul atory di ffi cul ti es for CCS cases, compared to a 5%
conti ngencyappl i edfornonCCScases.IDCi si ncl udedi nLCOEcal cul ati ons.Fuel pri ceassumpti onsdi fferbetweenregi ons.
TheinfluenceofspecificpowerplantandfueltypesisshowninTable4.Thenumberofsamples
perpowerplantandfuelcombinationislimited,however,andresultsshouldnotberegardedas
representative.
Page|27
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
interpretedinfavouroforagainstalternativeoptions.
PrecombustionCO
2
capturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles
Cost and performance data for precombustion CO
2
capture from integrated gasification
combinedcycles(IGCC)areshowninTable5.Technoeconomicdatafor11differentcasesfrom7
organisationsareanalysed,includingacasestudyforaninstallationinChina.
Table5.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles
Regionalfocus China
Average
(OECD)
Yearofcostdata 2005 2005 2005 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009
Yearofpublication 2007 2007 2007 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
Organisation MIT GHGIA GHGIA NETL NETL NETL CMU EPRI EPRI GCCSI NZEC
Region US EU EU US US US US US US US CHN
Specificfueltype Bi tcoal Bi tcoal Bi tcoal Bi tcoal Bi tcoal Bi tcoal Bi tcoal
Subbi t
coal
Bi tcoal Bitcoal Bi tcoal
Powerplanttype GE Shel l
GE
Quench
GER+Q
CoPE
GasFSQ
Shel l
GE
Quench
(Generic) (Generic)
Shel l
IGCC
TPRI
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 500 776 826 622 625 629 538 573 603 636 633
Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 500 676 730 543 514 497 495 482 507 517 662 546
Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 40.3 43.1 38.0 40.9 41.7 44.2 40.0 41.0 41.2 43.2 41.4
Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 32.7 34.5 31.5 34.3 32.6 32.8 34.5 32.3 32.3 33.6 36.8 33.1
CO
2
emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 832 763 833 782 776 723 819 845 805 753 793
CO
2
emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 102 142 152 93 98 99 94 141 135 90 95 115
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1430 1613 1439 2447 2351 2716 1823 3239 2984 3521 2356
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 1890 2204 1815 3334 3466 3904 2513 4221 3940 4373 1471 3166
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 19% 20% 17% 16% 22% 26% 14% 21% 22% 22% 20%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 2009 1970 1758 2663 2559 2956 1551 3702 3410 3279 2586
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 2834 2874 2367 3874 4027 4536 2323 5150 4808 4348 1721 3714
LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) 62 69 75 76 73 81 52 86 92 88 75
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 83 102 95 104 109 120 71 118 126 115 73 104
CostofCO
2
avoided(USD/tCO
2
) 29 53 30 42 53 62 26 45 51 41 43
CostofCO
2
avoidedvsPCbaseline
(USD/tCO
2
)
18 53 38 57 64 86 28 64 79 64 32 55
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 41% 46% 35% 45% 57% 53% 50% 39% 41% 33% 44%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE 35% 48% 27% 38% 49% 48% 37% 37% 37% 31% 39%
OECD
Notes: Data cover onl y CO2 capture and compressi on but not transportati on and storage. Overni ght costs i ncl ude owners, EPC and conti ngency costs, but not IDC. A 15%
conti ngency based on EPC cost i s added for unforeseen techni cal or regul atory di ffi cul ti es for CCS cases, compared to a 5% conti ngency appl i ed for nonCCS cases. IDC i s
i ncl uded i n LCOE cal cul ati ons. Fuel pri ce assumpti ons di ffer between regi ons. Generi c data shown for EPRI; further detai l s for i ndi vi dual gasi fi er desi gns, i ncl udi ng data
forSi emensgasi fi ersareavai l abl ei nEPRI(2009).
Page|28
Figure3.Precombustioncapturefromintegratedgasificationcombinedcycles:CO
2
captureimpact
0
500
1000
1500
2000
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
C
M
U
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
G
C
C
S
I
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
C
M
U
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
G
C
C
S
I
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
C
M
U
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
G
C
C
S
I
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost (%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
C
M
U
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
G
C
C
S
I
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
C
M
U
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
G
C
C
S
I
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
M
I
T
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
C
M
U
E
P
R
I
E
P
R
I
G
C
C
S
I
2005 2007 2009 2008 2005 2007 2009 2008
2005 2007 2009 2008 2005 2007 2009 2008
2005 2007 2009 2008 2005 2007 2009 2008
2
captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.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.
Page|29
AllreviewedstudiesapartfromoneevaluateprecombustionCO
2
capturefromIGCCplantsthat
operateonbituminouscoals.GasifiertechnologiesbyConocoPhillips(CoP),GeneralElectric(GE),
ShellandtheChineseThermalPowerResearchInstitute(TPRI)areanalysed.
2
poweroutputsincludingCO
2
capturerangefrom482MWto730MWacrossOECDregions,atan
average net efficiency of 33.1% (LHV). The impact of adding precombustion capture to an IGCC
referenceplantwithoutCO
2
captureisillustratedinFigure3.
Net efficiency penalties between 5.5 and 11.4 percentage points (LHV) are estimated for pre
combustion CO
2
capture in OECD regions, which is on average a 20% reduction in efficiency. No
IGCCreferenceplantdataareprovidedinthecasestudyonprecombustionCO
2
captureinChina
(NZEC,2009).
By adding CO
2
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.
Overnight costs increase by on average 44% compared to an IGCC reference power plant when
adding CO
2
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. The relative increase of LCOE compared to the LCOE of the reference plant is on
average39%.
Costs of CO
2
2
if an IGCC reference plant is used, but vary
betweenUSD26/tCO
2
andUSD62/tCO
2
forOECDregionsacrossstudycases.
If a pulverised coal power plant reference case is used, average costs of CO
2
avoided rise to
USD55/tCO
2
. The cost of CO
2
avoided in China is estimated USD32/tCO
2
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.
9
Asstatedbytheauthorsinafollowuppublication(MIT,2009), IGCCcostestimatespublishedinMIT(2007)might
havebeentoooptimistic.
Page|30
Table6.Precombustioncapture:influenceofcoals(OECDonly)
Numberofcasesincluded 9 1
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 639 573 633
Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 553 482 546
Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 41.4 41.0 41.4
Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 33.2 32.3 33.1
CO
2
emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 787 845 793
CO
2
emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 112 141 115
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 2258 3239 2356
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3049 4221 3166
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 20% 21% 20%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 2462 3702 2586
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3555 5150 3714
LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) 74 86 75
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 103 118 104
CostofCO
2
avoided(USD/tCO
2
) 43 45 43
CostofCO
2
avoidedvsPCbaseline
(USD/tCO
2
)
54 64 55
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 45% 39% 44%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE 39% 37% 39%
Overall
Average
Specificfueltype Bitcoal
Subbit&
Lignite
Notes: Data cover onl y CO2 capture and compressi on but not transportati on and storage. Overni ght
costs i ncl ude owners, EPC and conti ngency costs, but not IDC. A 15% conti ngency based on EPC cost
i s added for unforeseen techni cal or regul atory di ffi cul ti es for CCS cases, compared to a 5%
conti ngency appl i ed for nonCCS cases. IDC i s i ncl uded i n LCOE cal cul ati ons. Fuel pri ce
assumpti onsdi fferbetweenregi ons.
OxycombustionCO
2
capturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration
Cost and performance data for oxycombustion CO
2
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.
2
power outputs including CO
2
capture range from 500MW to 550 MW in OECD countries, at an
averagenetefficiencyof31.9%(LHV).
Page|31
Table7.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration
Regionalfocus China
Average
(OECD)
Yearofcostdata 2005 2005 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2009 2009 2009
Yearofpublication 2007 2007 2008 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009
Organisation GHGIA MIT NETL NETL NETL NETL NETL NETL GCCSI GCCSI NZEC
Region EU US US US US US US US US US CHN
Specificfueltype Bi tcoal Bi tcoal Bi tcoal
Subbi t
coal
Subbi t
coal
Li gni te
Subbi t
coal
Li gni te Bi tcoal Bi tcoal Bi tcoal
Powerplanttype USCPC SCPC SCPC SCPC SCPC SCPC CFB CFB SCPC USCPC USCPC
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 758 500 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 824 566
Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 532 500 550 550 550 550 549 550 550 550 673 543
Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 44.0 40.4 41.4 40.6 40.6 39.4 40.9 40.2 41.4 46.8 43.9 41.6
Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 35.4 32.1 30.7 32.5 29.5 31.4 31.6 30.7 30.8 34.7 35.6 31.9
CO
2
emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 743 830 800 859 859 925 846 884 800 707 797 825
CO
2
emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 84 104 0 98 0 103 99 105 0 0 98 59
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1408 1330 1579 1851 1851 2003 1938 2048 2587 2716 856 1931
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 2205 1900 2660 3093 3086 3163 3491 3821 4121 3985 1266 3153
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 20% 21% 26% 20% 27% 20% 23% 24% 26% 26% 19% 23%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1720 1868 1976 2317 2317 2507 2426 2563 2409 2529 938 2263
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 2875 2849 3555 4133 4124 4227 4665 5106 4098 3962 1481 3959
LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) 69 59 61 56 56 62 59 63 70 70 51 62
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 101 84 100 96 97 100 108 119 112 106 69 102
CostofCO
2
avoided(USD/tCO
2
) 49 35 49 52 47 46 66 72 52 50 27 52
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 67% 53% 80% 78% 78% 69% 92% 99% 70% 57% 58% 74%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE 47% 43% 65% 71% 72% 62% 84% 89% 60% 51% 36% 64%
OECD
Notes: Data cover onl y CO2 capture and compressi on but not transportati on and storage. Overni ght costs i ncl ude owners, EPC and conti ngency costs, but not IDC. A 15%
conti ngency based on EPC cost i s added for unforeseen techni cal or regul atory di ffi cul ti es for CCS cases, compared to a 5% conti ngency appl i ed for nonCCS cases. IDC i s
i ncl uded i n LCOE cal cul ati ons. Fuel pri ce assumpti ons di ffer between regi ons. CO2 puri ti es >99.9% apart from GHG IA (96%), GCCSI (83%) and NETL case wi th 29.5% (LHV)
effi ci ency(83%).
TheimpactofaddingoxycombustionCO
2
capturerelativetoacoalfiredreferenceplantwithout
CO
2
Net efficiency penalties between 7.9 and 12.2 percentage points (LHV) are estimated for oxy
combustionCO
2
captureinOECDregions,whichisonaveragea23%reductioninefficiency.The
netefficiencypenaltyestimatedforaninstallationinChinais8.3percentagepoints.
By adding CO
2
USD1696/kW but vary substantially by a factor of more than two between USD981/kW and
USD2543/kW. For China overnight costs are expected to increase by USD542/kW. The relative
(percentagewise)increaseofovernightcostsisonaverage74%comparedtoovernightcostsof
thereferencepowerplant.
Page|32
Figure4.Oxycombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergeneration:CO
2
captureimpact
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
G
H
G
I
A
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
N
Z
E
C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
G
H
G
I
A
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
N
Z
E
C
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
G
H
G
I
A
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
N
Z
E
C
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
G
H
G
I
A
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
N
Z
E
C
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
G
H
G
I
A
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
N
Z
E
C
RelativeincreaseinLCOE(%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
G
H
G
I
A
M
I
T
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
N
E
T
L
G
C
C
S
I
G
C
C
S
I
N
Z
E
C
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
Notes:Datacoveronly CO
2
captureandcompression butnottransportationandstorage. 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.
Page|33
InOECDregions,LCOEincreasesonaveragebyUSD40/MWh,butvariesbetweenUSD25/MWh
average 64%. Costs of CO
2
2
but vary between USD35/tCO
2
and USD72/tCO
2
for OECD regions across study cases. Costs of CO
2
avoided for China are
estimatedtobeUSD27/tCO
2
,orabouthalfofaveragecostsinOECDregions.
Table8illustratestheinfluenceofthespecificpowerplantandfueltype.Samplesizesarequite
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 CO
2
capture
tendtobelowerforbituminouscoalscomparedtosubbituminousorlignitecoals.CostsofCO
2
avoidedaresimilarthough,apartfromoxycombustioncapturefromCFBboilers.
Table8.Oxycombustioncapture:influenceofcoalsandpowerplanttypes(OECDonly)
Specificfueltype
Powerplanttype USCPC SCPC SCPC CFB
Numberofcasesincluded 2 3 3 2
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 654 533 550 550 566
Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 541 533 550 549 543
Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 45.4 41.0 40.2 40.5 41.6
Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 35.0 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.9
CO
2
emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 725 810 881 865 825
CO
2
emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 42 35 67 102 59
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 2062 1832 1902 1993 1931
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3095 2894 3114 3656 3153
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 23% 24% 22% 23% 23%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 2125 2085 2380 2495 2263
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3419 3500 4161 4885 3959
LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) 70 63 58 61 62
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 103 99 98 114 102
CostofCO
2
avoided(USD/tCO
2
) 50 45 49 69 52
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 62% 67% 75% 96% 74%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE 49% 56% 68% 86% 64%
Bitcoal Subbit&Lignite
Overall
Average
Notes: Data cover onl y CO2 capture and compressi on but not transportati on and storage. Overni ght costs i ncl ude owners,
EPC and conti ngency costs, but not IDC. A 15% conti ngency based on EPC cost i s added for unforeseen techni cal or regul atory
di ffi cul ti es for CCS cases, compared to a 5% conti ngency appl i ed for nonCCS cases. IDC i s i ncl uded i n LCOE cal cul ati ons.
Fuel pri ceassumpti onsdi fferbetweenregi ons.
Page|34
PostcombustionCO
2
capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles
Cost and performance data for postcombustion CO
2
capture from natural gas combined cycles
byaminesareshowninTable9.Technoeconomicdatafor9differentcasesfrom5organisations
areanalysed.
Table9.Postcombustioncapturefromnaturalgasfiredpowergeneration(OECDonly)
Regionalfocus Average
Yearofcostdata 2005 2005 2005 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009
Yearofpublication 2007 2007 2007 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
Organisation CMU GHGIA GHGIA NETL CCP CCP CCP CCP GCCSI
Region US EU EU US EU EU EU EU US
Specificfueltype NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG
Powerplanttype Fcl ass Fcl ass Fcl ass Fcl ass Fcl ass Fcl ass Fcl ass Fcl ass Fcl ass
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 507 776 776 555 395 395 395 395 560 528
Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 432 662 692 474 322 367 360 361 482 461
Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 55.2 55.6 55.6 55.2 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 55.9 56.6
Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 47.1 47.4 49.6 47.1 47.3 49.3 49.7 49.7 48.1 48.4
CO
2
emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 367 379 379 365 370 370 370 370 362 370
CO
2
emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 43 66 63 43 60 60 60 60 42 55
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 671 499 499 718 1245 1245 1245 1245 957 925
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 1091 869 887 1497 2358 1741 1786 1767 1870 1541
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 15% 15% 11% 15% 18% 15% 14% 14% 14% 15%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 749 609 609 781 1237 1237 1237 1237 944 960
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 1313 1133 1157 1740 2502 1847 1895 1875 1969 1715
LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) 64 76 76 64 86 86 86 86 67 77
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 84 98 95 92 126 110 110 110 96 102
CostofCO
2
avoided(USD/tCO
2
) 62 69 60 87 128 75 76 75 90 80
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 75% 86% 90% 123% 102% 49% 53% 52% 109% 82%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE 31% 29% 25% 44% 46% 27% 27% 27% 43% 33%
OECD
Notes: Data cover onl y CO2 capture and compressi on but not transportati on and storage. Overni ght costs i ncl ude owners, EPC and conti ngency costs, but
not IDC. A 15% conti ngency based on EPC cost i s added for unforeseen techni cal or regul atory di ffi cul ti es for CCS cases, compared to a 5% conti ngency
appl i ed for nonCCS cases. IDC i s i ncl uded i n LCOE cal cul ati ons. Fuel pri ce assumpti ons di ffer between regi ons. The GHG IA case wi th the l ower effi ci ency
penal ty assumes KS1 as a sol vent. Two CCP cases (wi th 360 MW and 361 MW power output) make use of exhaust gas reci rcul ati on and/or advanced
heati ntegrati on,whi chareasoftodaynotyetcommerci al l yavai l abl etechnol ogi es.
2
poweroutputsincludingcapturerangefrom322MWto692MW,atanaveragenetefficiencyof
48.4%(LHV)acrossOECDregions.
Page|35
TheimpactofaddingpostcombustionCO
2
capturetoanaturalgascombinedcyclecomparedto
anNGCCreferenceplantwithoutCO
2
Figure5.Postcombustioncapturefromnaturalgasfiredpowergeneration:CO
2
captureimpact
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
C
M
U
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
G
C
C
S
I
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
C
M
U
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
G
C
C
S
I
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
C
M
U
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
G
C
C
S
I
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
C
M
U
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
G
C
C
S
I
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
C
M
U
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
G
C
C
S
I
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
C
M
U
G
H
G
I
A
G
H
G
I
A
N
E
T
L
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
G
C
C
S
I
2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009
2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009
2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009
Notes: Data cover only CO

2
capture and compression but not transportation and storage. Overnight costs include owners, EPC and
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
Page|36
Net efficiency penalties between 6.0 and 10.7 percentage points (LHV) are estimated for post
combustionCO
2
captureinOECDregions,whichisonaveragea15%reductioninefficiency.
By adding CO
2
USD754/kW but vary substantially by a factor of more than two between USD524/kW and
USD1264/kW.
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%whenaddingCO
2
capture.Incontrastto
coalfired power generation, using the relative increase of overnight costs as a key metric
appearstoofferalessclearbenefitoverusingabsolute costincreases,given thelargevariation
ofdataacrossstudies.
In OECD regions LCOE increases on average by USD25/MWh, but varies between USD19/MWh
average33%.
Costs of CO
2
2
, but vary between USD60/tCO
2
and
USD128/tCO
2
forOECDregionsacrossstudycases.
Page|37
Summaryofresults
Published costandperformance datavarysignificantlyovertime,acrossstudiesandsometimes
evenwithincountriesorregions.Thisspreadalsoreflectscurrentmacroeconomicuncertainties
thatresultfromtherecentglobalfinancialcrisis,duringwhichenergyandsupplierpricesreached
historicallevels.Asaconsequence,costsforCO
2
captureprocessesandcostsforreferenceplants
withoutCO
2
capturefluctuatesignificantlyacrossstudies.
Cost and performance figures for the United States and the European Union, which represent
the bulk of the analysed data, are summarised in Table 10. These data are average figures
acrossaverydiversesetofCO
2
captureapplicationsandreferences.Theynonethelessprovide
asnapshotofcurrentestimatesforgenericcostsandperformancerelatedtoCO
2
capturefrom
powergeneration.
Taking into account the level of uncertainty across case studies, the following general cost and
performancetrendscanbeidentifiedforearlycommercialCO
2
capturefrompowergeneration:
Forcoalfiredpowerplants(averagefigures):
Netefficiencypenaltiesofaround10percentagepointsareestimatedforpostandoxy
combustionCO
2
capturecomparedtoapulverisedcoalplantwithoutCO
2
capture.Penal
ties for precombustion are about eight percentage points relative to an integrated
gasificationcombinedcyclewithoutCO
2
capture.
Overnight costs with CO
2
capture on average are USD3800/kW in OECD regions.
Average figures vary very little across capture routes. Within single CO
2
capture routes
however, variation between different power plant and fuel types can be substantial.
AverageLCOEestimatesareUSD105/MWh.
CostsofCO
2
avoidedareonaverageUSD55/tCO
2
acrossCO
2
captureroutes,provideda
pulverisedcoalpowerplantwithoutCO
2
captureisusedasareferencecase.
Fornaturalgasfiredpowerplants(averagefigures):
Net efficiency penalties of about eight percentage points are estimated for post
combustionCO
2
capturefromnaturalgascombinedcycles.
Overnight costs for power plants with postcombustion CO
2
capture are on average
USD1700/kW,whiletheLCOEisUSD102/MWh.
CostsofCO
2
avoidedareonaverageUSD80/tCO
2
forpowerplantswithpostcombustion
CO
2
capture.
For comparison, average overnight costs for SCPC and USCPC plants with CO
2
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 CO
2
capture. The results of the OECD PCGE
2010analysisarethussimilartothefindingsofthisstudy,althoughtheOECDstudyisnotbased
on a review of engineering studies but instead on data submissions by OECD member countries
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.
Page|38
Table10.AveragecostandperformancedatabyCO
2
captureroute(OECDonly)
Fueltype NG
Captureroute
Post
combustion
Pre
combustion
Oxy
combustion
Post
combustion
Referenceplantw/ocapture PC IGCC(PC) PC NGCC
Netefficiencyw/capture(LHV,%) 30.9 33.1 31.9 48.4
Netefficiencypenalty(LHV,percentagepoints) 10.5 7.5 9.6 8.3
Relativenetefficiencypenalty 25% 20% 23% 15%
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3808 3714 3959 1715
Overnightcostincrease(USD/kW) 1647 1128(1566) 1696 754
Relativeovernightcostincrease 75% 44%(71%) 74% 82%
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 107 104 102 102
LCOEincrease(USD/MWh) 41 29(37) 40 25
RelativeLCOEincrease 63% 39%(55%) 64% 33%
CostofCO
2
avoided(USD/tCO
2
) 58 43(55) 52 80
COAL
Notes: Data cover onl y CO2 capture and compressi on but not transportati on and storage. The accuracy of feasi bi l i ty study
capi tal cost esti mates i s on average 30%, hence for coal the vari ati on i n average overni ght costs, LCOE and cost of CO2
avoi ded between capture routes i s wi thi n the uncertai nty of the study. Underl yi ng oxycombusti on data i ncl ude some cases
wi th CO2 puri ti es <97%. Overni ght costs i ncl ude owners, EPC and conti ngency costs, but not IDC. A 15% conti ngency based on
EPC cost i s added for unforeseen techni cal or regul atory di ffi cul ti es for CCS cases, compared to a 5% conti ngency appl i ed for
nonCCScases.IDCi si ncl udedi nLCOEcal cul ati ons.Fuel pri ceassumpti onsdi fferbetweenregi ons.
TheIEAplanstoregularlyupdatefindings,andincludeadditionaltechnoeconomicdataforother
CO
2
captureapplicationsfrompowergeneration,includingbioenergywithCCS(BECCS).Inmany
globalclimatescenarios,BECCSplaysacrucialroleforreducingCO
2
emissionsintheatmosphere.
CommercialattractivenessofBECCSiscurrentlylimitedsincenospecificmechanismsareinplace
thatwouldincentivisethepotentialofBECCStogeneratenegativeCO
2
emissions.
Futurecostandperformancepotential
CostandperformanceestimatesforneartermCO
2
capturefrompowergenerationaretypically
based on currently available technologies. Characteristics of future CO
2
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
thatareextrapolatedtoCO
2
captureprocesses.
Experience curves are used to describe cost reduction as a function of cumulative deployment,
which for CO
2
capture technologies derives from energy scenarios. Studies have analysed the
Page|39
historicaldeploymentandcostdevelopmentofpowergenerationrelatedtechnologiessuchas
flue gas desulphurisation, selective catalytic reduction, gas turbine combined cycles, pulverised
coalboilers,oxygenproductionplantsandsteam methanereformingas abasisforestimating
similarlearningeffectsforCO
2
captureprocesses.Itshouldbenotedthatcostestimatesinitially
oftenincreaseratherthandecreasewhennoveltechnologiesmoveintofirstuse.
Based on a scenario that assumes 100 GW of CCS have been deployed the improvement
potential through learning effects was analysed (Rubin,2007). For different power plants with
CO
2
capture,reductionsareestimatedatbetween9.1%and17.8%incapitalcosts,andbetween
9.7%and17.6%incostofelectricity.ReferencepowerplantswithoutCCScouldalsobenefitfrom
further improvement, but net reductions of overall CO
2
mitigation costs are identified. Further
informationontheunderlyingmethodologyandworkthatextendsthisapproachtoalsoinclude
potentialimprovementofpowerplantperformancedatacanbefoundintheliterature(vanden
Broek,2009).
Uncertaintyandsensitivityofresults
Given their generic nature or earlystage of development, most of the published data evaluated
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.Considering theuncertaintylevelofcostestimates,differencesinovernightcosts and
LCOE across different CO
2
capture routes for coalfired power generation cannot be interpreted
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
structures and conditions, company and sitespecific requirements, geographic cost differences
orcostsrelatedtopermitting,siteandtechnologyapproval.
Project and sitespecific costs should not be underestimated. This report assumes newbuild
power plants with integrated CO
2
capture that can use existing utility systems on a brownfield
industrial site. If this is not the case, project and sitespecific costs may add significantly to the
totalprojectcosts.Gassnovamadeacostestimateforaretrofitofpostcombustioncapturetoa
naturalgaspowerplantinaruralareainNorway,andfoundthatprojectandsitespecificcosts
added 30% to the EPCcontract costs for the CO
2
capture plant. The project and sitespecific
costs included site preparation, connections for flue gas and other utilities, sea water cooling
system, power supply, fire water supply, training of personnel and miscellaneous other costs in
theconstructionphase.
11
Across the reviewed studies, it is often not fully transparent which sources and methodologies
are used for estimating cost. When interpreting results, readers should keep in mind that often
estimates will not be based on original source data from plant suppliers but might be derived
fromotherpublishedsources,orhavebeenprovidedbythesameengineeringcontractor.Asan
example, the study by GCCSI uses NETL capital cost data as a starting point for further analysis
andreevaluation.
ThetoolsandmethodologiesusedforthisstudyarebasedonthePCGE2010analysis,whichalso
discussesindetailsensitivitiesofresultstovariationsofkeyinputparameters.Forexample,this
analysis uses assumptions on capacity factors that are representative of baseline operation of
11
PersonalcommunicationwithToreHatlen,Gassnova,2011.
Page|40
powerplants.Itisimportanttonotethatinfuturescenarioswithsubstantialelectricitysupplyby
variablerenewableenergy,otherpowergenerationoptionsincludingthosewithCO
2
capture
mighthavetooperateatloadfactorsthataresignificantlylower.GiventhesensitivityofLCOEto
the capacity factor, this would lead to higher LCOE figures than those provided in the results
section of this working paper. In addition, once installed, the marginal operating costs of power
plants will play an important role for determining the capacity factor of a specific power plant.
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
denotes the average baseline LCOE result for coal and natural gasfired power generation with
CCS. The horizontal bars indicate the percentage increase or decrease of this value caused by a
50% variation in the assumptions for fuel cost, O&M, overnight costs and discount rate. The
graphsquantifythegenerallyknownstrongsensitivityofLCOEtocapitalcostrelatedfactorssuch
asovernightcostsandthediscountrateforcoalfiredpowergeneration,andfuelcostfornatural
gasfiredpowergeneration.
Figure6.Impactofa50%variationinkeyassumptionsonLCOE
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
ImpactonLCOE
CoalfiredpowergenerationwithCCS
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
ImpactonLCOE
NaturalgasfiredpowergenerationwithCCS
Fuelcost
O&M
Overnightcost
Discountrate
In general, CO
2
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
estimatesforCO
2
capture.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.
Page|41
Conclusionsandrecommendations
This study discusses cost and performance trends for CO
2
capture from power generation.
Estimates for about 50 different CO
2
capture installations at power plants are included in the
analysis, with a focus on generic, newbuild CO
2
capture processes that would be located in the
UnitedStates,EuropeandChina.Technoeconomicdatapublishedoverthelastfiveyearsarere
calibratedandupdatedtocurrentcostlevels.
Most cost and performance estimates are available for post, pre and oxycombustion CO
2
capture from coalfired power generation, and for postcombustion CO

2
capture from natural
gasfiredpowergeneration.
Based on the reevaluated cost and performance estimates, the following observations and
recommendationscanbesummarisedforearlycommercialCO
2
capturefrompowergeneration:
Considering uncertainties of current cost and performance data, no single technology for
CO
2
capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationclearlyoutperformstheavailablealternative
capture routes. This applies in particular to average overnight costs and levelised cost of
electricity but also includes cost of CO
2
avoided, provided the same plant without capture is
chosen as a reference. This conclusion is also reflected by current CCS demonstration
activities,whichcoverallcaptureroutes.
WhileabsoluteCO
2
capturecostestimatesforcoalfiredpowergenerationvaryoveryears,
figuresthatdescribetherelativeincreaseofcostcomparedtoareferenceplantwithoutCO
2
capture are often more stable across studies. For providing initial generic cost estimates of
coalfired power plants with CO
2
capture, especially for regions with limited available data,
relative cost increases compared to actual reference plant cost thus should be considered a
primary option. If no detailed sitespecific data are available, this approach appears more
appropriatethanusingconstantabsolutecostincrements.
For natural gasfired power plants, postcombustion CO
2
capture is the option most
predominantly considered across studies. Based on data provided in the reviewed studies,
postcombustion appears the most attractive option for nearterm CO
2
capture from natural
gas combined cycles. Variation across data, however, is particularly high for natural gasfired
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 CO
2
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
CO
2
capture projects. Generic cost estimates provide a first orientation regarding likely
averagecoststhatcanbeexpectedforearlycommercialCO
2
capturesystems.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
Page|42
technoeconomicdatacomparablewiththoseforcoalornaturalgasfiredpowergeneration
are still scarce in the literature. In this context, mechanisms need to be evaluated that could
incentivisenegativeCO
2
emissionsgeneratedbyBECCS.
Availability of data for CO
2
capture from power generation in nonOECD countries is very
limited, though global energy scenarios foresee that deployment of CCS in these countries
might have to exceed levels in OECD countries. It remains challenging to find broader
assessmentsonCO
2
capturefrompowergenerationthatstemfromdomesticorganisationsin
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.
InadditiontoCO
2
capturedata,accurateinformationonCO
2
transportandstorageiscrucial
for evaluating the viability of CCS globally and in specific regions. It is important to further
validatethepracticallyachievableandeconomicallyaffordablestoragecapacitiesandrelated
costs based on internationally standardised assessment methodologies. Though CO
2
transportation and storage are not covered by this working paper, the IEA is addressing this
subjectinotherworkstreams.
Page|43
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),CO
2
ControlTechnologyEffectsonIGCCPlantPerformanceandCost,
EnergyPolicy,Vol.37,pp.915924.
Davison,J.(2007),PerformanceandCostsofPowerPlantswithCaptureandStorageofCO
2
,Energy,Vol.
32,pp.11631176.
ENCAP(EnhancedCaptureofCO
2
)(2008),PowerSystemsEvaluationandBenchmarkingPublicVersion,
www.encapco2.org/publications/D_1_2_4_SummaryReport.pdf,accessed22February2011.
EPRI(ElectricPowerResearchInstitute)(2009)UpdatedCostandPerformanceEstimatesforCleanCoal
TechnologiesIncludingCO
2
Capture2009.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
GeologicFormationsResultsfromtheCO
2
CaptureProjectVolume3,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|44
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
CO
2
CaptureTechnology,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),CostandPerformanceofFossilFuelPowerPlantswithCO
2
CaptureandStorage,EnergyPolicy,Vol.35(9),pp.44444454.
Rubin,E.S.,etal.(2007b),UseofExperienceCurvestoEstimatetheFutureCostofPowerPlantswithCO
2
Capture,InternationalJournalofGreenhouseGasControl,Vol.1(2),pp.188197.
vandenBroek,M.,etal.(2009),EffectsofTechnologicalLearningonFutureCostandPerformanceof
PowerPlantswithCO
2
Capture,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,TechnicalandEconomicAssessmentofAmmoniabasedPostcombustionCO
2
Capture,Proc.10
th
InternationalConferenceonGreenhouseGasControlTechnologies(GHGT10),
Amsterdam,TheNetherlands,2010.
Zhai,H.andE.S.Rubin(2010),PerformanceandCostofWetandDryCoolingSystemsforPulverised
CoalPowerPlantswithandwithoutCarbonCaptureandStorage,EnergyPolicy,Vol.38(10),
pp.56535660.
Page|45
Annex:Studycaseswithlimitedavailabledata
PostcombustionCO
2
capturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationby
ammonia
While aminebased today is the most mature technology for postcombustion CO
2
capture,
ammoniabased solvents are considered a potentially attractive alternative. Only two of the
reviewed studies evaluate ammoniabased CO
2
capture in detail. In contrast to aminebased
capture, which is known for decades from industrial processes, assessing cost and performance
ofammoniabasedCO
2
captureremainschallengingduetolimitedavailabledataandsimulation
tools. Data for ammonia capture systems that are summarised should be thus considered
preliminaryandmoreuncertain.TheyarenonethelessshowninTable11forreference.
Table11.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia
Regionalfocus China
Average
(OECD)
Yearofcostdata 2007 2007 2009
Yearofpublication 2010 2010 2009
Organisation CMU CMU NZEC
Region US US CHN
Specificfueltype Bitcoal Bi tcoal Bitcoal
Powerplanttype SCPC SCPC USCPC
Netpoweroutputw/ocapture(MW) 550 550 824 550
Netpoweroutputw/capture(MW) 475 561 670 518
Netefficiencyw/ocapture,LHV(%) 41.1 41.1 43.9 41
Netefficiencyw/capture,LHV(%) 24.9 29.4 35.7 27
CO
2
emissionsw/ocapture(kg/MWh) 811 811 797 811
CO
2
emissionsw/capture(kg/MWh) 107 107 98 107
Capitalcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1601 1601 856 1601
Capitalcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3753 2841 1318 3297
Relativedecreaseinnetefficiency 39% 28% 19% 34%
Overnightcostw/ocapture(USD/kW) 1491 1491 938 1491
Overnightcostw/capture(USD/kW) 3799 2875 1541 3337
LCOEw/ocapture(USD/MWh) 50 50 51 50
LCOEw/capture(USD/MWh) 111 87 71 99
CostofCO
2
avoided(USD/tCO
2
) 86 52 28 69
Relativeincreaseinovernightcost 155% 93% 64% 124%
RelativeincreaseinLCOE 121% 73% 39% 97%
Notes: Data cover onl y CO2 capture and compressi on but not transportation and storage. Overni ght costs i ncl ude owners, EPC and conti ngency
costs, but not IDC. A 15% conti ngency based on EPC cost i s added for unforeseen techni cal or regul atory di fficul ties for CCS cases, compared to
a 5% conti ngency appl i ed for nonCCS cases. IDC i s i ncl uded i n LCOE cal cul ations. Fuel pri ce assumpti ons di ffer between regi ons. CMU data
i ncl udeal ow(l eftcol umn)andhigh(rightcol um)concentrati onammoni asystemoperati ngw/oandw/sol i ds.
OECD
Page|46
Figure7.Postcombustioncapturefromcoalfiredpowergenerationbyammonia:CO
2
captureimpact
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
C
M
U
C
M
U
N
Z
E
C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
C
M
U
C
M
U
N
Z
E
C
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
C
M
U
C
M
U
N
Z
E
C
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
C
M
U
C
M
U
N
Z
E
C
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
C
M
U
C
M
U
N
Z
E
C
RelativeincreaseinLCOE(%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
C
M
U
C
M
U
N
Z
E
C
2007 2009 2007 2009
2007 2009 2007 2009
2007 2009 2007 2009
2
captureandcompressionbutnottransportationandstorage.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.
Page|47
Acronyms,abbreviationsandunitsofmeasure
Acronymsandabbreviations
AACE AssociationfortheAdvancementof
CostEngineering
Bio biomass
Bit bituminous
CCP CO
2
CaptureProject
CCS carboncaptureandstorage
CEPCI ChemicalEngineeringPlantCostIndex
CFB circulatingfluidisedbed
CHN China
CMU CarnegieMellonUniversity
CNY YuanRenminbi(Chinacurrency)
CO
2
carbondioxide
COE costofelectricity
CoP ConocoPhillips
EPC engineering,procurementand
construction
EPRI ElectricPowerResearchInstitute
EU EuropeanUnion
FEED frontendengineeringanddesign
GCCSI GlobalCCSInstitute
GE GeneralElectricCompany
GHG GreenhouseGas
GHGIA GreenhouseGasImplementing
Agreement
HHV higherheatingvalue
IDC interestduringconstruction
IEA InternationalEnergyAgency
IGCC integratedgasificationcombined
cycle
IPCC IntergovernmentalPanelonClimate
Change
ISO InternationalOrganizationfor
Standardization

LCOE levelisedcostofelectricity
LHV lowerheatingvalue
MEA monoethanolamine
MIT MassachusettsInstituteof
Technology
NEA NuclearEnergyAgency
NETL NationalEnergyTechnology
Laboratory
NG naturalgas
NGCC naturalgascombinedcycle
NZEC NearZeroEmissionsCoalInitiative
OECD OrganisationforEconomic
CooperationandDevelopment
O&M operationandmaintenance
PC pulverisedcoal
PCGE ProjectedCostsofGenerating
Electricity2010(OECDpublication)
SCPC supercriticalpulverisedcoal
SubPC subcriticalpulverisedcoal
TPRI ThermalPowerResearchInstitute
UNIDO UnitedNationsIndustrial
DevelopmentOrganization
US UnitedStates
USCPC ultrasupercriticalpulverisedcoal
USD UnitedStatesDollar
w/ with
w/o without
Unitsofmeasure
GJ Gigajoule
kW Kilowatt
MBtu millionBritishthermalunits
MW Megawatt
t tonne(metric)

9 RUE DE LA FDRATION
75739 PARIS CEDEX 15
www.iea.org

Costperf Ccs Powergen

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Costperf Ccs Powergen

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Cost and Performance of

Carbon Dioxide Capture

for transportation (but not for CO

Notes: Data cover only CO

capture from coalfired power generation, and for postcombustion CO

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

También podría gustarte