Competitiveness of CO2 capture from an industrial solid oxide fuel cell combined heat and power system in the early stage of market introduction (original) (raw)
Related papers
Energy Procedia, 2009
a b s t r a c t CO 2 emissions from distributed energy systems are expected to become increasingly significant, accounting for about 20% for current global energy-related CO 2 emissions in 2030. This article reviews, assesses and compares the techno-economic performance of CO 2 capture from distributed energy systems taking into account differences in timeframe, fuel type and energy plant type. The analysis includes the energy plant, CO 2 capture and compression, and distributed transport between the capture site and a trunk pipeline. Key parameters, e.g., capacity factor, energy prices and interest rate, were normalized for the performance comparison.
Techno-economic prospects for CO2 capture from distributed energy systems
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013
Potentially low-cost CO 2 capture may facilitate pre-commercial solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology entering the energy market. The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the techno-economic performance of CO 2 capture from industrial SOFC-Combined Heat and Power plant (CHP). CO 2 is captured by using oxyfuel afterburner and conventional air separation technologies. The results were compared to both SOFC-CHP plants without CO 2 capture and conventional gas engines CHP without CO 2 capture. The system modeling was performed using Cycle Tempo software. Our results show that while SOFC-CHP without CO 2 capture requires a low SOFC stack production cost of about 310 /kWtocompetewithconventionalGE−CHP,SOFC−CHPwithCO2captureusinglargescaleairseparationunitcancompetewithGE−CHPathigherstackproductioncostswhentheCO2priceisabove37/kW to compete with conventional GE-CHP, SOFC-CHP with CO 2 capture using large scale air separation unit can compete with GE-CHP at higher stack production costs when the CO 2 price is above 37 /kWtocompetewithconventionalGE−CHP,SOFC−CHPwithCO2captureusinglargescaleairseparationunitcancompetewithGE−CHPathigherstackproductioncostswhentheCO2priceisabove37/t CO 2. CO 2 avoidance cost of 50 /tCO2canbeachievedatastackproductioncostof410/t CO 2 can be achieved at a stack production cost of 410 /tCO2canbeachievedatastackproductioncostof410/kWe. The results indicate that CO 2 capture, even with commercially available technologies, can economically facilitate SOFC entering the energy market in a carbon-constrained society.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2013
Recently, a commercial version of a residential solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) system with a flat tubular cell has been developed. However, the system cost still remains very high, which is a barrier to its widespread use. In this study, the potential for cost reductions in SOFC stack production was investigated in order to contribute to the viability of the widespread use of such residential SOFC systems in future. A cost analysis of 700 W SOFC stack production based on a process integration modeling was conducted. The present bottom-up approach enabled us to perform a sensitivity analysis with a variety of parameters in terms of cell design, the production process and cell performance. This allowed us to investigate the effects of these factors on the production cost, thereby revealing the quantitative impact of each technological improvement on the cost reduction potential. The present analysis also revealed innovation pathways which could result in technology scenarios where residential SOFC systems could reach a break-even point in comparison with the baseload electricity cost. The analysis of the cost reduction potential presented here provides a useful viewpoint for developing a research strategy for state-of-the-art SOFC technology.
Optimisation of an SOFC/GT system with CO2-capture
Journal of Power Sources, 2004
Hybrid systems combining solid oxide fuel cells and gas turbines (SOFC/GT) have been extensively studied in recent years. They show very high theoretical electrical efficiencies and are considered as prime contenders for distributed generation. The addition of a CO 2 -capture system could make them even more attractive from an environmental perspective. In this study, a SOFC/GT configuration with and without a tail-end CO 2 separation plant has been examined.
An exergetic analysis is used to identify the thermodynamic irreversibilities of a power plant. The plant includes a solid-oxide fuel-cell unit and CO 2 capture. Additional power generated in the fuel-cell unit enhances the power output of the plant. The power plant results in a high efficiency compared both to conventional and other CO 2 capture plants. High irreversibilities are found for the solid-oxide fuel cell.
Economic analysis of combined cycle biomass gasification fuelled SOFC Systems
This paper presents a cost modeling approach and the economic feasibility for a selected plant configuration operating under three modes; air gasification, mixed air-steam gasification, and steam gasification combined cycle SOFC (solid oxide fuel cell) systems. In this study two cases of biomass gasification fuelled SOFC-Gas turbine with HRSG hybrid configuration (case 1) is compared with biomass gasification fuelled SOFC-Steam turbine cycle (case2) are compared for biomass feed stock. For the case of steam, mixed air-steam and air gasification systems, the cost for the steam gasification system is shown to be highest as compared to the mixed air-steam gasification system and the air gasification system due to the higher hydrogen production as compared to air and mixed air-steam gasification systems. Other than the SOFC and gasification costs, a significant cost towards the heat exchangers is about 15 to 20% of the total purchase cost. The specific plant cost for the air gasification varied from the 16,600 US$/ kW to 19,200 US$/kW. For the case of Biomass gasification-fuelled SOFC-GT configuration, the major cost portions are shared by the SOFC, HRSG and gasifier. The HRSG equipment shared a cost portion of 25 to 30% for all the operating modes. The cost is decreased in the similar trend as that of steam, mixed air-steam and air gasification systems. For the case of Biomass gasification fuelled SOFC-ST configuration, the total purchase cost decreases at a rate of 15 to 20% for mixed air steam and air gasification system. Plant specific cost for the steam gasification mode varied from 15200 to 17200 US $/kW which is significantly very high.
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 2013
A techno-economic assessment of options for large scale combustion based power generation in the UK is presented. Three of the main technologies for large scale power generation are examined: Pulverised Fuel (PF), Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC), with and without CO 2 capture. The effect of three different CO 2 capture technologies is studied: Post-Combustion Capture (PCC) is applied to PF and NGCC plants, Oxyfuel Combustion Capture (OCC) is applied to PF plants, while pre-combustion capture is for IGCC. Different sub-options for PCC are applied to PF and NGCC plants, namely: amine scrubbing, ammonia scrubbing and membrane physical absorption, with the latter technology applied only to PF plants. Alternatives to coal are studied by using mixtures of 75% coal and 25% biomass by weight in PF and IGCC plants. 15 combustion technology, fuel and CO 2 capture combinations are tested, including 5 base cases without CO 2 capture with different combustion technologies and fuels, 4 PF-PCC cases with different solid fuels and capture sub-options, 2 PF-OCC cases with different solid fuels, 2 NGCC-PCC cases with different capture sub-options and 2 IGCC cases with pre-combustion capture and different solid fuels. The Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM) for calculating the performance, emission and cost of fossil-fuelled power plants is used to perform the techno-economic comparison. The results highlight the economic preference for PCC. NGCC is the most efficient and economically attractive choice and although IGCC plants are more expensive than PF plants, the introduction of CO 2 capture makes IGCC competitive.