Valuing power plant flexibility with CCS: the case of post-combustion capture retrofits

Original Article


An important development in recent years has been increased interest in retrofitting CO2 capture at existing power plants. In parallel, it has also been suggested that flexible operation of power plants with CO2 capture could be important in at least some jurisdictions. It is likely that retrofitted power plants could have significant ‘built-in’ flexibility, but this potential is often not considered in studies of the economic performance of power plants with CO2 capture. This paper makes a contribution to filling this gap by developing methods for first order screening analysis of flexible operation of power plants with CO2 capture and applying them to the case study example of an appropriately integrated retrofit of post-combustion capture at a coal-fired power plant. The quantitative analysis suggests that rich solvent storage could be an attractive option on a short-run basis for some fuel, CO2 and electricity price combinations. Results from first order analysis can then be used to determine which operating modes should (and shouldn’t) be included in further, more detailed design studies.


Carbon capture and storage Flexibility Post-combustion capture Power plant operation Retrofit 


  1. Chalmers H, Gibbins J (2007) Initial evaluation of the impact of post-combustion capture of carbon dioxide on supercritical pulverised coal power plant part load performance. Fuel 86(14):2109–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chalmers H, Lucquiaud M, Gibbins J, Leach M (2009) Flexible operation of coal fired power plants with post combustion capture of carbon dioxide. Am Soc Civ Eng: J Environ Eng 135(6):449–458Google Scholar
  3. Chalmers H (2010a) Operating options for coal-fired power plants with CO2 capture. London, UK. Report CCC/160. London, UK. IEA Clean Coal CentreGoogle Scholar
  4. Chalmers H (2010b) Flexible operation of coal-fired power plants with post-combustion capture of carbon dioxide. Thesis submitted to the University of Surrey for the degree of Doctor of PhilosophyGoogle Scholar
  5. Chalmers H, Leach M, Gibbins J (2011) Built-in flexibility at retrofitted power plants: what is it worth and can we afford to ignore it? Energy Procedia 4:2596–2603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen S, Chalmers H, Webber ME, King CW (2011) Comparing post-combustion CO2 capture operation at retrofitted coal-fired power plants in the Texas and Great Britain electric grids. Environ Res Lett 6(2):024001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen SM, Rochelle GT and Webber ME (2008) Turning CO2 capture on & off in response to electric grid demand: a baseline analysis of emissions and economics. Proceedings of ASME Energy Sustainability 2008 (ES2008), Jacksonville, Florida, USA, 10–14 AugustGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen SM, Fyffe J, Rochelle GT and Webber ME (2009a) The effect of fossil fuel prices on flexible CO2 capture operation. Proceedings of ASME Energy Sustainability 2009 (ES2009), Jacksonville, Florida, 19–23 JulyGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen S (2009b) Grid and Process Modeling of Flexible Post-Combustion CO2 Capture. Presented at IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme workshop on Operating Flexibility of Power Plants with CCS, London, UK, 11–12 November.
  10. Davison J, Thambimuthu K (2009) An overview of technologies and costs of carbon dioxide capture in power generation. Proc Inst Mech Eng J Power Eng 223:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doosan B. (2009) Doosan Babcock announces world-leading carbon capture project with US utility Basin Electric Power Cooperative. Press release, 21 Dec 2009.
  12. DTI (1999) Technology status report 009: supercritical steam cycles for power generation applications. UK Government Department of Trade and Industry Cleaner Coal Technology ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuss S, Szolgayova J, Obersteiner M, Gusti M (2008) Investment under market and climate policy uncertainty. Applied Energy 85:708–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbins JR, Crane RI (2004) Scope for reductions in the cost of CO2 capture using flue gas scrubbing with amine solvents. Proc Inst Mech Eng J Power Eng 218:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haines MR, Davison JE (2009) Designing carbon capture power plants to assist in meeting peak power demand. Energy Procedia 1(1):1457–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holt N, Booras G and Schoff R (2009) EPRI IGCC Engineering & Economic Evaluations −2009. Presented at 4th International Conference on IGCC & XtL Technologies, Dresden, Germany, 18–20 MayGoogle Scholar
  17. IEA GHG (2004) Improvement in power generation with post-combustion capture of CO2. Report PH4/33. Cheltenham, UK. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  18. IEA GHG (2006) CO2 capture as a factor in power station investment decisions. Report 2006/8. Cheltenham, UK. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  19. IEA GHG (2008) Scoping study on operating flexibility of power plants with CO2 capture. Report 2008/TR1. Cheltenham, UK. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  20. IEA GHG (2009) Workshop on Operating Flexibility of Power plants with CCS.
  21. IEA GHG (2011) Retrofitting CO2 capture to existing power plants. Report 2011/2. Cheltenham, UK IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  22. IPCC (2005) IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck HC et al (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Kvamsdal HM, Jakobsen JP, Hoff KA (2009) Dynamic modeling and simulation of a CO2 absorber column for post-combustion CO2 capture. Chem Eng Process 48(1):135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luby P (2003) Supercritical systems. Modern Power Systems, August 2003, 27–32Google Scholar
  25. Lucquiaud M, Chalmers H, Gibbins J (2007) Potential for flexible operation of pulverised coal power plants with CO2 capture. Energ Mater 2(3):175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucquiaud M, Chalmers H and Gibbins J (2009) Steam turbines for operating and future-proof upgrading flexibility. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme workshop on Operating Flexibility of Power Plants with CCS, London, UK, 11–12 November.
  27. Lucquiaud M (2010) Steam cycle options for capture-ready power plants, retrofits and flexible operation with post-combustion CO2 capture. Thesis submitted to the University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and for the Diploma of Imperial CollegeGoogle Scholar
  28. MIT (2007) The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World. An MIT interdisciplinary study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA.
  29. MIT Energy Initiative (2009) Retrofitting of Coal-Fired Power Plants for CO2 Emissions Reductions: An MIT Energy Initiative Symposium. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  30. Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ploumen P (2006) Retrofit of CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-8), Trondheim, Norway, 19–23 JuneGoogle Scholar
  32. Ramezan M, Skone TJ, ya Naskala N and Liljedahl G (2007) Carbon Dioxide Capture from Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants. DOE/NETL-401/110907, Final Report Revised, US Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory.
  33. Sakai K, Morita S, Sato T (1999) State-of-the-art Technologies for the 1,000-MW 24.5-MPa/600°C/600°C Coal-fired Boiler. Hitachi Review 48(5):273–6Google Scholar
  34. SaskPower (2011) Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture & Storage Demonstration Project.
  35. ScottishPower (2010) ScottishPower consortium through to final stages Of UK government CCS competition.
  36. Szolgayova J, Fuss S, Obersteiner M (2008) Assessing the effects of CO2 price caps on electricity investments—a real options analysis. Energy Policy 36:3974–3981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tenaska Trailblazer Partners, LLC (2011) Steam Turbine Generator Configuration and Sizing Considering the Impacts of Carbon Capture System Availability. Report to the Global CCS Institute.
  38. UKCCSC (2011) CCS in the next decade - establishing a UK industry: workshop presentations. Workshop held on 20th June 2011, London, UK. UK CCS Community network.
  39. Xu B, Stobbs RA, White V, Wall RA et al (2007) Future CO2 capture technology options for the Canadian market. Report No. COAL R309, BERR/Pub URN 07/1251. UK Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Environmental StrategyUniversity of SurreyGuilfordUK
  2. 2.School of EngineeringUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Institute for Energy Systems, School of EngineeringUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations