Techno-economic assessment of alternative fuels in second-generation carbon capture and storage processes

Abstract

Several technical methods are currently discussed to meet the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 21st Conference of the Parties, Paris, France (Paris Agreement) in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere. In addition to efficiency improvements, reduction of energy consumption, and the utilization of renewable energy sources, the application of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies seems to be unavoidable. Whereas all these measures aim on the reduction of CO2 that is being newly released, there is the approach to remove CO2 from the atmosphere that has already been emitted. This can be achieved by the utilization of bioenergy in CCS processes. Within this paper, the utilization of alternative fuels in two second-generation CCS processes is assessed. In this regard, chemical looping combustion (CLC) and calcium looping (CaL) are two promising technologies. Both processes have proven their feasibility already in semi-industrial scale. The assessment includes three different types of fuel namely coal, biomass, and solid recovered fuel (SRF). The analysis is twofold: first, a heat and mass balance calculation reveals the specific CO2 emissions of each power system; second, a cost analysis points out the feasibility from an economic point of view. The highest CO2 removal can be achieved by a biomass-fired CLC unit (− 696 gCO2/kWhe). Furthermore, it was found that the co-combustion of SRF even at moderate co-firing rates allows for noteworthy improved economics of the CCS system. Therefore, the utilization of waste-derived fuels in the context of CCS processes should be put more into focus in future research activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Abad A, Adánez-Rubio I, Gayán P, García-Labiano F, Diego LF, Adánez J (2012) Demonstration of chemical-looping with oxygen uncoupling (CLOU) process in a 1.5 kWth continuously operating unit using a Cu-based oxygen-carrier. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 6:189–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abanades JC, Grasa G, Alonso M, Rodriguez N, Anthony EJ, Romeo LM (2007) Cost structure of a post-combustion CO2 capture system using CaO. Environ Sci Technol 41:5523–5527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Abanades JC, Arias B, Lyngfeld A, Mattisson T, Wiley DE, Li H, Ho MT, Mangano E, Brandani S (2015) Emerging CO2 capture systems. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 40:126–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Adanez J, Abad A, Garcia-Labiano F, Gayan P, de Diego LF (2012) Progress in chemical-looping combustion and reforming technologies. Prog Energy Combust Sci 38:215–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Adánez J, Abad A, Mendiara P, Gayan P, Diego LF, Garcia-Labiano F (2018) Chemical looping combustion of solid fuels. Prog Energy Combust Sci 65:6–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bui M, Adjiman CS, Bardow A, Anthony EJ, Boston A, Brown S, Fennell PS, Fuss S, Galindo A, Hackett LA, Hallett JP, Herzog HJ, Jackson G, Kemper J, Krevor S, Maitland GC, Matuszewski M, Metcalfe IS, Petit C, Puxty G, Reimer J, Reiner DM, Rubin ES, Scott SA, Shah N, Smit B, Trusler JPM, Webley P, Wilcox J, Dowell NM (2018) Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ Sci 11:1062–1176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chamberland, Andrus R H, Edberg C (2015) Alstom’s Chemical looping combustion technology with CO2 capture for new and existing coal-fired power plants. U.S. DOE/NETL CO2 Capture Technology Meeting

  8. Chang MH, Chen WC, Huang CM, Lui WH, Chou YC, Chang WC, Chen W, Cheng JY, Huang KW, Hsu HW (2014) Design and experimental testing of a 1.9 MWth calcium looping pilot plant. Energy Procedia 63:2100–2108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Coal commodity stock exchange (2018) https://www.finanzen.net/rohstoffe/kohlepreis/euro. Accessed 27 August 2018

  10. Cormos CC (2014) Economic evaluation of coal-based combustion and gasification power plants with post-combustion CO2 capture using calcium looping cycle. Energy 78:665–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Del Zotto L, Tallini A, Di Simone G, Molinari G, Cedola L (2015) Energy enhancement of solid recovered fuel within systems of conventional thermal power generation. Energy Procedia 81:319–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dieter H, Hawthorne C, Zieba M, Scheffknecht G (2013) Progress in calcium looping post combustion CO2 capture: successful pilot scale demonstration. Energy Procedia 37:46–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DOE/NETL (2007) Carbon dioxide capture from existing coal-fired power station. U. S Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory

  14. European CO2 Emission Allowances (2018) https://www.finanzen.net/rohstoffe/co2-emissionsrechte. Accessed 27 August 2018

  15. Garg A, Smith R, Hill D, Longhurst PJ, Pollard SJT, Simms NJ (2009) An integrated appraisal of energy recovery options in the United Kingdom using solid recovered fuel derived from municipal solid waste. Waste Manag 29:2289–2297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ge H, Guo W, Shen L, Song T, Xiao J (2016) Biomass gasification using chemical looping in a 25 kWth reactor with natural hematite as oxygen carrier. Chem Eng J 286:174–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hanak DP, Eranz M, Nabavi SA, Jeremias M, Romeo LM, Manovic V (2018) Technical and economic feasibility evaluation of calcium looping with no CO2 recirculation. Chem Eng J 335:763–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Helbig M, Hilz J, Haaf M, Daikeler A, Ströhle J, Epple B (2017) Long-term carbonate looping testing in a 1 MWth pilot plant with hard coal and lignite. Energy Procedia 114:179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hilber T, Maier J, Scheffknecht G, Agraniotis M, Grammelis P, Kakaras E, Glorius T, Becker U, Derichs W, Schiffer HP, De Jong M, Torri L (2007) Advantages and possibilities of solid recovered fuel cocombustion in the European energy sector. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 57(10):1178–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hilz J, Helbig M, Haaf M, Daikeler A, Ströhle J, Epple B (2017) Long-term pilot testing of the carbonate looping process in 1 MWth scale. Fuel 210:892–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hilz J, Helbig M, Haaf M, Daikeler A, Ströhle J, Epple B (2018) Investigation of the fuel influence on the carbonate looping process in 1 MWth scale. Fuel Process Technol 169:170–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Iacovidou E, Hahladakis J, Deans I, Velis C, Purnell (2018) Technical properties of biomass and solid recovered fuel (SRF) co-fired with coal: impact on multi-dimensional resource recovery value. Waste Manag 73:535–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. IEA (2011) Combining bioenergy with CCS. Reporting and accounting for negative emissions under UNFCCC and Kyoto protocol. OECD/IEA, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  24. IEA (2015) CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Paris, France

  25. IEAGHG (2011) Potential for biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage. Report 2011/06. IEA Greenhouse R&D Programme, Cheltenham, UK

  26. IPCC (2005) Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  27. IPCC (2011) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  28. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  29. Johannsson T, Nakicenovic N, Patwardhan A, Gomez-Echeverri L, Turkenburg W (2012) Summary for policymakers. Global energy assessment—towards a sustainable future (eds Johansson TB, Nakicenovic N, Patwardhan A, Gomez-Echeverri L), pp. 3-30. Cambridge University press, International Institute for Applied System Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY

  30. Jordal K, Voldsund M, Storset S, Fleiger K, Ruppert J, Spörl R, Hornberger M, Cinti G (2017) CEMCAP—making CO2 capture retrofittable to cement plants. Energy Procedia 114:6175–6180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Junk M (2017) Technical and economical assessment of various carbonate looping process configurations. Dissertation, Technische Universität Darmstadt. Cuvillier Verlag, ISBN: 9783736994485

  32. Kemper J (2015) Biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage: a review. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 40:401–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Koornneef JV, Breevoort P, Hamelinck C, Hendriks C, Hoogwijk M, Koop K, Koper M, Dixon T, Camps A (2012) Global potential for biomass and carbon capture dioxide capture, transport and storage up to 2050. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 11:117–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Li K, Leigh W, Feron P, Yu H, Tade M (2016) Systematic study of aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA)-based CO2 capture process: techno-economic assessment of the MEA process and its improvements. Appl Energy 165:648–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lyngfelt A, Leckner B (2015) A 1000 MWth boiler for chemical-looping combustion of solid fuels—discussion of design and costs. Appl Energy 157:475–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Manzolini G, Fernandez ES, Rezvani S, Macchi E, Goetheer ELV, Vlugt TJH (2015) Economic assessment of novel amine based CO2 capture technologies integrated in power plants based on European Benchmarking Task Force methodology. Appl Energy 138:546–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Markström P, Linderholm C, Lyngfelt A (2013) Chemical-looping combustion of solid fuels—design and operation of a 100 kW unit with bituminous coal. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 15:150–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ohlemüller P, Busch JP, Reitz M, Ströhle J, Epple B (2016) Chemical-looping combustion of hard coal: autothermal operation of a 1 MWth pilot plant. J Energy Resourc Technol 138:042203-042203-7

  39. Ohlemüller P, Ströhle J, Epple B (2017) Chemical looping combustion of hard coal and torrefied biomass in a 1 MWth pilot plant. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 65:149–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ohlemüller P, Olausson M, John M, Alobaid F, Ströhle J, Epple B (2018) Thermodynamic and economic evaluation of a full-scale chemical looping plant. 5th International Conference on Chemical Looping, Utah, USA

  41. Ozcan DC, Hyungwoong A, Brandani S (2013) Process integration of a Ca-looping carbon capture process in a cement plant. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 19:530–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pera-Titus M (2013) Porous inorganic membranes for CO2 capture: present and prospects. Chem Rev 114:1413–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Raksajati A, Ho MT, Wiley DE (2013) Reducing the cost of CO2 capture from flue gases using aqueous chemical absorption. Ind Eng Chem Res 52:16887–16901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rodriguez N, Alonso M, Abanades JC (2011) Experimental investigations of a circulating fluidized-bed reactor to capture CO2 with CaO. AICHE J 57:1356–1366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rolfe A, Huang Y, Haaf M, Rezvani S, McIlveen-Wright D, Hewitt NJ (2018) Integration of the calcium carbonate looping process into an existing pulverized coal-fired power plant for CO2 capture: techno-economic and environmental evaluation. Appl Energy 222:169–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Romeo LM, Lara Y, Lisbona P, Martìnez A (2009) Economical assessment of competitive enhanced limestones for CO2 capture cycles in power plants. Fuel Process Technol 90:803–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rubin ES, Booras G (2012) Toward a common method of cost estimation for CO2 capture and storage. Proceedings of CCS Cost Workshop, Palo Alto, USA

  48. San-Perez AS, Murdock RC, Didas AS, Jones WC (2016) Direct capture of CO2 from ambient air. Chem Rev 116:11840–11876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Schaupp D (2014) Economic analysis of the calcium looping process. CAL-MOD Workshop. https://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/DatabaseManualMethods.pdf. Accessed 27 August 2018

  50. Shen L, Wu J, Xiao J, Song Q, Xiao R (2009) Chemical-looping combustion of biomass in a 10 kWth reactor with Iron oxide as an oxygen carrier. Energy Fuel 23:2498–2505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Shimizu T, Hirama T, Hosoda H, Kitano K, Inagaki M, Tejima K (1999) A twin fluid-bed reactor for removal of CO2 from combustion processes. Institution of Chemical Engineers 77:62–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ströhle J, Lasheras A, Galloy A, Eppe B (2009) Simulation of the carbonate looping process for post-combustion CO2 capture from a coal-fired power plant. Chem Eng Technol 32:435–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ströhle J, Junk M, Kremer J, Galloy A, Epple B (2014) Carbonate looping experiments in a 1 MWth pilot plant and model validation. Fuel 127:13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Teixeria P, Lopes H, Gulyurtlu I, Lapa N, Abelha P (2012) Evaluation of slagging and fouling tendency during biomass co-firing with coal in a fluidized bed. Biomass Bioenergy 39:192–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Thon A, Kramp M, Hartge EU, Heinrich S, Werther J (2014) Operational experience with a system of coupled fluidized beds for chemical looping combustion of solid fuels using ilmenite as oxygen carrier. Appl Energy 118:309–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wang P, Means N, Shekhawat D, Berry D, Massoudi M (2015) Chemical-looping combustion and gasification of coals and oxygen carrier development: a brief review. Energies 8:10605–10635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Yang Y, Rongrong Z, Liqiang D, Kavosh M, Patchigolla K, Oakey J (2010) Integration and evaluation of a power plant with a CaO based CO2 capture system. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 4:603–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Haaf.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haaf, M., Ohlemüller, P., Ströhle, J. et al. Techno-economic assessment of alternative fuels in second-generation carbon capture and storage processes. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 25, 149–164 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-09850-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • CaL
  • CLC
  • CCS
  • BECCS
  • Alternative fuels
  • Economics