Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling and performance analysis of subcritical and supercritical coal-fired power plants with biomass co-firing and CO2 capture

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the atmosphere, and these emissions can be effectively reduced by improving the efficiency of the plants, co-firing sustainably grown biomass and applying carbon capture and storage technologies. In this study, the energy and environmental performances of both subcritical (SubC) and supercritical (SC) pulverized coal-fired power plants with biomass co-firing and integrated with an advanced amine-based postcombustion CO2 capture system were evaluated and compared. The impact of biomass (hybrid poplar) addition was investigated at different co-firing ratios varying up to 30% on a heat input basis. All plant configurations were modeled and simulated with Aspen Plus process simulation software. The results show that the use of a SC steam cycle has a positive impact on the energy and environmental performance of the investigated plants, improving the efficiency by 2.4% points and reducing the total fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 6% in comparison to those of the SubC cases. Biomass co-firing has a negative impact on the energy performance of plants while significantly reducing fossil-based carbon emissions. The reduction of net CO2 emissions is almost proportional to the biomass percentage in the feed. At 30% biomass co-firing, the net plant efficiency is reduced by approx. 1% point, while the net CO2 emissions are 28% lower than those in coal-fired only plants. The introduction of CO2 capture has a major impact both on the emissions generated and on the energy efficiency. Depending on the plant type and co-firing ratio used, the net plant efficiencies are 8.7–9.3% points lower than those of non-capture cases. The net CO2 emissions achieve negative values when carbon is captured from the biomass co-firing plants.

Graphic abstract

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

W :

Power (MW)

\(\dot{m}\) :

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

η :

Efficiency (%)

APH:

Air preheater

BA/FA/TA:

Bottom/fly/total ash

BFP:

Boiler feed pump

BFPT:

Boiler feed pump turbine

BH:

Baghouse

BOP:

Balance of plant

CP:

Condensate pump

CW:

Cooling water

DEA:

Deaerator

FD:

Forced draft

FG:

Flue gas

FGD:

Flue gas desulfurization

FW:

Feedwater

FWH:

Feedwater heater

GHG:

Greenhouse gas

HHV/LHV:

Higher/lower heating value (MJ/kg)

HP/IP/LP:

High/intermediate/low-pressure

ID:

Induced draft

LNB:

Low-NOx burner

MEA:

Monoethanolamine

OFA:

Over-fire air

PA:

Primary air

PC:

Pulverized coal

SA:

Spray attemperator

SC:

Supercritical

SCR:

Selective catalytic reduction

ST:

Steam turbine

SubC:

Subcritical

USC:

Ultra-supercritical

ar:

As-received

db:

Dry basis

th:

Thermal

e:

Electrical

References

  • Bostick D, Stoffregen T, Rigby S (2017) Final techno-economic analysis of 550 MWe supercritical PC power plant with CO2 capture using the Linde-BASF advanced PCC technology. DE-FE0007453, January 2017

  • Cebrucean D, Cebrucean V, Ionel I (2014) CO2 capture and storage from fossil fuel power plants. Energy Procedia 63:18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cebrucean D, Cebrucean V, Ionel I (2017) Modeling and evaluation of a coal power plant with biomass cofiring and CO2 capture. In: Yun Y (ed) Recent advances in carbon capture and storage. InTech, London. https://doi.org/10.5772/67188

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chapel DG, Mariz CL, Ernest J (1999) Recovery of CO2 from flue gases: commercial trends. In: Canadian society of chemical engineers annual meeting, 4–6 October 1999, Saskatchewan, Canada

  • Cormos AM, Dinca C, Cormos CC (2018) Energy efficiency improvements of post-combustion CO2 capture based on reactive gas-liquid absorption applied for super-critical circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) power plants. Clean Technol Environ Policy 20(6):1311–1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1560-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dlugokencky E, Tans P (2019) Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide. NOAA/ESRL. www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends. Accessed Aug 2019

  • Fogarasi S, Cormos CC (2015) Technico-economic assessment of coal and sawdust co-firing power generation with CO2 capture. J Clean Prod 103:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.044

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Global CCS Institute (2018) CCS facilities database. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/ccs-database-public. Accessed Dec 2018

  • IEA (2007) Fossil fuel-fired power generation: case studies of recently constructed coal- and gas-fired power plants. OECD/IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2010) Energy technology perspectives: scenarios and strategies to 2050. OECD/IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2012a) World energy outlook. OECD/IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2012b) Technology roadmap: high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power generation. OECD/IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2017) CO2 emissions from fuel combustion 2017. Highlights. OECD/IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA CCC (2015a) Emission standards: USA. IEA Clean Coal Centre, October 2015

  • IEA CCC (2015b) Emission standards: United Kingdom. IEA Clean Coal Centre, September 2015

  • IEA CCC (2015c) Emission standards: Canada. IEA Clean Coal Centre, July 2015

  • IEA-ETSAP, IRENA (2013) Biomass co-firing. IEA-ETSAP and IRENA Technology Brief E21, January 2013

  • IPCC (2006) Chapter 2: Stationary combustion. In: Eggleston S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 2: energy. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • IRENA (2018) Renewable power generation costs in 2017. IRENA, Abu Dhabi

    Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic S, Stoffregen T, Clausen I, Sieder G (2012) Techno-economic analysis of 550 MWe subcritical PC power plant with CO2 capture. DE-FE0007453, May 2012

  • Khorshidi Z, Ho MT, Wiley DE (2014) The impact of biomass quality and quantity on the performance and economics of co-firing plants with and without CO2 capture. Int J Greenh Gas Control 21:191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.12.011

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Khorshidi Z, Ho MT, Wiley DE (2015) Techno-economic evaluation of using biomass-fired auxiliary units for supplying energy requirements of CO2 capture in coal-fired power plants. Int J Greenh Gas Control 32:24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.10.017

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen JN, Andersen J, Jensen JN, Biede O (2011) Evaluation of process upgrades and novel solvents for the post combustion CO2 capture process in pilot-scale. Energy Procedia 4:1558–1565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohl AL, Nielsen RB (1997) Gas purification, 5th edn. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvamsdal HM, Romano MC, van der Ham L, Bonalumi D, van Os P, Goetheer E (2014) Energetic evaluation of a power plant integrated with a piperazine-based CO2 capture process. Int J Greenh Gas Control 28:343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.07.004

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kvamsdal HM, Ehlers S, Kather A, Khakharia P, Nienoord M, Fosbol PL (2016) Optimizing integrated reference cases in the OCTAVIUS project. Int J Greenh Gas Control 50:23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.04.012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McIlveen-Wright DR, Huang Y, Rezvani S, Mondol JD, Redpath D, Anderson M et al (2011) A techno-economic assessment of the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the use of biomass co-combustion. Fuel 90(1):11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.08.022

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nalbandian H (2009) NOx control for coal-fired power plant. IEA Clean Coal Centre, CCC/157, October 2009

  • NCCC (2018) Reports. http://www.nationalcarboncapturecenter.com/reports. Accessed July 2018

  • NETL (2008) Pulverized coal oxycombustion power plants. Volume 1: bituminous coal to electricity. DOE/NETL-2007/1291, Revision 2, August 2008

  • NETL (2012a) Greenhouse gas reductions in the power industry using domestic coal and biomass. Volume 2: pulverized coal plants. DOE/NETL-2012/1547, February 2012

  • NETL (2012b) Current and future technologies for power generation with post-combustion carbon capture. DOE/NETL-2012/1557, March 2012

  • NETL (2013) Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants. Volume 1: bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity. DOE/NETL-2010/1397, Revision 2a, September 2013

  • NETL (2015) Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants. Volume 1a: bituminous coal (PC) and natural gas to electricity. DOE/NETL-2015/1723, Revision 3, July 2015

  • Romeo LM, Bolea I, Escosa JM (2008) Integration of power plant and amine scrubbing to reduce CO2 capture costs. Appl Therm Eng 28(8–9):1039–1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.06.036

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez Fernandez E, Goetheer ELV, Manzolini G, Macchi E, Rezvani S, Vlugt TJH (2014) Thermodynamic assessment of amine based CO2 capture technologies in power plants based on European Benchmarking Task Force methodology. Fuel 129:318–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.03.042

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schakel W, Meerman H, Talaei A, Ramirez A, Faaij A (2014) Comparative life cycle assessment of biomass co-firing plants with carbon capture and storage. Appl Energy 131:441–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.045

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D (2009) Cansolv CO2 capture: the value of integration. Energy Procedia 1(1):237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.034

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spliethoff H (2010) Power generation from solid fuels. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stec M, Tatarczuk A, Wieclaw-Solny L, Krotki A, Spietz T, Wilk A et al (2016) Demonstration of a post-combustion carbon capture pilot plant using amine-based solvents at the Laziska Power Plant in Poland. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18(1):151–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-1001-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tenaska (2012) Final front-end engineering and design study report. Report to the Global CCS Institute, January 2012

  • van Loo S, Koppejan J (2008) The handbook of biomass combustion and co-firing. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wagener DH, Liebenthal U, Plaza JM, Kather A, Rochelle GT (2014) Maximizing coal-fired power plant efficiency with integration of amine-based CO2 capture in greenfield and retrofit scenarios. Energy 72:824–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.117

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiatros-Motyka M (2016) An overview of HELE technology deployment in the coal power plant fleets of China, EU, Japan and USA. IEA Clean Coal Centre, CCC/273, December 2016

  • Yi Q, Zhao Y, Huang Y, Wei G, Hao Y, Feng J et al (2018) Life cycle energy-economic-CO2 emissions evaluation of biomass/coal, with and without CO2 capture and storage, in a pulverized fuel combustion power plant in the United Kingdom. Appl Energy 225:258–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.013

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao B, Liu F, Cui Z, Liu C, Yue H, Tang S et al (2017) Enhancing the energetic efficiency of MDEA/PZ-based CO2 capture technology for a 650 MW power plant: process improvement. Appl Energy 185(Part 1):362–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.009

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Machines, Equipments and Transportation, Politehnica University of Timisoara, M. Viteazu 1, 300222, Timisoara, Romania

    Dumitru Cebrucean, Viorica Cebrucean & Ioana Ionel

Authors
  1. Dumitru Cebrucean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Viorica Cebrucean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ioana Ionel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dumitru Cebrucean.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 413 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cebrucean, D., Cebrucean, V. & Ionel, I. Modeling and performance analysis of subcritical and supercritical coal-fired power plants with biomass co-firing and CO2 capture. Clean Techn Environ Policy 22, 153–169 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01774-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01774-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation