Advertisement

Frontiers in Energy

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 149–162 | Cite as

Prediction of cost and emission from Indian coal-fired power plants with CO2 capture and storage using artificial intelligence techniques

  • Naushita Sharma
  • Udayan Singh
  • Siba Sankar MahapatraEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Coal-fired power plants are one of the most important targets with respect to reduction of CO2 emissions. The reasons for this are that coal-fired power plants offer localized large point sources (LPS) of CO2 and that the Indian power sector contributes to roughly half of all-India CO2 emissions. CO2 capture and storage (CCS) can be implemented in these power plants for long-term decarbonisation of the Indian economy. In this paper, two artificial intelligence (AI) techniques—adaptive network based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and multi gene genetic programming (MGGP) are used to model Indian coal-fired power plants with CO2 capture. The data set of 75 power plants take the plant size, the capture type, the load and the CO2 emission as the input and the COE and annual CO2 emissions as the output. It is found that MGGP is more suited to these applications with an R2 value of more than 99% between the predicted and actual values, as against the ~96% correlation for the ANFIS approach. MGGP also gives the traditionally expected results in sensitivity analysis, which ANFIS fails to give. Several other parameters in the base plant and CO2 capture unit may be included in similar studies to give a more accurate result. This is because MGGP gives a better perspective toward qualitative data, such as capture type, as compared to ANFIS.

Keywords

carbon capture and storage power plants artificial intelligence genetic programming neuro fuzzy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sathaye J, Shukla P R. Methods and models for costing carbon mitigation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2013, 38(1): 137–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharma S K, Choudhury A, Sarkar P, Biswas S, Singh A, Dadhich P K, Singh A K, Majumdar S, Bhatia A, Mohini M, Kumar R. Greenhouse gas inventory estimates for India. Current Science, 2011, 101(3): 405–415Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goel M. Recent approaches in CO2 fixation research in India and future perspectives towards zero emission coal based power generation. Current Science, 2009, 97(11): 1625–1633Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IPCC. Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, https://www.ipcc. ch/report/srccs/Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haszeldine R S. Carbon capture and storage: how green can black be? Science, 2009, 325(5948): 1647–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singh U. Carbon capture and storage: an effective way to mitigate global warming. Current Science, 2013, 105(7): 914–922Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rubin E S, Davison J E, Herzog H J. The cost of CO2 capture and storage. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015, 40: 378–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shukla P, Dhar S, Pathak M, Mahadevia D, Garg A. Pathways to deep decarbonization in India. SDSN-IDDRI, 2015, http://deepdecarbonization. org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/DDPP_IND.pdfGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rao A B, Rubin E S. A technical, economic, and environmental assessment of amine-based CO2 capture technology for power plant greenhouse gas control. Environmental Science & Technology, 2002, 36(20): 4467–4475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rubin E S, Chen C, Rao A B. Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Policy, 2007, 35 (9): 4444–4454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh U, Rao A B. Estimating the environmental implications of implementing carbon capture and storage in Indian coal power plants. In: Proceedings on Advances in Green Energy (ICAGE). IEEE, 2014, 226–232Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh R, Kainthola A, Singh T N. Estimation of elastic constant of rocks using an ANFIS approach. Applied Soft Computing, 2012, 12 (1): 40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Takagi T, Sugeno M. Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to modeling and control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1985, SMC-15 (1): 116–132CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sugeno M, Kang G T. Structure identification of fuzzy model. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1988, 28(1): 15–33MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jang J S. ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1993, 23(3): 665–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sahu M, Singh P, Mahapatra S S, Khatua K K. Prediction of entrance length for low Reynolds number flow in pipe using neurofuzzy inference system. Expert Systems with Applications, 2012, 39 (4): 4545–4557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koza J R. Genetic Programming: on the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. Boston: MIT Press, 1992zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garg A, Vijayaraghavan V, Mahapatra S S, Tai K, Wong C H. Performance evaluation of microbial fuel cell by artificial intelligence methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 2014, 41 (4): 1389–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garg A, Garg A, Tai K. A multi-gene genetic programming model for estimating stress-dependent soil water retention curves. Computational Geosciences, 2014, 18(1): 45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Searson D P. GPTIPS 2: An open-source software platform for symbolic data mining. In: Gandomi A.H., Alavi A.H. and Ryan, C. (eds.), Handbook of Genetic Programming Applications. Springer, Switzerland. 2015Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    CEA. CO2 baseline database for the Indian power sector, Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of India, New Delhi. 2016, http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/others/thermal/tpece/ cdm_CO2/user_guide_ver11.pdfGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berkenpas M B, Frey H C, Fry J J, Kalagnanam J, Rubin E S. Integrated environmental control model technical documentation. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. Carnegie Mellon University, USA. 1999, https://www.cmu.edu/epp/iecm/IECM_Publications/ 1999ra%20Berkenpas%20et%20al,%20IECM%20Tech. pdfGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singh U, Rao A B. Integrating SO2 and NOx control systems in Indian coal-fired power plants. Decision, 2015, 42(2): 191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rao A B, Rubin E S. Identifying cost-effective CO2 control levels for amine-based CO2 capture systems. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2006, 45(8): 2421–2429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tan R R, Ng D K, Foo D C, Aviso K B. Crisp and fuzzy integer programming models for optimal carbon sequestration retrofit in the power sector. Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 2010, 88 (12): 1580–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naushita Sharma
    • 1
  • Udayan Singh
    • 1
  • Siba Sankar Mahapatra
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringNational Institute of Technology RourkelaRourkelaIndia

Personalised recommendations