This website will offer limited functionality in this browser. We only support the recent versions of major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge.
Discover the latest advances carbon capture and storage research
This workshop was the eleventh in a series to discuss co-operation in development of MEA and other solvents and associated techniques to capture CO₂ from power plant flue gases. The previous events were, in Gaithersburg, Calgary, Apeldoorn, Kyoto, Pittsburgh, Trondheim, Vancouver, Austin, Copenhagen, and Lyon
Costs of building power generation plants in general and fuel prices have increased rapidly in recent times. This report provides information on costs of electricity and hydrogen production by coal gasification with CO₂ capture on a 2nd quarter 2008 basis. This is an update of information presented in IEA GHG report 2007/13.
The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG) thus elected to undertake a study search for innovative new avenues for CO₂ capture which might lead to significant improvements in the cost of capture technology and reductions in the energy penalty. The brief was to search outside traditional fields of enquiry and break away from a classical Chemical Engineering process based approach.
This report reviews existing work on the operating flexibility of power plants with CO₂ capture, discusses techniques which could be used to assess flexibility and proposes further work that could be undertaken on this subject. Operating flexibility of power plants is likely to become more important in future as more renewable power systems with variable outputs are built to reduce CO₂ emissions. Operating flexibility could be a significant factor in the choice of the optimum CO₂ capture technology and it may also affect the extent to which CCS will be used in future.
This report presents an overview of the workshop and summarises the current status of development of oxy-fuel combustion. The presentations and discussions at the workshop covered a wide range of topics looking at; on-going studies and experimental results, modelling studies, new developments in oxygen production and CO₂ processing, and identification of various issues relevant to the demonstration of oxy-fuel combustion technology.
The study, comprising a literature review and desk-based assessment, aimed to produce a ‘high level’ overview of potential impacts on groundwater resources from storage operations, concentrating on DSF storage across a range of typical regional settings. The study also highlighted the current state of knowledge and/or gaps, recommending further research priorities where appropriate.
The aim of much of this research is cost reduction: to find a process that is cheaper than solvent scrubbing processes. NETL has produced a figure which plots the cost reduction benefits against the time to commercialisation, although both the benefits and the time are not specified (Figueroa and others, 2008).This report follows on from that on solvent scrubbing for post-combustion carbon capture from coal-fired power plants by considering the use of solid sorbents and membranes instead of solvents. First, mesoporous and microporous adsorbents are discussed: carbon-based adsorbents, zeolites, hydrotalcites and porous crystals. Attempts have been made to improve the performance of the porous adsorbent by functionalising them with nitrogen groups and specifically, amine groups to react with CO₂ and thus enhance the physical adsorption properties. Dry, regenerable solid sorbents have attracted a good deal of research. Most of the work has been on the carbonation/calcination cycle of natural limestone but there have also been studies of other calcium-based sorbents and alkali metal-based sorbents. Membranes have also been studied as potential post-combustion capture devices. Finally, techno-economic studies predicting the economic performance of solid sorbents and membranes are discussed
This report is a brief review of the technology and costs of partial capture of CO₂. The report does not attempt to prescribe policies for mandating CO₂ capture and whether partial capture should be part of a policy for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. IEA GHG provides technical information which can be used by policy makers but it does not intend to be policy prescriptive
The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG) undertakes studies to assess technologies for abatement of greenhouse gas emissions. IEA GHG has concentrated on CO₂ Capture and Storage (CCS) applied to power generation but it has also assessed CCS in other industries and will compare the relative merits of CCS and alternative greenhouse gas abatement options. Soon after IEA GHG started operation in 1991 it produced a set of standard technical and economic criteria for assessment of power plants with capture to ensure that its studies are undertaken on a consistent basis, as far as possible. These criteria have continued to be used since then, with some minor modifications.
Within the next few years it is expected that an increasing number of commercial-scale demonstrations of CO<sub>2</sub> capture and storage technology will be built and brought into operation. Many aspects of the design of such facilities including issues relating to engineering design, environmental impacts, standards and permitting have been the subject of studies undertaken for the IEA GHG. So far no study has been dedicated specifically to the issue of safety in the above ground elements of CCS systems although such safety issues have been addressed to some extent in earlier studies. This study was designed specifically to examine the safety issues which are likely to arise when preparing safety cases and planning emergency procedures for CO<sub>2 </sub>capture and storage (CCS) projects
The study aimed to investigate options and evaluate the techno-economic performance of a biomass fired, or coal co-fired with biomass, power plant based on current state of the art boiler and steam generation equipment incorporating CO₂ capture technology. It is expected that the study should provide the performance of the plant assuming the need to capture at least 90% of the total CO₂ emissions. Currently, the state of the art largest standalone biomass fired combustion power plant (i.e. between 100 to 250 MWe net) offered commercially is based on circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology. In the mid-range (i.e. between 30 to 90MWe net), the commercially offered state of the art technology would be based on a bubbling bed fluidized bed (BFB) technology. For less than 50MWe net, a stoker fired (fixed bed) system is still considered competitive compared to any fluidized bed technology. For direct co firing of biomass and coal, the technical operating limit of co-firing biomass is about 10-20% of the total thermal input.
The purpose of this review was to outline the current state of knowledge and provide an assessment of the following aspects:<!-- wp:acf/columns {"name":"acf/columns","data":{"padding_top":"1","_padding_top":"field_columns_fields_padding_top","padding_bottom":"1","_padding_bottom":"field_columns_fields_padding_bottom","margin_top":"0","_margin_top":"field_columns_fields_margin_top","margin_bottom":"0","_margin_bottom":"field_columns_fields_margin_bottom"},"mode":"preview"} --> <!-- wp:acf/column-content {"name":"acf/column-content","mode":"preview"} --> <!-- wp:list --><ul><!-- wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --><li>Process chemistry and kinetics, • Operational issues and major development issues,</li><!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --><li>Qualitative evaluation of the performance of absorber and stripper column,</li><!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --><li>Safety and Environmental Impact considerations.</li><!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --><li>Technology maturity and reported time scale for commercialisation.</li><!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- /wp:list-item --></ul><!-- /wp:list --> <!-- /wp:acf/column-content --> <!-- /wp:acf/columns -->Assessments were made to identify the potential benefits, challenges, and uncertainties regarding the three processes described. Also included in this report is a brief review of the current state of knowledge of Flour’s Econamine FG+ process which was used as a baseline case for performance comparison. All assessments made in this report were based on information made available in the open literature, supported by kinetic evaluations made at SINTEF’s laboratory.
Discover everything that IEAGHG has to offer, from the latest publications to exciting events.
Discover our expansive library of leading CCS research covering a wealth of topics. From DACS to BECCS and Carbon Markets to Carbon Capture.
Discover More
We are committed to sharing the latest CCS knowledge worldwide. Learn how you can join our global conferences, expert networks, workshops and webinars.
Experience More
Get the latest IEAGHG news, discover our impact, and uncover essential analyses of global CCS developments.
Stay UpdatedAccess to restricted publications is just the beginning. IEAGHG membership has unlocked CCS potential for government and industry around the world. Discover what it can do for you.
Discover MoreGet essential news and updates from the CCS sector and the IEAGHG by email.
Whatever you would like to know, our dedicated team of experts is here to help you. Just drop us an email and we will get back to you as soon as we can.
Contact Us Now