Introduction

In recent years, IEAGHG has published several studies that address the application of CCS to coal and natural gas-fired power plants. The studies are based on a hypothetical site in the Netherlands. However, while Europe is one region where large-scale power plants with CCS must be deployed, there is even greater potential for CCS in regions, for example, where coal consumption is high and increasing or where emission reduction targets would require CCS to also be considered for gas-fired power stations. While, very often, the cost of CO₂ capture is cited as a single value or as a range, the performance and costs of plants with CO₂ capture will be different at different locations – and there is currently a shortage of information calculated on a consistent basis, particularly for emerging economies. Considering this, a study was commissioned to investigate how the cost of CO₂ capture varied for different locations.

Summary

The cost of CO₂ capture is often cited as a single value or as a range, regardless of design, ambient conditions or location. For many, greater granularity on the regional differences in costs would be of value. Incomplete information can lead to flawed analysis and result in poorer decision making.

With a hypothetical site in the Netherlands as the reference location, IEAGHG has published several studies that address the application of CCS to coal and natural gas-fired power plants. However, while Europe is one region where large-scale power plants with CCS must be deployed, there is even greater potential for CCS in regions, for example, where coal consumption is high and increasing or where emission reduction targets would require CCS to also be considered for gas-fired power stations. While, very often, the cost of CO₂ capture is cited as a single value or as a range, the performance and costs of plants with CO₂ capture will be different at different locations – and there is currently a shortage of information calculated on a consistent basis, particularly for emerging economies. Considering this, a study was commissioned to investigate how the cost of CO₂ capture varied for different locations.

The performance and costs of the power plants were assessed across a number of locations. Nineteen case studies covering 11 countries were undertaken on coal-fired plant and 17 case studies covering 12 countries on gas-fired plant. Variations in the performance and costs of these plants were quantified according to local and site specific conditions. The impact on plant performance and costs by physical criteria, such as ambient conditions, fuel analysis, water availability and emission limits, were explored, as were the effects on costs of economic criteria, such as labour costs and productivity, construction materials and equipment costs, and fuel prices. The study focused on supercritical pulverised coal and natural gas combined-cycle power plants, with and without CO₂ capture. Post-combustion capture based on solvent scrubbing was the only capture technology considered in the study. The reference plant configuration was based on current, commercially-available, state-of-art technologies.

The study provides a comprehensive assessment of the performance and costs of supercritical pulverised coal and natural gas combined-cycle power plants, with and without CO₂ capture, in geographical regions that exhibit a wide variety of local conditions. It is an excellent reference document, with insights of value to decision makers, project developers and the broader CCS community. In particular, the results of the study will provide a valued source of input data for the integrated assessment model community, whose outputs often serve to inform energy policy decisions and the direction of energy funding.