Screening and techno-economic assessment of biomass-based power generation with CCS technologies to meet 2050 CO2 targets

By A. Bhave, Richard H. S. Taylor, P. Fennell, W. Livingston, Nilay Shah, Niall Mac Dowell, John S. Dennis, Markus Kraft, M. Pourkashanian, Mathieu Insa and 6 more. 2017

136 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Biomass-based power generation combined with CO2 capture and storage (Biopower CCS) currently represents one of the few practical and economic means of removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere, and the only approach that involves the generation of electricity at the same time. We present the results of the Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to Power with CO2 capture (TESBiC) project, that entailed desk-based review and analysis, process engineering, optimisation as well as primary data collection from some of the leading pilot demonstration plants. From the perspective of being able to deploy Biopower CCS by 2050, twenty-eight Biopower CCS technology combinations involving combustion or gasification of biomass (either dedicated or co-fired with coal) together with pre-, oxy- or post-combustion CO2 capture were identified and assessed. In addition to the capital and operating costs, techno-economic characteristics such as electrical efficiencies (LHV% basis), Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE), costs of CO2 captured and CO2 avoided were modelled over time assuming technology improvements from today to 2050. Many of the Biopower CCS technologies gave relatively similar techno-economic results when analysed at the same scale, with the plant scale (MWe) observed to be the principal driver of CAPEX (£/MWe) and the cofiring % (i.e. the weighted feedstock cost) a key driver of LCOE. The data collected during the TESBiC project also highlighted the lack of financial incentives for generation of electricity with negative CO2 emissions.

Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a61a81803f14839cb747b3c94a1684c5c8d37eb0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Environmental Engineering

  1. Felix Creutzig
  2. Gregory F. Nemet
  3. Pete Smith
  4. W. Lamb
  5. J. Minx
  6. Richard Wood
  7. Yi Yang

In Mechanical Engineering

  1. Sabine Fuss
  2. J. Minx
  3. M. Callaghan
  4. W. Lamb
  5. Pete Smith

Citations in the corpus