Comparison of carbon capture and storage with renewable energy technologies regarding structural, economic, and ecological aspects in Germany

By P. Viebahn, J. Nitsch, M. Fischedick, Andrea Esken, Dietmar Schüwer, Nikolaus Supersberger, U. Zuberbühler, Ottmar Edenhofer. 2007

208 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Economic-Emission Dispatch Problem in Power Systems With Carbon Capture Power Plants (2021, background): “The study done by [8] concluded that CCS retrofit from 2020 will extremely mitigate the carbon pollution and help the climate protection up to 80%.”
The energy and water nexus in Chinese electricity production: A hybrid life cycle analysis (2014, background): “However, other studies focused on the UK [8, 113], US [63, 64], Japan [65], and other countries[66, 67], are with better fuel mix and thus lower upstream CO2 emissions.”
Comparing least cost scenarios for 100% renewable electricity with low emission fossil fuel scenarios in the Australian National Electricity Market (2014, background): “[36] that a CCGT plant produces “only 45% more emissions (400 g CO2 per kWh) than the worst [performing] power plant with CCS (pulverised hard coal with 274 g CO2 per kWh)” when the additional emissions associated with capture (88% capture rate), compression, transportation and storage are included.”
A real options–based CCS investment evaluation model: Case study of China’s power generation sector (2011, background): “There has been a lot of research on the advancement of CCS technology, including CCS technology improvement [4–9], impact analysis of potential CCS effects to the atmosphere [10], CO2 transportation pipeline design [11], property calculations of a CO2 mixture [12] and, techno-economic analysis of CC”