# Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil

Energy Plants Supplement: Sensitivity to

CO 2 

# C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower

P lants

June 22, 2015

DOE/NETL

- 2 015/1720 

### OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENE RGY 

# National Energy

Technology LaboratoryCost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivi ty to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



# Disclaimer

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency o f the United States

Government

. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their

employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or

responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,

product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not in fringe privately owned rights

. Reference therein to any spe cific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency there of

. The

views and o pinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the

United States Government or any agency thereof.Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivi ty to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



## Author List:

Energy Sector Planning and Analysis (ESPA)

Vincent Chou, Arun K.S. Iyengar, Vasant Shah, and Mark Woods

Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

This report was prepared by Energy Sector Planning and Analysis (ESPA) for the United States

Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) . This work was

completed under DOE NETL Contract Numb er DE

- FE0004001 . This work was performed

under ESPA T ask 341.03.01

.

The authors wish to acknowledge the excellent guidance, contributions, and cooperation of the

NETL staff, particularly:

Timothy Fout

, General Engineer

Travis Shultz

, Director, Performance Division

Kristin Gerdes, Director, Office of Program Performance and Benefits



## DOE Contract Number DE

- FE0004001Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivi ty to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### This page intentionally left blank

.Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### i 

# Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1

1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5

2 Design Basis

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6

2.1 Partial Capture Calculation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 6

2.2 SC PC Partial Capture Design

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6

2.3 IGCC Partial Captu re Design

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8

2.3.1 Water Gas Shift and COS Hydrolysis

................................ ................................ ..................... 8

2.3.2 CO 2 

### Capture

– Dual Stage Selexol

................................ ................................ ......................... 8

3 Results and Discussion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 9

4 Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 14

5 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 15

Appendix

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 16



# Exhibits

Exhibit ES

- 1 Variation of COE, plant HHV efficiency, cost of CO 2 

### captured, and CO 2 

### capture

rate with design emission level s for SC PC cases

................................ ................................ ... 2

Exhibit ES

- 2 Variation of COE, plant HHV efficiency, cost of CO 2 

### captured, and CO 2 

### capture

rate with design emission levels for IGCC cases

................................ ................................ .... 3

Exhibit ES

- 3 Summary of results

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3

Exhibit 1

- 1 Bituminous Baseline SC PC schematic

– modifications for partial capture cases

...... 5

Exhibit 1

- 2 Bituminous Baseline IGCC schematic

– modifications for partial capture cases

....... 6

Exhibit 2

- 1 Block flow diagram of the modified B12B process for partial cap ture

....................... 7

Exhibit 2

- 2 Block flow diagram of the modified B5B process for partial capture

......................... 9

Exhibit 3

- 1 Plant HHV Efficiency for SC PC plant at various levels of capture

......................... 10

Exhibit 3

- 2 Plant HHV Efficiency for IGCC plant at various levels of capture

........................... 10

Exhibit 3

- 3 COE with T&S for SC PC plant at various levels of capture

................................ .... 11

Exhibit 3

- 4 COE with T&S for IGCC plant at various levels of capture

................................ ..... 11

Exhibit 3

- 5 Cost of captured and avoided CO 2 

### for SC PC plant at various levels of capture

...... 12

Exhibit 3

- 6 Cost of captured and avoided CO 2 

### for IGCC plant at various levels of capture

....... 12

Exhibit 3

- 7 Capture energy penalty (kWh/lb CO 2 

### ) for IGCC plant at various levels of capture

. 13

Exhibit A

- 1 PC cases performance summar y

................................ ................................ ............... 16

Exhibit A

- 2 IGCC cases performance summary

................................ ................................ .......... 17

Exhibit A

- 3 PC cases cost summary

................................ ................................ ............................. 18

Exhibit A

- 4 IGCC cases cost summary

................................ ................................ ........................ 19Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### ii 

# Acronyms and Abbreviations

AEO Annual Energy Outlook

ASU Air separation unit

BB Bituminous Baseline

BFD Block flow diagram

Btu British thermal units

CCF Cap ital charge factor

CCS Carbon capture and sequestration

CO Carbon monoxide

CO 2 Carbon dioxide

COE Cost of electricity

COS Carbonyl sulfide

DOE Department of Energy

EIA Energy Information Administration

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ES Executive sum mary

ESPA Energy Sector Planning and Analysis

FD Forced draft

FGD Flue gas desulfurization

GEE General Electric Energy

GHG Greenhouse gas

Gpm Gallons per minute

h, hr Hour

HCl Hydrochloric acid

Hg Mercury

HHV Higher heating value

HP High pressure

HRSG H eat recovery steam generator

ID Induced draft

IGCC Integrated gasification combined

cycle

IP Intermediate pressure

ISO International Standards Organization

kg Kilogram

kW, kWe Kilowatt electric

kWh Kilowatt

- hour

lb Pound

lb/MMBtu Pounds per million Britis h thermal

units lb/MWh

- gross Pounds per gross megawatt hour

lb/MWh

- net Pounds per net megawatt hour

LP Low pressure

MMBtu Million British thermal units

MW, MWe Megawatt electric

MWh Megawatt

- hour

MWt Megawatt thermal

NETL National Energy Technology

Labo ratory

NOAK n th

- of

- a

- kind

NOx Nitrogen oxide

O 2 Oxygen

PA Primary air

PC Pulverized coal

PFD Process flow diagram

PM Particulate matter

psia Pound per square inch absolute

QGESS Quality Guidelines for Energy

System Studies

R&D Research and development

R D&D Research, development, and

demonstration

SC Supercritical

SC PC Supercritical pulverized coal

SCR Selective catalytic reduction process

or equipment

SDA Spray dryer absorber

SO 2 Sulfur dioxide

SOx Oxides of sulfur

T&S Transport and storage

TBtu Trill ion British thermal units

TOC Total overnight cost

tonne Metric ton (1,000 kg)

TPC Total plant cost

U.S. United States

WGS Water gas shift

°F Degrees FahrenheitCost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 1 

# Executive Summary

The cost and performance of various plants designed to meet a range of carbon dioxide ( CO 2 

### )

emissions are evaluated in this report by varying the CO 2 

### capture rate. The base cases for these

designs are the s upercritical (SC) p ulverized c oal (PC) plant from the National Energy

Technology Laboratory’s (NETL) report “Cost and P erformance Baseline for Fossil Energy

Plants, Volume 1 a : Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity, Revision 3 ” [1] and t he

General Electric Energy (GEE) integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant in NETL’s

r eport, “ Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Volume 1 b : Bituminous Coal

(IGCC) to Electricity, Revision 2

– Year Dollar Update.” [2] The chosen SC PC plants were

based on the Case B12B , differing only in th e addition of a bypass flow path that allows for an

appropriate portion of the flue gas stream exiting the desulfurization step to be di rected towards

the stack, which reduc es the amount CO 2 

### captured in the Cansolv process. The chosen IGCC

plants were bas ed on the Case B5B, differing by bypassing (either partially or entirely) the water

gas shift reactors and thereby reducing the amount of CO 2 

### captured in the Selexol process. The

major components of the underlying CO 2 

### capture technology in the plants were preserved with

minimal modifications to the overall processes. The SC PC cases include up

- to

- date cost and

performance information from recent vendor quotes whereas the IGCC performance and cost are

based upon the older quotes used for the Revision 2 rep ort

, with standard adjustments made to

update the costs to 2011 dollars

.

The results of the study for the SC PC and IGCC p lants are summarized in Exhibit ES

- 1 and

Exhibit ES

- 2

, respectively

. The exhibi t s depict t he variations of the computed plant higher

heating value (HHV) efficienc ies , cost s of electricity (COE), and cost s of CO 2 

### captured with

partial capture design CO 2 

### emission levels

. The overall CO 2 

### capture rate is also shown in the

exhibit s

. Exhibit ES

- 3 provides a tabular listing of salient results

, including a comparison of the

emissions on a net and gross output basis

. The HHV efficiency of the plants expectedly

increases with a n increase in the allowable CO 2 

### emissio n levels

, varying from a value of 32.5

percent for the SC PC plant with 90 percent CO 2 

### capture to a value of 40.7 percent for the SC PC

plant with highest CO 2 

### emission (no carbon capture). The HHV efficiency of the IGCC plants

vary from a value of 32.6 pe rcent for the IGCC plant with 90 percent CO 2 

### capture to a value of

39.0 percent for the IGCC plant with the highest CO 2 

### emission (no carbon capture). The plant

COE decr eases with an increase in allowable CO 2 

### emissions primarily due to the lower capital

an d operating costs for the reduced size s of the capture system s and the reduced parasitic load of

the CO 2 

### capture equipment

. For the SC PC plants

, the COE for the plant featuring 90 percent

CO 2 

### capture is ~ 6 2 percent higher than the COE of the plant with no CO 2 

### capture. For the

IGCC plants

, the COE for the plant featuring 90 percent CO 2 

### capture is ~ 32 percent higher than

the COE of the IGCC plant with no CO 2 

### capture. The capture impact is smaller for the IGCC

plants because the CO 2 

### is at a higher concen tration and pressure in the IGCC syngas than in the

SC PC flue gas.

Actual average annual emissions from operating plants are likely to be higher than the design

emissions rates shown due to start

- up, shutdown, part

- load operation

, and performance

degradat ion through maintenance cycles. Lower design emissions rates to ensure adequate

margins may be required for compliance with future regulations ; h owever, given that the slope of

the variation of COE with CO 2 

### emission levels is not steep for either SC PC or IGCC plants

(except at low capture rates), designing for this margin does not have major cost implications.Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 2 The cost of capture, equivalent to the minimum plant gate sales price (revenue) required to

incentivize CO 2 

### capture relative to a non

- capture SC P C, is higher at lower capture rates

primarily due to the associated economies of scale. Should such CO 2 

### revenues be available, then

the higher capture rate designs are a more cost effective method of CO 2 

### abatement ; h owever, the

lower capture rate designs represent lower incremental costs than the plant with 90 percent

cap ture

. Deployment of lower capture rate plants enables demonstration, progressive scaling,

and optimization of the CO 2 

### capture system with lower absolute costs, while facilitating the

smoo th transition, from both economic and process perspectives, to subsequent plants with

higher capture rates

.

The observations in this document are made with the caveat that the differences in costs between

cases are less than the absolute accuracy of the capital cost estimates ( estimated to be

- 15

percent /+30 percent ) ; h owever, all cases we re evaluated using a common set of technical and

economic assumptions , which allow ed meaningful comparisons among the cases

.

Exhibit ES

- 1 Variation of COE, plant HHV efficiency, cost of CO 2 captured, and CO 2 capture rate

with design emission levels for SC PC cases

Source: NETL/ Department of Energy ( DOE )Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 3 Exhibit ES

- 2 Variation of COE, plant HHV efficiency, c ost of CO 2 captured, and CO 2 capture rate

with design emission levels f or IGCC cases

Source: NETL/DOE

Exhibit ES

- 3 Summary of results

Plant

type CO

2 Emission Level CO

2 Capture

Rate HHV

Efficiency * COE

(excl. T&S) * * Cost of

Captured CO

2 * * Cost of

Avoided CO

2

lb/MWh

gross lb/MWh

net % % $/MWh $/tonne CO

2 $/tonne CO

2

SC PC 1

, 618 1,705 0 40.7 82.3

- -

1

, 400 1,498 16 39.2 97.8 123.9 178.7

1

, 300 1,400 22 38.6 101.4 105.3 152.6

1

, 200 1,302 29 38.0 104.8 94.2 137.4

1

, 100 1,201 35 37.4 108.1 86.7 127.2

1

, 050 1,151 39 37.1 109.7 83.7 123.2

1

, 000 1,100 42 36.8 111.3 81.2 119.7

900 997 48 36.3 114.4 76.9 114.0

700 786 60 35.1 121.2 72.0 107.5

500 570 72 34.1 127.2 67.4 101.4

183 214 90 32.5 133.2 58.2 89.4

IGCC 1 ,434 1,724 0 3 9.0 1 02.6

- - 1,100 1,356 22 3 8 .5 1 09.3 154.7 182.4

900 1,129 37 3 7.4 1 14.2 105.7 134.8

1 52 2 06 90 32. 6 135. 4 63.2 91.7

*Cases without capture use conventional financing; all others use high

- risk financial assumptions

, consistent with Referenc e. [1] [2] [5]

* *Cost of capture based o n SC PC without capture (Case B12A)Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 4 

## Special Considerations on Reported Costs

Capital Costs:

The capital cost estimat es documented in this report reflect an uncertainty range of

- 15%/+30%,

consistent with AACE Class 4 cost estimates (i.e., feasibility study) [3] [4] [5] , based on the

l evel of engineering design performed. In all cases, the report intends to represent the next

commercial offering, and relies on vendor cost estimates for component technologies. It also

applies process contingencies at the appropriate subsystem levels in an attempt to account for

expected but undefined costs (a challenge for emerging technologies).

Costs of mature technologies and designs:

The cost estimates for plant designs that only contain fully mature technologies which have been

widely deployed at commercial scale (e.g., PC power plants without CO 2 

### capture) reflect nth

- of

a

- kind (NOAK) on the technology commercialization maturity spectrum. The costs of such

plants have dropped over time due to “learning by doing” and risk reduction benefits that r esult

from serial deployments as well as from continuing R&D.

Costs of emerging technologies and designs:

The cost estimates for plant designs that include technologies that are not yet fully mature (e.g.,

IGCC and any plant with CO 2 

### capture) use the s ame cost estimating methodology as for the

mature plant designs, which does not fully account for the unique cost premiums associated with

the initial, complex integrations of emerging technologies in a commercial application. Thus, it

is anticipated that initial deployments of the IGCC and capture plants may incur costs higher

than those reflected within this report.

Other factors:

Actual reported project costs for all of the plant types are also expected to deviate from the cost

estimates in this rep ort due to project

- and site

- specific considerations (e.g. contracting strategy,

local labor costs, seismic conditions, water quality, financing parameters, local environmental

concerns, weather delays, etc.) that may make construction more costly. Such va riations are not

captured by the reported cost uncertainty.

Future Cost Trends:

Continuing research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) is expected to result in designs

that are more advanced than those assessed by this report, leading to costs that are lower than

those estimated herein.Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 5 

# 1 Introduction

The National Energy Technology Laboratory’s (NETL) Bituminous Baseline (BB) studies [1]

[2] have evaluated the performance and cost of fossi l fuel

- fired plants that are designed without

capture of the carbon contained in the inlet fuel

, as well as plants with at least 90 percent carbon

capture

. T he cost and performance of coal

- based BB plants that are modified for lower levels of

CO 2 

### capture ( partial capture designs) presented in this report are of general interest to NETL

insofar that the cost and performance penalties may be mitigated

. Specifically, plant designs

with lower capture rates have the potential to enable demonstration, progressi ve scaling, and

optimization of the CO 2 

### capture system with lower absolute costs, while facilitating the smooth

transition, from both economic and process perspectives, to subsequent plants with higher

capture rates

.

The objective of this report is to ev aluate the cost and performance of a BB supercritical ( SC )

pulverized coal ( PC ) plant with capture (Case B12B) [1] and integrated gasification combined

cycle (IGCC) plant with capture (Case B 5 B) [2] , both mo dified to achieve various levels of

partial capture. The partial capture cases presented in this report preserve the major components

of the underlying c arbon capture and sequestration ( CCS ) technology utilized in the

corresponding BB plants wit h minimal modifications to the overall process es.

In the SC PC cases , a n appropriate portion of the flue gas stream exiting the desulfurization step

is di verted, as shown in Exhibit 1

- 1

, to the stack, bypassing the CO 2 

### capture s ystem , in order to

evaluate systems with CO 2 

### emissions ranging from ~ 1 7 00

– 21 0 lb/MWh

- net (zero to 90 percent

capture)

. The amine

- based Shell Cansolv system

- designed to capture 90 percent of the CO 2 

### in

its inlet stream

- is employed as the CO 2 

### capture system , as in the B12B case

.

Exhibit 1

- 1 Bituminous Baseline SC PC schematic

– modifications for partial capture cases

Source: NETL/ Department of Energy ( DOE )



### In the IGCC cases, t he reduction in the CO 2 

### capture requirement also reduces the need to convert

much of the carbon monoxide (CO) in the gasifier exit gas into CO 2 

### via water gas shift (WGS)

reactors for eventual capture in the dual stage Selexol process. Instead, the CO can be retained

in the syng as and sent to the gas turbine for combustion and power generation. A simplified

block flow diagram of the overall IGCC process is shown in Exhibit 1

- 2

. A WGS bypass line

including a c arbonyl sulfide ( COS ) hydrolysis reactor ha s been adde d (in blue ) t o illustrate the CO 2 Capture CO 2 Compression

and Drying Flue Gas

Steam Generator Particulate /

SOx / NOx / HCl /

Hg Clean

- Up

Steam Turbine CO 2

Steam Air

Coal

Q Pulverized coal

Combustor

Power Captured

CO 2 Stream CO 2 Capture System

Partial Bypass To Stack

Residual Stream

from CO 2 Capture

SystemCost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 6 process modification for the partial capture cases that is used to evaluate systems with CO 2 

### emissions ranging from ~ 1 7 2 0

– 2 05 lb/MWh

- net (zero to 90 percent capture). The key

differences between the cases are ref lected in the mole percentage of CO 2 

### in the feed to the dual

stage Selexol unit. These values range from ~ 16 mole percent for the 22 percent capture case to

~ 40. 6 mole percent for the 90 percent capture case ( B5B )

.

Exhibit 1

- 2 Bituminous Baseline IGCC schematic

– modifications for partial capture cases

Source: NETL/DOE



# 2 Design Basis

The modified plants are assumed to be a generic Midwestern United States ( U

. S .) plant operating

under ambient International Standards Organization ( ISO ) conditions with site and coal

characteristics that are identical to the BB plants

. [1] [2] The emission targets are assumed to be

the same as in the BB studies, with th e exception of the CO 2 

### emission limit, which forms a

parameter in the present investigation.



## 2.1 Partial Capture Calculation

The percent of CO 2 

### captured is estimated by using the model data and the following equation for

each case :

% CO 2 

### capture = CO 2 

### Captu red / ( CO 2 

### Captured + CO 2 

### Emissions * Plant Output )

For example, in BB Case B12B is as follows:

90 % CO 2 

### capture = 1,059,193 lb/hr / ( 1,059,193 lb/hr + 214 lb/MWh

- net* 550 MW)



## 2.2 SC PC Partial Capture Design

The block flow diagram (BFD) of the modified SC PC s ystem

, shown in Exhibit 2

- 1 , differs

from the BFD of the base Case B12B only by the addition of the CO 2 

### capture system bypass fl ue

gas stream

, downstream of the flue gas desulfurizer (FGD)

, which can be tuned to meet the

desired C O 2 

### emission level

. The basis for the cost and performance of all partial capture cases is

the previously mentioned Shell Cansolv amine

- based system operating at 90 percent capture. No

performance penalties were assessed due to the potential operation of the capture system at a

scale smaller than its rated design point ; accordingly, its auxiliary load was c omputed directly

based on the CO 2 

### product flow rate

. A power law with an exponent of 0.6 was assumed to scale Water Gas

Shift

Reactor CO 2 Compression

and Drying Flue Gas

Heat Recovery

Steam Generator Quench and

Syngas

Scrubber

Steam Turbine CO 2

Steam O 2

Coal GEE Gasifier

and Cooler

Power WGS

Partial

Bypass

To Stack Dual Stage

Selexol

CO 2 Capture

Combustion Turbine COS

Hydrolysis

ReactorCost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 7 40 percent of the cost of the CO 2 

### capture system based on the inlet gas volumetric flow to the

process and the remaining 60 percent of the cost scaled based upon the captured CO 2 

### mass flow

rate in accordance with Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies (QGESS) procedures. [6]

The costs for controlling and monitoring the CO 2 

### capture system bypass flow were assumed to

be negligible. While partial bypass of the capture system results in slightly higher SO 2 

### emissions

than in Case B12B, the emission levels will be lo wer than the values for Case B12A (no CCS)

, which is tanta mount to a special subset of the modified system where all the flue gas flow

bypasses the CO 2 

### capture system.

The plants are evaluated at a rated net power of 550 MWe with an assumed capacity facto r of 85

percent. A high

- risk financial structure resulting in a capital charge factor (CCF) of 0.124 is

used to evaluate the costs of all cases with CO 2 

### capture ( non

- capture case uses a conventional

financial structure with a CCF of 0.116 ). 1 

### All other pro cess parameters and cost assumptions are

identical to Case B12B.

Exhibit 2

- 1 Block flow diagram of the modified B12B process for partial capture

Source: NETL/DOE

1 In contrast, the Energy Information Administration (EI A) applies a cost of capital premium to non

- capture coal plants in its Annual Energy

Outlook (AEO) Reference Cases. Specifically, “to reflect the market reaction to potential future GHG regulation, a 3

- percentage

- point increase in

the cost of capital for investments in new coal

- fired power and coal

- to

- liquids plants without carbon capture and sequestration technology is

assumed.” [5] S TACK GAS

S TACK CO 2 C APTURE

S YSTEM 31

32

33

22

23

CO 2

P RODUCT R EBOILER

S TEAM R EBOILER

C ONDENSATE

P ULVERIZED

C OAL

B OILER SCR B AGHOUSE FGD

G YPSUM L IMESTONE

S LURRY O XIDATION

A IR M AKEUP

W ATER

B OTTOM A SH C OAL F EED I NFILTRATION

AIR

1

4

8 7

9 14

F LY A SH 15 16 18 19

17 20 21

HP

TURBINE 34

35 36

IP

TURBINE LP TURBINE

CONDENSER

38 FEEDWATER

HEATER

SYSTEM Note : Block Flow Diagram is not intended to

represent a complete material balance

. Only

major process streams and equipment are

shown

. 3 2

6

5 11

37 10

H YDRATED

L IME 12

13 A CTIVATED

C ARBON

FD F ANS

PA F ANS ID F AN

CO 2 C OMPRESSORS

B OILER

F EEDWATER 29 R ECLAIMER

S TEAM 30

R ECLAIMER

C ONDENSATE

D RYER

27

CO 2 C OMPRESSORS 28 26 25 24 V ENT

D RYER S TEAM D RYER

C ONDENSATE 39

40 CO 2 C APTURE S YSTEM

B YPASS S TREAMCost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 8 

## 2.3 IGCC Partial Capture Design

The block flow diagram of the modified IGCC system, shown in Exhibit 2

- 2 , differs from that of

the BB Case B 5 B with 90 percent capture solely by the addition of a bypass around the WGS

reactors

. The bypass includes a COS hydrolysis reactor. Tw o partial capture cases were

evaluated: o ne with a partial bypass of the WGS reactor and achieving 37 percent capture, and

one with the WGS bypassed completely and achieving 2 2 percent capture.

The plants are evaluated with an assumed capacity factor of 8 0 percent

. A high

- risk financial

structure resulting in a CCF of 0.124 is used to evaluate the costs of all IGCC cases. All other

process parameters and cost assumptions are identical to Case B5B

.



## 2.3.1 Water Gas Shift and COS H ydrolysis

The 37 percent capture case , resulting in 1,129 lb/MWh

- net or 900 lb/MWh

- gross

, requires only

17 percent of the syngas to be sent to the WGS reactors. The 22 percent capture case, resulting

in 1,356 lb/MWh

- net or 1,100 lb/MWh

- gross

, can be processed without including WGS react ors

, so the entire gasifier exit stream is process ed through a COS hydrolysis reactor instead. The

reduced flow through the WGS reactor also reduces the amount of shift steam that needs to be

extracted from the steam cycle from 285,687 lb/hr of 800 psia, 550 ° F steam for t he reference

90 percent capture case to 45,797 lb/hr in the 37 percent capture case

, and zero in t he 22 percent

capture case

. This lower steam extraction requirement results in higher gross power output from

the steam cycle for the partia l capture cases.

A power law with an exponent of 0.8 was assumed to scale the cost of the s hift and COS

h ydrolysis r eactors based on catalyst volume in accordance with QGESS procedures. [6]



## 2.3.2 CO 2 

## Capture

– Dual Stage Selexol

T he amount of hydrogen recovered from the syngas stream is dependent on the Selexol process

design conditions. In the BB report, hydrogen recovery is 99.4 percent. The minimal hydrogen

slip to the CO 2 

### sequestration stream maximizes the overall plant effic iency. The BB case

Selexol plant cost estimates are based on a plant designed to recover this high percentage of

hydrogen.

The Selexol system is designed to capture 9 3 percent of the CO 2 

### in the feed to the dual stage

process for both of the cases that re quir e some WGS

. For the lowest capture case w ith no WGS,

the system only needs to capture 78 percent of the CO 2 

### in the feed to meet the proposed limit, so

the cost estimates were modified to reflect the reduced capture requirement , while the

performance c ontinues to be scaled on the amount of CO 2 

### captured

.

Since the Selexol system has components for sulfur capture as well as CO 2 

### capture, a combined

approach to cost scaling was utilized. A power law with an exponent of 0. 79 was assumed to

scale 40 percent of the cost of the dual stage Selexol system based on the inlet gas volumetric

flow to the process while a power law with an exponent of 0.61 was used to scale the remaining

60 percent of the cost based upon the captured CO 2 

### flow rate in accordance with Q GESS

procedures. [6]Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 9 Exhibit 2

- 2 Block flow diagram of the modified B5B process for partial capture

Source: NETL/DOE



# 3 Results and Discussion

The performance and cost s of both t he SC PC and IGCC plant s w ere evaluated for various partial

capture cases. The h igher heating value ( HHV ) efficiency of the plants expectedly decreases

with a n increase in the percent of CO 2 

### capture and corresponding decrease in the allowable CO 2



### emission levels . This is illustrated in Exhibit 3

- 1 for the SC PC cases and in Exhibit 3

- 2 for the

IGCC cases. Detailed performance and cost data is found in the Appendix to this report.

The variations of the c ost of electricity (COE) for different design values of CO 2 

### emissions are

shown in Exhibit 3

- 3 and 3

- 4

. The COE increases gradually as the capture rate increases

. The

costs of CO 2 

### captured and avoided using the BB SC PC non

- capt ure case (B12B) as the

reference case are shown in Exhibits 3

- 5 and 3

- 6

. The cost of captured CO 2 

### represents the

minimum CO 2 

### plant gate sales price that will incentivize carbon capture in lieu of a defined

reference non

- capture plant. Similarly, the cost of avoided CO 2 

### represents the minimum cost of

, or penalty on

, CO 2 

### emissions that will incentivize the carbon capture cases in lieu of a non

capture plant. For both the SC PC and the IGCC cases, the non

- capture SC PC case (B12A) as

the lowest cost non

- cap ture coal case serves as the reference plant. As the figures indicate, the

normalized capture and avoided costs decrease significantly as the capture rate increases due to

the economies of scale and the increasing amount of CO 2 

### captured or avoided.Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 10 Exhibi t 3

- 1 Plant HHV Efficiency for SC PC plant at various levels of capture

Source: NETL/DOE

Exhibit 3

- 2 Plant HHV Efficiency for IGCC plant at various levels o f capture

Source: NETL/DOECost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 11 Exhibit 3

- 3 COE with T&S for SC PC plant at various levels of capture

Note: Case without capture use s conventional financing. All others use high

- risk financial assumptions.

S ource: NETL/DOE

Exhibit 3

- 4 COE with T&S for IGCC plant at various levels of capture

Note: Case without capture use s conventional financing. All others use high

- risk financial assumptions.

Source: NETL/DO ECost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 12 Exhibit 3

- 5 Cost of captured and avoided CO 2 for SC PC plant at various levels of capture

Source: NETL/DOE

Exhibit 3

- 6 Cost of captured and avoided CO 2 fo r IGCC plant at various levels of capture

Source: NETL/DOECost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 13 The energy penalty for adding CO 2 

### capture was estimated using the following equation :

Capture Energy Penalty = � 1

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHH

− cccccccccccccc 

### − 1

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHH 

### �

∗ 1

, 000

, 000

( % Capture ∗ CO 2 

### Emissions Factor in lb / MMBtu of fuel input )

Where:

CO 2 

### Emissions Factor = 204 lb/MMBtu for bituminous coal

The capture energy penalties for the SC PC capture cases are nearly constant with a value of

approximate ly 0.14 kWh/lb CO 2 

### . This is due to the use of the bypass around the CO 2 

### capture

system. All cases represent the use of a 90 percent efficient CO 2 

### capture system with flue gas

feed streams proportional to the desired overall CO 2 

### capture rate.

The capture energy penalties for the three IGCC capture cases in this study are shown in

Exhibit 3 and illustrate that the penalty increases significantly with increasing capture rates. The

increasing capture penalty with higher rates of cap ture is due to the addition and intensification

of unit operations at each level. The 22 percent capture case does not have WGS. The 37

percent capture case adds some WGS and

, therefore

, has a larger energy penalty. 90 percent

capture requires a larger amount of WGS and a higher capture rate in the S elexol unit and

, therefore

, has the highest capture energy penalty.

Exhibit 3

- 7 Capture energy penalty (kWh/lb CO 2 ) for IGCC plant at various levels of capture

Source: NETL/DOECost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 14 

# 4 Conclusion

SC PC plants that meet a range of design CO 2 

### emission levels were developed by modifying the

SC PC plant with CCS (case B12B) through the introduction of flue gas bypass of the CO 2



### capture system

. IGCC plants that meet a ra nge of design CO 2 

### emission levels were developed by

modifying the IGCC plant with CCS (case B5B) through the introduction of syngas bypass of the

WGS reactor to reduce the amount of CO 2 

### in the stream to the capture system. For both the SC

PC and IGCC p lan ts

, lower levels of CO 2 

### capture result in a lower COE

, primarily due to the

lower capital and operating costs for the reduced size s of the capture systems and the reduced

parasitic load of the CO 2 

### capture equipment

. The cost of capture, equivalent to the minimum

plant gate CO 2 

### sales price (revenue) required to incentivize CO 2 

### capture relative to a non

- capture

SC PC, is higher at lower capture rates primarily due to the associated economies of scale.

Should such CO 2 

### revenues be available, then the higher c apture rate designs are a more cost

effective method of CO 2 

### abatement ; h owever, the lower capture rate designs represent lower

incremental costs than the plant with 90 percent capture. Deployment of lower capture rate

plants enables demonstration, progres sive scaling, and optimization of the CO 2 

### capture system

with lower absolute costs while facilitating the smooth transition, from both economic and

process perspectives, to subsequent plants with higher capture rates

.Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 15 

# 5 References

1. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy

Plants; Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants; Volume 1a: Bituminous Coal

(PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity, Revision 3. Pittsburgh, Pa : U.S. De partment of Energy,

2015.

2. N ational Energy Technology Laboratory

. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy

Plants; Volume 1b: Bituminous Coal (IGCC to Electricity, Revision 2

- Year Dollar Update.

Pittsburgh, Pa : Department of Energy, In Press.

3. AACE International. Conducting Tec hnical and Economic Evaluations

– As Applied for the

Process and Utility Industries; TCM Framework: 3.2

– Asset Planning, 3.3 Investment Decision

Making. s.l. : AACE International, 2003. Recommended Practice 16R

- 90.

4. AACE International. Cost Estimate Classification Syste m

– As Applied in Engineering,

Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries; TCM Framework 7.3

– Cost

Estimating and Budgeting. s.l. : AACE International, 2005. Recommended Practice No. 18R

- 97.

5. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies :

C ost Estimation Methodology for NETL Assessments of Power Plant Performance. Pittsburgh,

Pa : U.S. Department of Energy, April 2011. DOE/NETL

- 2011/145.

6. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies:

Capital Cost Scaling Methodology. Pittsburgh, Pa : U. S. Department of Energy, January 2013.

DOE/NETL

- 341/013113.

7. Energy Information Administration. Assumptions to AEO2014: Coal Market Module.

[Online] 2014. [Cited: June 22, 2015.]

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/coal.pdf.Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 16 

# Appendix

Key Performance and Cost Summary Tables

Exhibit A

- 1 PC c ases p erformance s ummary

Case

B12A Partial Capture Cases Case

B12B

CO 2 Capture Rate 0% 16% 22% 29% 35% 39% 42% 48% 60% 72% 90%

Capacity Factor 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%

Gross Power Output (MWe) 580 589 592 597 600 603 605 609 618 626 642

Auxiliary Power Requirement (MWe) 30 38 42 46 50 53 55 59 68 77 91

Net Power Output (MWe) 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550

Coal Flow rate (lb/hr) 395,053 4 10,912 417,178 423,717 430,079 433,533 436,873 443,675 457,667 471,919 495,578

HHV Thermal Input (kW t ) 1,350,672 1,404,894 1,426,316 1,448,676 1,470,427 1,482,236 1,493,655 1,516,909 1,564,750 1,613,476 1,694,366

Net Plant HHV Efficiency (%) 40.7% 39.2% 38.6% 38.0% 37.4% 37.1% 36.8% 36.3% 35.1% 34.1% 32.5%

Net Plant HHV Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,379 8,710 8,848 8,986 9,126 9,197 9,269 9,413 9,708 10,012 10,508

Raw Water Withdrawal, gpm 5,105 5,533 5,710 5,891 6,072 6,166 6,259 6,448 6,835 7,231 7,882

Proce ss Water Discharge, gpm 1,059 1,174 1,222 1,271 1,321 1,346 1,372 1,423 1,528 1,636 1,813

Raw Water Consumption, gpm 4,045 4,359 4,488 4,620 4,751 4,820 4,888 5,025 5,307 5,595 6,069

CO 2 Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 204 172 158 145 132 125 119 106 81 57 20

CO 2 Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 1,618 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,050 1,000 900 700 500 183

CO 2 Emissions (lb/MWhnet) 1,705 1,498 1,400 1,302 1,201 1,151 1,100 997 786 570 214

SO 2 Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 0.085 0.070 0.064 0.058 0.051 0.048 0.045 0.040 0.028 0.017 0.0 00

SO 2 Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 0.673 0.570 0.523 0.477 0.430 0.406 0.383 0.336 0.242 0.148 0.000

NOx Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 0.088 0.086 0.085 0.084 0.084 0.083 0.083 0.082 0.081 0.080 0.078

NOx Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0 .700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700

PM Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.010

PM Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090

Hg Emissions (lb/TBtu) 0.377 0.368 0.365 0.362 0.359 0.357 0.356 0.353 0.347 0.341 0.333

Hg Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 17 Exhibit A

- 2 IGC C c ases p erformance s ummary

Case B5A Partial Capture Case B5B

CO 2 Capture Rate 0% 22% 37% 90%

Capacity Factor 80% 80% 80% 80%

Gross Power Output (MWe) 748 752 747 734

Auxiliary Power Requirement (MWe) 126 142 152 191

Net Power Output (MWe) 622 610 595 543

Coal Flow rate (lb/hr) 466 ,898 463,138 466,131 487,005

HHV Thermal Input (kW th ) 1,596,309 1,583,454 1,593,685 1,665,056

Net Plant HHV Efficiency (%) 39.0% 38.5% 37.4% 32.6%

Net Plant HHV Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,758 8,860 9,133 10,459

Raw Water Withdrawal, gpm 4,755 4,685 4,905 5, 834

Process Water Discharge, gpm 984 968 994 1,080

Raw Water Consumption, gpm 3,771 3,717 3,911 4,754

CO 2 Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 197 153 124 20

CO 2 Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 1,434 1,100 900 152

CO 2 Emissions (lb/MWhnet) 1,724 1,356 1,129 206

SO 2 Emission s (lb/MMBtu) 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002

SO 2 Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 0.009 0.016 0.016 0.017

NOx Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 0.059 0.055 0.054 0.049

NOx Emissions (lb/MWh gross ) 0.430 0.396 0.394 0.376

PM Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007

PM Emissions (lb/MWh gross ) 0.052 0.051 0.052 0.055

Hg Emissions (lb/TBtu) 0.412 0.417 0.412 0.388

Hg Emissions (lb/MWh gross ) 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06 3.00E

- 06Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 18 Exhibit A

- 3 PC c ases cost s ummary

Case

B12A Partial Capture Cases Case

B 12B

CO 2 Capture Rate 0% 16% 22% 29% 35% 39% 42% 48% 60% 72% 90%

Total Plant Cost (2011$/kW) 2,026 2,467 2,586 2,695 2,798 2,847 2,896 2,990 3,204 3,384 3,524

**Bare Erected Cost** 1,646 1,955 2,040 2,117 2,190 2,225 2,260 2,327 2,481 2,610 2,716

**Home Offic e Expenses**  165 193 200 207 214 217 220 226 241 252 263

**Project Contingency** 216 279 297 312 327 334 341 355 386 411 430

**Process Contingency** 0 39 49 58 67 71 74 82 96 110 115

Total Overnight Cost (2011$MM) 1,379 1,674 1,753 1,826 1,894 1,928 1,960 2,023 2 ,167 2,287 2,384

Total Overnight Cost (2011$/kW) 2,507 3,042 3,187 3,320 3,445 3,505 3,565 3,680 3,940 4,160 4,333

**Owner's Costs** 480 575 601 625 647 658 669 689 736 776 809

Total As

- Spent Capital (2011$/kW) 2,842 3,468 3,633 3,784 3,928 3,996 4,064 4,19 5 4,492 4,742 4,940

COE ($/MWh) (excluding T&S) 82.3 97.8 101.4 104.8 108.1 109.7 111.3 114.4 121.2 127.2 133.2

**Capital Costs** 39.0 50.7 53.1 55.3 57.4 58.4 59.4 61.3 65.6 69.3 72.2

**Fixed Costs** 9.6 11.5 11.9 12.3 12.7 12.9 13.1 13.4 14.2 14.9 15.4

**Varia ble Costs**  9.1 10.1 10.5 10.9 11.3 11.4 11.6 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.7

**Fuel Costs** 24.6 25.6 26.0 26.4 26.8 27.0 27.2 27.7 28.5 29.4 30.9

COE ($/MWh) (including T&S) 82.3 99.1 103.7 107.5 111.4 113.3 115.2 119.0 127.1 134.5 142.8

**CO** 2 **T&S Costs** 0.0 1.4 2.0 2.6 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.6 5.9 7.3 9.6

COE Range Reflecting Capital Cost

Accuracy *

COE ($/MWh) (excluding T&S)

- 15% TPC 75.8 90.7 94.6 98.3 101.9 103.6 105.4 108.8 116.2 123.0 130.8

COE ($/MWh) (excluding T&S)

+ 30% TPC 95. 3 115.9 121.0 125.8 130.5 132.7 134.9 139.3 148.9 157.6 166.8

CO 2 Captured Cost (excluding T&S),

$/tonne N/A 123.9 105.3 94.2 86.7 83.7 81.2 76.9 72 67.4 58.2

CO 2 Avoided Cost (including T&S),

$/tonne N/A 178.7 152.6 137.4 127.2 123.2 119.7 114 107.5 101 .4 89.4

*The accuracy range is applied at the Total Plant Cost (TPC) level, which has a consequent impact on the fixed and variable O &M costs. [6]Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement:

Sensitivity to CO 2 C apture R ate in C oal

- F ired P ower P lants



### 19 Exhibit A

- 4 IGC C c ases cost s ummary

Case B5A P artial Capture Case B5B

CO 2 Capture Rate 0% 22% 37% 90%

Total Plant Cost (2011$/kW) 2,449 2,707 2,839 3,387

**Bare Erected Cost** 1,870 2,029 2,125 2,525

**Home Office Expenses** 187 203 213 253

**Project Contingency** 330 366 386 467

**Process Contingency** 61 109 115 143

Total Overnight Cost (2011$MM) 1,888 2,036 2,086 2,279

Total Overnight Cost (2011$/kW) 3,036 3,339 3,503 4,195

**Owner's Costs** 587 632 664 807

Total As

- Spent Capital (2011$/kW) 3,461 3,807 3,994 4,782

COE ($/MWh) (excluding T&S) 102.6 109.3 114. 2 135.4

**Capital Costs** 53.7 59.1 62.0 74.2

**Fixed Costs** 13.7 14.8 15.5 18.2

**Variable Costs** 9.4 9.4 9.9 12.2

**Fuel Costs** 25.7 26.0 26.8 30.7

COE ($/MWh) (including T&S) 102.6 111.2 117.5 144.7

**CO** 2 **T&S Costs** 0.0 1.9 3.3 9.2

COE Range Reflecting Capital C ost Accuracy *

COE ($/MWh) (excluding T&S)

- 15% TPC 93.7 101.4 107.3 132.4

COE ($/MWh) (excluding T&S) + 30% TPC 120.3 130.8 138.1 169.2

CO 2 Captured Cost (excluding T&S), $/tonne N/A 154.7 105.7 63.2

CO 2 Avoided Cost (including T&S), $/tonne N/A 18 2.4 134.8 91.7

*The accuracy range is applied at the Total Plant Cost (TPC) level, which has a consequent impact on the fixed and variable O &M costs. [6]www.netl.doe.gov

Pittsburgh, PA • Morgantown, WV • Albany, OR • Sugar Land, TX • Anchor age, AK

(800) 553

- 7681 

# Tim Fout

timothy.fout@netl.doe.gov Mark Woods

mark.woods@netl.doe.gov