Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Variational Inequality Formulations for Oligopolistic Electricity Models with Marketable CO2 Emission Permits Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2012 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Modeling the Costs of Carbon Capture

verfasst von : Erin Baker, Gregory Nemet, Peter Rasmussen

Erschienen in: Handbook of CO₂ in Power Systems

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper explores the fundamental concepts required to model intertemporal carbon capture costs. A technical overview of post-combustion, pre-combustion, and alternative combustion carbon capture technologies is followed by a discussion of cost measures that allow for side-by-side comparison of one technology to the next. Carbon capture cost measures include capital cost per unit output power, levelized electricity cost (LEC) and CO2 avoidance cost. The relationships between these cost measures are mathematically explored and cost data for several carbon capture technologies obtained from a survey of the literature are provided. We then discuss the most significant drivers of intertemporal carbon capture cost reduction, which include learning by doing (LBD), production returns to scale and research and development (R&D).

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel CO2 Capture: Integration and Overall System Optimization in Power Applications
Nächstes Kapitel Operation System Optimization
Fußnoten
1
The mean LEC add corresponding to the lowest levelized baseline cost LEC base was calculated by (1) selecting the lowest LEC base in 2009 USD, (2) subtracting the lowest LEC base from each estimate’s LEC capture to generate a new LEC add for each estimate, and (3) averaging across the new LEC add values to calculate the mean LEC add corresponding to the lowest LEC base . The mean CO2 avoidance cost C a corresponding to the lowest LEC base can be calculated by simply multiplying the original mean C a by the ratio of the new LEC add over the original LEC add .
 
2
Knowledge spillovers are especially important in firm-level analyses of technical change. The latter two categories are typically addressed by depreciating the value of experience over time [21].
 
3
The carbon tax is assumed to impact the private sector incentive to innovate; but does not impact the increase in LEC directly.
 
4
These estimates of LEC only include additional cost of capture and compression, but exclude the cost of geologic storage. They are presented only for comparison purposes. The actual LEC may vary by fuel type, sequestration method and distance, and changes in carbon price and demand for fuel. The estimates presented here assume zero carbon price and a baseline coal price of $1.7/GJ of primary energy. The detailed assumptions and calculations are available in Baker et al. [40].
 
5
Reprinted from Baker et al. [40].
 
6
Assuming 0.018 t of carbon per kWh.
 
Literatur
1.
Energy Information Administration (2009) International energy outlook. Technical report, U.S. Department of Energy
2.
Energy Information Administration (2006) Independent statistics and analysis: international electricity generation. U.S. Department of Energy
3.
Katzer J, Moniz EJ, Deutch J, Ansolabehere S, Beer J (2007) The future of coal: options for a carbon-constrained world. Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
4.
Cormos C, Starr F, Tzimas E (2010) Use of lower grade coals in IGCC plants with carbon capture for the co-production of hydrogen and electricity. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35:556–567CrossRef
5.
Carbo MC (2008/2009) Staged water-gas shift configuration: key to efficiency penalty reduction during pre combustion decarbonisation in IGCC. Energy Procedia 1(1):16–20
6.
Esber GS III (2006) Carbon dioxide capture technology for the coal-powered electricity industry: a systematic prioritization of research needs. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
7.
Heintz YJ, Sehabigue L, Morsi BI, Jones KL, Pennline HW (2008) Novel physical solvents for CO2 capture from fuel gas streams at elevated pressures and temperatures. Energy Fuel 22:3824–3837CrossRef
8.
Al Juaied MA, Whitmore A (2009) Realistic costs of carbon capture discussion paper. Technical report, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, MA
9.
Haines MR, Davison JE (2009) Designing carbon capture power plants to assist in meeting peak power demand. Energy Procedia 1:1457–1464CrossRef
10.
Mattisson T, Lyngfelt A, Leion H (2009) Designing carbon capture power plants to assist in meeting peak power demand. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 3:11–19CrossRef
11.
Terry F. Wal (2007) Combustion processes for carbon capture. In: Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, doi:10.1016/j.proci.2006.08.123
12.
Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck HC, Loos M, Meyer LA (eds) (2005) IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
13.
Gallagher KS (2009) Key opportunities for U.S. China cooperation on coal and CCS. Technical report, Brookings Institution
14.
Rubin ES, Yeh S, Antes M, Berkenpas M, Davison J (2007) Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with CO2 capture. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 1(2):188–197CrossRef
15.
Kerr T (ed) (2008) CO2 capture and storage: a key carbon abatement option. OECD/IEA, Paris. ISBN 978-92-64-041400
16.
Rubin ES, Chen C, Rao AB (2007) Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Policy 35:4444–4454CrossRef
17.
Wright TP (1936) Factors affecting the costs of airplanes. J Aeronaut Sci 3:122–128
18.
Arrow KJ (1962) The economic implications of learning-by-doing. Rev Econ Stud 29:155–173CrossRef
19.
Dutton JM, Thomas A (1984) Treating progress functions as a managerial opportunity. Acad Manage Rev 9(2):235–247
20.
Argote L, Epple D (1990) Learning curves in manufacturing. Science 247(4945):920–924CrossRef
21.
Thompson P (2007) How much did the liberty shipbuilders forget? Manag Sci 53(6):908–918CrossRef
22.
Arrow K (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources from invention. In: Nelson R (ed) The rate and direction of innovative activity. Princeton University Press, Princeton
23.
Bielicki J (2008) Returns to scale in carbon capture and storage infrastructure and deployment. Technical report, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
24.
McDonald A, Schrattenholzer L (2001) Learning rates for energy technologies. Energy Policy 29:255–261CrossRef
25.
Taylor MR, Rubin ES, Hounshell DA (2005) Control of SO2 emissions from power plants: a case of induced technological innovation in the U.S. Technol Forecast Soc Change 72(6):697–718CrossRef
26.
Taylor MR, Nemet GF (2006) The interaction between policy and innovation in clean energy technologies. In: USAEE/IAEE/ASSA meetings: current issues in energy economics and energy modeling, Boston
27.
Nemet G (2007) Policy and innovation in low-carbon energy technologies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California
28.
Yeh S, Rubin ES (2007) A centurial history of technological change and learning curves for pulverized coal-fired utility boilers. Energy 32(10):1996–2005CrossRef
29.
van den Broek M, Hoefnagels R, Rubin E, Turkenburg W, Faaij A (2009) Effects of technological learning on future cost and performance of power plants with CO2 capture. Prog Energy Combust Sci 35(6):457–480. ISI document delivery no.: 523KV
30.
Nemet GF (2009) Interim monitoring of cost dynamics for publicly supported energy technologies. Energy Policy 37(3):825–835CrossRef
31.
Sinclair G, Klepper S, Cohen W (2000) Sources of cost reduction in a large specialty chemicals producer. Manag Sci 46(1):28–45CrossRef
32.
Remer DS, Chai LH (1990) Design cost factors for scaling-up engineering equipment. Chem Eng Prog 86(8):77–82
33.
Nemet GF, Baker E (2009) Demand subsidies versus R&D: comparing the uncertain impacts of policy on a pre-commercial low-carbon energy technology. Energy J 30:49–80
34.
Rosenberg N (1982) Inside the black box: technology and economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
35.
Clarke L, Kyle P, Wise MA, Calvin K, Edmonds JA, Kim SH, Placet M, Smith S (2008) CO2 emissions mitigation and technological advance: an updated analysis of advanced technology scenarios. Technical report PNNL-18075, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
36.
37.
Clemen RT, Kwit RC (2001) The value of decision analysis at Eastman Kodak Company, 1990–1999. Interfaces 31:74–92
38.
Peerenboom JP, Buehring WA, Joseph TW (1989) Selecting a portfolio of environmental programs for a synthetic fuels facility. Oper Res 37:689–699CrossRef
39.
Sharpe P, Keelin T (1998) How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. Harv Bus Rev 76:45–57
40.
Baker E, Chon H, Keisler J (2009) Carbon capture and storage: combining expert elicitations with economic analysis to inform climate policy. Clim Chang 96(3):379CrossRef
41.
42.
Rao AB, Rubin ES, Keith DW, Morgan MG (2006) Evaluation of potential cost reductions from improved amine-based CO2 capture systems. Energy Policy 34:3765–3772CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Modeling the Costs of Carbon Capture
verfasst von
Erin Baker
Gregory Nemet
Peter Rasmussen
Copyright-Jahr
2012
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch
Handbook of CO₂ in Power Systems

Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27430-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-642-27431-2

Copyright-Jahr: 2012

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27431-2_16

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise