Smart Energy Strategy Conference 2011
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
no CCS 200km 1000m
400km 3000m
no CCS 200km 1000m
400km 3000m
no CCS 200km 1000m
400km 3000m Niederaussem (post) Jänschwalde (oxy) Goldenberg (pre)
kg CO2 eq/kWhel
Methane, fossil
Dinitrogen monoxide Carbon dioxide, fossil Remaining substances
-83%
-81%
-91%
-89% -84%
-82%
Post-combustion capture
(Niederaussem)
Oxy-fuel combustion (Jänschwalde)
Pre-combustion capture
(Goldenberg)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
no CCS 200km 1000m
400km 3000m
no CCS 200km 1000m
400km 3000m
no CCS 200km 1000m
400km 3000m Niederaussem (post) Jänschwalde (oxy) Goldenberg (pre)
EI99 (H/A) mPt/kWhel
CO2 storage CO2 transport CO2 capture
operation indirect operation direct power plant
upstream -27%
-20%
-50%
-43%
-19%
-14%
Post-combustion capture
(Niederaussem)
Oxy-fuel combustion (Jänschwalde)
Pre-combustion capture
(Goldenberg)
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) in Germany
A Technology Assessment in Consideration of Environmental, Economic and Social Aspects
The Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis (LEA) is leading sub-project 1 within CARMA, which is a Swiss research project that aims at exploring the potential and feasibility of CCS systems
deployment in Switzerland, within the framework of future energy scenarios.
Further information: stefan.hirschberg@psi.ch.
The Technology assessment group at the PSI is continuing to broaden the scope of the comparison of CCS technologies. Other aspects currently under analysis include a case study for CCS in Switzerland and CCS at natural gas power plants.
Further information: kathrin.volkart@psi.ch.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCLUSIONS
• Applying CCS at lignite power plants reduces the life cycle GHG emissions by around 80-90%
and the life cycle environmental impacts by 14-50% with the assessment method chosen. The
reduction of the overall impact is dominated by reduced CO2 emissions at power plant operation, whereas contributions from other life cycle phases may increase.
• The oxyfuel technology offers the largest life cycle GHG emission reduction potential due to the high CO2 capture rate; the relatively high efficiency; the lack of solvents in the capture process.
• Compared to renewable and nuclear electricity production the life cycle GHG emissions and environmental impacts of CCS power plants are still high.
Kathrin Volkart
Technology Assessment Group, Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis, Paul Scherrer Institute
The CARMA project is funded by:
LCA RESULTS
ECONOMIC CONCLUSIONS
• Implementation of CCS significantly increases electricity generation costs. Fuel costs dominate the production cost for natural gas, whereas capital costs are more important for coal.
• Lignite power plants offer low generation costs as well as low avoidance costs and should therefore be targeted for CCS application first.
• The price of CO2 must significantly increase to allow for economically competitive power generation with CCS power plants.
Financial support for the CARMA project is gratefully provided by:
INTRODUCTION
• CCS is seen as one of the options to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the electricity sector in order to mitigate climate change.
• Germany’s electricity sector heavily relies on fossil fuels (25% lignite, 18% hard coal and 13%
natural gas in 2009). It is therefore suitable for the introduction of CCS.
• Saline aquifers and gas fields in Northern
Germany could be used for carbon dioxide (CO2) storage.
• Economic assessment using literature values:
• Lignite, hard coal, natural gas
• Today, 2025 and 2050
• Internal and external costs
METHODOLOGY
Environmental Assessment using Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) for three case studies:
• Lignite power plants: post-combustion capture / oxyfuel combustion / pre-
combustion capture
• Pipeline transport: 200 km / 400 km length
• Storage in saline aquifers and depleted gas fields: 1000m / 3000m depth
0 2 4 6 8 10
today, no CCS 2025, no CCS 2050, no CCS 2025, post 2050, post 2025, oxy 2050, oxy today, no CCS 2025, no CCS 2050, no CCS 2025, pre IGCC, 2050, pre today, no CCS 2025, no CCS 2050, no CCS 2025, post 2050, post 2025, oxy 2050, oxy today, no CCS 2025, no CCS 2050, no CCS 2025, pre IGCC, 2050, pre today, no CCS 2025, no CCS 2050, no post 2025, post 2050, post
hard coal PC hard coal IGCC lignite PC lignite IGCC natural gas NGCC
€cts 2005/kWhel
Average fuel cost
Average O&M (compression, pipeline, storage) Average variable O&M
Average fixed O&M
Levelized average capital cost
hard coal PC
hard coal IGCC
lignite PC
lignite IGCC
natural gas NGCC
COST RESULTS
Post-
combustion
Oxyfuel combustion
Pre-combustion capture
Lower heating value lignite 8.48 MJ/kg 8.65 MJ/kg 10 MJ/kg Efficiency without capture 45% 50.5% 48.5%
Efficiency with capture 35% 41.8% 34%
Capture rate 90% 96% 92%
Solvent MEA 30% - Methanol 100%
• The inclusion of the external costs of electricity production can increase the competitiveness of CCS power plants. The external
costs largely depend on the valuation of the costs of climate change.
Impact on the climate Overall environmental burdens
Electricity generation costs:
