Efficiency and capture-readiness

Wina Graus

Mauro Roglieri

Piotr Jaworski

Luca Alberio

Ecofys Netherlands bv, Utrecht

July 2008

Project number: PECSNL074210

Assignment for: European Commission (subcontracted to MVV under Framework Con-

tract N° TREN/CC/05-2005)

EFFICIENCY AND CAPTURE-READINESS

OF NEW FOSSIL POWER PLANTS IN THE EU

2 JULY 2008 EFFICIENCY AND CAPTURE-READINESS NEW FOSSIL POWER PLANTS

Executive summary

In this study we focus on energy-efficiency and capture-readiness of recently built (>1997)

and planned fossil-fired power plants. The study has two main purposes:

(1) To evaluate energy-efficiency of new1 fossil power plants and compare them with

the energy-efficiency that would be expected when using best available techniques

(BAT).

(2) To see what share of new power plants can be considered as capture-ready.

For this purpose we first look at the energy-efficiency that would be expected to be

achieved by applying BAT and we define requirements for capture-readiness. In the sec-

ond step we analyse the new power plants with respect to these two characteristics, i.e

energy efficiency and carbon capture readiness.

Energy-efficiency by applying best available techniques

Below is the net energy-efficiency that was found in this study for applying best available

techniques per type of power plant.

Table 1 Energy-ef f ic iency by appl ying best avai lable techniques in 2008

Technology Fuel Net energy-

efficiency

Coal 46% Pulverised coal steam cycle (ultra-

supercritical) Lignite 43%

Coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC2) Coal 46%

Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) Natural gas 59-60%

Local circumstances influence the maximum efficiency that can be achieved in a power

plant. The most important factors, found in this study, that influence design energy-

efficiency are the type of cooling method used and the temperature of the cooling water.

This can influence energy-efficiency by up to 3 percent points. Year round operational effi-

ciency can be 1-7 percent point lower than design energy-efficiency and largely depends

on the amount of load hours.

1 Recently built (>1997) and planned power plants together are in this study also referred to as

“new plants”. 2 IGCC can also operate with oil or biomass, but in this study we focus specifically on coal (ICGCC).


Requirements for capture-readiness

Capture-ready means that a plant can be equipped with CO2 capture technology while it is

under construction or after it is built. If a plant is not capture-ready this means it is either

more expensive to add CO2 capture technology or impossible due to insufficient space at

the site or no suitable reservoir to store the CO2 in. This means that it is important for new

fossil plants to be capture-ready in order to have the possibility to add CO2 capture and

storage at a later stage.

In order for a power plant to be capture-ready the following requirements should be met|:

• A study on the possible options for CCS in terms of technology and feasibility

should be done.

• An assessment should be made of the elements of the plant that would need to be

adapted when adding CO2 capture equipment, their place in the plant layout and

their physical size.

• An assessment of the possible pre-investments that can be done in comparison to

the costs of making changes when the power plant is built.

• The availability of sufficient space for the required CCS technology during opera-

tion as well as during construction. At the same time normal operation of the exist-

ing plant has to be assured both during construction and operation of CCS.

• An assessment of a storage site and a credible route to the storage site is needed.

Capture-ready plants are somewhat more expensive to build. The costs consist mainly of

the purchase of additional land area.

Plant selection

In this study we look specifically at large-scale gas and coal-fired plants, with units bigger

than 300 MW. This includes roughly 260 new power plants in the EU owned by 130 utili-

ties. The capacity of these plants together equals nearly 200 GW, equivalent to 25% of to-

tal operational capacity in the EU. Table 2 gives the amount of recently built and planned

coal and gas-fired power plants in the EU.

Table 2 Tota l recent ly bu i l t and planned coal and gas power plants (wi th un i ts

bigger than 300 MW)

Pulverised coal

– hard coal

Pulverised

coal - lignite

IGCC NGCC Total

Operational > 1997 2 6 0 42 51

Under construction 4 4 0 18 26

Planned 31 3 0 65 99

Early stage of planning 16 2 4 66 88

Total 54 15 4 191 263

The largest share of new plants consists of gas-fired plants (75%). In terms of capacity,

coal-fired power plants account for 33% in total capacity with 65 GW.

In terms of countries, Spain has the highest number of new plants (49 gas-fired and 1 coal-

fired plant), followed by Germany (30 coal-fired and 12 gas-fired plants) and Italy (29 gas-

fired and 6 coal-fired plants).

Data gathering

Since no literature sources were available for this study, with data on efficiency and cap-

ture-readiness on a plant level, we sent questionnaires to utilities asking for information on

plant level. Additionally, telephone interviews were held with several utilities and power

plant suppliers. In total, we received questionnaires for 68 power plants, consisting of 16

coal-fired and 52 gas-fired plants. Together the plants represent 25% of total new capacity

(with units > 300 MW). It is unsure if the results found for these plants are representative

for the other installed capacity. However, based on the interviews with utilities and power

plant suppliers, and based on a number of public data sources, we think the results give

quite a good picture of the situation in the EU.

Results and conclusions

The results show that most of the power plants for which information was submitted in the

questionnaires, have energy-efficiencies close to BAT level. The average net energy-

efficiency, for planned coal-fired power plants was 46% and for planned gas-fired plants

58%.

Utilities and suppliers mention in the telephone interviews that energy-efficiency is one of

the key aspects that influence the economics of a power plant. High energy and CO2

prices can therefore give a further incentive for the use and development of efficient tech-

nologies.

Regarding capture-readiness, the results of the study indicate that most of the recently

built power plants are not capture-ready. Of the planned coal-fired power plants, a large

share is expected to be capture-ready (13 out of 16). For the planned gas-fired power

plants only 2 out of 31 are expected to be capture-ready. Since gas-fired power plants ac-

count for two third of new fossil capacity it would be desirable that a significant share of

gas-fired power plants are capture-ready, in order to be able to use CCS for deep CO2

emission reduction targets in the power sector. In order to make CCS an option for gas-

fired plants, additional research is needed to solve a few technological issues. Additionally,

financial incentives may be needed to compensate for the higher capture price per tonne of

CO2 in comparison to coal-fired plants.

During the telephone interviews utilities and suppliers mention that there is a need for a

clear and long-term regulatory framework for CCS. In order for CCS to be implemented,

CO2 prices need to be at least 40-50 €/ton. Furthermore, the EU could play a role in har-

monizing the set up of national infrastructures for CO2 transport. E.g. by setting rules for

transport of CO2 across boundaries. And lastly, there is a strong need for plants on dem-


onstration scale. This requires financial incentives for technology developers and plant op-

erators to promote these experiences.

Recommendations

High fuel prices and high CO2 prices are a key incentive to both implement efficient tech-

nologies as well as push technological development for further improvements. Therefore

the use of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is a good policy option for stimulating effi-

ciency improvements. The rules applied in the ETS should then be set in a way that CO2

prices are sufficiently high. Prices above 20 €/tonne already have quite a large impact on

generating costs.

Since most operational power plants and also quite a number of planned power plants are

not designed as capture-ready, clear legislation is needed in this field. Requirements for

capture-readiness should mainly focus on sufficient available space onsite for CO2 capture

equipment and a reasonable distance to storage reservoirs. Also a study is needed to as-

sess necessary changes to the installation when CO2 capture is added and associated

costs. It is not advisable to set strict requirements for pre-investments to be done, since

there is too much uncertainty regarding the optimal type of capture technology to be used.

Also in the field of CO2 transport and storage, no strict requirements can be set, before the

legislative framework for CO2 transport and storage is fully developed.

For CCS to be commercial, prices of CO2 higher than 50 € per tonne are needed. For gas-

fired power plants even higher prices are needed.

Table of contents

1 Introduct ion 9

2 Overview effi c iency fossi l power EU 10

2.1 Fuel mix for power generation 10

2.2 Energy-efficiency fossil-fired power generation 11

3 Methodology plant analysis 20

3.1 Energy-efficiency 20

3.1.1 Coal-fired power generation 22

3.1.2 Gas-fired power generation 26

3.1.3 Energy-efficiency by applying BAT 27

3.2 Capture-readiness 32

3.2.1 Overview of CO2 capture approaches 32

3.2.2 Definition of capture readiness 36

3.3 Plant selection 37

3.4 Data gathering 41

3.4.1 Participation in questionnaire 41

3.4.2 Interviews 43

4 Results plant analysis 44


4.1.1 Pulverised hard coal-fired power plants 45

4.1.2 Pulverised lignite-fired power plants 46

4.1.3 IGCC plants 47

4.1.4 Gas-fired power plants 48

4.1.5 Operational energy-efficiency 50

4.1.6 Results interviews 50


4.2.1 Gas-fired power plants 53

4.2.2 Coal-fired power plants 54

4.2.3 Characteristics of capture-ready plants 55

4.2.4 Results interviews 56


5 Conclusions and recommendations 58



5.3 Recommendations 60

References 61

Appendix 64

1 Introduction

In the “Communication on Sustainable Power Generation from Fossil Fuels”, of the Euro-

pean Commission’s energy package (10 January 2007), the European Commission spells

out the need to develop further fossil fuel technologies that will allow near-zero emissions

by power plants. These technologies will combine high-efficiency fuel conversion with car-

bon dioxide capture and underground storage (CCS). In particular, new fossil fuel power

plants to be commissioned in the period until 2020 should adopt best available technolo-

gies (BAT) for energy efficiency ánd should be designed as capture-ready, allowing for the

adding of capture installations at a later stage, once such installations become commer-

cially available.

The objective of this study is to give an overview of new power plants in the European Un-

ion (EU) and to see if these plants conform to BAT energy-efficiency levels and can be

considered as capture ready. The study focuses on recently built (in period 1997-2007)

and planned (in the next 10 years) coal-fired and gas-fired power plants3. For this purpose

data is gathered on a plant level.

First, chapter 2 gives an overview of fossil-fired power generation in the EU, with a com-

parison of energy-efficiency on a country level. Chapter 3 explains the methodology used

for the analysis on plant level. Chapter 4 gives the results of the plant analysis and Chapter

5 draws conclusions.

3 Recently built and planned power plants together are in this study also referred to as “new

plants”.


2 Overview eff iciency fossi l power EU

In this chapter we give an overview of the amount and efficiency of fossil-fired power gen-

eration in the EU, on a country level.

2.1 Fuel mix for power generat ion

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the fuel mix for total electricity production in 2005 based on

electricity output. The first figure gives absolute values and the second fuel mix shares.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Germ

any

France

Uni

ted K

ingdom Ita

ly

Spain

Sw

eden

Poland

Net

herla

nds

Belg

ium

Cze

ch R

epublic

Finla

nd

Austria

Gre

ece

Rom

ania

Portu

gal

Bulg

aria

Den

mark

Hun

gary

Slo

vak

Repu

blic

Irela

nd

Slove

nia

Lithuani

a

Estonia

Latvia

Cyp

rus

Luxem

bourg

Malta

Po

we

r g

en

era

tio

n (

TW

h)

Other renewables

Hydro

Nuclear

Natural gas

Oil

Coal

Figure 1 Total power generat ion by source in 2005

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Germ

any

France

Uni

ted K

ingdom Ita

ly

Spain

Sw

eden

Poland

Net

herla

nds

Belgiu

m

Cze

ch R

epublic

Finla

nd

Austria

Gre

ece

Rom

ania

Portuga

l

Bulgaria

Den

mark

Hun

gary

Slova

k R

epublic

Irela

nd

Slove

nia

Lithuani

a

Estonia

Latvia

Cyp

rus

Luxem

bourg

Malta

Other renewables

Hydro

Nuclear

Natural gas

Oil

Coal

Figure 2 Relat ive total power generat ion by source in 2005

Power generation in the EU is largest in Germany and France with more than 500 TWh. As

a comparison power generation in the United States is 4,300 TWh in 2005 and in China

2,500 TWh.

The share of fossil fuels in the overall fuel mix for electricity generation is 55% for EU-27

(30% coal, 20% gas and 4% oil).

2.2 Energy-e f f i c iency foss i l - f i red power generat ion

In this chapter we calculate the efficiency for power generation by fossil fuel type. The data

is based on IEA (2007). We used data for main power producers (excluding autoproduc-

ers). The energy inputs for power plants are based on net calorific value (NCV) 4

. The out-

put of the electricity plants in IEA statistics is measured as gross production of electricity

and heat. This is defined by IEA as the “electricity production including the auxiliary elec-

tricity consumption and losses in transformers at the power station”.

The calculation for energy-efficiency in this study is based on Phylipsen et al (2003). The

formula is given below:

I

sHPE

×+=

Where:

• E = Energy-efficiency of power generation

• P = Power production from power plant

• H = Heat output from power plant (if any)

• s = Correction factor between heat and electricity, defined as the reduction in

electricity production per unit of heat extracted

• I = Fuel input for power plant, based on net calorific value (NCV)

Some power plants produce next to electricity also heat (so-called combined heat and

power (CHP) plant. Heat extraction reduces the energy efficiency of electricity generation

but the energy efficiency for combined heat and electricity production is higher than when

the two are generated separately. Therefore, a correction for heat extraction for CHP

plants has to be applied. This correction reflects the amount of electricity production lost

per unit of heat extracted from the electricity plant(s). For district heating systems, the cor-

rection factor varies typically between 0.15 and 0.2. In our analysis we use a value of

0.175. It must be noted that when heat is delivered at higher temperatures (e.g. to indus-

4 The net calorific value (NCV) or lower heating value (LHV) refers to the quantity of heat liberated

by the complete combustion of a unit of fuel when the water produced is assumed to remain as a

vapour and the heat is not recovered. Conversion factors used in this study for converting from

gross calorific value (GCV) to net calorific value (NCV) are 0.9 for natural gas, 0.93 for oil and

0.96-0.97 for hard coal and 0.86 for lignite (IEA, 2007b).


trial processes), the substitution factor will be higher. However, at the moment, the amount

of high-temperature heat delivered to industry by utilities is small in most countries. Phylip-

sen et al (2003) estimates that the effect of a higher temperature on the average efficiency

is not more than an increase of 0.5 percent point.

The figures below give power generation efficiency for coal, oil, natural gas and overall

fossil-fired power generation, respectively. Besides EU-27 also Japan, United States,

China and South Korea are included for comparison reasons. To take into account uncer-

tainty in energy-efficiency values for individual years, we take the average energy effi-

ciency for the last three years available.

Coal-fired power generation efficiency

25%

27%

29%

31%

33%

35%

37%

39%

41%

43%

45%

Denm

ark

Japa

n

Aus

tria

Por

tuga

l

Bel

gium

Neth

erla

nds

Franc

e

Irela

nd

Ger

man

y

Finla

nd

United K

ingd

omSpa

in

Kor

eaIta

ly

EU-2

7

Pol

and

Unite

d Sta

tes

Swed

en

Gre

ece

Rom

ania

Slo

veni

a

Est

onia

Chin

a

Cze

ch R

epubl

ic

Hung

ary

Bul

garia

Slova

k Rep

ublic

En

erg

y-e

ffic

ien

cy

(%

)

Average 2003, 2004 and 2005

Figure 3 Gross energy-ef f ic iency coal -f i red power generat ion (based on IEA,

2007)5

The energy efficiencies for coal-fired power generation range from 28% for Slovak Repub-

lic to 43% for Denmark.

5 Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta are not included because coal-fired power

generation is zero.

Oil-fired power generation efficiency

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Japan

Italy

Franc

e

EU-2

7

Denm

ark

Neth

erla

nds

Ger

many

Finla

nd

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Por

tuga

l

Aus

tria

Unite

d Sta

tes

Swed

en

Pol

and

Gre

ece

Irela

nd

Kor

ea

Spai

n

Cyp

rus

Chin

a

Bel

gium

Hung

ary

Malta

Rom

ania

Est

onia

Latv

ia

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Bul

garia

Lith

uani

a

Slo

veni

a

Cze

ch R

epublic

En

erg

y-e

ffic

ien

cy

(%

) Average 2003, 2004 and 2005

Figure 4 Gross energy-eff ic iency oi l - f i red power generat ion (based on IEA,

2007)6

For oil-fired power generation the efficiencies range from 23% for Czech Republic to 46%

for Japan.

Gas-fired power generation efficiency

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

Spa

in

Luxe

mbo

urg

Por

tuga

lIta

ly

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Kore

a

Bel

gium

Finla

nd

Irela

nd

EU-2

7

Franc

e

Neth

erla

nds

Gre

ece

Aus

tria

Denm

ark

Ger

man

y

Japa

n

Unite

d Sta

tes

Chin

a

Slo

veni

a

Hung

ary

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Est

onia

Latv

ia

Swed

en

Cze

ch R

epubl

ic

Pol

and

Lith

uani

a

Rom

ania

Bul

garia

En

erg

y-e

ffic

ien

cy

(%

)

Average 2003, 2004 and 2005

Figure 5 Gross energy-ef f i c iency gas- f i red power generat ion (based on IEA,

2007)7

6 Luxembourg is not included because oil-fired power generation is zero. 7 Cyprus and Malta are not included because gas-fired power generation is zero.


For gas-fired power generation the efficiencies range from 30% for Bulgaria to 55% for

Spain.

Average fossil-fired power generation efficiency

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

Luxe

mbo

urg

Italy

Bel

gium

The N

ether

lands

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Japa

n

Denm

ark

Aus

tria

Por

tuga

l

Irela

nd

Franc

e

Finla

nd

EU-2

7

Spain

Korea

Ger

man

y

Unite

d Sta

tes

Gre

ece

Pol

and

Swed

en

Hung

ary

Slo

veni

a

Cyp

rus

Est

onia

Latv

ia

Romani

a

China

Cze

ch R

epubl

ic

Mal

ta

Lith

uani

a

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Bul

garia

En

erg

y-e

ffic

ien

cy

(%

)

Average 2003, 2004 and 2005

Figure 6 Gross energy-ef f ic iency fossi l - f i red power generat ion (based on IEA,

2007)

For overall fossil-fired power generation, the efficiencies range from 30% for Bulgaria to

55% for Luxembourg.

Figure 7 shows the development of the energy-efficiency for EU-27 per fuel source.

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Coal

Oil

Gas

Average fossil

Figure 7 Average energy-eff i c iency EU27 per fue l source (based on IEA, 2007)

The energy-efficiency of gas-fired power generation shows a sharp increasing trend from

33% in 1990 to 50% in 2005. For coal-fired power generation the efficiency increased from

35% in 1990 to 38% in 2005 and for oil-fired power generation from 36% to 40%.

Figure 8 shows the increase in power generation per fuel source.

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Po

we

r g

en

era

tio

n (

GW

h)

Coal

Oil

Gas

Figure 8 Power generat ion in EU27 per fuel source (IEA, 2007)


Coal-fired power generation has remained equal at around 900 TWh. Gas-fired power gen-

eration increased from 140 TWh in 1990 to 550 TWh in 2005. Oil-fired power generation

decreased from 190 TWh to 100 TWh in the same period.

Figure 9 shows the energy-efficiency for gas-fired power generation in combination with

the average age of the gas-fired power plant fleet, based on IEA (2007) and Platts (2008).

The average age is weighted by capacity. It would be better to weigh the average age by

actual load hours of the capacity, but this information is not available.

Gas-fired power generation

y = -0.01x + 0.59

R2 = 0.81

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 9 Average energy-ef f i c iency in 2005 and average age of operat ional ca-

pac i ty by the end o f 2005 (weighted by capaci ty)

There seems to be a clear trend between the average age of the power plants (weighted

by capacity) and average country energy-efficiency. There are two exceptions where the

capacity is relatively new and the efficiency is low (these excluded from the figure). This is

discussed in more detail after the next table. Table 3 gives the underlying data per country.

Table 3 Energy-ef f ic iency in 2005 and average age of operat ional capaci ty by

the end of 2005 (weighted by capac i ty) (Poland and Slovenia are ex-

cluded from the f igure)

Gas-fired plants Average

age Energy-

efficiency

Poland 3 34%

Spain 4 58%

Portugal 4 55%

Slovenia 4 42%

Luxembourg 5 55%

United Kingdom 10 52%

Belgium 10 51%

France 10 48%

Denmark 10 45%

Italy 11 55%

Finland 12 49%

Greece 13 43%

Netherlands 16 46%

Austria 17 46%

Hungary 17 40%

Ireland 17 49%

Czech Republic 18 35%

Latvia 20 34%

Germany 21 46%

Sweden 22 34%

Slovakia 24 37%

Estonia 25 36%

Bulgaria 29 32%

Lithuania 29 33%

Romania 33 32%

Most countries with a relatively new power plant fleet have also high energy-efficiency for

gas-fired power generation. A few exceptions are:

� In Slovenia gas-fired power generation consists of one gas-fired power plant that is

build in 2001. The energy-efficiency in 2005 is only 42%. This is because the

power plant has only one gas turbine and is not a combined cycle. The power

plant has two units with a capacity of only 230 MW and is owned by company

Termoelectric Brestanica.

� In Poland, all gas-fired power plants are built after 1998 but the average energy-

efficiency is only 34% in 2005. The reason is that these are all small-scale CHP

plants with a single-cycle and a capacity range of 2 - 150 MW per plant. For small

scale plants it is generally not worthwhile to build a combined-cycle plant, so the

energy-efficiency of these small-scale plants cannot be compared to large scale

NGCC units.


The gas-fired power plant fleet in Spain is quite new and the energy-efficiency is corre-

spondingly high with 58% in 2005. Please note that the average energy-efficiency for 2003,

2004 and 2005 is 55%, so the value for 2005 may be exceptionally high or erroneous.

In Denmark the average age of the gas-fired power plant fleet is 10 years and the average

energy efficiency is 45%. Most gas-fired power plants in Denmark are small-scale CHP

plants below 100 MW.

Although the average age of gas-fired power plants in Germany is relatively high 21 years,

the energy-efficiency is quite high with 46%. 30% of the gas-fired power plants in Germany

are combined-cycles.

Figure 10 shows the energy-efficiency for coal-fired power generation in combination with

the average age of the coal-fired power plant fleet, based on IEA (2007) and Platts (2008).

Coal-fired power generation

y = -0.004x + 0.481

R2 = 0.275

25%

27%

29%

31%

33%

35%

37%

39%

41%

43%

45%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 10 Average energy-ef f ic iency in 2005 and average age of operat iona l ca-

pac i ty by the end o f 2005 (weighted by capaci ty)

The average age of coal-fired power plants is much higher than for gas-fired power plants.

There seems to be some relationship between age and energy-efficiency. But since the

age of the fleets is quite high, many other factors play a role in energy-efficiency like ap-

plied modernisations. Table 4 gives the underlying data per country.

Table 4 Energy-ef f ic iency in 2005 and average age of operat ional capaci ty by

the end of 2005 (weighted by capaci ty)

Coal-fired plants Average

age Energy-

efficiency

Portugal 16 39%

Ireland 19 40%

Netherlands 21 43%

Austria 21 41%

Denmark 23 43%

Greece 23 35%

Germany 25 40%

Spain 25 39%

Finland 26 38%

Romania 27 35%

Poland 29 37%

Bulgaria 30 29%

France 30 39%

Sweden 31 31%

Czech Republic 31 31%

Italy 31 37%




Slovenia 34 36%

Belgium 34 38%

Slovakia 36 26%

Hungary 37 32%


3 Methodology plant analysis

This chapter gives the methodology that is used for the analysis on plant level. The aim is

to give an overview of energy-efficiency and capture-readiness of recently built and

planned power plants in the EU. For this purpose we assess the level of energy-efficiency

that can be achieved by applying best available techniques (BAT) (Section 3.1). Further-

more we look at requirements that power plants should meet to claim capture-readiness of

the plant (Section 3.2). As a second step we give an overview of recently built and planned

power plants in the EU (Section 3.3). Section 3.4, lastly explains the means of data gather-

ing.

3.1 Energy-e f f i c iency

This section gives an overview of the energy-efficiency that would be expected by applying

best available techniques (BAT) per type of fossil-fired power plant. This includes an as-

sessment of the effects of different external factors on energy-efficiency such as climate

conditions and load hours.

The definition for energy-efficiency for the plant analysis is based on Phylipsen et al

(2003). The formula for calculating energy efficiency of power generation is given below:

I

sHPE

×+=

Where:

• E = Net energy-efficiency of power generation

• P = Net power production from power plant

• H = Heat output from power plant (if any)

• s = Correction factor between heat and electricity, defined as the reduction in

electricity production per unit of heat extracted

• I = Fuel input for power plant, based on net calorific value (NCV)8

8 The net calorific value (NCV) or lower heating value refers to the quantity of heat liberated by the

complete combustion of a unit of fuel when the water produced is assumed to remain as a vapour

and the heat is not recovered. Conversion factors used in this study for converting from gross calo-

Heat extraction

Some power plants produce next to electricity also heat (so-called combined heat and

power (CHP) plant. Heat extraction reduces the energy efficiency of electricity generation

but the energy efficiency for combined heat and electricity production is higher than when

the two are generated separately. Therefore, a correction for heat extraction for CHP

plants has to be applied. This correction reflects the amount of electricity production lost

per unit of heat extracted from the electricity plant(s). For district heating systems, the cor-

rection factor varies typically between 0.15 and 0.2. In our analysis we use a value of

0.175. It must be noted that when heat is delivered at higher temperatures (e.g. to indus-

trial processes), the substitution factor will be higher. However, at the moment, the amount

of high-temperature heat delivered to industry by utilities is small in most countries. Phylip-

sen et al (2003) estimates that the effect of a higher temperature on the average efficiency

is not more than an increase of 0.5 percent point.

Net and gross efficiency

Unless otherwise specified, the energy-efficiencies for the plant analysis are based on net

electricity generation. The net energy-efficiency is based on the primary fuel input and the

power send out of the plant. In contrast, gross power generation is measured as direct

generator output. The difference is the auxiliary power which is consumed inside the power

plant by equipment such as crushers, fans, pumps and environmental control equipment.

Design and operational efficiency

Two types of energy-efficiency are used in this study; design energy-efficiency and opera-

tional energy-efficiency.

Design energy-efficiency (also called name-plate efficiency) is a static energy-efficiency

and basically gives the energy-efficiency if a plant operates at best performance. Design

energy-efficiency is influenced by a number of factors like the nature and quality of the fuel,

turbine type, operating temperature, steam send out, climate conditions, type of cooling

systems etc.

The operational energy-efficiency is defined as the year-round average efficiency of a

plant. An important factor influencing operational efficiency is the amount of load hours. In

this section, we will discuss the most important parameters that influence the design and

operational energy-efficiency of a power plant.

rific value (GCV) to net calorific value (NCV) are 0.9 for natural gas, 0.93 for oil and 0.96-0.97 for

hard coal and 0.86 for lignite (IEA, 2007b).


3 .1 .1 Coa l - f i r ed power genera t i on

There are currently two types of technologies used for coal-fired power generation, pulver-

ised coal (steam cycle) and coal gasification combined-cycle (IGCC). We will discuss the

state of the art for both types separately.

Pulverised coal

Pulverised coal combustion was first developed in the 1920s. In this form of combustion,

coal is first ground into fine particles. In the early days, the unit size of pulverised combus-

tors was small (typically 30 MWe). The pressure and temperature of the steam produced

were also moderate, resulting in relatively low power generation efficiencies (typically

20%). Over time, with technological developments and experience, both the unit size, and

steam pressure and temperature, have gradually increased over the years (Hendriks at al,

2004).

The main losses in coal-fired power plants occur in the steam boiler and in the turbine sec-

tion. Combustion is generally 99-99.5% complete so that normally very little energy loss

arises through unburnt fuel. This is achieved through fine grinding of the coal, optimum

burner design and careful control of the coal and air supplies (IEA, 2007b).

Large state-of-the-art pulverised coal boilers have efficiencies of around 93%. Losses oc-

cur mainly as heat remaining in the flue gases. Where very moist coals such as lignite are

burnt, a major decrease in boiler efficiency will occur because of high temperature heat

used to dry the coal. Methods for pre-drying such coals using low-grade heat with latent

heat recovery are in development and, when implemented these may raise efficiency by up

to four percentage points. [IEA, 2007b]

The theoretical thermal efficiency of a steam turbine is a function of both temperature and

pressure, with the dependence on temperature being much stronger. Over the temperature

range of 500 to 800°C, efficiencies vary almost linearly with steam temperature. Thus,

there is an incentive to boost steam temperature in order to achieve higher thermal effi-

ciency (Ruth, 2003). The temperature of steam increased by 60 °C over the last 30 years.

It is expected that steam temperatures will rise another 50-100 °C in the next 30 years

(Viswanathan, 2000).

Coal-fired power plants can be categorized by steam pressure. Three categories are dis-

tinguished: sub-critical plants, supercritical plants and ultra supercritical plants.

Before 1970 sub-critical plants were used with a steam pressure below 200 bars and tem-

perature of 540°C. These plants can achieve generation efficiencies of up to around 39%

(Hendriks at al, 2004).

In the 1970s, pulverised coal-fired supercritical steam cycle plants, were developed and

introduced. These plants use a steam pressure of around 250 bars and temperature of

around 560°C. Such plant can achieve generation efficiencies of up to around 42%

(Hendriks at al, 2004).

Of late, several ultra supercritical units, have been ordered or are under construction.

These units are designed to operate at steam pressures up to about 290 bars and tem-

peratures up to over 600°C to achieve a generation efficiency of up to 47% (Hendriks at al,

2004).

Table 5 gives an overview of the characteristics of the three groups.

Table 5 Overv iew pulver ized coa l technologies (Hendr iks et al , 2004)

Type of coal plant Temperature (°C) Pressure (Bar) Maximum

efficiency

Sub-critical 538 167 39%

Supercritical 540 – 566 250 42%

Ultra-supercritical 580 - 620 270 - 290 47%

One of the first ultra supercritical plants was unit 3 at Nordjyllandsværket in Denmark,

which is a double reheat unit with steam parameters 290 bar, operating at 580°C and a net

efficiency of 47%. The unit went into operation in 1998. This led to the start of the large

European research project: The Advanced (700°C) PF Power Plant. The aim of the project

is to raise steam temperatures to 700°C resulting in efficiencies in the range of 52 to 55%

efficiency. Commercial availability is not expected before the period 2010 to 2015 (Tech--

wise A/S, 2003a).

Figure 11 shows the trend for energy-efficiency improvement for coal-fired power plants.

Figure 11 Past and projected future deve lopment in eff i c iency of E l sam’s coal-

f i red power plants (Tech-wise A/S, 2003b)


Coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC)

Coal IGCC stands for coal integrated gasification combined cycle, which is a power-

generating technology based on the gasification of coal under partial oxidation. The coal is

partially oxidized with almost pure oxygen or air in a gasification based system. Resulting

from the gasification process is syngas, which consists primarily of carbon monoxide (CO)

and hydrogen (H2). After cleaning the syngas of (predominantly sulphur) impurities, “the

carbon monoxide (CO) of the syngas can be converted into carbon dioxide (CO2) by a wa-

ter gas shift reaction performed through the injection of steam, leaving large quantities of

H2. The CO2 is then removed from the syngas through a conventional scrubbing process,

leaving almost an almost pure H2 as fuel, which is burned as fuel in a gas turbine cycle

(Eurelectric, 2007). The gas turbine drives a generator, which generates electricity. Subse-

quently, the exhaust gases from the gas turbine is transferred back to the gasifier or the air

separation unit, while exhaust heat from the gas turbine is recovered and used to boil wa-

ter, creating steam for a steam turbine-generator which is the second cycle of the com-

bined cycle technology.

On the one hand, efficiency losses occur when gasifying the coal but on the other hand,

efficiency gains occur through the subsequent use of the combined gas- and steam-turbine

cycle (of which the gas turbine requires a gaseous fuel). Also, when carbon capture and

storage is applied to IGCC, there will be (potentially) less efficiency loss than in a pulver-

ised coal-fired power plant since the CO2 does not need to be removed from the diluted

exhaust gas (also known as flue-gas) but can (more) easily be isolated during the separa-

tion of H2 and CO2. Examples of IGCC plants that have been built are:

� Since 1994, a 253 MWe oxygen-blown IGCC (Shell/Siemens technology) operates

in Buggenum, the Netherlands. Some design changes were made in 1997 to solve

a few operational problems. After that the net operational efficiency obtained at

this plant is 43%. The plant currently produces power for the commercial market

and operates without major difficulties (Hendriks at al, 2004).

� Since 1996, a 252 MWe oxygen-blown IGCC operates at Wabash River, Indiana.

The demonstration period was closed in 1999. The net operational efficiency ob-

tained is 40.2% (Wabash, 2000).

� Since 1996 a 250 MWe oxygen-blown IGCC (Texaco/GE technology) operates in

Mulberry, Polk country, Florida, including full heat recovery, and conventional cold

gas cleanup. The net operational efficiency obtained is 41% (BINE, 2006).

� Since 1997 a 335 MWe oxygen-blown IGCC (PERNFLO/Siemens V94.3 technol-

ogy) operates at Puertollano in Spain. The net operational efficiency obtained is

45% (WEC, 1998).

� Since 1996, a 351 MWe lignite-fired oxygen-blown IGCC Plant (Sasol-Lurgi Tech-

nology) operates in Vresova, Czech Republic. The plant reached a net operational

efficiency of 44%. In 2005 the plant was enhanced with a capacity of 430 MWe

with GSP technology and a net efficiency of 41% (BINE, 2006). The GSP technol-

ogy (developed by Siemens) is flexible for different types of coal: lignite, hard coal

and refinery residues.

Recently built and planned coal fired power units in the EU

Based on information from Platts (2008), we see most of the operational plants in the EU

are pulverised coal plants. Only very small capacity is based on the innovative IGCC tech-

nology (1 GW in operation, 2 GW planned), see figure below.

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Operational

before or in

1997

Operational >

1997

Under

construction

Planned

Ca

pa

cit

y (

MW

)

Pulverised coal

IGCC

Figure 12 Recent and pl anned coal power plants in the EU (Plat ts, 2008)

Most units currently under construction fall under the category ultra supercritical units with

a steam temperature above 580 °C (Platts, 2008).


3 .1 .2 Gas - f i r ed power genera t i on

For gas-fired power generation a number of different technologies can be used. These are:

• Internal combustion engine

• Steam turbine

• Gas turbine

• Combined-cycle (gas and steam turbine)

Figure 13 shows the technologies used for recently built and new gas-fired power plants in

the EU plants.

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Operational >

1997

Under

construction

Planned

Ca

pa

cit

y (

MW

)

Steam turbine

Internal combustion engine

Gas turbine

Combined-cycle

Figure 13 Power un i t type for gas- f i red un its (Platts, 2008)

The combined cycle technology is dominating both in the capacity recently entered into

operation and in the planned plants. In the operational plants also quite some gas turbines

are included. Nearly all of plants are smaller than 50 MW and more than 50% of these are

CHP plants. Combustion engines are only used for very small scale applications below 10

MW (Platts, 2008). For large-scale power and CHP plants the combined-cycle technology

is in most cases used.

In the gas turbine of a combined cycle plant, the input temperature to the turbine (the firing

temperature), is relatively high (900 to 1,430 °C). The output temperature of the flue gas is

consequently also high (450 to 650 °C). This is high enough to provide heat for a second

cycle which uses steam as the working fluid (a Rankine cycle).

Since the 1980s the efficiency for the gas turbine in combination with a steam cycle has

gradually improved. Were efficiencies in 1980s were still well below 50%, currently the

most modern combined cycles can have efficiencies of about 59-60% (Hendriks at al,

2004).

3 .1 .3 Energy -e f f i c i ency by app l y i ng BAT

In this section we summarize the energy-efficiency that can be reached in a power plant by

applying best available techniques today. Also we look at different local circumstances that

influence energy-efficiency.

Table 6 gives current energy-efficiency by applying BAT per type of fuel and the table

gives an example of the current best practice plant (based on available information for this

study). The BAT efficiencies are applicable for large-scale power plants (typical unit size of

400 MW for natural gas and 800 MW for coal) and a cooling water inlet temperature of 20

ºC.

Table 6 BAT energy e f f ic iency in 2008 (based on European Commission (2006)9,

Hendr iks et al . (2004), Power Technology (2008))

Technology Fuel Net

energy-

efficiency

Best practice plant10

Coal 46% Nordjyllandsvaerket, Denmark, Vattenfal

Operational in 1998, 580 ºC

Efficiency 47%11

Pulverised coal steam cycle

(ultra-supercritical)

Lignite 43% Niederaussem, Germany, RWE

Operational in 2002, 580 ºC

Efficiency 43%

Coal gasification combined

cycle (IGCC)

Coal 46% Puertollano in Spain, 335 MW

Operational in 1997

Efficiency 45%12

Natural gas combined cycle

(NGCC)

Natural

gas

59-60% Baglan Energy, UK, 525 MW

Operational in 2003, 1430 ºC (GE H system)

Efficiency 60%13

9 “Reference document on BAT for Large Combustion plants” (European Commission, 2006) 10 Based on available information for this study. 11 The high energy-efficiency of 47% is partly due to low temperature sea-water cooling. IEA

(2007b) estimated the efficiency by 20 ºC cooling water temperature to be 45%. 12 For a new IGCC plant it is expected that 46% of net efficiency can be reached based on

improved technological design. 13 It seems the 60% efficiency is difficult to reach due to environmental permits that dictated the

design of the cooling water system, as well as natural operating degradation through use (Sanford,

2007).


Local circumstances

Local circumstances influence the efficiency that can be achieved in a power plant. The

main factors that influence the efficiency of a power plant are:

� Cooling method (cooling towers, sea-water cooling)

� Climate conditions (cool versus warm climate)

� Size of power plant

� Altitude

� Flue gas cleaning

� Biomass cofiring

� Quality of maintenance

� Fuel quality

� Load hours

We discuss these factors in more detail below.

Cooling method

Plants with surface or sea water-cooling systems have a higher plant efficiency than com-

parable plants using cooling towers. The cooling methods that can be applied depend on

local circumstances, like the availability of sufficient surface water and existing regulations.

The effect of cooling method on efficiency may be up to 1-2 percent points (Phylipsen et al,

1998).

Climate conditions

Weather conditions influence the operation of steam cycles and gas turbines. Plants in

warmer climates have therefore a structural lower efficiency than comparable plants in

cooler climates.

The ambient temperature influences the temperature of the cooling medium. Figure 14

shows the efficiency loss as function of the cooling water temperature for different type of

turbines. The effect of higher cooling water can be up to 2-2.5% (1-1.5 percent point).

Figure 14 Eff ic iency loss due to h igher (once through) cool ing water tempera-

tures (KEMA, 2004)

There is also a secondary effect of a high ambient temperature. When the ambient-air tem-

perature increases, its specific mass is reduced. In order to ensure the same air volumetric

flow, the mass flow is reduced, causing the power of a gas turbine to fall. The impact of

this on energy-efficiency is estimated to be up to 1.5-2 percent point for a difference in am-

bient temperature of 35 ºC (Arrieta and Lora, 2004).

Size of the power plant

Large-scale power plants can reach a higher efficiency level than small-scale power plants.

Since this study focuses on plants with units above 300 MW, the effect is small. Siemens

(2008) and Alstom (2008) estimate that the effect is smaller than 0.5 percent points (for a

400 MW unit in comparison to an 800 MW coal-fired unit).

Flue gas cleaning

Pollution abatement technologies can affect the efficiency of power generation, as it leads

to increased internal consumption of power and - for specific technologies - steam. The ef-

fect on net energy efficiency of pollution control technologies is around 1 percent point for

coal-fired power plants (including wet scrubber for SO2, catalytic reduction (SCR) and

combustion modification for NOx) and 0.5 percent point for gas-fired power plants (SCR

and combustion modification for NOx) (Graus and Worrell, 2006). The use of flue gas

cleaning in the EU is now standard for all recently built and planned power plants.

Altitude

Altitude can be a factor in performance by lower oxygen content in air at higher altitudes.

The amount of the effect is considered to be relatively small (Arrieta and Lora, 2004).


Biomass cofiring

Biomass is increasingly cofired in conventional power plants fired with both hard coal and

lignite. Biomass cofiring leads to a reduction of (net) greenhouse gas emissions and can

also reduce SO2 emissions due to the normally lower content of sulphur in biomass com-

pared to coal. The efficiency of the coal fired power plant decreases with cofiring by up to

0.5 percent point. Still the efficiency of the biomass combustion is usually higher than if it

would be used in dedicated biomass power plants. This is due to economies of scale,

which allow for more efficient combustion techniques.

Maintenance14

Generally the effect of maintenance on operational energy efficiency of a plant is small and

below 0.5 percent point. However in individual cases, where there is a serious deficiency in

maintenance, the effect can be up to 1-5 percent points.

Fuel quality

For coal-fired power plants, fuel quality can have an impact on generation efficiency. The

effect of using coals with a lower ash content can be up to 1 percent point through reduced

grinding and fuel and solids handling energy needs (IEA, 2007).

For gas-fired power generation, the type of gas can have a large impact on energy-

efficiency. The maximum efficiency that can be reached in a combined-cycle designed to

be able to use different types of gas (e.g. industrial process gas) is significantly lower than

a 100% natural gas combined-cycle. However the use of process gas is relatively small

compared to the use of natural gas.

Load hours

Operational energy-efficiencies will be a few percent lower than design efficiencies due to

start-up and shutdown of the plant. This especially impacts the energy-efficiency of peak-

load plants. To estimate these efficiency losses the concept of operational efficiency is

used. Operational efficiency describes the efficiency of the conversion of energy input to

energy output over the period of one year.

14 Based on telephone interviews with several power plant suppliers.

Table 7 Compar i son of net eff ic iency and operat i onal ef f ic iency for coal and gas

combined cycle-power p lant un i ts (based on VGB Powertech, 2004)15

Technology Electrical Power

Full-load hours

Net design ef-ficiency

Operational efficiency

Coefficient

2,500 46% 40.6% 0.88

4,000 46% 42.3% 0.92

6,000 46% 44.3% 0.96

Pulverised Coal

> 600 MW

7,500 46% 45.0% 0.98

2,500 46% 40.5% 0.88

4,000 46% 41.9% 0.91

6,000 46% 43.2% 0.94

IGCC

> 300 MW

7,500 46% 44.2% 0.96

2,500 59.5% 52.4% 0.88

4,000 59.5% 54.1% 0.91

6,000 59.5% 55.9% 0.94

Gas (CC) > 300 MW

7,500 59.5% 57.1% 0.96

This table indicates that year round operational efficiency is typically 1-2 percent point

lower than design energy-efficiency if the plant operates at 85% capacity (7,500 full load

hours). When the plant operates at 30% capacity the operational efficiency can be 5 to 7

percent points lower than the design efficiency.

In conclusion, the most important factors influencing design energy-efficiency are the type

of cooling method used and the temperature of the cooling water (also influences opera-

tional efficiency). This can influence energy-efficiency by up to 2-3 percent points. Flue gas

cleaning is now standard and implemented at virtually all recently built and planned power

plants. The effect of load hours on operational efficiency can be 5-7 percent points.

15 Year round changes in ambient temperature (and cooling water) are taken into account in the

figures.


3.2 Capture-read iness

Capture-ready means that a plant can be equipped with CO2 capture technology while it is

under construction or after it has been built. If a plant is not capture-ready this means it is

either more expensive to add CO2 capture technology or impossible due to insufficient

space at the site or no suitable reservoir to store the CO2 in. This means that is important

for new fossil plants to be capture-ready in order to have the possibility to add CO2 capture

and storage at a later stage.

In order to determine the degree to which planned power plants can be considered to be

‘capture-ready’ we first need to define the concept capture ready further. The main litera-

ture source that is used in this study is “CO2 capture ready plants” IEA GHG (2007).

Capture ready is a term frequently used in the planning process for new power plants.

Generally it refers to the fact that carbon capture and storage (CCS) could be applied to

the plant either when the power plant is still under construction or as a retrofit option. How-

ever, the definition of capture readiness is still not widely agreed upon.

In this section we will first explore the different technologies for CCS. Then we will define

capture readiness.

3 .2 .1 Overv i ew o f CO 2 c ap ture app roaches

There are numerous ways to capture carbon dioxide from power plants. These CO2 cap-

ture processes can conveniently be divided into three main categories:

1. Post-combustion processes. Carbon dioxide is recovered from a flue gas.

2. Pre-combustion decarbonisation processes. The fossil fuel is converted to a hydrogen-

rich stream and a carbon-rich stream.

3. Oxyfuel processes. A concentrated CO2 stream can be produced by the exclusion of

N2 before or during the combustion/conversion process.

The different processes are compared in a schematic overview in Figure 15 and will be de-

scribed in further detail below.

Figure 15 Schemat ic overview of CCS technologies (Jordal and Anheden 2005)

Depending on the type of power plant, one or more types of capturing can be applied.

The post-combustion process is in principle applicable to all types of power plant as it

can be regarded as an add-on process, treating the flue gases of the power plant. The cur-

rent technology of choice for post-combustion CO2 capture is an absorption processes

based on chemical solvents16

. The process utilises the reversible nature of the chemical

reaction of an acid or sour gas with an alkaline solvent (IPCC, 2005). The flue gas in the

case of amine based systems needs to be pre-treated to reduce NO2 and SO2 concentra-

tions to very low levels to prevent an irreversible reaction with the solvents. The CO2-rich

gas reacts with the amine (input products of reaction) and is later regenerated at higher

temperatures to create a highly pure CO2 stream.

A disadvantage of the absorption process is the high energy consumption of the process

which decreases energy-efficiency of the plant by typically 6 to 10 percent points.

The following gives a view of the required technological changes and design implications

for fossil power plants with post combustion CO2 capture (IEA GHG, 2007):

• Post combustion CO2 capture, basically an end of pipe approach, does not require

changes to the boiler design and combustion process. To reduce energy use for

the desorption process; the required heat needs to be extracted from the turbines,

so some modifications need to be made to this section. Furthermore sufficient

space should be available at the plant site for the absorber and desorber section of

the capture unit.

16 Other technologies are currently under research like cryogenic destillation, where flue gases are

cooled to –130 and the CO2 becomes solid.


• The fuel type and environmental regulations in place determine whether SOx levels

are low enough to meet the stringent requirements of the amine scrubber. The re-

quirements for the amine scrubber are much lower (10 to 30 mg/Nm3 with 6% oxy-

gen content dry volume) than current limits imposed by EU regulation (200

mg/Nm3 with 6% oxygen content) in the EU’s Large Combustion Plant Directive).

This implies that depending on the plant and post-combustion technology extra or

improved cleaning of the flue gases is required.

• An NO2 concentration in the flue gas of up to 40 mg/ Nm3 (with 6% O2 v/v dry) is

considered as acceptable for further processing in the amine CO2 capture plant. If

NO2 concentrations exceed the aforementioned level, further combustion control or

post combustion DeNOx equipment (SCR or SNCR) is needed to bring the NO2

level to an acceptable level.

• So far amine CO2 plants have been operating successfully at flue gas particulate

levels of up to 5 mg/Nm3 (with 6% O2 v/v dry). If this level is exceeded by current

technology at the site, space should be made available for additional particulate

removal units.

• Additional space has to be provided for additional air compression equipment, ex-

pansion of the waste water treatment plant, equipment associated with the addi-

tional auxiliary electrical load.

The pre-combustion decarbonisation process is significantly more integrated in the to-

tal plant concept and is realistically seen only applicable to combined cycle plants. In prin-

ciple it can be applied to all kind of fuels, but for gaseous fuels it seems less favourable. In

this process the fuels are converted into a gas consisting of mainly CO2 and H2. The CO2

is than separated from the H2 typically using physical solvent systems.


for pre-combustion decarbonisation process (IEA GHG, 2007):

• Additional space has to be provided for a two-stage shift reactor, a supplementary

acid gas removal column (or modification of existing column), heat exchangers as-

sociated with the aforementioned units, a CO2 drying and compression plant, a

modified gas turbine burner systems, a high capacity gas feed pipes to the gas tur-

bine combustor and the inclusion of a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit (if

required) within the HRSG.

The oxyfuel process is applicable to all types of power plants. This technology replaces

the combustion air with a mixture of near pure oxygen, generated through an air separation

unit (ASU), and a CO2 rich flue gas recycle stream. The resulting flue gas consists pre-

dominantly of CO2, H2O and contaminants such as NOx and SO2. It should be noted that

for this process in combined cycles a gas turbine needs to adapted or developed which

can operate with a CO2 rich flue gas as the working medium.


for oxyfuel process (IEA GHG, 2007):

• The incorporation of an oxyfuel process requires approximately two thirds of flue

gas recycle stream to maintain steam conditions and similar boiler performance

compared to the pre-capture scenario.

• The key-feature of an oxyfuel plant in comparison to a conventional plant are: an

air seperation unit (ASU), a CO2 compression and inerts removal plant and heat

exchangers for low grade heat recovery. Additional space will be required for at

least the above mentioned equipment.

First application of CCS

Which of the capture processes will ultimately be the preferred ones is difficult to say at

this moment of development. It is very well possible that more capture technologies will co-

exist depending on local plant conditions, preferred fuel and type of plant. The following

information is based on presentations from Alstom, Siemens, IPG, Enel and Edf at the

PowerGen conference in Milan 2008.

Post combustion is believed to have the principal role in the following years and the earli-

est commercial development. This conviction comes from the high experience in the amine

scrubbing processes. The implementation of post-combustion processes seems to be suit-

able both for retrofit and for new installations. Another important aspect is that this tech-

nique is also suitable for other sectors like steel, aluminium and concrete industries. Some

pilot plants are under construction or in planning in Europe and some demonstration plants

will be commissioned before 2015, permitting a possible commercial deployment in the

years after.

Oxy-fuel combustion needs some more time and R&D effort before it can be applied at an

industrial scale. This is due to the needed further technological development of coal com-

bustion in an oxygen, carbon dioxide and steam atmosphere. High fuel flexibility is one of

the main advantages of the oxy-fuel technology and reason for the development of quite a

number of (pilot) plants by some important companies. According to their roadmaps these

small scale demonstrating plants will permit oxy-fuel to be full commercial from 2020. A 30

MWth pilot plant is currently being built by Vattenfall and will start operation in the second

half of 2008. The first large scale demonstration plant (a 320 MWe oxy coal combustion) is

expected to be operational in 2014 in Italy.

Pre-combustion is expected be applied on large scale in a later stage, as it seems now to

find reluctance from some energy producers. They should shift from a conventional system

to a different power generation system. An advantage is that it can be used with circulating

fluidised bed systems, thereby demonstrating a good flexibility. Some other important


benefits of pre-combustion capture are connected with lower pollutant emissions, a well

proven capture process and lower water consumption.

Figure 16 gives a road map for the commercialisation of CCS technology.

Figure 16 CCS deployment t imel ine (A lstom - Mi lan PowerGen 2008)

3 .2 .2 Def in i t i on o f cap tu re r ead iness

While capture readiness has different implications for the different plant technologies there

are certain factors which have to be considered in any case. These factors include (IEA

GHG, 2007):

� A study on the possible options for CCS in terms of technology and feasibility.

� An assessment should be made of the elements of the plant that would need to be

adapted when adding CO2 capture equipment, their place in the plant layout and

their physical size.

� An assessment of the possible pre-investments that can be done in comparison to

the costs of making changes when the power plant is built.

� The availability of sufficient space for the required CCS technology during opera-

tion as well as during construction. At the same time normal operation of the exist-

ing plant has to be assured both during construction and operation of CCS.

� An assessment of a storage site and a credible route to the storage site is needed.

3.3 Plant se lect ion

The identification of recently built or planned fossil power plants in the EU is mainly based

on the World Electric Power Plants (WEPP) database from Platts (2008).

In this study we focus specifically on large-scale coal and gas-fired power generation. Fo-

cusing on those two fuels reflects the overall developments of installed capacity in the

European Union, like presented in Figure 17. New oil-fired power generation in the EU is

limited. As can be seen from the figure, recently built or planned gas-fired power plants

have the largest share in terms of production capacity.

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Coal Natural gas Oil Total fossil

Ca

pa

cit

y (

MW

)

Planned

Under construction

Operational > 1997

Operational (excluding recent)

Figure 17 Total foss i l capac i ty in EU by fue l type and status

In the EU, nearly 345 fossil-fired power generating units (> 50 MW) have come in opera-

tion in the period 1998-2007, with a total capacity of 75 GW. 100 power generating units

are currently under construction with a total capacity of 33 GW and nearly 400 units are

planned with a total capacity of 161 GW. 65 GW of the planned capacity is included in the

Platts (2008) database without an estimated year of completion and without details about

the technology that will be used. We consider these projects therefore as being in an early

stage of planning. Please note that a power plant typically consists of more than one unit

so the amount of new power plants in smaller than the above-mentioned number of units.

Figure 18 - Figure 20, which give an overview of the amount of fossil capacity per country,

per fuel source divided into plants built after 1997, power plants under construction and

planned power plants.


-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Italy

Spain

Germ

any

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Belgiu

m

France

Poland

Portuga

l

Neth

erla

nds

Gre

ece

Irela

nd

Hungar

y

Denm

ark

Cze

ch R

epublic

Austria

Slova

kia

Finland

Luxem

bourg

Cyp

rus

Sweden

Slove

nia

Rom

ania

Latvia

Bulgaria

Op

era

tio

na

l c

ap

ac

ity

(M

W)

> 1

99

7 Oil

Natural gas

Coal

Figure 18 Power plants i nto operat ion af ter 1997 (MW) (Plat ts, 2008)

The largest share of recently built capacity is gas-fired power plants (72 GW), followed by

coal (11 GW). The capacity of new oil-fired power plants is 8 GW.

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Italy

Germ

any

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Spain

France

Poland

Gre

ece

Neth

erla

nds

Irela

nd

Portuga

l

Austria

Bulgaria

Rom

ania

Belgiu

m

Latvia

Finland

Cyp

rus

Ca

pa

cit

y u

nd

er

co

ns

tru

cti

on

(M

W) Oil

Natural gas

Coal

Figure 19 Power p lants under construct ion (MW) (Plat ts, 2008)

Also for power plants under construction, natural gas is most often used (23 GW). Coal-

fired power plants under construction equal 9 GW and oil-fired power plants only 0.3 GW.

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Germ

any

Spain

Unite

d Kin

gdom Ita

ly

Neth

erla

nds

Poland

France

Gre

ece

Portuga

l

Belgiu

m

Cze

ch R

epublic

Hungar

y

Rom

ania

Slova

kia

Austria

Bulgaria

Irela

nd

Slove

nia

Finland

Lithua

nia

Cyp

rus

Sweden

Latvia

Pla

nn

ed

ca

pa

cit

y (

MW

)

Oil

Natural gas

Coal

Figure 20 Planned power plants (MW) (Plat ts , 2008)

Of the planned power plants, not yet under construction, 104 GW consists of natural gas,

54 GW of coal and 3 GW of oil-fired power plants.

Of total recent and planned gas-fired power generation, Spain and Italy are largest with re-

spectively 49 GW and 23 GW. In terms of coal-fired power generation Germany has the

highest amount of recently built and planned power plants, in total nearly 18 GW. Poland is

second largest with nearly 5 GW recent and planned capacity.

In this study we focus on large-scale gas and coal-fired power plants with unit size bigger

than 300 MW, owned by utilities. This includes roughly 260 power plants owned by 130

utilities. The capacity of these plants together equals 195 GW, equivalent to 65% of total

recent and planned fossil capacity.

Table 8 gives the amount of recently built and planned capacity in the EU, with units bigger

than 300 MW. 75% of the recently built and planned power plants are gas-fired plants and

25% coal-fired. In terms of capacity, coal-fired power plants account for a slightly higher

share of 33% (65 GW in total capacity of 195 GW).


Table 8 Tota l recent ly bu i l t and planned coal and gas power plants (wi th un i ts

bigger than 300 MW) (Plat ts, 2008)

Pulverized coal – hard coal

Pulverized coal - lignite

IGCC NGCC Total

Operational > 97 2 6 0 42 50

Under construction 4 4 0 18 26

Planned 47 5 4 131 187

Total 54 15 4 191 263

Figure 21 shows the capacity per country.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Spain

Germ

anyIta

ly

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Gre

ece

Neth

erla

nds

France

Poland

Portuga

l

Belgiu

m

Irela

nd

Austria

Rom

ania

Hungar

y

Bulgaria

Cze

ch R

epublic

Denm

ark

Lithua

nia

Slova

kia

Slove

nia

Finland

Luxem

bourg

Nu

mb

er

of

pla

nts

(u

nit

siz

e >

30

0 M

W)

Natural gas Planned w ithout end year

Natural gas Planned

Natural gas Under construction

Natural gas Operational > 97

Coal Planned w ithout end year

Coal Planned

Coal Under construction

Coal Operational > 97

Figure 21 New capaci ty by country (with un i ts bigger 300 MW) (Plat ts , 2008)

Spain has the highest number of new plants (49 gas-fired and 1 coal-fired plant), followed

by Germany (30 coal-fired and 12 gas-fired plants) and Italy (29 gas-fired and 6 coal-fired

plants).

Figure 22 shows the same data as share in total new capacity per country.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Spain

Ger

many

Italy

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Gre

ece

Net

herla

nds

Franc

e

Poland

Portu

ga l

Belgium

Ireland

Austria

Rom

ania

Hun

gary

Bulgaria

Cze

ch R

epublic

Den

mark

Lith

uania

Slova

kia

Slove

nia

Finla

nd

Luxem

bourg

Nu

mb

er

of

pla

nts

(u

nit

siz

e >

30

0 M

W)

Natural gas Planned w ithout end

year

Natural gas Planned

Natural gas Under construction

Natural gas Operational > 97

Coal Planned w ithout end year

Coal Planned

Coal Under construction

Coal Operational > 97

Figure 22 New capaci ty by country (with un i ts bigger 300 MW) (Plat ts, 2008)

3.4 Data gather ing

Since no literature sources are available for this study, with data regarding efficiency and

capture-readiness on a plant level, we sent questionnaires to utilities asking for information

on plant level. Additionally, telephone interviews are held with several utilities and power

plant suppliers.

The questionnaire that was send to the utilities can be found in the Appendix. Regarding

energy-efficiency, questions are asked regarding the design energy-efficiency of the plant

and the operational efficiency. For capture-readiness, questions are asked regarding e.g.

the amount of space that has been reserved, what type of capture technology is consid-

ered and which reservoir is considered.

The questions that were asked during the (telephone) interviews can be found in the Ap-

pendix.

3 .4 .1 Pa r t i c ipa t i on in ques t i onna i r e

Approximately 100 utilities were invited to participate in the questionnaire. For some utili-

ties it was difficult to find a good contact person, sometimes due to the language barrier.

Quite a number of utilities did not want to take part in the questionnaire for confidentiality

reasons. In total, questionnaires were submitted for 67 power plants owned by 30 utilities

with a total capacity of 49 GW. This represents 25% of total new capacity (>300 MW units)

in the EU. Table 9 shows the location of the participating plants and the type of plant.


Table 9 Part ic ipat ion in quest ionnai re by country

Country Pulverised coal – hard

coal

Pulverised coal – lignite

IGCC NGCC Total

Austria 1 1

Belgium 2 2

Denmark 2 2

France 1 7 8

Germany 3 1 4 8

Hungary 1 1

Ireland 3 3

Italy 2 3 5

Latvia 1 1

Luxembourg 1 1

Netherlands 1 1 2 4

Poland 1 1

Portugal 1 1

Romania 1 1

Slovakia 1 1

Spain 20 20

United Kingdom 3 1 3 7

Total 13 0 3 51 67

Switzerland 1 1

Questionnaires were submitted for power plants in 17 EU countries, consisting of 16 coal-

fired power plants and 51 gas-fired power plants.

Table 10 shows the status category of the plants. This consists of 18 operational plants, 26

plants under construction and 14 planned power plants.

Table 10 Part ic ipat ion in quest ionnai re by status category

Pulverised

coal – hard

coal

Pulverised

coal - lignite

IGCC NGCC Total

Operational > 97 21 21

Under construction 3 14 17

Planned 10 3 17 30

Total 13 3 52 68

Table 11 shows the participation as share in total recently built and planned power plants

(units > 300 MW). As can be seen, lignite power plants are not represented by the ques-

tionnaires. For lignite power plants we therefore base the results on publicly available

sources.

Table 11 Part ic ipat ion in quest ionnaire by status category

Pulverised

coal – hard

coal

Pulverised

coal - lignite

IGCC NGCC Total

Operational > 97 0% 0% - 50% 42%

Under construction /

planned

25% 0% 75% 21% 22%

Total 24% 0% 75% 27% 25%

3 .4 .2 In te rv iews

In order to gain more in-depth information we held - in addition to the questionnaires - in-

terviews with a number of utilities and power plant suppliers. Two telephone interviews

were held with utilities planning one coal-fired and one gas-fired power plant. One meeting

was held with a large utility with both recently built and planned coal and gas-fired power

plants. Furthermore three large power plant suppliers were interviewed and one national

agency for new technologies in power plants.


4 Results plant analysis

This chapter gives the results of the plant analysis. First the results for energy-efficiency

are discussed (Section 4.1), followed by the results for capture-readiness (Section 4.2).


This section gives an overview of the results for energy-efficiency of recently built and

planned power plants, based on the questionnaires and telephone interviews. In some

cases additional information is used from publicly available sources. The efficiencies refer

to the efficiency without CO2 capture. CO2 capture lowers the efficiency by typically 8-10

percent points.

An overview is given for pulverised hard coal-fired power plants (4.1.1), for pulverised lig-

nite-fired power plants (4.1.2), for IGCC plants (4.1.3) and for NGCC plants (4.1.4). In sec-

tion 4.1.5 information is given about the found difference between design and operational

efficiency. The results from the telephone interview are given in section 4.1.6.

4 .1 .1 Pu l ve r i sed ha rd coa l - f i r ed powe r p l an ts

Figure 23 gives the results regarding design energy-efficiency that was found for pulver-

ised coal-fired power plants from the questionnaires. Every bar represents one power plant

including the (estimated) year of commissioning. Only questionnaires for planned coal-fired

power plants were submitted so there is no information available for operational plants.

Figure 23 Des ign energy-eff i c iency (%) for coal- f i red power plants

Most planned coal-fired power plants have an energy-efficiency of 45-46%, close to BAT

efficiency. Two exceptions are one power plant with 43% efficiency and one plant with 50%

efficiency:

• The power plant with 43% energy-efficiency has a comparatively small capacity of

460 MW and is based on supercritical circulating fluidised bed (CFB) technology.

As comparison, the other power plants have units larger than 800 MW.

• The power plant with a projected efficiency of 50% is a demo plant of 500 MW that

aims to proof the commercial and technical feasibility of 700°C steam temperature.

Public sources

Additional information in publicly available sources was found for 7 planned coal-fired

power plants in the period 2010-2012 in Germany, the Netherlands and United Kingdom

(planned by RWE, Electrabel, SSE, Trianel Power). Three of these power plants will have

an efficiency of 45% (one 500 MW and two 750 MW) and four of 46% (one 800 MW and

two 2 x 800 MW). [sources: Montel Powernews (2007), Reuters (2008), RWE (2008)]

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

BAT -

2008

2009 2009 2009 2011 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2015 2015 2015


4 .1 .2 Pu l ve r i sed l i gn i t e - f i r ed power p l an ts

No questionnaires were submitted for lignite-fired power plants. Therefore we used public

sources for the energy-efficiency for lignite plants. Figure 24 shows the results.

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

Germany -

Lippendorf

Germany -

Niederaussem, Unit

K, Cologne

BAT Poland - Patnow 9 Germany - Boxberg Germany - Neurath

BoA II

Poland - Belchatow

II (ELBIS)

2000 2003 2008 2008 2007-2011 2009-2010 2016

Figure 24 Des ign energy-eff i c iency (%) for l ign i te p lants (sources: Power Tech-

nology (2007), Process talk (2008), Vattenfal (2008), EBRD (2005),

DTI (2006))

The energy-efficiency of the lignite power plants for which data was found ranges from

41% to 44%, which is close to the BAT efficiency of 43%.

The power plant with 41% efficiency is a smaller plant in Poland (Patnow 9), which is cur-

rently under construction, with a capacity of 464 MW (ZEPAK, 2004). The power plant is

planned to be commissioned this year. The somewhat lower efficiency of this plant in com-

parison to BAT can be due to the smaller size of the plant or to the type of lignite. The

other plants all have units bigger than 800 MW.

4 .1 .3 IGCC p l an t s

Figure 25 gives the data regarding energy-efficiency that was found for IGCC plants from

the questionnaires.

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

BAT 2008 Coal 2011-2013 Coal 2011-2013 Lignite 2014

Figure 25 Des ign energy-eff i c iency (%) per IGCC plant

The energy-efficiency of the two planned hard coal IGCC plants is equal to BAT efficiency;

46%. The other power plant is a lignite-fired power plant with CCS, explaining the lower

efficiency of 40%.


4 .1 .4 Gas - f i r ed power p l an t s

Figure 26 gives the data regarding energy-efficiency that was found for natural gas-fired

power plants, currently in operation.

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

200020

0120

0120

0120

0220

0220

022002

2004

2005

2006

2006

2006

2006

2006

2006

2006

200820

0820

0820

0820

0820

08

BAT -

2008

Figure 26 Design energy-eff ic iency (%) of recent ly bu i l t gas- f i red power plant 17

The energy-efficiency of recently built gas-fired power plants ranges from 47% to 58%. On

average the efficiency of recently built plants is 56%. The power plant with 51% efficiency

was commissioned in 2000. The utility mentions that this was best available technology at

the time of ordering. The power plant with 47% efficiency is a combined-cycle plant that

has the capability to use up to 40% coke oven gas and blast furnace gas as fuel input. The

maximum efficiency that can be reached in a combined-cycle designed to be able to use

different types of gas is significantly lower than a 100% natural gas combined-cycle.

17 For some power plants gross efficiency is given in the questionnaire. This is converted to net

efficiency by subtracting 2 percent points from gross efficiency. This is based on the difference in

net and gross efficiency of 7 gas-fired power plants for which net and gross efficiency was supplied

in the questionnaire.

Figure 27 gives the energy-efficiency for gas-fired power plants under construction or

planned.

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

BAT -

2008

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2010

2010

2010

2010

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

2012

2012

2013

2010

/201

320

16

Figure 27 Design energy-ef f ic iency (%) of gas-f i red power plant under con-

struct ion or planned 18

The efficiency of the gas-fired plants under construction or planned was found to range

from 56-62% and is thereby close to BAT efficiency of 59-60%. The average efficiency of

the planned plants is 58%.

The power plant with 62% efficiency is located in Switzerland and planned to be opera-

tional in 2016.

18 For some power plants gross efficiency is given in the questionnaire. This is converted to net

efficiency by subtracting 2 percent points from gross efficiency. This is based on the difference in

net and gross efficiency of 7 gas-fired power plants for which net and gross efficiency was supplied

in the questionnaire.


4 .1 .5 Opera t i ona l energy -e f f i c i enc y

This section gives figures for the difference between design energy-efficiency and opera-

tional energy-efficiency on plant level. For coal-fired power plants no information about op-

erational efficiency is available from the questionnaires. For gas-fired power plants there is

data for 12 power plants (see table below). The difference between design and operational

efficiency was found to range from 0-4 percent points.

Table 12 D i fference design and operat iona l e f f i c iency for gas- f i red power plants

Plant location Capacity

factor

Difference design and operational

efficiency (percent point)

Germany 85% 0.0

Spain 46% 0.0

Austria 66% 1.1

Spain 66% 1.3

Spain 1.5

Luxembourg 93% 1.6

Ireland 91% 2.0

Spain 80% 2.3

Spain 92% 2.4

Italy 2.5

Spain 80% 3.7

Spain 79% 3.7

4 .1 .6 Resu l t s i n t e rv i ews

Below is a summary of the main results from the interviews with utilities and suppliers

Efficiency key factor influencing economics of power plant

A contact person from a planned coal-fired power plant mentions that energy-efficiency is

one of the key aspects influencing the economics of a power plant, especially with current

high energy (and CO2) prices. Suppliers for power plants base their offer therefore on

maximizing fuel efficiency.

One large power plant supplier mentions that energy efficiency nearly always pays off.

There are only a few examples of the opposite. Normally the payback time used to calcu-

late payback of extra investment cost is calculated on a time frame of 10 years. Basically a

life cycle cost approach is normally adopted, so energy efficiency is implicitly evaluated in

the costs.

Another power plant supplier mentions that they design power plants to maximise energy

efficiency and reduce cost of electricity (COE). Normally an indicative payback time of five

years is applied, but this is strongly influenced by raw material costs and fuel costs and

therefore differs from plant to plant. At this moment they consider coal power plants with an

efficiency of 45% (ultra supercritical coal plants) and natural gas plants with an efficiency of

58% (natural gas combined cycle (NGC) plants) to be fully commercial. These values de-

crease to 36% for coal power plants and 47% for NGCC when CCS is applied.

Influence utility on design efficiency of power plant

One utility mentions that coal-fired power plants are more custom-made than gas-fired

power plants, so there is more room for discussion with the supplier regarding the choice

for specific technologies. For gas-fired power plants the technology is more standard. The

supplier offers a complete package with a set efficiency. Since the efficiency is one of the

key aspects in the economics of a power plant, suppliers aim to offer power plants with a

high efficiency.

Implementing very new technology poses a risk for return on investment

A contact person from a planned gas-fired power plant mentions that a reason for them for

choosing a (slightly) lower efficiency (58-59%) than would be possible by applying latest

technology (60-61%) is a higher expected reliability of the plant. Power plants based on

very new technologies often have more down times in the beginning of operation. To se-

cure return on investment they choose for a more reliable concept with a slightly lower effi-

ciency then would be possible.

One power plant supplier confirms this and mentions that some companies prefer to use

well-established techniques in order to minimize their risks.

Energy-efficiency of power plant difficult to influence once it has been built

One supplier mentions that once a power plant has been built it is difficult to improve the

energy-efficiency to a large extent. Improvements of 1-2% are typically the maximum to be

achieved. Larger improvements require extensive retrofits of the installation and are

typically only economic to extend the lifetime of a power plant. Therefore it is important to

secure a high energy-efficiency in the design phase of a power plant.

Another supplier mentions that sometimes deficient maintenance can lead to a lower op-

erational efficiency in power plants. A cost effective retrofit to the design values is possible

in many circumstances, recovering from 1 to 5 points of efficiency. In developing countries

the lack of carbon incentives and the low price of fuel make those retrofits not economic.

Fuel flexibility can be reason for lower efficiency

One utility mentions that if a combined-cycle plant should be able to operate with industrial

process gas the design energy-efficiency will be lower than with 100% natural gas.


Future developments for coal plants

A large supplier mentions that for coal-fired plants, the frontier of efficiency of is about

46%-47% with steam temperatures of 600-620 °C, with the current austenitic steel materi-

als. Now we are moving to temperatures of 700°C which are possible with nickel based

materials. Those materials are extremely expensive, especially the turbine components.

The few achievable efficiency points expected, to raise the efficiency to 50%, can’t now

justify the higher costs of the materials. We need to develop the technologies and to have

lower raw materials prices to be economic.


This section gives an overview of the results for capture-readiness of recently built and

planned power plants. An overview is given for gas-fired power plants (4.2.1) and for coal-

fired power plants (4.2.2). Section 4.2.3 gives an overview of characteristics of capture-

ready plants based on the questionnaires. The results from the telephone interview are

given in section 4.2.4.

4 .2 .1 Gas - f i red power p l an t s

Few recently built and planned gas-fired power plants are found to be capture-ready. The

results from the questionnaire show that of the power plants that participated:

� All 21 operational gas-fired power plants are not capture-ready.

� Of the 14 gas-fired power plants under construction 1 is capture-ready.

� Of the 17 planned gas-fired power plants 1 will be capture-ready.

Non-capture ready plants

The reasons mentioned by the utilities for not being capture-ready are:

� “When the power plant was built, CCS was not a proven technology yet.”

� “No technology was available at the moment of planning”

� “Neither local geology nor local infrastructure is readily adaptable for large-scale

carbon storage.”

� “Lack of an enabling and long-term regulatory framework”

� “We considered CCS at an early stage and found it to be very expensive (espe-

cially with free allocation of about 90% of credits)”

� “Since carbon capture technologies are more suitable and less expensive for coal

power plant they will probably not be applied to natural gas combined cycles dur-

ing the lifetime of the plant. Since the CO2 concentration in the exhaust gas stream

of coal-fired plants is considerably higher and the emissions are greater, the cap-

ture cost per tonne CO2 are proportionally lower for coal plants. For this reason we

are focusing more on coal-fired power plants for CCS.”

� “We have not been able to identify suitable sites for long-term storage of CO2 in

the region.”

One utility, with 5 recently built gas-fired power plants, mentions it is technically possible to

add CO2 post combustion technology to the plants. For the other power plants the option of

adding CO2 capture is un-investigated. It is expected that a certain share of these power

plants could be retrofitted with CO2 capture equipment.

Capture-ready plants

The capture-ready plant that is under construction mentions: “We have evaluated the

space requirements for an amine-based system, and rather than setting aside a specific

envelope, have satisfied ourselves that we can accommodate current technologies. Tech-

nology selection for CCGT is less clear than for conventional coal-fired plant due to issues


with amine poisoning caused by higher excess air in CCGT exhausts. Accordingly a non-

specific technology approach has been adopted so as to avoid closing out emerging cap-

ture technologies.”

The planned capture-ready power plant mentions that the plant will be made capture-ready

because they expect that future CO2 prices will be high enough to cover costs for CO2 cap-

ture. They do expect however that for coal-fired power plants it will sooner be cost-effective

to capture CO2 than for natural gas-fired power plants.

4 .2 .2 Coa l - f i r ed power p l an ts

There is no information from the questionnaires for power plants in operation. After 1997, 8

coal plants have been commissioned of which 6 are lignite-fired plants. Based on public

available sources, these plants do not seem to be capture-ready.

For the power plants under construction and planned, 16 out of 60 plants participated in

the questionnaire. 13 of these plants will be capture-ready.

A contact person of a power plant currently under construction mentions that at the time of

decision, the CO2 problem was not identified deep enough. This plant will be commis-

sioned in 2009. Two planned power plants indicate not to be capture-ready because it was

not an issue at the time the design was commenced. They mention however that enough

space seems to be available to develop the technology in the future.

For the power plants being capture-ready the main reasons mentioned are:

� Future CO2 prices are expected to be sufficient to cover costs for CO2 capture

� (Expected) government and EU policies

� Company policy

The coal plants that participated in the questionnaire are located in Germany (3), United

Kingdom (4), the Netherlands (2), Belgium (2), Italy (2), Poland (1) and France (1).

Countries with planned coal-fired power plants which are not represented in the question-

naire are:

� 2 planned in Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Czech Republic

� 1 planned in Portugal, Austria, Spain, Hungary, and Slovenia

It is not certain if the results from the power plants that participated in the questionnaire are

representative for the other planned coal plants. Governmental policies and local attitudes

towards CCS can differ much. Therefore the degree of capture-readiness for the other

power plants is unknown.

In the questionnaires, one Polish plant is included. In total there are 2 power plants under

construction and 7 power plants planned in Poland. Based on telephone contact with the

utilities, most of these plants do not seem to be considering CCS at the moment.

4 .2 .3 Cha ra c ter i s t i c s o f c ap tu re- ready p l an ts

Below is a summary of the results from the questionnaires for capture-ready plants.

Space reservation

All capture-ready plants reserve space on site for the capture equipment. Most of the pul-

verised coal plants reserve 2-3 ha. One IGCC plant reserves 10 ha of space.

Distance to storage site

The reported distance to the storage site ranges from 50-450 km. Most plants have a dis-

tance of 100-250 km from a storage site.

Costs

Costs are often assessed by an external party, but not in all cases. Often plants are still

investigating the different capture methods. One plant investigated cryogenic capture but

since the estimated costs are very high they are also exploring other options. Another plant

estimates the costs for capture to be between 25-50 €/tonne and 10-15 €/tonne for trans-

port. Another utility estimates the costs for transport to be 5-9 €/tonne.

Capture technology

Often plants are still investigating capture options. Post combustion by amine scrubbing is

mentioned for four pulverised coal-fired power plants. One IGCC plant plans to use pre-

combustion / clean shift and physical solvent with a modular approach (starting with a cap-

ture rate of approximately 50% of the syngas).

One gas-fired plant mentions they have evaluated the space requirements for an amine-

based system, and rather than setting aside a specific envelope, have satisfied themselves

that they could accommodate current technologies. The reason for this is that they want to

avoid closing out emerging capture technologies, by taking a non-specific technology ap-

proach. They have the feeling that improved technologies will be developed that will be

more cost-effective than the current available technologies.

Capture-rate

In most cases the capture rate for CO2 will be 90%.

Type of reservoir

The main type of reservoirs mentioned for CO2 storage are depleted gas/oil-fields (onshore

and offshore), enhanced oil or gas recovery and deep saline aquifers.


Transport of CO2

Pipeline transport is often the preferred option for the transport of CO2 but in one case

railway transport is considered.

4 .2 .4 Resu l t s i n t e rv i ews

Below is a summary of the results from the interviews.

Costs to be capture-ready

Two utilities mention that the costs to be capture-ready are difficult to estimate. The largest

part of additional costs is the purchase of additional land. In both cases there are no pre-

investments done, due to uncertainties in technologies for carbon capture that will be used.

One power plant supplier estimates extra costs to range from 5-15% of capital costs. Pre-

combustion plants are estimated to be at the higher end of costs because not only addi-

tional space must be taken into account, but also some moderate pre-investment are

needed. This to limit the energy-efficiency drop after CO2 capture is implemented.

Retrofit of operational power plants for CCS

One large power plant supplier mentions that operational power plants can often be retro-

fitted with CO2 capture equipment but that it is generally not economical convenient. If

there is not sufficient space at a site or if it’s needed to reconstruct some particular equip-

ment it can be considered as impossible in economical terms. If retroactive laws would

oblige operational plants to be retrofitted with CCS, it would therefore cause early retire-

ment of some assets.

Another supplier examined at random a sample of six recently constructed plants and they

found that about 50% of them are not qualified to be retrofitted by CO2 capture. The reason

must be found in the plant lay-out, in the insufficient space or in the technical design. The

cost of provisions to have the right lay out to be capture ready, could be at maximum 1% of

the total cost of the plant.

A third power plant supplier estimates the extra costs to retrofit a non-capture power plant

to be in the range of 15-25% in comparison to a new power plant with CCS, depending on

the CCS rate and scheme, fuel type and power plant technology.

CCS in gas-fired power plants

One large power plant supplier advises to focus first on coal-fired plants since they are

normally run in base load, while CCS cannot modulate in the way now combined cycles

are often modulated. Moreover due to the lower carbon content of natural gas, marginal

abatement CCS additional costs are higher.

Building new plants on existing sites

One utility mentions that they build new plants, to replace old plants, on existing sites be-

cause of difficulties they are facing with local authorizations. This makes it more difficult to

build a capture-ready plant, because land area is fixed and distance to storage sites and

transport routes cannot be taken into account as in normal site selection. Also it is expen-

sive to modify plant design to consider the CCS requirements.

EU policy: requirement of capture-readiness

Two utilities are in principle positive about EU policy for capture-readiness, however there

shouldn’t be detailed conditions for capture-readiness in terms of the type of pre-

investments that should be done. There is too much uncertainty regarding the type of cap-

ture method that will be used. Capture-readiness should mean the availability of space for

CO2 capture and a preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of transport infrastructure and of

the availability of suitable storage sites.

EU policy: CCS obligation

The utilities mentioned that the EU (and national governments) should not obligate the use

of CCS but should make sure that the CO2 prices are high enough. Currently the CO2 price

is too low to give a proper incentive for CO2 emission reduction. Prices should be at least

40-50 €/ton.

An obligation undermines the functioning of the emissions trading scheme.

Role EU to stimulate CCS

Two utilities and two large power plant suppliers give the following advice for the role the

EU could play to stimulate the use of CCS:

• Long-term certainty is needed regarding the type of system and rules that is used

for emission reduction.

• The EU has to define the conditions and legal framework under which CCS can be

applied in the European directives.

• The EU should play a role in harmonizing the set up of national infrastructures for

CO2 transport. E.g. by setting rules for transport of CO2 across boundaries.

• Within emissions trading the CO2 price must be high enough. When the prices for

CO2 are high enough (> 50 €/tone CO2), CO2 capture will happen automatically.

There also should be more certainty about the continuity of ETS after 2012 and for

the next 20 years.

• CCS can financially be stimulated e.g. by using the income from auctioning for set-

ting up of infrastructures for CO2 transport.

• The EU should define the funding mechanism and qualification procedure for the

10-12 large scale demonstration units that are needed to validate the technology.

• Clear definitions should be set for capture-readiness and policy requirements in

this field.

• Inform public on this subject. This contributes in creating good conditions for op-

erators to do research and realize CCS power plants; this should avoid delays to

receive authorizations for realizing the plants and the related infrastructures.


5 Conclusions and recommendations


The results from the questionnaire indicate that the majority of recently built and planned

power plants have net energy-efficiencies close to BAT level (46% hard coal, 43% lignite

and 59%-60% gas). This information is confirmed by the data for average country energy-

efficiencies based on IEA (2007). The countries with large shares of new capacity have

high energy-efficiencies, e.g. for gas-fired power generation, Spain and Italy with large

shares of new capacity have a gross efficiency19

of 58% and 55% for gas-fired power

generation in 2005, respectively.

Based on interviews with utilities and suppliers we found that energy-efficiency is one of

the key aspects influencing the economics of a power plant, especially with high energy

and CO2 prices. In order therefore to ensure the use and further development of efficient

power generation technologies, high fuel and CO2 prices are therefore a key incentive.


The main results from the questionnaire are that:

• Most recently built operational power plants have not been designed as capture-

ready. Nevertheless some could be retrofitted with CCS.

• Of the planned coal-fired power plants that participated in the questionnaire 13 out

of 16 will be capture-ready.

• Of the planned gas-fired power plants only 2 out of 31 will be capture-ready.

Since a large share of new fossil capacity consists of gas-fired power plants (66%), the fu-

ture share of gas-fired power generation in total fossil power generation will be large. The

future share of CO2 emissions by gas-fired power plants in total fossil plants is estimated to

be 45%20

. The gas-fired power plants that will be built in the period 2010-2015 are ex-

pected to continue operation till 2040-2045. This suggests that at least a share of the gas-

19 IEA Energy Balances only give data for gross power generation, so no net efficiencies could be

calculated. 20 Based on average efficiency of 46% for new coal-fired power plants, 58% for new gas-fired

power plants, 7000 load hours for coal and 6000 for gas (based on the questionnaires)

fired power plants needs to be capture-ready in order to reach deep CO2 emission reduc-

tion targets.

Three important disadvantages of CCS at gas-fired power plants in comparison to coal-

fired power plants are:

• Capture costs are higher for gas-fired power plant per tonne of CO2.

• CCS is more suitable for base-load power generation, which is more often done by

coal-fired plants than by gas-fired plants.

• The technology selection for NGCC is less clear than for coal-fired plants due to

issues with amine poisoning caused by higher excess air in the NGCC exhausts.

In order to make CCS an option for NGCC plants, additional research is therefore needed

to solve the technological issues. Additionally, financial incentives may be needed to com-

pensate for the higher capture price per tonne of CO2.

For coal-fired power plants, a large share of planned plants is expected be capture-ready,

mostly based on strategic decision regarding expected CO2 prices or governmental pres-

sure. However the general attitude by governments and companies differ per country.

There still seem to be quite some planned power plants, which will not be capture-ready.

To make sure that all planned coal-fired power plants are capture-ready, clear require-

ments should be defined.

The main results from the interviews with utilities and suppliers are summarized below.

This gives an overview of the action the EU should take from their point of view:

• Clear definitions should be set for capture-readiness and policy requirements in

this field.

• No requirements should be set regarding the type of pre-investments that should

be done because there is still too much uncertainty regarding the type of capture

method that will be used.

• In order to stimulate the use of CCS, the EU (and national governments) should

not obligate the use of CCS but should make sure that CO2 prices are high

enough. Currently the CO2 price is too low to give a proper incentive for CO2 emis-

sion reduction. Prices should be at least 40-50 €/ton. An obligation is expected to

undermine the functioning of the emissions trading scheme.

• The EU should play a role in harmonizing the set up of national infrastructures for

CO2 transport. E.g. by setting rules for transport of CO2 across boundaries.

• Plants at full demonstration scale are needed. The EU should support technology

developers and plant operators in financial terms to promote these experiences.


5.3 Recommendat ions

Fossil fuel prices and CO2 prices give a strong incentive for building energy-efficient plants.

Typically, fuel costs account for 40% of power generating costs (€/kWh) for coal-fired

power plants and 60% for gas-fired power plants (Graus and Hendriks, 2006). A CO2 price

of 20 €/tonne adds roughly 55% to power generating costs for coal and 20% to power gen-

erating costs for gas (World Nuclear Association, 2008). Therefore high CO2 and high fuel

prices are a key incentive to both implement efficient technologies as well as push techno-

logical development for further improvements. The emissions trading scheme (ETS) offers

a good policy framework for stimulating efficiency improvement. The rules applied in the

ETS should then be set in a way that CO2 prices are sufficiently high.

Regarding CCS, most operational power plants have not been designed as capture-ready.

However also many planned gas-fired power plants and a number of planned coal-fired

power plants are expected not to be designed as capture-ready. Therefore clear legislation

is needed in this field. Requirements for capture-readiness should mainly focus on suffi-

cient available space onsite for CO2 capture equipment and a reasonable distance to stor-

age reservoirs. Also a study is needed to assess necessary changes to the installation

when CO2 capture is added and associated costs. This is needed so that the utility can

make a balanced decision regarding doing a number of pre-investment or not. It is not ad-

visable to set strict requirements for pre-investments to be done, since there is too much

uncertainty regarding the optimal type of capture technology to be used. Also in the field of

CO2 transport and storage, no strict requirements can be set, before the legislative frame-

work for CO2 transport and storage is fully developed.

For CCS to be commercial, high CO2 prices are needed of more than 50 € per tonne. For

gas-fired power plants even higher prices are needed.

References

• Alstom (2008). Personal communication.

• BINE, 2006, Kraftwerke mit Kohlevergasung, Projektinfo 09/06,

http://www.bine.info/pdf/publikation/projekt0906internetx.pdf

• DTI, 2006, Advanced Power Plant Using High Efficiency Boiler/Turbine – Best

Practice Brochure, Carbon Abatement Technologies Programme, January 2006,

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file30703.pdf

• E.On (2007). (1) http://www.eon-

bene-

lux.com/eonwww/publishing.nsf/Content/Nieuwe+centrale+gebaseerd+op+schone-

kolentechnologie_English (2) http://www.secinfo.com/dsVs2.uCc.d.htm (3)

http://www.secinfo.com/dsVs2.v1an.b.htm

• EBRD (2005). (1) http://www.ebrd.com/projects/psd/psd2005/25438.htm (2)

http://www.ebrd.com/projects/eias/25438e.pdf

• Eurelectric, 2007. The Role of Electricity A New Path to Secure, Competitive En-

ergy in a Carbon-Constrained World Full report, Brussels, Belgium.

• European Commission (EC), 2006. Reference document on best available tech-

niques for large combustion plants.

• Jordal, K., Anheden, M., Precombustion Capture of CO2 Opportunities and Chal-

lenges, encapCO2, presentation,

http://www.encapco2.org/news/EU_CCS_AnhedenJordal.pdf

• Gibbins (2007). http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/docs/capture/H-Gibbins.pdf

• Graus, W. and E. Worrell (2006). Comparison of efficiency fossil power generation.

Ecofys. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

• Graus, W. and C. Hendriks (2006). Comparison of nuclear and coal-fired power

generation. Ecofys. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

• Hannemann, 2002, V94.2 Buggenum Experience and Improved Concepts for

Syngas Applications, F. Hannemann, U. Schiffers, J. Karg, M. Kanaar, Siemens

AG Power Generation/Nuon, presentation, 2002

• Hendriks, C., Harmelink, M., Burges, K., Ramsel, K. 2004. Power and heat produc-

tion: plant developments and grid losses. Ecofys, Utrecht, Netherlands.

http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/FAbout.htm

• IEA (2007). Energy balances of OECD countries 1960-2005. International Energy

Agency (IEA). Paris, France.

• IEA (2007b). Fossil fuel-fired power generation. Case studies if recently con-

structed coal- and gas-fired power plants. International Energy Agency (IEA).

Paris, France.

• IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG, 2007), “CO2 capture ready

plants”, 2007/4, May 2007. International Energy Agency (IEA). Paris, France.


• IEACR (2006). CleanPower5 database. IEA Clean Coal Centre. United King-

dom.http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/content/default.asp?PageId=60&LanguageId=0

• IPPC (2005). Reference document on Best available techniques for large combus-

tion plants. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). Seville, Spain.

• IPCC (2005). Special report on carbon dioxide and storage. Switzerland.

• KEMA, 2004. Influence cooling water temperature on power and efficiency of a

combined cycle, coal fired and combi power plant, KEMA 50331044-KPS/TPE 03-

1112, Ploumen, P.J., and Rijen, S.P.N. van, February 2004.

• Montel Powernews (2007). Montel Powernews vol 6 no.2 march 2007

• Phylipsen, G.J.M. K. Blok and E. Worrell (1998). “Benchmarking the energy effi-

ciency of the Dutch energy-intensive industry”, A preliminary assessment of the ef-

fect on energy consumption and CO2 emissions, Department of Science, Technol-

ogy and Society, Utrecht University. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

• Phylipsen, G.J.M., W.H.J. Graus, K. Blok, Y. Hofman, M. Voogt (2003). Interna-

tional Comparisons Of Energy Efficiency - Results For Iron & Steel, Cement And

Electricity Generation, Ecofys. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

• Platts (2006). World Electric Power Plant Database (WEPP). United States.

http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?products_id=85

• Power Technology (2007). Sempell valves on RWE high efficiency

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/lippendorf/

• Power Technology (2008). Futtsu combined-cycle plant, Yokohama, Japan.

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/yokohama/

• Powerclean R, D&D Thematic framework (Powerclean and the European Union),

2004. Fossil fuel power generation: State-of-the-art.

• Powerfuel (2008). Hatfield power station project. April 07, 2008.

http://www.powerfuel.plc.uk/id4.html

• Process talk (2008). http://www.processingtalk.com/news/tco/tco133.html

• Reuters (2007). Suez's Electrabel sets Wilhemshaven for power plant. November

14th, 2007. http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL1414160220071114

• Ruth, 2003. Advanced clean coal technology in the USA, Science Review – Mate-

rials at high temperatures 20(1) pp7-14, 2003

• RWE (2008) http://www.rwe.com/generator.aspx/rwe-power-icw/power-plant-new-

build/language=en/id=502962/page.html

• Sanford, L. (2007). First 60 Hz ‘H’ takes shape at Riverside. Modern Power Sys-

tems 27:9, p47-49 (Sep 2007).

• Siemens (2008)

http://w1.siemens.com/innovation/en/publikationen/publications_pof/pof_spring_20

07/technology_for_the_environment/energy_efficiency.htm

• STEAG (2008)

http://www.steag.com/steagde/images/newsn12/Walsum_10_PM_EN.pdf

• Syngas Consultants (2008). European Coal Gasification Projects. February 25th

2008. Tokyo.

http://www.rite.or.jp/Japanese/labo/choryu/workshop/futuregenws2008/2008FGWS

_MrHIGMAN.pdf

• Stork (2008). Personal communication.

• Tampa, 2001, Program update 2001 of Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification

Combined-Cycle Project – An Update, US department of Energy, 2001

• Tech-wise A/S, 2003a. http://ad700.techwise.dk/annual1999.htm

• Tech-wise A/S, 2003b. Advanced 700°C PF Power Plant, power point presentation

Tech-wise A/S, Fredericia, Denmark, May 2003

• Vattenfal (2008). http://www.vattenfall.com/cs-

reports/filter.asp?filename=page_011.html

• VGB Powertech (2004): Jahresnutzungsgrad von fossil befeuerten Kraftwerken

gemäß den „besten verfügbaren Kraftwerkstechniken“. VGB Stellungnahme. Au-

gust 2004

• Viswanathan, 2000. Materials For Boilers In Ultra Supercritical Power Plants, R.

Viswanathan and W. T. Bakker, EPRI, in Proceedings of 2000 International Joint

Power Generation Conference, Miami Beach, Florida, July 23-26, 2000

• Wabash, 2000, Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project, Final techni-

cal report, Wabash River Energy Ltd, August 2000.

• World Nuclear Association (2008). Breakdown of generating costs for coal, gas,

nuclear and wind. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

• ZEPAK (2004). http://www.zepak.com.pl/en/patnow


Appendix

Questionnaire energy-efficiency and CCS in new power plants

Study for European Commission

The data supplied in the questionnaire will be treated as confidential. If preferred a confi-

dentiality agreement can be signed. A summary with the main findings of the study will be

send to you after the study is completed. An extract of the report concerning your power

plant can be send to you for your approval before submission of the report to the EU.

This study looks at gas-fired and coal-fired power plants (or units) built after 1997 and

planned power plants. Please submit one questionnaire per power plant. If the data re-

quested in the questionnaire differs per plant unit you can submit one questionnaire per

unit.

1. General information

Company name

Plant or unit name and location

Construction year / planned to be commissioned

Status (operational, under construction, planned)

Contact person

Telephone number

Email address

Date

2. Basic plant or unit parameters

Capacity (MWe)

Fuel use (e.g. 90% coal and 10% biomass)

Turbine type (steam turbine, gas turbine, combined-

cycle)

Input temperature (ºC) to turbine

Input pressure (bar) to turbine

Cooling method (cooling tower, sea-water cooling)

Typical load hours

3. Energy-efficiency of power plant or unit

What is the design efficiency (%) of the power plant or unit, based on net calorific

value, measured as net output at the generator? See further appendix for definition

of efficiency.

.........

In case the design efficiency differs significantly from “Best available techniques”

(BAT) efficiency (see table below) can you give the main reasons for this (e.g. finan-

cial or technical considerations)?

.........

Figure 28 Best ava i lable techniques (BAT) for power plants

Technology Fuel Energy-

efficiency

Coal 46% Pulverised coal steam cycle (ultra-supercritical)

Lignite 43%

Coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) Coal 46%

Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) Natural gas 59%

In case the power plant is operational, please give the yearly average operational

efficiency (%) of the power plant or unit for the last three years in the table below.

The method for calculating the energy efficiency can be found in the appendix.

Year: 2005 Year: 2006 Year: 2007

In case the operational efficiency differs widely from the design efficiency of the plant

can you give the main reasons for this (e.g. full load hours, climate conditions, etc)?

...

4. Carbon capture readiness of power plant

Has the option of capture and storage of CO2 (CCS) been assessed for the power

plant? If yes continue with questions below. If no, please give the reason for this.

...

Can you give an indication regarding the amount of space that has been reserved on

site for applicable capture installations?

...


What other considerations have been assessed for CCS (capture technology to be

used, etc.)?

...

What is (will be) the annual amount of CO2 produced in your plant

...

What is the envisaged capture rate once CCS is in place:

…

Which storage sites for CO2 have been considered?

...

What is the distance of the storage sites to the plant?

...

Can you explain how the CO2 transport would be arranged (pipeline infrastructure to

be build, other transport options)?

...

Can you give information about costs that have been assessed for CCS?

* Investment (retrofit) cost: from € … to …

* Operational Cost:

Cost per ton of CO2 captured: …. € / ton

Transport and storage cost per ton CO2: … € / ton

Have the costs been assessed by an external party?

...

Comments and suggestions as well as other relevant information are welcome in the

text box below.

Thank you for your co-operation.

You can send this questionnaire to Wina Graus by e-mail ([email protected]), fax

(+31302808301), phone (+31302808321) or post mail:

Ecofys Netherlands bv

Att: Wina Graus

P.O. Box 8408

3503 RK Utrecht

Netherlands


Appendix

Definition of energy-efficiency

The formula for calculating the energy efficiency (η) of a power plant is given below:

η = P / I.

Where:

• η = Energy-efficiency for power generation at plant or unit

• P = Power production from power plant, measured as net output at the generator

• I = Fuel input for power plant, based on net calorific value (NCV)21

Combined-cycle

In case of a combined-cycle please submit design efficiencies for the plant or unit as a total

and if available indicate the design efficiency of the gas turbine.

Combined heat and power plant (CHP)

In case of heat extraction the heat efficiency should also be supplied. The heat efficiency is

defined as:

η (heat) = H / I.

Where:

• ηheat = Energy-efficiency for heat plant or unit

• H = Heat output from power plant

• I = Fuel input for power plant, based on net calorific value (NCV)

21 The Net Calorific Value (NCV) or Lower Heating Value (LHV) refers to the quantity of heat liber-

ated by the complete combustion of a unit of fuel when the water produced is assumed to remain

as a vapour and the heat is not recovered. Conversion factors used in this study for converting

from gross calorific value (GCV) to net calorific value (NCV) are 0.9 for natural gas, 0.93 for oil and

0.97 for coal.

Telephone interview

CCS

Planned power plants

� For capture ready plants: Why are they capture ready, even if there is no legisla-

tion yet? How much extra does it cost to be capture ready?

� For plants not capture ready: Why are they not capture ready? Can they be retro-

fitted with CCS? What would be the costs?

Operational power plants

� Can they be retrofitted with CCS? At what costs?

All power plants

� Do you think CCS should play a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

� What role should the EU play (what kind of actions do you expect from the EU) in

stimulating the use of CCS?

� What do you think about upcoming EU legislation that will require new fossil fuel

plants to be CCS-ready, but without imposing an obligation to install CCS by a cer-

tain date.

� What do you think about introducing a CCS obligation which will require:

(1) New fossil fuel plants authorized after 2015 to be CCS-equipped and

(2) existing fossil power plants be retrofitted with CSS by 2025.

� Does the ETS scheme work well to reduce greenhouse gas emission in the power

sector? Would there be more efficient options to reduce emissions?

� What prices for emission allowances do you expect for the third ETS phase (full

auctioning). Will the carbon prices in the third phase of the ETS scheme be suffi-

cient to cover the additional costs of CCS?

� Do you have an idea about expected additional costs for your power plant per year

once full auctioning will apply within the third ETS phase?

Energy-efficiency

� What role did energy-efficiency play in the design process of your power plant?

Was energy-efficiency specifically looked at? Was there a trade-off between en-

ergy-efficiency and extra capital costs? Is a certain payback time used to calculate

payback of extra investment costs for a more efficient plant?

� For plants below BAT energy-efficiency: Why did they choose less efficient tech-

nology?


� For plants at BAT energy-efficiency: What were the options considered when de-

signing the plant? Why did they choose efficient technology?

� (for operational power plants) In case operational efficiency is much lower than

design efficiency. What are the reasons for this?

� What do you think about the current IPPC directive? Does the IPPC Directive

mechanism provide for further improvement of energy efficiency? What do you

think about the proposal to make BAT as described in BREFs binding for new

plants?

Documents

Efficiency and capture-readiness