Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:47:15.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Life Cycle Assessment of Future Fossil Technologies with and without Carbon Capture and Storage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Roberto Dones ,
Christian Bauer ,
Thomas Heck ,
Oliver Mayer-Spohn  and
Markus Blesl
Roberto Dones
Affiliation:
[email protected], Paul Scherrer Institut, Energy Departments, Villigen, Villigen PSI, 5232, Switzerland
Christian Bauer
Affiliation:
[email protected], Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen PSI, 5232, Switzerland
Thomas Heck
Affiliation:
[email protected], Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen PSI, 5232, Switzerland
Oliver Mayer-Spohn
Affiliation:
[email protected], IER Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, 70565, Germany
Markus Blesl
Affiliation:
[email protected], IER Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, 70565, Germany
Get access

Abstract

The NEEDS project of the European Commission (2004-2008) continues the ExternE series, aiming at improving and integrating external cost assessment, LCA, and energy-economy modeling, using multi-criteria decision analysis for technology roadmap up to year 2050. The LCA covers power systems suitable for Europe. The paper presents environmental inventories and cumulative results for selected representative evolutionary hard coal and lignite power technologies, namely the Ultra-Supercritical Pulverized Combustion (USC-PC) and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technologies. The power units are modeled with and without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The three main technology paths for CO2 capture are represented, namely pre-combustion, post-combustion, and oxy-fuel combustion. Pipeline transport and storage in geological formations like saline aquifers and depleted gas reservoirs, which are the most likely solutions to be implemented in Europe, are modeled for assumed average conditions. The entire energy chains from fuel extraction through, when applicable, the ultimate sequestration of CO2, are assessed, using ecoinvent as background LCA database.

The results show that adding CCS to fossil power plants, although resulting in a large net decrease of the CO2 effluents to the atmosphere per unit of electricity, is likely to produce substantially more GHG than claimed by near-zero emission power plant promoters when the entire energy chain is accounted for, especially for post-combustion capture technologies and hard coal as a fuel. Besides, the lower net power plant efficiencies lead to higher consumption rate of non-renewable fossil fuel. Furthermore, consideration of the full spectrum of environmental burdens besides greenhouse gas (GHG) results in a less definite picture of the energy chain with CCS than obtained by just focusing on GHG reduction.

Keywords

government policy and fundingstorageenvironmentally benign
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1041: Symposium R – Life-Cycle Analysis for New Energy Conversion and Storage Systems , 2007 , 1041-R05-01
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.NEEDS Project, European Commission, http://www.needs-project.org/Google Scholar
2. Hendriks, C., “Carbon Capture and Storage”, UNFCCC Secretariat Financial and Technical Support Programme, Draft August 23, 2007, unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/application/pdf/hendriks.pdf.Google Scholar
3. Dones, R., Bauer, C., Heck, T., Mayer-Spohn, O., and Blesl, M., “Final technical paper on technical data, costs and life cycle inventories of advanced fossil fuels”, European Commission, to be issued 2008.Google Scholar
4.www.ecoinvent.chGoogle Scholar
5.IPCC, “Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage” Cambridge University Press, New York (2005).Google Scholar
6. Rubin, E.S., Chen, C., and Rao, A.B., “Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage”, Energy Policy 35 (2007) 4444–4454.Google Scholar
7. Wildbolz, C., “Life Cycle Assessment of Selected Technologies for CO2 Transport and Sequestration”, Diploma Thesis No. 2007MS05, Department Bau, Umwelt und Geomatik, Institute of Environmental Engineering (IfU), ETHZ, Zurich (July 2007).Google Scholar
8. Doka, G., “Critical Review of “Life Cycle Assessment of Selected Technologies for CO2 Transport and Sequestration' Diploma Thesis No. 2007MS05 by C. Wildbolz”, Zurich (September 2007).Google Scholar
9. Hendriks, C., Graus, W., van Bergen, F., “Global Carbon Dioxide Storage Potential and Costsfl. ECOFYS and TNO, Netherlands (2004). http://www.ecofys.com/com/publications/documents/GlobalCarbonDioxideStorage.pdfGoogle Scholar
10. Goedkoop, M., Effting, S. and Collignon, M., “The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment.” PRé Consultants BV, Amersfoort NL (2001).Google Scholar