Publications, Reports & Research
Our publications, reports and research library hosts over 500 specialist reports and research papers on all topics associated with CCS.
Toward a common method of cost estimation for CO2 capture and storage at fossil fuel power plants
30th January 2013
Organisation(s): DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Global CCS Institute, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG), International Energy Agency (IEA), Zero Emissions Platform
There are more than 100 papers in the public domain on the costs of CCS. However, there are significant differences in the methods employed by various organizations to estimate the cost of CCS systems for fossil fuel power plants. Many of these differences were discussed at a series of workshops, commencing in 2011, through which an international group of experts from industrial firms, government agencies, universities, and environmental organizations met to share information and perspectives on CCS costs for electric power plants.
Such differences often are not readily apparent in publicly reported CCS cost estimates. As a consequence, there is a significant degree of misunderstanding, confusion, and misrepresentation of CCS cost information, especially among audiences not familiar with the details of CCS costing.
A key recommendation of the first workshop was that a task force be formed to develop guidelines and recommendations for a costing method and nomenclature that could be broadly adopted to produce more consistent and transparent cost estimates for CCS applied to electric power plants.
Commencing in late 2011, and Chaired by Ed Rubin, task force members George Booras (EPRI), John Davison (IEAGHG), Clas Ekstrom (Vattenfall), Mike Matuszewski (USDOE/NETL), Sean McCoy (IEA) and Chris Short (Global CCS Institute) prepared a White Paper outlining both differences that exist in many current studies as well as providing guidelines and procedures for CCS costing, encompassing the full chain of CCS.
The aim of the work is not to suggest or recommend a uniform set of assumptions or premises for CCS cost estimates. There are good reasons why the cost of a given technology may vary from one situation to another and from one location to another. Rather, the sole objective is to help all parties with an interest or stake in CCS costing do a better job by addressing the major deficiencies in current costing methods, especially differences in the items included in a cost analysis.
The report addresses six major topics relevant to CCS costs
- defining project scope and design
- defining nomenclature and cost categories for CCS cost estimates
- quantifying elements of CCS cost
- defining financial structure and economic assumptions
- calculating the costs of electricity and CO2 avoided
- guidelines for CCS cost reporting
Adapting to new CO2 injection well regulations
29th September 2011
Organisation(s): DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), European CCS Demonstration Project Network, Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB), Southern States Energy Board
Topic(s): CO2 storage
Retrofitting existing coal-fired power plants to capture CO2 is an important GHG mitigation option for the United States. Coal power plants are large point sources and account for roughly 37% of total U.S. CO2 emissions. Also, retrofitting utilizes the base power plant and related infrastructure and so the cost and level of disruption could be less than other greenhouse gas mitigation options. NETL studied the 738 coal-fired generating units currently operating in the United States and estimated how much the capital cost and parasitic load for CO2 retrofit would vary from unit to unit. Site-specific characteristics such as base plant efficiency, whether or not the unit has a sulfur scrubber, the efficiency of the sulfur scrubber, how much water is available for the unit to use, and how much space is available for the CO2 capture and compression equipment were factored in to an estimate of CO2 capture cost at each generating unit.
The objective of this report is to present an independent assessment of the cost and performance of low-rank coal oxycombustion power systems, specifically PC and circulating fluidized bed (CFB) plants, using a consistent technical and economic approach that accurately reflects current market conditions for plants starting operation in 2015.
This document was developed by the US Dept. of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory for regulatory organisations, project developers, and national and state policymakers to increase awareness of existing and developing monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) techniques used during carbon sequestration.
This National Energy Technology Laboratory Fact Sheet provides an overview of the Weyburn Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Project in Saskatchewan, Canada.
This study was performed to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of various levels of CO2 capture (e.g., 90%, 70%, 50%, and 30%) for retrofitting an existing pulverized coal-fired power plant (Conesville #5 unit in Ohio, United States) using advanced amine-based capture technology.
This paper examines regulatory developments of major CCS projects to determine actual progress in regulating such projects. There are five case studies of CCS projects that range from enhanced resource recovery to direct storage and which have been developed for a mix of purposes, such as commercial, research and development, and pilot demonstrations. These case studies indicate that regulatory progress varies greatly among projects, and differs depending on the size, scope, and the location of the projects. The focus of this report is the legal and regulatory context for international projects, but it should be recognised that CCS field projects in the United States are also addressing many of the regulatory issues related to CCS.