This article was published in an Elsevier journal.

The attached copy

is furnished to the author for non-commercial research and
education use, including for instruction at the authors institution,
sharing with colleagues and providing to institution administration.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 35 (2007) 51095116

www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

py

Environmental and economic assessment of the chemical absorption

process in Korea using the LEAP model

co

Ho-Jun Song, Seungmoon Lee, Sanjeev Maken, Se-Woong Ahn, Jin-Won Park,
Byoungryul Min, Wongun Koh
Department of Chemical Engineering, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemoon-ku, Seoul 120-749, South Korea

al

Received 12 March 2007; accepted 3 May 2007

Available online 20 June 2007

Abstract

pe

rs

on

CO2 emission from fossil fuels is a major cause for the global warming effect, but it is hard to remove completely in actuality.
Moreover, energy consumption is bound to increase for the continuous economic development of a country that has an industrial
formation requiring high-energy demand. Therefore, we need to consider not only a device for CO2 mitigation but also its impact
when a CO2 mitigation device is applied. The device for CO2 emission mitigation can be classied into three elds: energy
consumption reduction, development of CO2 removal and recovery technology, and development of alternative energy technology.
Among these options, CO2 removal and recovery technology has a merit that can be applied to a process in the near future.
Therefore, research for CO2 removal and recovery is actively progressing in Korea. In this study, environmental and economic
assessment according to the energy policy change for climate change agreement and increase of CO2 mitigation technology is
accomplished, on the bases of operating data for the CO2 chemical absorption pilot plant that is installed in the Seoul coal steam
power plant. The Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning system (LEAP) was used to analyze the alternative scenario, and results
were shown quantitatively.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

r's

Keywords: CO2; Pilot plant; Alternative scenario through LEAP

1. Introduction

Au

th
o

Global warming caused by greenhouse gases (GHGs)

has been recognized as a worldwide problem. Of all the
GHGs, CO2 is the most signicant, accounting for half
of the greenhouse effect. In 1992, over 150 countries
signed the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the Climate Conference
in Rio. Six years later, the third meeting was held in
Kyoto, and 175 countries agreed to take further actions
to reduce GHG emissions. In February 2005, the Kyoto
Protocol, in which it was agreed to decrease GHG
emissions by 5.2% in industrialized countries (Annex I)
during 20082012, was put into effect.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 364 1807; fax: +82 2 312 6401.

E-mail address: jwpark@yonsei.ac.kr (Jin-Won Park).

0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.004

Due to rapid industrialization, energy demand and

consequently CO2 emission owing to increased use of
fossil fuels are expected to increase (Ang, 2004; Boudri
et al., 2002; Choi and Ang, 2001; Choi et al., 1995; Chen
and Chen, 2007; Finon and Lapillonne, 1983; Geller
et al., 2006; Kroeze et al., 2004; Pachauri and Pachauri,
1985). Developing countries (Non-Annex I), including
Korea, are exempted from the reduction duty for the
time being. But Korea would be receiving the burden for
early duty demand from the international society
according to the world situation which discussed the
burden of duty for developing countries from 2002
(IPCC, 1997).
If Korea is restricted by the Kyoto Protocol, it will
undergo serious inuences because of industrial formation that requires much energy. Korea has been
developing an industrial structure requiring much

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.-J. Song et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 51095116

al

co

py

modeling tool developed at Stockholm Environment

Institute (SEI), Boston, to assess the effectsphysical,
economic and environmentalof alternative energy
programs, technologies and other energy initiatives.
LEAP includes the Technology and Environmental
Database that provides extensive information describing
the technical characteristics, costs and environmental
impacts of a wide range of energy technologies including
existing technologies, current best practices and nextgeneration devices. The central concept of LEAP is an
end-use-driven scenario analysis. LEAP contains a full
energy system accounting framework, which enables
consideration of both demand- and supply-side technologies and accounts for total system impacts. With its
links to the environmental database, LEAP can track
the pollution resulting from each stage of the fuel chain,
including the reduction in GHG emissions from extraction, processing, distribution and combustion activities
that might result from more efcient use of electricity or
other fuels (Lazaurus et al., 1994; Wang et al., 2007). In
this approach, the LEAP software tool is used to
analyze the current energy patterns and to simulate
alternative energy futures along with environmental
emissions under a range of user-dened assumptions.
LEAP emphasizes the detailed evaluation of specic
energy problems within the context of integrated energy
and environmental planning for each what if scenario
or combinations of scenarios (SEI-B, 2001). The
structure of LEAP is presented in Fig. 1. In this
approach, the LEAP software tool is used to analyze
the current energy patterns and to simulate alternative
energy futures along with environmental emissions
under a range of user-dened assumptions. LEAP
consists of four modules: energy scenarios, aggregation,
environmental data base and fuel chain. Each module
makes it possible to analyze extending impact by
technology and policy change through a description of
natural resources structured as energy sector, conversion
course, nal energy form and nal energy demand.
Moreover, it is possible to analyze for resource,
conversion, demand and environmental emission
through scenario analysis (Bose and Srinivasachary,
1997; Shin et al., 2005). This analysis consists of
integrated energy planning and GHG mitigation based
on social cost and benet.

Au

th
o

r's

pe

rs

energy due to high economy growth rate and low-cost

energy policy under the lead by Korean government for
many years. Furthermore, the energy consumption
increase rate is ahead of the GNP increase rate at the
present time. If energy consumption is restricted without
a change of policy or consumption pattern, the energy
transport sector transferring natural resources to usable
energy and the high-energy demand sector such as the
steel and petroleum industry will receive serious damage
(KEPCO, 2003). Consequently, a denite plan has to be
considered quickly providing against the effectuation of
the climate change agreement, and a realistic way must
be presented to mitigate global warming and also to
maintain the existing energy consumption pattern at the
same time.
Means for CO2 emission mitigation are energy
consumption reduction, development of CO2 removal
technology and development of alternative energy. CO2
removal technology has more merits than others as it
can be applied to existing power plants in a short time,
recovered CO2 can be reused and the bad effect for
economic action is not potent. Therefore, CO2 removal
technology attracts public attention as a device providing against the effectuation of the climate change
agreement.
Chemical absorption, one of the CO2 removal
technologies, is a process using chemical reactions of
absorbent. Chemical absorption is capable of treating a
large volume of gas and at a low partial pressure of CO2
(KIER, 1997). The most common absorbent used for
chemical absorption processes is monoethanolamine
(MEA). MEA has a rapid reaction rate and high
absorption efciency. Although MEA has high corrosiveness and large energy demand when the absorbent is
regenerated, yet it is the most commonly used absorbent
(Lee et al., 2005; Kohl and Nielsen, 1997; Hikita et al.,
1979; Xu et al., 1992).
In this study, we accomplish environmental and
economic assessments of chemical absorption processes
in Korea using the Long-range Energy Alternatives
Planning system (LEAP) model. We analyze the
scenario based on the data of a pilot plant (2 ton/day)
that is installed in the Seoul coal steam power plant, and
an alternative scenario is set according to energy policy
change by climate change agreement and development
of CO2 mitigation technology.

on

5110

2. Methodology

2.1. The LEAP model

This study uses an accounting and scenario-based
modeling platform called LEAP to assess the impact of
chemical absorption processes on the energyenvironmental system in Korea. LEAP is an energyenvironment

2.2. Business-as-usual (BAU) scenario

The baseline case of electricity generation in Korea is
determined in a BAU scenario using the LEAP model.
BAU is a scenario for existing electric generation in
Korea. A BAU scenario is composed of current
accounts (2000) and future projections for 15 years
and is named as LEAP ROK 2000 (Republic of Korea)
(Shin and Kim, 2002; Hippel, 2002). The base year data
set is developed from the government agencies statistics.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.-J. Song et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 51095116

DEMAND
MODULE

SUPPLY & CONVERSION

MODULE

ASSESSMENT
MODULE

End Use Demand

ENERGY
CONSUMPTION

Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation

GHG
EMISSION

py

Resources

5111

DIRECT
COST

Transformation
Technology

Electricity
Town Gas
Oil Refining
District Heating

Etc.

Scenario analysis using generalized DB

-BAU(Business As Usual) Scenario
analysis of existing current account data
-Alternative Scenario
analysis of renewable energy tech. DB
** Scenario analysis of effects of reducing tech.
on the economic, environmental, and technical
change **

on

al

DB collecting of each reducing technology

-Energy
resource, final product, application of tech.
-Environment
emission factor, second pollutant analysis
-Economy
capital costs, O & M, interest rates
**DB Generalization of reducing tech. **

co

Capital / O+M cost

Energy Intensity
GHG Intensity

r's

pe

rs

Fig. 1. Analytical procedure of bottom-up model (LEAP).

th
o

Fig. 2. Projection of world primary energy demand (metric ton of oil equivalent) by fuel.

Au

The energy demand trends by fuel are shown in Fig. 2

(World Energy Outlook, 2006) and major socioeconomic indicators on the basis of the BAU scenario are
shown in Table 1 (OPM, 2002). Results of the BAU
scenario are shown in Table 2. The industrial sector
occupied most parts of energy demand and is the main
contributor to the emissions of GHGs. Energy demand
heavily depends on fossil fuel, especially on petroleum
products (MOCIE, 2000). After the climate change
negotiation reaches an agreement on conferences of
parties 7 (COP7) in 2001, energy demand encourages the
use of non-fossil fuel and natural gas (MOCIE, 2001).
Annual output projections of electricity generation in a
BAU scenario of the LEAP model are shown in Table 3.
Annual electricity output was about 200,000 GWh in

2000 (Shin et al., 2005). Increased rate of electricity

generation is 3.5% as a mean value for the time horizon.
Over 80% of the electricity was produced by the coal
steam and the nuclear facility as a base load. Combined
cycle, liqueed natural gas and oil steam facilities
are operated at the second place (KEPCO, 1997).
The electricity output of the BAU scenario is projected
with conventional trends (population, household and
efciency), energy supply and demand patterns, economic situation and energy policy (Shin et al., 2005).
Since the BAU scenario is completed, alternative
scenarios make it possible to compare coal steam
systems, including chemical absorption processes, with
existing coal steam systems from environmental and
economic criteria.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.-J. Song et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 51095116

5112
Table 1
Major socioeconomic indicators

2005

2010

1995 B won
Million
MTOE (%)
MTOE (%)
MTOE (%)
MTOE (%)
MTOE (%)
MTOE (%)
MTOE (%)

476,269
47.3
192.9
150.1 (100)
84.1 (56.0)
30.9 (20.6)
20.0 (13.3)
12.4 (8.3)
2.6 (1.8)

622,300
49.1
235.8
182.8 (100)
95.3 (52.1)
41.0 (22.4)
25.1 (13.7)
17.9 (9.8)
3.4 (1.9)

794,200
50.6
275.1
209.1 (100)
105.7 (50.5)
47.8 (22.9)
29.5 (14.1)
22.1 (10.6)
4.0 (1.9)

py

2000

co

GDP
Population
TPE
TFE
Industrial
Transport
Residential
Commercial
Public and others

Unit

Exchange rate: US$1 1200 won; MTOE: million ton of oil equivalent.

Table 2
Result of the BAU scenario using the LEAP model

172.6
136.8 (100)
81.2 (59.4)
31.3 (22.9)
17.2 (12.6)
5.6 (4.1)
1.5 (1.1)

(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)

2005

2010

2015

214.9
172.1 (100)
92.8 (53.9)
50.0 (29.0)
19.9 (11.6)
7.6 (4.4)
1.9 (1.1)

228.9
184.3 (100)
90.3 (49.0)
60.9 (33.0)
21.5 (11.7)
9.1 (4.9)
2.5 (1.4)

270.7
218.2 (100)
111.5 (51.1)
70.7 (32.4)
22.6 (10.4)
10.2 (4.7)
3.2 (1.5)

al

MTOE
MTOE
MTOE
MTOE
MTOE
MTOE
MTOE

rs

TPE
TFE
Industrial
Transport
Residential
Commercial
Public and others

2000

on

Unit

pe

MTOE: million ton of oil equivalent; TPE: total primary energy consumption; TFE: total nal energy consumption.

Table 3
Annual output projection (GWh, %) of electricity generation in the BAU scenario
2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Coal steam
Combined cycle
Hydro
Internal combustion
LNG steam
Nuclear
Oil steam

90,417 (38.7)
22,330 (9.5)
2820 (1.2)
235 (0.1)
1410 (0.6)
96,915 (42.5)
17,394 (7.4)

107,169 (38.4)
36,281 (13.0)
5581 (2.0)
1116 (0.4)
1674 (0.6)
108,284 (38.8)
18,977 (6.8)

147,510 (44.2)
21,789 (6.5)
7039 (2.1)
1245 (0.4)
2011 (0.6)
141,125 (42.1)
13,743 (4.1)

148,738 (37.8)
41,709 (10.6)
8263 (2.1)
853 (0.3)
2360 (0.6)
181,397 (46.1)
9837 (2.5)

166,829 (37.1)
47,705 (10.9)
9451 (2.1)
858 (0.2)
2700 (0.6)
203,252 (46.5)
11,251 (2.6)

Total

231,521 (100)

279,082 (100)

334,462 (100)

393,157 (100)

442,046 (100)

th
o

r's

Process

Au

2.3. Standard and basic assumptions for scenario analysis

It is necessary to assess the environmental, technological and economic criteria of coal steam generation,
including chemical absorption processes in the energy
system. The environmental criterion is determined for
CO2 mitigation effect, the technological criterion is
determined for efciency, stability and durability of the
technology, and the economic criterion is determined for
capital cost and operation and maintenance cost (O&M).
In this study, we assume that a chemical absorption
process was applied to a coal steam plant, and the
scenario was analyzed based on a BAU scenario.

2.3.1. Standard for scenario analysis








Input CO2 concentration to chemical absorption

tower: 1015% of total emission gases.
Maximum capacity factor: 83%.
Time range of estimate system: 20022015.
CO2 removal is applied to 5%, 10% and 15% of the
total emission in the years 2005, 2011 and 2015.
Expectation for energy demand and existing electric
power equipment from current account (2000) to year
2015 in Korea is installed by database research.
CO2 removal efciency is applied differently: 65%,
80% and 95%.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.-J. Song et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 51095116

5113

2.3.2. Course of scenario analysis

3. Result

3.1. Alternative scenario I analysis result for the chemical

absorption process

py

Table 4
Projection of CO2 emission (BAU) and capture values under different
emission target years
Target year (emission) Emission amount 2005 2010 2015 2020
162.3 171.4 189.7 206.2
595.1 628.5 695.6 756.1

1990 (65.2 million TC)

Million TC
97.1 106.2 124.5 141.0
Million ton CO2 356.0 389.4 456.5 517.0
Emission rate (%) 59.8 62.0 65.6 68.4

rs

1995 (100.1 million TC) Million TC

62.2 71.3 89.6 106.1
Million ton CO2 228.1 261.4 328.5 389.0
Emission rate (%) 38.3 41.6 47.2 51.5

al

Million TC
Million ton CO2

on

BAU

Alternative scenario I was analyzed according to the

CO2 emission restriction expectation value. Through the
current technological situation and the tendency of
climate change agreement, we can expect that the CO2
market would be run on a very extensive scale. GHG
mitigation goals of advanced countries are already
determined to reduce by 5.2%, compared to the 1990s,
from 2008 to 2012. In the case of Korea, the separation
technology level is elementary and the technology
market is not constituted yet, but we are convinced that
it will be formed by a policy change according to the
Kyoto Protocol. In scenario I, the GHG emission
amount is calculated by the BAU calculation method,
and the CO2 reduction amount was calculated by
assuming that restriction would be applied to Korea
(Non-Annex I in Kyoto Protocol) to reduce GHG
emissions from the years 1990, 1997 or 2000 according
to the xed-goal setting method shown in Table 4
(KEMCO, 2003). Table 4 is a standard because we
expect that this reduction level would be applied in
Korea. Also, alternative scenario I is established by
considering the technological advancement in the eld
of CO2 capture by chemical absorption, and owing to
this CO2 emission from power plants would be reduced
by 5% from 2005 to 2010, by 10% from 2011 to 2014
and by 15% in 2015 on the assumption that the chemical
absorption process is applied to coal steam plants from
2005.

co

A scenario is constituted based on the current

account of existing equipment and BAU scenario.
An alternative scenario is framed according to the
variables of scenario analysis (technological development of equipment, years when GHG emission
restriction would be enforced).
Compare the resulting data of two scenarios (CO2
mitigation efciency, and capital cost and O&M cost
of each scenario).

pe

1997 (118.3 million TC) Million TC

44.0 53.1 71.4 87.9
Million ton CO2 161.3 194.7 261.8 322.3
Emission rate (%) 27.1 31.0 37.6 42.6
2000 (121.3 million TC) Million TC
41.0 50.1 68.4 84.9
Million ton CO2 150.3 183.7 250.8 311.3
Emission rate (%) 25.3 29.2 36.1 41.2

r's

TC: ton carbon.

Table 5
Cost comparison of power plants using alternative scenario I
Cost (million won)

2005

2007

2009

2010

2011

2013

2015

1990

Capital cost
Fixed O+M cost
Variable O+M cost
Sum

125,891
55,071
96,846
277,809

148,349
64,895
114,432
327,678

172,305
75,375
127,989
375,669

183,534
80,287
135,361
399,182

375,054
164,067
271,801
810,923

394,768
172,691
289,546
857,005

633,949
277,321
479,795
1,391,065

1995

Capital cost
Fixed O+M cost
Variable O+M cost
Sum

82,971
36,296
63,828
183,095

99,316
43,446
76,609
219,371

117,158
51,251
87,025
255,434

124,685
54,797
90,763
270,245

250,036
109,378
181,201
540,616

268,377
117,402
196,844
582,844

456,029
199,490
345,139
1,000,658

Capital cost
Fixed O+M cost
Variable O+M cost
Sum

56,270
24,615
43,288
124,174

78,729
34,440
60,729
173,898

102,559
44,864
76,182
223,606

114,786
50,213
82,591
246,695

235,563
103,047
170,712
509,322

255,276
111,670
187,235
554,182

424,712
185,790
321,437
931,940

Capital cost
Fixed O+M cost
Variable O+M cost
SUM

52,278
22,869
40,216
115,363

74,736
32,693
57,649
165,079

98,692
43,172
73,308
215,173

110,254
47,694
82,024
239,972

227,702
99,608
165,015
492,327

247,416
108,232
181,469
537,118

412,859
180,605
312,466
905,931

2000

Au

1997

th
o

Scenario standard

Exchange rate: US$1 1200 won.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.-J. Song et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 51095116

5114

and 15%, respectively. CO2 emission to be captured

would decrease if the target year shifted to 1995, 1997 or
2000. Also, in this scenario it has been found that
removal of 3214 thousand tons of carbon in 2005 would
cost 277,809 million won (Tables 5 and 6).
The cost of CO2 removal is increasing every year due
to the increased amount of CO2 to be removed owing to
increased power generation. On the basis of these data,
the removal cost of 1 ton of CO2 is about 86,000 won.
These results are recorded in Tables 5 and 6 and are
shown graphically in Figs. 3 and 4.

co

py

In an alternative scenario I, four cases were considered, assuming that in the beginning the process
efciency would be 65%. In these four cases it was
assumed that under the Kyoto Protocol, Korea (NonAnnex I) may be asked to reduce/limit its emission to
the level of 1990, 1995, 1997 or 2000. Table 4 shows the
projection of CO2 emission in the BAU scenario along
with emission to be captured. In the rst case, if
restriction is applied on Korea from the 1990 emission
level when Korean emission from power plants was 65.2
million ton carbon, the amount of CO2 to be captured is
97.1, 106.2, 124.5 and 141.0 million tons of carbon in the
years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020, respectively. The sharp
increase in CO2 removal amount in the years 2011 and
2015 (Fig. 2) is due to increase in CO2 removal to 10%

3.2. Alternative scenario II analysis according to the

development of CO2 reduction technology

2013

65%

1990
1995
1997
2000

3214
2118
1437
1335

3798
2542
2015
1913

4248
2888
2528
2433

4151
2823
2471
2378

9609
6533
6214
6022

15,923
11,454
10,668
10,370

80%

1990
1995
1997
2000

3956
2607
1768
1643

4674
3129
2481
2355

5228
3555
3112
2994

5109 11,102 11,827 19,598

3474 7401 8040 14,097
3041 6973 7648 13,129
2927 6740 7412 12,763

95%

1990
1995
1997
2000

5067
3340
2265
2104

5988
4009
3178
3016

6697
4554
3986
3836

6545 14,222 15,150 25,105

4450 9481 10,300 18,059
3896 8932 9797 16,819
3749 8634 9495 16,349

r's

pe

rs

9020
6014
5665
5476

2015

on

Process efciency Year 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011

al

Table 6
CO2 removal amount (kton) with process efciency using alternative
scenario II

Alternative scenario II predicts the change of cost and

mitigation amount according to mitigation efciency
change. CO2 removal efciency is established for 65%,
80% and 95% CO2 removal. Alternative scenario II is
analyzed for CO2 emission value for the same target
year as in alternative scenario I. The effect of removal
efciency is shown in Table 6. For target year 1990, an
increase in efciency from 65% to 95% would increase
removal by 1853 tons of CO2 and this will further
increase to 9182 tons in 2015 when the CO2 removal
process will be applied to 15% of the total emission
from power plants. Results show that the CO2 removal
amount for each scenario is directly proportional to
technology development.
Fig. 4 shows the removal cost/ton of CO2 of each
scenario. In the case of 65% efciency, the CO2 removal
cost in 2005 and 2015 is 86,400 and 87,400 won,
respectively, for target year 1990. This removal cost
reduces to 54,800 and 55,400 won/ton CO2, with an

16000

1990 year
1995 year
1997 year
2000 year

Au

th
o

CO2 removal amount (thousand ton)

18000

14000
12000
10000

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

20

05

20

06

07

20

08
20

09
20

10
11
20
20
Year

12
20

Fig. 3. CO2 removal amount in scenario I.

13
20

14
20

15
20

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.-J. Song et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 51095116

5115

90000

70000
60000
50000

py

40000
30000
20000
10000
0

2005

2008

2012
Year

65%

80%

95%

co

Cost (won/ton of CO2)

80000

2015

Singh et al.
(2003)
(simulation
process)

Capacity (MW)
Capital cost (US$)
Operating cost (US$/year)
CO2 removal efciency (%)
CO2 recovery cost (US$/ton
CO2 avoided)
CO2 avoided from coal plant
(ton/year)
Generation cost (cent/kWh)
Generation cost considered to
absorption process (cent/kWh)
Operation time (h/year)
Generation amount (GWh/
year)

250
825,000
15,135
99
135

400
294,249,975
28,246,531
65
55

730

1,923,685

4.3
4.4

2.54
3.3

r's

8000
3200

th
o

3546
886.6

on

MEA
absorption
process (this
study)

pe

Parameter

process is estimated to capital cost, operating cost,

CO2 removal efciency and generation cost on the
assumption that the MEA absorption process is applied
to coal steam power plants.
Annual operation cost, applied to a 250 MW coal
steam power plant, is $15,135/year, which was calculated for the MEA absorption process in Korea. The
study of Singh et al. (2003) showed that annual
operation cost is $28,246,531. Moreover, CO2 recovery
costs of practical MEA absorption processes in Korea
and in Singhs study are $135/ton and $55/ton. This
difference in cost might be due to the small capacity of
our pilot plant (2 ton/day). This result shows the
necessity of further technology development and investment in Korea. But these data have great signicance,
because a CO2 separation pilot plant in coal steam
power plants has been established for the rst time in
Korea and would be quite helpful in the development of
large-scale plants as well as for technological independence of Korea.

rs

Table 7
Comparison of the practical MEA absorption process with the
simulation process using a Hysis simulator

al

Fig. 4. Removal cost in scenario II (target year: 1990).

Acknowledgement

3.3. Comparison with the practical MEA absorption

process in Korea and foreign cases

References

Au

increase in efciency to 95%. Thus, technology development not only increases the CO2 removal amount but
also decreases the cost of CO2 removal. In conclusion,
the CO2 removal cost of 95% process, which is the best
efciency, is 54,800 won/ton CO2. Thus, if carbon tax is
applied, this process has economical efciency when
carbon tax is more than $46.

Table 7 shows the result that was compared with the

results simulated by Hysis in foreign countries with the
practical MEA absorption process in Korea. Each

Sanjeev Maken thanks Dr. R. P. Bajpai, Vice

Chancelor, Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of
Science & Technology, Murthal, Haryana for the award
of study leave.

Ang, B.W., 2004. Growth curves for long-term global CO2 emission
reduction analysis. Energy Policy 32, 15691572.
Boudri, J.C., Hordijk, L., Kroeze, C., Amann, M., Cofala, J., Bertok,
I., Junfeng, L., Lin, D., Shuang, Z., Runquing, H., Panwar, T.S.,
Gupta, S., Singh, D., Kumar, A., Vipradas, M.C., Dadhich, P.,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.-J. Song et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 51095116

al

co

py

reduction potential and scenarios for 19902020. Energy Policy

32, 5576.
Lazaurus, M., Heaps, C., von Hippel, D., 1994. Assessment of
mitigation options for the energy sector. In: Technical Report to
IPCC Second Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II (ING 10th Session).
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Lee, S., Choi, S.I., Maken, S., Song, H.J., Shin, H.C., Park, J.W.,
Jang, K.R., Kim, J.H., 2005. Physical properties of aqueous
sodium glycinate solution as an absorbent for carbon dioxide
removal. Journal of Chemical Engineering Data 50, 17731776.
Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE) Report, 2000.
Energy consumption survey, Republic of Korea. /http://www.mocie.go.krS.
Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE) Report, 2001.
Statistics on electricity. The Ofce of Energy Industry Supervisor,
Republic of Korea. /http://www.mocie.go.krS.
Ofce of Prime Minister (OPM) Report, 2002. The second synthetic
measure for UNFCCC; executive summary. Republic of Korea.
/http://www.opm.go.krS.
Pachauri, R.K., Pachauri, R., 1985. Energy problems and policies in
developing countries. Energy Policy 13, 301303.
SEI-B, 2001. Long-range Energy Alternative Planning System; User
Guide for LEAP version 2000. Boston, USA. /http://www.seib.
orgS.
Shin, E.S., Kim, H.S., 2002. ROK LEAP dataset and BAU scenario.
Paper presented to the East Asia Energy Futures Workshop.
Nautilus Institute, Berkeley, CA.
Shin, H.C., Park, J.W., Kim, H.S., Shin, E.S., 2005. Environmental
and economic assessment of landll gas electricity generation in
Korea using LEAP model. Energy Policy 33, 12611270.
Singh, D., Croiset, E., Douglas, P.L., Douglas, M.A., 2003. Technoeconomic study of CO2 capture from an existing coal-red power
plant: MEA scrubbing vs. O2/CO2 recycle combustion. Energy
Conversion and Management 44, 30733091.
Wang, K., Wang, C., Lu, X., Chen, J., 2007. Scenario analysis on CO2
emissions reduction potential in Chinas iron and steel industry.
Energy Policy 35, 23202335.
World Energy Outlook, 2006. /http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
worldpol.aspS.
Xu, G.W., Zhang, C.F., Qin, S.J., Wang, Y.W., 1992. Kinetics study
on absorption of absorption of carbon dioxide into solutions of
activated methyldiethanolamine. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research 31, 921927.

Au

th
o

r's

pe

rs

Prasad, N.S., Srivastava, L., 2002. The potential contribution of

renewable energy in air pollution abatement in China and India.
Energy Policy 30, 409424.
Bose, R.K., Srinivasachary, V., 1997. Policies to reduce energy use and
environmental emissions in the transport sector: a case of Delhi
city. Energy Policy 25, 11371150.
Chen, G.Q., Chen, B., 2007. Resource analysis of the Chinese society
19802002 based on exergyPart 1: fossil fuels and energy
minerals. Energy Policy 35, 20382050.
Choi, K.H., Ang, B.W., 2001. A time-series analysis of energy-related
carbon emissions in Korea. Energy Policy 29, 11551161.
Choi, K.H., Ang, B.W., Ro, K.K., 1995. Decomposition of the energyintensity index with application for the Korean manufacturing
industry. Energy 20, 835842.
Finon, D., Lapillonne, B., 1983. Long term forecasting of energy
demand in the developing countries. European Journal of
Operational Research 13, 1228.
Geller, H., Harrington, P., Rosenfeld, A.H., Tanishima, S., Unander,
F., 2006. Polices for increasing energy efciency: thirty years of
experience in OECD countries. Energy Policy 34, 556573.
Hikita, H., Asai, S., Katsu, Y., Ikuno, S., 1979. Absorption of carbon
dioxide into aqueous monoethanolamine solutions. AIChE Journal
25, 793800.
Hippel, D.V., 2002. Summary Report of the East Asia Energy Futures
Project Activities and Accomplishment 20012002. Nautilus
Institute for Security and Sustainable Development.
IPCC, 1997. Special Report on the Regional Impacts of Climate
Change.
Kohl, A.L., Nielsen, R.B., 1997. Gas Purication, 5th ed. Gulf Pub.,
Houston.
Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) Report, 1997. The status
of generation facilities, Republic of Korea. /http://kepco.co.krS.
Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) Report, 2003. The study
on the development of demo plant scale carbon dioxide separation
and conversion technologies in power station, Republic of Korea.
/http://kepco.co.krS.
Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO) Report, 2003.
System theology of carbon dioxide separation for 10 years,
Republic of Korea.
Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER) Report, 1997. Development of new absorbent in ue gas. Ministry of Commerce, Industry
and Energy, Republic of Korea (in Korean).
Kroeze, C., Vlasblom, J., Gupta, J., Boudri, C., Blok, K., 2004. The
power sector in China and India: greenhouse gas emissions

on

5116