Journal Pre-proof

Techno-economic analysis of ultra-supercritical power plants using air- and oxy-

combustion circulating fluidized bed with and without CO2 capture

Thang Toan Vu, Young-Il Lim, Daesung Song, Tae-Young Mun, Ji-Hong Moon,
Dowon Sun, Yoon-Tae Hwang, Jae-Goo Lee, Young Cheol Park
PII: S0360-5442(19)32550-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116855
Reference: EGY 116855

To appear in: Energy

Received Date: 13 June 2019

Revised Date: 13 December 2019
Accepted Date: 24 December 2019

Please cite this article as: Vu TT, Lim Y-I, Song D, Mun T-Y, Moon J-H, Sun D, Hwang Y-T, Lee J-G,
Park YC, Techno-economic analysis of ultra-supercritical power plants using air- and oxy-combustion
circulating fluidized bed with and without CO2 capture, Energy (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2019.116855.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Techno-economic analysis of ultra-supercritical power plants using air- and oxy-

combustion circulating fluidized bed with and without CO2 capture

Thang Toan Vua, Young-Il Lima,*, Daesung-Songb,*, Tae-Young Munc, Ji-Hong Moonc,

Dowon Sunc, Yoon-Tae Hwangc and Jae-Goo Leec, and Young Cheol Parkd

a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Hankyong National University, 327 Jungang-ro,

Anseong, 17579 Republic of Korea.

b
School of Chemical Engineering, Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu,

Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea

c
Future Energy Plant (FEP) Convergence Research Center, Korea Institute of Energy

Research, Daejeon, Yuseong-gu, Gajeong-ro 152, 34129 Republic of Korea

d
Greenhouse gas laboratory, Korea Institute of Energy Research, Daejeon, Yuseong-gu,

Gajeong-ro 152, 34129 Republic of Korea

*Corresponding author: Young-il Lim (limyi@hknu.ac.kr) and Daesung Song

(dssong@chonnam.ac.kr)

1
Highlights

> Air- and oxy-combustion coal-fired power plants with and without CO2 capture

> Amine absorption unit (AAU) and CO2 processing unit (CPU) for CO2 capture

> Net electricity efficiency reduced from 46% to 36% and to 39% due to AAU and CPU

> Oxy-combustion power plant with CO2 capture advantageous over the air-combustion one

Graphical abstract

2
Abstract

The adoption of oxy-combustion in a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) producing ultra-

supercritical (USC) steam has been investigated to increase energy efficiency and reduce CO2

emissions of coal-fired power plants. This paper presents a techno-economic analysis for 500

MWe USC-CFB power plants with air- and oxy-combustion in the presence of CO2 capture.

An amine absorber unit (AAU) and a CO2 processing unit (CPU) were used to capture CO2 in

the air- and oxy-combustion power plants, respectively. The air-combustion power plant

without CO2 capture (Case 1) showed the highest net electricity efficiency (46%), whereas the

introduction of an AAU in the air-combustion power plant (Case 2) reduced the net efficiency

to 36%. The net efficiency (39%) of the oxy-combustion power plant with CPU (Case 3) was

higher than that of Case 2 owing to the recycling of hot flue gas. The levelized cost of

electricity (LCOE) of Case 3 (59 $/MWh) was lower than that of Case 2 (64 $/MWh), which

demonstrated that oxy-combustion was advantageous compared to air-combustion in a

scenario with CO2 capture. The sensitivity analyses of the electricity price and CO2 credit

showed economic situations where Cases 2 and 3 would be profitable.

Keywords: Coal-fired power plant, Oxy-combustion, Ultra-supercritical steam, CO2 capture,

CO2 processing unit, Techno-economic analysis.

3
1. Introduction

According to the World Energy Outlook 2018 (IEA, 2018), the electricity demand in 2040

will reach 35,500 TWh, with an increase of 60% compared to the consumption in 2017 [1]. In

2012, coal was responsible for approximately 40% of the world's electricity production,

approximately 8,600 TWh out of a global total of 21,600 TWh. Until now, coal remains the

largest source for electricity production. However, coal-fired power plants were responsible

for approximately 43% of the world's energy-related CO2 emissions in 2016 [2]. The

European Union (EU) and USA set a goal to reduce 40% and 26-28% of their CO2 emissions

by 2025-2030 (compared to the levels in 2005), respectively [2-4]. As the demand for coal-

fired power plants should continue to rise in next decades, CO2 emissions from those plants

are a main challenge for the sustainable development of the electricity sector. Therefore, much

attention has been paid to carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies associated with coal-

fired power plants [5].

The post-combustion CO2 capture using amine solvent is the most technologically and

commercially-matured technology [6]. The primary step in the absorption process includes

diffusion of CO2 from the gas into the liquid phase. In the liquid phase, chemical reactions

lead to bicarbonate and carbamate formation. Then, the regeneration of the amine solution

occurs in a stripper column [7]. The typical amine absorption process can be modified by

adding more heat exchangers and recycling the withdrawn steam to achieve higher energy

efficiency [8-10]. Several researchers developed amine solvents upgraded over methyl

ethanolamine (MEA), such as methyl diethanolamine (MDEA), piperazine (or

diethylenediamine), and 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol [11-13]. However, the amine

absorption unit (AAU) significantly reduces the power plant efficiency, consuming a

regeneration energy of approximately 4 GJ/t-CO2 for MEA-based CO2 capture processes [14,

15]. The AAU is also prone to corrosion of materials caused by absorbents.

4
 Oxy-combustion is a promising technology to address the disadvantages of the post-

combustion CO2 capture technology [16]. Fuel is burnt in O2 and CO2 instead of air to avoid

nitrogen contamination [17]. Subsequently, the rich CO2 flue gas is easier to be purified. It

presents lower energy requirements than post-combustion and does not require chemical

solvents [18, 19]. Despite these advantages, an oxy-combustion power plant requires high

energy for an air separation unit (ASU) to produce oxygen. The energy requirement of an

ASU has been reported as 0.7-0.9 GJ/t-O2 [20-22]. A CO2 processing unit (CPU) can be used

for cryogenic separation to capture CO2 from relatively high purity CO2 streams, for example,

from oxy-combustion [23].

Apart from CCS technologies, the use of highly efficient power plants at an industrial

scale can also reduce CO2 emissions due to the reduction of the coal feed [24]. Circulating

fluidized-bed (CFB) power plants with ultra-supercritical (USC) steam have advantages over

pulverized combustors (PC) in terms of fuel flexibility and low combustion temperature. The

advantages result in considerable reduction of NOx formation, and in SOx reduction by

limestone injection in the fluidized-bed [25]. The combination of USC-CFB and CCS

technology can be a promising solution in the power production sector because they not only

increase electricity efficiency, but also reduce the pollutant emissions (CO2, NOx, and SOx).

Several studies compared the techno-economic characteristic of CCS technologies in coal-

fired power plants [10, 26-29]. Rubin et al. (2015) summarized the CCS cost in fossil-fuel

power plants [29]. Pettinau et al. (2017) presented an impact of AAU on capital and operating

costs of three types of coal-fired power plants: air-combustion, oxy-combustion, and

integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) [28]. Cormos et al. (2017) compared the

energy penalty for CO2 capture in sub- and super-critical steam CFB power plants using AAU

and a gas-solid adsorption unit [26]. Oh et al. (2018) reported the techno-economic impacts of

process integration on the net electricity efficiency of a coal-fired power plant with an MEA-

5
based AAU [10]. Nevertheless, to date, the techno-economic analysis of an oxy-combustion

USC-CFB power plant with CPU has not been investigated. There is a need for an economic

comparison between conventional air-combustion and oxy-combustion CFB power plants with

and without CO2 capture.

This paper presents a techno-economic assessment of three 500 MWe coal-fired power

plants: 1) air-combustion USC-CFB power plant without CO2 capture, 2) air-combustion

USC-CFB power plant with an MEA-based AAU, and 3) oxy-combustion USC-CFB power

plant with an ASU and CPU. The three power plants were simulated under the same operating

conditions for coal pretreatment, combustion, and electricity generation using a commercial

process simulator. Economic values such as total capital investment (TCI), total production

cost (TPC), levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), CO2 capture cost (CCC), return on

investment (ROI), and payback period (PBP) were estimated and compared to evaluate their

economic feasibility and carbon capture efficiency. This study will provide a useful tool to

identify the technical and economic effects of a CO2 capture system on existing and new coal-

fired power plants.

2. Process description and modeling

A bituminous coal containing 31.6 wt% volatile matter and 5 wt% water was used as the

feedstock. The proximate and ultimate analyses are shown in Table 1. The inorganic ash in the

coal (8.1 wt%) contained metals (Fe, Ti, Sr, Mn, and Cu) and minerals (SiO2, Al2O3, and CaO).

The molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon was approximately 0.68. The coal contained 0.3 wt%

sulfur and had a lower heating value (LHV) of 30.2 MJ/kg.

6
Table 1. Proximate and ultimate analyses of the coal used in this study.

Bituminous coal
Moisture 5.0
Volatile matter 31.6
Proximate analysis
Fixed carbon 55.3
(wt%)
Ash 8.1
Total 100
C 77.8
H 4.4
O 8.5
Ultimate analysis
N 0.9
(wt%, dry basis)
S 0.3
Ash 8.1
Total 100
LHV (MJ/kg) 30.2

The coal supply was set at 3,150 t/d for a net electricity generation of 500 MW without

CO2 capture. Three configurations of coal-fired USC-CFB power plants were considered:

Case 1 (air-combustion power plant without CO2 capture; airCFB), Case 2 (air-combustion

power plant with AAU; airCFB-AAU), and Case 3 (oxy-combustion power plant with CPU;

oxyCFB-CPU). The process flow diagrams (PFDs) were constructed using a commercial

process simulator (ASPEN Plus, ASPEN Tech, USA) to calculate the mass and energy

balances.

To compare the cases under the same circumstances, the following assumptions were

applied: i) the coal feed rate was fixed at 3,150 t/d for all three cases; ii) the mass ratio of O2

to coal was set to 2.5; iii) the CFB was operated at 875 °C and 1.04 bar, with a heat loss of 5%

in the LHV, and a carbon conversion of 99%; iv) 90% of the SO2 was removed by CaCO3

(limestone) inside the CFB combustor; v) NOx was removed by a selective catalytic reduction

(SCR) unit with aqueous NH3; vi) the dust was removed using an electrostatic precipitator

(ESP); vii) USC steam (600 °C and 300 bar) was generated from the CFB boiler; and viii) CO2

was captured and compressed at 8 bar and 175 °C, with a recovery of 90% [28] and a purity

higher than 98% for Cases 2 and 3. The captured and compressed CO2 can be further
7
processed for the chemical utilization of CO2, which improves the economic feasibility of the

climate change mitigation approach over CO2 sequestration [30].

2.1. Air-combustion USC-CFB power plant (Case 1)

Case 1 is a conventional air-combustion USC-CFB power plant without CO2 capture,

consisting of four main areas, as shown in Fig. 1: A100 (coal pretreatment to reduce the coal

size), A200 (CFB combustion to produce USC steam and remove dust, SOx, and NOx), A300

(electricity generation), and A400 (flue gas desulfurization and cooling). The detailed PFD

and stream tables are provided in Supplementary Material S1.

In this power plant, the coal is firstly crushed into small particles of approximately 8 mm

in A100. After that, the coal is fed into a CFB combustor operated at 875 °C and 1 bar in

A200. The flue gas exiting the CFB combustor undergoes the SCR for NOx removal and the

ESP for dust removal. In the flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit (A400), lime slurry is

sprayed in the flue gas to further remove SOx and reduce the temperature. The steam boiler in

A300 has a single reheated steam cycle at 300 bar, with superheated and reheated steam

conditions at 600 °C and 620 °C, respectively. The steam cycle includes one super heater

(HE301, see Fig. S1.3), one reheater (HE302), feed-water heaters (HE303 to HE310) with

heat-exchange of steam extracted from turbines, one condenser (HE311), and two feed-water

pumps (P301 and P302), which was presented by Espatolero et al. for a USC steam cycle [31].

With this steam cycle, the plant efficiency based on LHV can reach 45 to 46% [32].

The Peng-Robinson equation of state, which is particularly suitable for oxidation processes

at high temperatures, was used for A100, A200, and A400. The STEAMNBS property method

was adopted for the steam in A300. This method provides an accurate calculation of

thermodynamic properties of water and steam at ultra-supercritical conditions (ASPEN Plus

v10).

8
Fig. 1. Block flow diagram for air-combustion USC-CFB power plant without CO2 capture (Case

1)

2.2. Air-combustion USC-CFB power plant with an AAU (Case 2)

In Case 2, an MEA-based AAU was added to the air combustion CFB power plant to capture

CO2. The A100 to A400 of Case 2 are the same as those of Case 1, as shown in Fig. 2. The

detailed PFD and stream tables are provided in Supplementary Material S2. A typical AAU

consists of two columns, namely absorber and stripper (C501 and C502, respectively, see Fig.

S2.5), and a heat exchanger between the rich and lean MEA solvents.

The operating conditions of AAU (A500) are listed in Table 2. The flue gas after the FGD

unit enters the absorber column (C501) at the bottom. A CO2-lean MEA solution (0.3 mol-

CO2/mol-MEA) at 40 °C is injected into the absorber. The mass ratio of MEA solution to flue gas

is 4.9. In the flue gas, 345 t/h CO2 are chemically absorbed by a 30 wt% MEA solvent injected at

9
the top. A CO2-rich MEA solvent (0.49 mol-CO2/mol-MEA) is heated to 120 °C and regenerated

in the stripper column (C502). The heat required for the solvent regeneration in the stripper is

provided at 6 bar and 325 °C by a low-pressure (LP) superheated steam (M15 in Fig. 2), and it is

withdrawn from the electricity generation area (A300). The CO2 released from the top of the

stripper is cooled and passes through a flash (T501) to separate the MEA solution from the CO2-

rich flue gas, which is compressed to 8 bar. The lean MEA solvents from the stripper and flash

bottoms, and the makeup MEA solution are recycled to the top of the absorber column.

Fig. 2. Block flow diagram for air-combustion USC-CFB power plant with amine absorption

unit (Case 2)

A rigorous rating and design for the fractionation column (RadFrac) was used to model the

absorber and stripper columns with random packing and structured packing, respectively. The

amine absorber was simulated by a rate-based model including chemical reactions in the liquid

10
phase and mass transfer between the gas and liquid phases. The electrolyte non-random two-

liquid (NRTL) thermodynamic method was used for the CO2-H2O-MEA system. The main

reactions for the CO2 absorption with MEA solution included water dissociation, CO2 hydrolysis,

bicarbonate dissociation, carbamate hydrolysis, and MEA protonation [33, 34]. The equilibrium

constants and kinetic parameters for the reactions were obtained from previous studies [34-38].

The interfacial areas for the random packing (IMTP, Norton) and structure packing (Mellapak

750Y, Sulzer) were calculated based on the empirical correlations established by Onda et al. [39]

and Bravo et al. [40], respectively. The interfacial area factor was set to 1.2 for the absorber

column, and 1.0 for the stripper column [41]. The CO2 removal efficiency was set to 90%,

capturing 310 t/h CO2. The specific reboiler duty was 3.95 GJ/t-CO2, which was in the range of

3.57 to 5.1 GJ/t-CO2 presented in previous studies [4, 10, 37, 42, 43].

Table 2. Operating parameters of AAU in Case 2.

Parameter Value
L/G mass ratio of absorber feed 4.9
MEA solution mass fraction (wt%) 30
CO2 loading (lean solvent) (mol-CO2/mol-MEA) 0.30
CO2 loading (rich solvent) (mol-CO2/mol-MEA) 0.49
Inlet temperature of lean MEA solution (°C) 40
Inlet temperature of rich MEA solution (°C) 120
Specific reboiler duty (GJ/t-CO2) 3.95

2.3. Oxy-combustion USC-CFB power plant with a CO2 processing unit (Case 3)

In Case 3, an ASU (A600) was added to the USC-CFB power plant to supply 95 mol% O2,

and a CPU (A700) was used for CO2 capture. Fig. 3 illustrates the block flow diagram of Case 3.

Unlike the FGD of Cases 1 and 2, the flue gas after the ESP was cooled in a flue gas conditioning

(FGC) system (A400) to remove water, sulfur, and fine dust. Most of the SOx was removed in the

11
low pressure (LP) and high pressure (HP) scrubbers of the CPU (A700). Approximately 79 wt%

CO2-rich flue gas (M5, see Fig. 3) exiting the ESP at 170 °C was recycled to dilute the pure

oxygen stream (M12). The oxygen molar ratio in the mixture gas should not exceed 40% to avoid

over-heating of the combustor [23], and it was set at approximately 32% in M6 and M12. The

equivalent oxygen mass ratio to coal was maintained at 2.5. The Peng-Robinson equation of state

was used for ASU (A600). For CPU (A700), the Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) equation of state

was adopted due to its suitability for high pressure chemical processes [44]. The CFB (A200)

involves a non-conventional component such as coal (solid), whereas only conventional gas

components are used in the ASU (A600). A stream class changer (CC1) was implemented to

successfully connect A200 and A600. A detailed PFD and stream tables are provided in the

Supplementary Material S3. The operating conditions of Case 3 are listed in Table 3.

Fig. 3. Block flow diagram for oxy-combustion USC-CFB power plant with CO2 processing unit

(Case 3)

12
Table 3. Operating parameters of CPU in Case 3.

Parameter Value
O2 purity in ASU (mol%) 95
Specific energy for O2 separation (GJ/t-O2) 0.84
O2 molar concentration in oxidizing gas (mol%) 32
Initial compression pressure of flue gas (bar) 30
First and second flash temperature (°C) in CPU −20 and −55
First and second flash pressure (bar) in CPU 25 and 20.3
Specific energy for CPU (GJ/t-CO2) 0.35

In A600, a conventional double-column cryogenic distillation cycle that provides gaseous

oxygen with a 95 mol% purity at 1.2 bar was adopted (see Fig. S3.6 in Supplementary Material).

Ambient air was compressed to 4.1 bar in a main air compressor (COMP601) and cooled to 20

°C. After the cooler (HE601), the stream was divided in two to improve the cryogenic process

efficiency in the main heat exchanger (M601), where these two streams were cooled to −176 °C

and −148 °C, respectively. The cooled air (stream number 606) at −176 °C was sent at 4.0 bar to

the high-pressure column (HPC), where the first distillation of air occurred. In the HPC, 99 mol%

N2 was produced at the top and 41 mol% oxygen was the bottom product. The N2-rich top and O2-

rich bottom streams (stream number 608 and 609, respectively) were cooled again to −184 °C in

the second heat exchanger (M602). The two streams were expanded to 1.5 bars by valves, before

entering the low pressure column (LPC). The bottom product (95 mol% O2) went through the

main heat exchanger and was sent to the CFB combustor. The heat released from the HPC

condenser was integrated with that of the LPC reboiler by a heat pump. The N2 stream from the

LPC passed first the M602, increasing the temperature from −194 °C to −179 °C. In M601, the N2

stream was heated to 15 °C, then it was sent out. The specific power consumption of the ASU was

13
0.84 GJ/t-O2, which is within the range reported in the literature (0.662-0.882 GJ/t-O2) [20-22,

28].

The dual-stage flash technology is often used to separate CO2 from the CO2-rich flue gas [18].

A CPU with a dual-stage flash process [23, 45] produced 98 mol% CO2 at 8 bar, with a CO2

recovery of 90 wt% (see Fig. S3.7 in Supplementary Material). The flue gas from FGC was

purified in the LP scrubber (C701), using 50 wt% caustic soda (NaOH) to reduce the SOx

concentration to less than 20 ppm and most of the NOx. The multi-stage compressor (COMP7)

with intercoolers compressed the flue gas to 30 bar, where NOx reacting with O2 and H2O forms

HNO3, which was removed in a condenser [45]. The flue gas at 30 bar entered the HP scrubber

(C702) using chilled water at 7 °C. The remaining water in the flue gas was removed by a

temperature swing adsorption (TSA) process using a molecular sieve. The flue gas was sent to the

multi-stream heat exchanger (M701), in which it was cooled to −20 °C. The liquid and vapor

phases were separated in the first flash column (T701) at 25 bar. The vapor stream was further

cooled to −55 °C and entered a second flash column at 20 bar [23]. The vapor stream was sent

back to the heat exchangers to transfer the heat, and after that, it went to the stack. The two

bottom products of the two flash columns were mixed and passed the first heat exchanger (M701)

to be heated to 175 °C. In the CPU area, 311 t/h of CO2 were produced at 8 bar and 175 °C. The

specific power consumption of the CPU was 0.35 GJ/t-CO2 (= 98 kWh/t-CO2).

3. Method of techno-economic analysis

The economic values, such as the total capital investment (TCI), total production cost (TPC),

return on investment (ROI), and payback period ( PBP) [46-48], were compared for all three cases

under several economic assumptions. Process performances such as net electricity efficiency (η),

14
specific CO2 emission rate (Wc), levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), and CO2 capture cost (CCC)

were evaluated and compared with other published studies. Since the economic situation can

change with time, sensitivity analyses were performed for the major economic factors.

3.1. Estimation of total capital investment (TCI) and total production cost (TPC)

Once the PFD and process models were established, the mass and energy balances were

calculated to obtain temperature (T), pressure (P), flow rate (Q), and composition (xi) in each

stream. The equipment type and size were determined based on the stream table. The direct and

indirect equipment cost (CDI), including purchased equipment cost, installation cost, and indirect

cost was calculated through the capacity ratio method [49]:

φ
 
CDI = CDI,ref .
 , (1)
 

where A is the capacity of the equipment; CDI,ref is the direct and indirect cost of equipment with a

capacity of Aref; and I and Iref are the chemical engineering plant cost index (CEPCI) of the current

year (2017, in this case) and the reference year, respectively. The capacity exponent (ϕ) was fixed

at 0.6 in this study. The reference cost (CDI,ref) was obtained from the National Energy

Technology Laboratory (NETL) report of 2011 [50-52], considering 2007 the reference year. The

ESP and FGC costs were calculated by using the Aspen Process Economic Analyzer, considering

2016 the reference year. The CEPCIs of 2007, 2016, and 2017 were 525.4, 541.7, and 567.5,

respectively [53].

The fixed capital investment (FCI) and TCI were calculated using the factorial method [49].

The FCI is the sum of all CDI and project contingency, and TCI includes the FCI and working

capital.

FCI = (1 + ) ∑
 , , (2)

15
 TCI = (1 + ), (3)

where N is the number of equipment, c is the project contingency factor, and d is the working

capital factor. In this study, c and d were set to 0.1 and 0.05, respectively [46-48].

The TPC includes raw material cost (CR), utility cost (CU), and fixed cost (CF).

TPC =  +  +  , (4)

where CU includes the costs of electricity, cooling water, and chilled water; and the fixed cost (CF)

is the sum of the operating laborer cost (Clabor), maintenance cost (Cmain), operating charges (Coper),

plant overhead (COH), and general and administration cost (CGA) [54].

 =  + !"# + $% + &' + ( , (5)

where Cmain was set to 2% of FCI; and Coper, COH, and CGA were 25%, 50%, and 8% of Clabor,

respectively. Thus, Eq. (5) leads to:

 = 0.02 + 1.83 , (6)

where Clabor was calculated for 60 laborers and 20 supervisors with a salary of 40,000 $/y and

80,000 $/y, respectively, for Case 1. With the addition of AAU, ASU and CPU, the number of

laborers with 3 shift/day was added by 7, 6, and 6, respectively [49]. The number of supervisors

was assumed to be three for each additional unit.

3.2. Calculation of return on investment (ROI) and payback period (PBP)

ROI and PBP are well-known economic criteria for investment decisions. To calculate them,

the gross profit before tax (PG,n) of each year (n) is defined as:

PG,n = ASR(1+α)n-1 – TPC(1+α)n-1 – Cdep,n – Cdebt,n, (7)

where ASR, Cdep, and Cdebt are the annual sales revenue, depreciation cost, and debt repayment

cost, respectively. ASR and TPC increase every year with the inflation rate (α). ASR is the sum of

16
the selling profits from electricity, CaSO4, and CO2, where the CO2 credit is considered profit

with a trading price of 20.66 $/t [55]. Cdep is given as an equal value of FCI divided by the plant

life (Lp), while Cdebt is repaid with fully amortized principal and interest payments during Lp [48].

The annual net profit (PN,n) is the profit after the corporation income tax (β) is paid in the nth-

year:

PN,n = PG,n(1-β ) (8)

The average net profit (PN,avg) was calculated from the present value of PN,n converted with the

interest rate (γ) [48].

 . 12,3
PN,avg = ∑#
/
0 6 (9)
./ (45)3

The ROI is expressed as a percentage of PN,avg by TCI:

12,789
ROI (%/y) =100 :;
(10)

The PBP was calculated by diving the FCI by the present value of the annual cash flow (CFn)

averaged for Lp:

;
PBP (y) = < =/ >?3 (11)
∑ 0 6
=/ 3B< (<@A)3

CFn was obtained as follows [56]:

CFn = PN,n + Cdep,n - Ccap,n, (12)

where the annual capital expenditure (Ccap,n) was assumed to be equivalent to 30% of the FCI

divided by Lp, which corresponds to 30% equity.

3.3 Process performance criteria for power plant

The net electricity efficiency (η) based on the LHV of the feed is defined as follows:

C3D (FGH )
η (%) = 100× , (13)
.'I J J%%K (FGLM )

17
where the net electricity (Enet) was calculated by subtracting the consumed electricity from the

gross electricity of the power plant with or without CO2 capture. The specific CO2 emission rate

(Wc) is:
Q9
;&N %!"OO"# P% ( )
R
Wc (kg/MWh) = , (14)
C3D (FGH )

where the CO2 emission rate (kg/h) is the discharged CO2 flow rate excluding the captured CO2.

The LCOE ($/MWh) is usually calculated as the ratio between total expenses and net

electricity at the present value [57, 58]:

=/ 0>[\D,3 @>]7/,3 @^_>3 6

∑3B<
(<@A)3
STU ($/MWh) = =/ `/ ∙b3D , (15)
∑3B<
(<@A)3

where Hp (h/y) is the plant availability per year, and the interest rate (γ) is used for the total

expense and net electricity at the present value.

CCC represents the economic viability of a CO2 capture system relative to the market price of

CO2 as an industrial commodity [59]. The CCC was defined as the increase in LCOE between the

power plant with and without CO2 capture:

(.;&C)>> c (.;&C)
CCC ($/t-CO2) = (>dN )]7/De[ , (16)
b3D

where the CO2 (t/h) captured from AAU or CPU is divided by the net electricity (MWe); LCOEref

is the LCOE value of Case 1; and LCOEcc is that of Case 2 or Case 3.

3.4. Economic assumptions

Several assumptions were required to investigate the economic feasibility of the plants, as

shown in Table 4. The plants were constructed with 30% equity, resulting in a debt ratio (λ) of 0.7.

This assumption reduced the economic feasibility due to increased financial costs, but makes this

18
study closer to an actual industrial project. The working time (Hp) was selected as 8000 h per year

that is equivalent to 91% of the annual full capacity). The plant life (Lp) was assumed as 20 years,

the startup period as 4 months in the first year, and the inflation rate (α) and interest rate (γ) as 2%

and 6%, respectively. A corporation income tax rate (β) of 20% of the gross profit was used.

The costs of coal, electricity, cooling water, and chilled water were set as 50 $/ton, 0.098

$/kWh, 0.273 $/m3, and 1.0 $/m3, respectively. The raw material costs and product prices refer to

the market values in 2017.

Table 4. Economic assumptions.

Economic parameters Value

Debt ratio (λ) 0.7
Plant availability (Hp) 8000 h/y
Plant life (Lp) 20 y
Startup time (50% plant performance) 4 months
Inflation rate (α) 2.0%/y
Corporation tax rate (β) 20%
Interest rate (γ) 6.0%/y
Price of utilities, raw materials, and Value
products
Electricity 0.098 $/kWh
Chilled water 1.0 $/m3
Cooling water 0.273 $/m3
Coal 50 $/t
Coal char 50 $/t
Limestone 23.28 $/t
Pure MEA 1150 $/t
50 wt% NaOH solution 223 $/t
9.5 wt% NH3 solution 20 $/t
CaSO4 7.2 $/t
CO2 credit 20.66$/t

4. Results and Discussion

The process and economic performance of the three plants were compared. In this section,

the sensitivity analyses of ROI and PBP on TCI and TPC are presented, with ± 30% perturbation

19
of TCI and TPC. The effects of electricity price and CO2 credit on ROI and PBP were also

investigated.

4.1. Process performance of USC-CFB power plants

The process performances of all three plants are summarized in Table 5. The airCFB power

plant (Case 1) generates a net electricity of approximately 500 MWe. It shows a net electricity

efficiency of 45.5%, which coincides with the value for the USC coal-fired power plant [14, 28],

and it is higher than that of a supercritical (SC) CFB power plant [26]. The gross power output of

Case 2 decreased to 437 MWe because a large amount of steam for AAU was subtracted from the

steam turbine. However, the gross power output of Case 3 increased, since there was no

subtraction of steam, and the hot flue gas at 170 °C was recycled into the combustor. The

electricity consumption of Case 3 (131 MWe) was the highest due to the presence of both ASU

and CPU. Thus, the net electricity was reduced to 396 and 431 MWe for Cases 2 and 3,

respectively. The reductions on the electricity efficiency (or efficiency penalty) of Cases 2 and 3

were 9.5% and 6.3%, respectively. The specific CO2 emission rates (Wc) of Cases 2 and 3 were 87

kg/MWh and 80 kg/MWh due to the introduction of AAU and CPU, respectively. The CO2

recovery for both Cases 2 and 3 was 90%, as mentioned earlier.

20
Table 5. Process performance of air- and oxy-combustion USC-CFB power plants with and

without CO2 capture.

airCFB airCFB-AAU oxyCFB-CPU

Performance indicators
(Case 1) (Case 2) (Case 3)
Gross power output (MWe) 528.9 436.5 562.5
Electricity consumption (MWe) 27.8 40.3 130.8
Net electricity (Enet, MWe) 501.1 396.2 431.7
Net electricity efficiency (η, %) 45.5 36.0 39.2
Specific CO2 emission rate (Wc, kg-CO2/MWh) 688.9 87.3 80.0
CO2 recovery (ξ, %) 0 90 90

Table 6 compares the performance of coal-fired power plants with various technologies such as

PC, CFB, SC, and USC. The air combustion USC technology without CCS reaches a net

efficiency of 45−46%, which is greater than that of the SC technology (41%). Air-combustion

coal-fired power plants with USC emits lower CO2 per a unit electricity production than that with

SC, because the electricity efficiency of USC is higher than that of SC.

NETL (2008) reported a pulverized-coal oxycombustion power plant (oxyPC) with SC and AAU

technologies that showed a net efficiency (η) of 33% [50]. Hagi et al. (2014) showed an improved

net efficiency (η = 38.9%) for an oxyPC with USC and CPU [17]. Case 3 (oxyCFB-CPU with

USC) proposed in this study has a similar electricity efficiency to the oxyPC-CPU with USC.

21
Table 6. Performance of coal-fired power plants with various technologies.

Net electricity Specific CO2

Fuel input Net electricity
Technology efficiency emission rate
(MWth) (Enet, MWe)
(η, %) (Wc, kg-CO2/MWh)

airCFB with USC (Case 1) 1101 501 45.5 689

Air- airPC with USC (Pettinau et al., [28]) 1000 451 45.1 777
combustion
airPC with USC (Espatolero et al., [31]) 1620 744 46.0 737

airCFB with SC (Cormos et al., [26]) 1207 500 41.4 849

oxyCFB-CPU with USC (Case 3) 1101 432 39.2 80

Oxy-
oxyPC-CPU with USC (Hagi et al., [17]) 397 38.9
combustion
oxyPC-AAU with SC (NETL, [50]) 550 33.0

4.2. Analysis of TCI, TPC, LCOE and CCC

The economic performances of the power plants are shown in Table 7. Case 3 presents the

highest total CDI and TCI because of ASU and CPU. The TCI of Cases 2 and 3 increased by 19%

and 22%, respectively, compared to that of Case 1. The TCI of Case 1 is slightly lower than that

of an Italian USC coal-fired power plant, which was 1,152 million dollars (M$) in 2017 [60]. The

specific TCI ($/kWe) of Case 2 is higher than that of Case 3, which has a larger net electricity

production. The TPC of Case 2 (91.7M$/y) is slightly higher than that of Case 3 (89.4 M$/y),

mainly due to the MEA cost in Case 2.

The LCOE of Case 1 is 44.6 $/MWh, which is comparable to that of a USC coal-fired power

plant (43.6 $/MWh) in 2017 [28]. However, the LCOE of Case 2 (64.3 $/MWh) is lower than that

of a USC coal-fired power plant with MEA-based AAU (71.6 $/MWh) [28], where captured CO2

was compressed to 110 bar for transportation and storage. The CCC of Case 2 is lower than the

CCC of other studies [26, 28] due to the low compression pressure of captured CO2 (8 bar).

22
 Table 7. Economic values according to power plant configurations.

Economic value Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Total CDI (M$) 915 1,087 1,113
TCI (M$) 1,057 1,255 1,285
Specific TCI ($/kWe) 2,109 3,168 2,978
TPC (M$/y) 83.1 91.7 89.4
LCOE ($/MWh) 44.6 64.3 58.9
CCC ($/t) 25.2 19.9

In this study, it was confirmed that Case 3 (oxy-combustion power plant with CPU) is a more

promising CCS technology than Case 2 (air-combustion power plant with AAU) owing to the

higher electricity efficiency and lower CCC.

In terms of CDI, the contribution of each sector of the power plant is shown in Fig. 4, where

the order of the legend follows that of the bar chart. The capital cost is divided into several sectors

that are commonly used for cost breakdown in other studies [50-52]. The highest capital

investment in all three cases is the CFB combustor-boiler package, which accounts for

approximately 42-43% of the total CDI. The CDI of the combustor-boiler package is 390 M$ for

Cases 1 and 2, and 405 M$ for Case 3. Compared to Case 1, the capital cost of Case 2 increases

mainly due to the AAU, while for Case 3, it increases due to the CPU and ASU. The capital costs

of AAU, ASU, and CPU are 195 M$, 164 M$, and 89 M$, respectively.

23
 Case 3

Case 2

Case 1

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Direct and indirect equipment cost (M$)

Coal pretretment system Ash/sorbent handling system Combustor-boiler package

Feed water system
Air cooler and condenser
ESP
Land and civil engineering
CPU
HRSG, ducting, and stack Main steam turbine
Accessories FGD or FGC
Cooling water system Instrumentation and control
Building and structure AAU
ASU

Fig. 4. Direct and indirect equipment cost (CDI) of each sector of the power plant

Table 8 compares LCOE and CCC of coal-fired power plants with different CCS technologies.

The economic values were converted into the US dollar ($) in 2017. CO2 was compressed into 8

bar in Cases 2 and 3, while it was 110-120 bar for the other cases from the literature. The LCOE

of our study (Cases 2 and 3) is lower than the other power plants due to the higher electricity

efficiency (η).

An integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant with Rectisol [28] shows also

competitive LCOE. As the CCC depends strongly on the CO2 compression cost, our study with a

CO2 compression at 8 bar shows lower CCCs compared to other studies with 110-120 bar. A SC

power plant with calcium looping adsorption of CO2 [26] exhibits an improved CCC of 24 $/t,

even though CO2 is compressed into 120 bar. Because these economic values were obtained under

24
different process configurations, operating conditions and economic assumptions, a large

discrepancy between the power plants in the economic values is observed.

Table 8. Comparison of coal-fired power plants with various CCS technologies.

Technology Enet (MWe) η (%) LCOE ($/MWh) CCC ($/t)

airCFB with USC/AAU (Case 2) 396 36.0 64 25a
oxyCFB with USC/CPU (Case 3) 432 39.2 59 20a
airPC with USC/AAU (Pettinau et al., [28]) 342 34.2 72 57b
oxyPC with USC/AAU (Pettinau et al., [28]) 356 35.6 72 37b
IGCC with Rectisol (Pettinau et al., [28]) 353 35.3 68 43b
airCFB with SC/adsorption (Cormos et al., [26]) 592 35.2 75 24c
a
: 8 bar, b: 110 bar, and c: 120 bar for CO2 compression.

4.3. ROI and PBP

Table 9 shows the ROI and PBP of the three power plants. The ROIs of Cases 1, 2, and 3 are

10.9 %/y, 6.7 %/y, and 7.7 %/y, respectively, whereas the PBPs are 7.4 year, 11.1 year, and 9.9

year, respectively. As expected, Case 3 is more economically feasible due to higher ROI and

lower PBP, compared to Case 2.

Table 9. ROI and PBP of three power plants.

Economic criteria Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

ROI (%/y) 10.9 6.7 7.7
PBP (y) 7.4 11.1 9.9

Fig. 5 illustrates the sensitivity of ROI on TCI and TPC, with a ± 30% variation. The slope of

ROI with respect to the relative variation of TCI and TPC is always negative, which means that

ROI increases as TCI or TPC decreases. The greater the slope of ROI with respect to the relative

change, the bigger the influence on the ROI [48]. Therefore, TCI influences ROI more than TPC.

25
A TCI change to 70% of the baseline would increase the ROI to 18.1 %/y, 12.1 %/y, and 13.6

%/y in Cases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. To achieve a ROI of Case 1, the TCI should be reduced to -

25% in Case 2 and -20% in Case 3.

Fig. 6 shows the sensitivity of PBP on TCI and TPC, with a ± 30% variation. The effect of

PBP on TCI and TPC is opposite to that of ROI. PBP increases as TCI or TPC increases. To

decrease the PBP to 8 years, TCI needs to decrease to -20% in Case 2 and -15% in Case 3.

Fig. 5. Sensitivity of ROI on TCI and TPC

26
 Fig. 6. Sensitivity of PBP on TCI and TPC

The effect of the electricity price on ROI is shown in Fig. 7. The electricity price is within a

range of ± 30% from the base price, which was 98 $/MWh. ROI increases linearly with the

electricity price. As the amount of electricity generated in Case 1 was higher than that of Cases 2

and 3, the ROI of Case 1 is sensitive to the electricity price. The increasing ratio of ROI to

electricity price is almost the same for Cases 2 and 3. To achieve a ROI of over 11 %/y with CCS

technology, the electricity price has to be higher than 130 $/MWh for Case 2 and higher than 121

$/MWh for Case 3.

The CO2 allowance price is also essential in a power plant with CCS. In this study, the

allowance price of CO2 credits is $20.66 per ton of CO2 [55]. The CCCs of Cases 2 and 3 are 25.2

and 19.9 $/t-CO2 (see Table 7), respectively. Therefore, Case 2 (power plant with AAU) has no

27
advantage regarding theCO2 allowance price. The CCS of Case 3 is almost the same as the CO2

allowance price.

Fig. 8 shows the ROI with respect to CO2 credit. For Case 1, ROI does not change with CO2

credit because there is no CO2 capture. The ROIs of Cases 2 and 3 increase linearly with the CO2

credit, as shown in Fig. 7. To reach the ROI of the conventional power plant (11%/y) without

CCS, the CO2 credit should be over 50 $/t-CO2 for Case 3 and over 60 $/t-CO2 for Case 2.

20
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
15
ROI (%/y)

10

5 Base line

0
69 78 88 98 108 118 127
Electricity price ($/MWh)

Fig. 7. Effect of ROI on electricity price

28
 14

12

10
ROI (%/y)

6
Base line

4
Case 1
2 Case 2
Case 3
0 0
5 10 15 21 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
CO2 credit ($/t)

Fig. 8. Effect of ROI on CO2 credit

5. Conclusion

Coal-fired power plants will continue to be main contributors to the electricity production

sector. Therefore, the demand for CO2 capture and storage (CCS) to mitigate their contribution to

climate change is increasing. In this study, the effects of CCS on 500 MWe coal-fired circulating

fluidized-bed (CFB) power plants with ultra-supercritical (USC) steam was investigated in terms

of the total capital investment (TCI), total production cost (TPC), levelized cost of electricity

(LCOE), cost of CO2 captured (CCC), return on investment (ROI), and payback period (PBP).

Three coal-fired USC-CFB power plants were considered: Case 1 (air-combustion power plant

without CO2 capture), Case 2 (air-combustion power plant with an MEA-based amine absorption

unit (AAU)), and Case 3 (oxy-combustion power plant with a CO2 processing unit (CPU)). The

29
three cases were compared under the same assumptions, including coal feed rate, CO2 recovery,

and temperature and pressure of captured CO2.

The net electricity of Cases 1, 2, and 3 were 500 MWe, 400 MWe, and 430 MWe, respectively,

with a net electricity efficiency of 46%, 36%, and 39%, respectively. The TCI of Case 3 was the

highest because of the air separation unit (ASU) for pure oxygen supply and the CPU for CO2

capture. The TPC of Case 2 was the highest because of the supply of MEA solution in the AAU.

The LCOEs of Cases 1, 2, and 3 were 45, 64, and 59 $/MWh, respectively. The CCC of Case 2

(25 $/t-CO2) was higher than that of Case 3 (20 $/t-CO2) because of the lower electricity

generation and higher TPC. The ROIs of Cases 2 and 3 decreased to 7%/y and 8%/y, respectively,

compared to that of Case 1 (11%/y). There would be a ROI of 11%/y if the electricity price for

Cases 2 and 3 increased from 98 $/MWh to 130 $/MWh and 121 $/MWh, respectively. Moreover,

if the CO2 credit as allowance price increased from 21 $/t-CO2 to 50−60 $/t-CO2, the coal-fired

power plants with CCS (AAU and CPU) would become competitive, with a ROI of 11%/y.

In this preliminary techno-economic analysis, the oxy-combustion USC-CFB power plant

with CPU (Case 3) was more economically feasible than the air-combustion USC-CFB power

plant with AAU (Case 2) due to the higher electricity efficiency, lower LCOE, and higher ROI.

Nevertheless, a power plant such as the one in Case 3 is still developing from laboratory-scale to

commercial large-scale. The energy consumption in ASU and CPU must be reduced to make CCS

a viable technology. In Case 2, this study focused on the MEA-based AAU. However, an AAU

with an advanced solvent, such as advanced MDEA, would increase the economic feasibility of

Case 2 by reducing the regeneration heat of the solvent.

Acknowledgements

30
This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded

by the Korean government (MEST) (Grant number: NRF-2019R1H1A2079924). This work was

also supported by the National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST) grant of the

Korea government (MSIP) (No.CRC-15-07-KIER).

Supplementary Material

The supplementary material is provided on the website: doi number.

References

[1] IEA. World Energy Outlook 2018. OECD. 2018.

[2] EIA. International Energy Outlook 2016 with Projections to 2040. U.S. Energy Information

Administration. 2016.

[3] European Commission, Green paper: A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies, EU.

2013.

[4] Koytsoumpa EI, Bergins C, Kakaras E. The CO2 economy: Review of CO2 capture and reuse

technologies. J Supercrit Fluid 2018;132:3-16. https://10.1016/j.supflu.2017.07.029

[5] MacDowell N, Florin N, Buchard A, Hallett J, Galindo A, Jackson G, Adjiman CS, Williams

CK, Shah N, Fennell P. An overview of CO2 capture technologies. Energ Environ Sci

2010;3(11):1645-69. https://10.1039/c004106h

[6] Kanniche M, Le Moullec Y, Authier O, Hagi H, Bontemps D, Neveux T, Louis-Louisy M.

Up-to-date CO2 capture in thermal power plants. Energ Procedia 2017;114:95-103.

https://10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1152

31
[7] Freguia S. Modeling of CO2 removal from flue gases with monoethanolamine, Master thesis:

The University of Texas at Austin, USA, 2002.

[8] Agbor E, Oyedun AO, Zhang X, Kumar A. Integrated techno-economic and environmental

assessments of sixty scenarios for co-firing biomass with coal and natural gas. Appl Energ

2016;169:433-49. https://10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.018

[9] Le Moullec Y, Neveux T, Al Azki A, Chikukwa A, Hoff KA. Process modifications for

solvent-based post-combustion CO2 capture. Int J Greenh Gas Con 2014;31:96-112.

https://10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.09.024

[10] Oh S-Y, Yun S, Kim J-K. Process integration and design for maximizing energy efficiency

of a coal-fired power plant integrated with amine-based CO2 capture process. Appl Energ

2018;216:311-22. https://10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.100

[11] Feyzi V, Beheshti M, Gharibi Kharaji A. Exergy analysis: A CO2 removal plant using a-

MDEA as the solvent. Energy 2017;118:77-84. https://10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.020

[12] Freeman SA, Dugas R, Van Wagener D, Nguyen T, Rochelle GT. Carbon dioxide capture

with concentrated, aqueous piperazine. Energ Procedia 2009;1(1):1489-96.

https://10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.195

[13] Muraleedharan R, Mondal A, Mandal B. Absorption of carbon dioxide into aqueous blends

of 2-amino-2-hydroxymethyl-1,3-propanediol and monoethanolamine. Sep Purif Technol

2012;94:92-6. https://10.1016/j.seppur.2011.10.035

[14] Goto K, Yogo K, Higashii T. A review of efficiency penalty in a coal-fired power plant with

post-combustion CO2 capture. Appl Energ 2013;111:710-20.

https://10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.05.020

32
[15] Wang M, Lawal A, Stephenson P, Sidders J, Ramshaw C. Post-combustion CO2 capture with

chemical absorption: A state-of-the-art review. Chem Eng Res Des 2011;89(9):1609-24.

https://10.1016/j.cherd.2010.11.005

[16] Moon J-H, Jo S-H, Park SJ, Khoi NH, Seo MW, Ra HW, Yoon S-J, Yoon S-M, Lee J-G,

Mun T-Y. Carbon dioxide purity and combustion characteristics of oxy firing compared to air

firing in a pilot-scale circulating fluidized bed. Energy 2019;166:183-92.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.045

[17] Hagi H, Le Moullec Y, Nemer M, Bouallou C. Performance assessment of first generation

oxy-coal power plants through an exergy-based process integration methodology. Energy

2014;69:272-84. https://10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.008

[18] Lockwood T. Developments in oxyfuel combustion of coal. IEA Clean Coal Centre. London.

2014.

[19] Yin C, Yan J. Oxy-fuel combustion of pulverized fuels: Combustion fundamentals and

modeling. Appl Energ 2016;162:742-62. https://10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.149

[20] Hanak DP, Powell D, Manovic V. Techno-economic analysis of oxy-combustion coal-fired

power plant with cryogenic oxygen storage. Appl Energ 2017;191:193-203.

https://10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.049

[21] Romeo LM, Abanades JC, Escosa JM, Paño J, Giménez A, Sánchez-Biezma A, Ballesteros

JC. Oxyfuel carbonation/calcination cycle for low cost CO2 capture in existing power plants.

Energy Convers Manag 2008;49(10):2809-14. https://10.1016/j.enconman.2008.03.022

[22] Ströhle J, Lasheras A, Galloy A, Epple B. Simulation of the carbonate looping process for

post-combustion CO2 capture from a coal-fired power plant. Chem Eng Technol

2009;32(3):435-42. https://10.1002/ceat.200800569

33
[23] ISO. Carbon dioxide capture-Carbon dioxide capture systems, technologies and processes.

ISO/TR 27912. Switzerland: BSI Standards Publication; 2016.

[24] Lee SH, Lee TH, Jeong SM, Lee JM. Economic analysis of a 600 MWe ultra supercritical

circulating fluidized bed power plant based on coal tax and biomass co-combustion plans.

Renew Energy 2019;138:121-7. https://10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.074

[25] Barnes I. Operating experience of low grade fuels in circulating fluidised bed combustion

(CFBC) boilers. IEA Clean Coal Centre. London. 2015.

[26] Cormos A-M, Cormos C-C. Techno-economic evaluations of post-combustion CO2 capture

from sub- and super-critical circulated fluidised bed combustion (CFBC) power plants. Appl

Therm Eng 2017;127:106-15. https://10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.08.009

[27] Oboirien BO, North BC, Kleyn T. Techno-economic assessments of oxy-fuel technology for

South African coal-fired power stations. Energy 2014;66:550-5.

https://10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.032

[28] Pettinau A, Ferrara F, Tola V, Cau G. Techno-economic comparison between different

technologies for CO2-free power generation from coal. Appl Energ 2017;193:426-39.

https://10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.056

[29] Rubin ES, Davison JE, Herzog HJ. The cost of CO2 capture and storage. Int J Greenh Gas

Con 2015;40:378-400. https://10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.018

[30] Rafiee A, Rajab Khalilpour K, Milani D, Panahi M. Trends in CO2 conversion and

utilization: A review from process systems perspective. J Environ Chem Eng

2018;6(5):5771-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.08.065

34
[31] Espatolero S, Romeo LM, Cortés C. Efficiency improvement strategies for the feedwater

heaters network designing in supercritical coal-fired power plants. Appl Therm Eng

2014;73(1):449-60. https://10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.08.011

[32] Espatolero S, Cortés C, Romeo LM. Optimization of boiler cold-end and integration with the

steam cycle in supercritical units. Appl Energ 2010;87(5):1651-60.

https://10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.10.008

[33] Li B-H, Zhang N, Smith R. Simulation and analysis of CO2 capture process with aqueous

monoethanolamine solution. Appl Energ 2016;161:707-17.

https://10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.010

[34] Lim Y, Kim J, Jung J, Lee CS, Han C. Modeling and simulation of CO2 capture process for

coal- based power plant using amine solvent in South Korea. Energ Procedia 2013;37:1855-

62. https://10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.065

[35] Austgen DM, Rochelle GT, Peng X, Chen CC. Model of vapor-liquid equilibria for aqueous

acid gas-alkanolamine systems using the electrolyte-NRTL equation. Ind Eng Chem Res

1989;28(7):1060-73. https://10.1021/ie00091a028

[36] Hikita H, Asai S, Ishikawa H, Honda M. The kinetics of reactions of carbon dioxide with

monoethanolamine, diethanolamine and triethanolamine by a rapid mixing method. Chem

Eng J 1977;13(1):7-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9467(77)80002-6

[37] P.R.Arachchige US, Melaaen MC. Aspen Plus simulation of CO2 removal from coal and gas

fired power plants. Energ Procedia 2012;23:391-9. https://10.1016/j.egypro.2012.06.060

[38] Pinsent BRW, Pearson L, Roughton FJW. The kinetics of combination of carbon dioxide

with hydroxide ions. Trans Faraday Soc 1956;52(0):1512-20. https://10.1039/TF9565201512

35
[39] Onda K, Takeuchi H, Okumoto Y. Mass transfer coefficients between gas and liquid phases

in packed columns. J Chem Eng Japan 1968;1(1):56-62. https://10.1252/jcej.1.56

[40] Bravo JL, Rocha JA, Fair JR. Mass transfer in gauze packing. Hydrocarbon Process

1985;64(1):91-5.

[41] Zhang Y, Chen H, Chen C-C, Plaza JM, Dugas R, Rochelle GT. Rate-based process

modeling study of CO2 capture with aqueous monoethanolamine solution. Ind Eng Chem Res

2009;48(20):9233-46. https://10.1021/ie900068k

[42] Notz R, Mangalapally HP, Hasse H. Post combustion CO2 capture by reactive absorption:

Pilot plant description and results of systematic studies with MEA. Int J Greenh Gas Con

2012;6:84-112. https://10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.11.004

[43] Soltani SM, Fennell PS, Mac Dowell N. A parametric study of CO2 capture from gas-fired

power plants using monoethanolamine (MEA). Int J Greenh Gas Con 2017;63:321-8.

https://10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.06.001

[44] Al-Malah KIM. Aspen Plus: Chemical engineering applications. Hoboken: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc., 2017.

[45] Spero C. Callide oxyfuel project-Lessons learned. Global CCS Institute. Fortitude Valley,

Australia. 2014.

[46] Do TX, Lim Y-I, Jang S, Chung HJ. Hierarchical economic potential approach for techno-

economic evaluation of bioethanol production from palm empty fruit bunches. Bioresour

Technol 2015;189:224-35. https://10.1016/j.biortech.2015.04.020

[47] Do TX, Lim Y-I, Yeo H, Lee U-d, Choi Y-t, Song J-h. Techno-economic analysis of power

plant via circulating fluidized-bed gasification from woodchips. Energy 2014;70:547-60.

https://10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.048

36
[48] Do TX, Lim Y-I, Cho H, Shim J, Yoo J, Rho K, Choi S-G, Park C, Park B-Y. Techno-

economic analysis of fry-drying and torrefaction plant for bio-solid fuel production. Renew

Energy 2018;119:45-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.11.085

[49] Peters M, Timmerhaus K, West R. Plant design and economics for chemical engineers. 5th

ed: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

[50] DOE. Pulverized coal oxycombustion power plants, Volume 1: Bituminous coal to

electricity-Final report. NETL-2007/1291. 2008.

[51] DOE. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants; Volume 3b-Low rank coal to

electricity-Combustion cases. NETL-2011/1463. 2011.

[52] DOE. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants volume 1a: Bituminous coal

and natural gas to electricity-Revision 3. NETL-2015/1723. 2015.

[53] Chemical engineering plant cost index (CEPCI). Chemical Engineering. New York: Access

Intelligence LLC; 2018.

[54] Oh C-H, Lim Y-I. Process simulation and economic feasibility of upgraded biooil production

plant from sawdust. Korean Chem Eng Res 2018;56(4):496-523.

https://doi.org/10.9713/KCER.2018.56.4.496

[55] International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP). Korea emissions trading scheme. Korean

Mistry of Environment. 2019.

[56] Do XT, Prajitno H, Lim Y-I, Kim J. Process modeling and economic analysis for bio-heavy-

oil production from sewage sludge using supercritical ethanol and methanol. J Supercrit Fluid

2019;in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.supflu.2019.05.001

37
[57] Do TX, Lim Y-I. Techno-economic comparison of three energy conversion pathways from

empty fruit bunches. Renew Energy 2016;90:307-18.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.01.030

[58] Larsson S, Fantazzini D, Davidsson S, Kullander S, Höök M. Reviewing electricity

production cost assessments. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014;30:170-83.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.09.028

[59] Rubin ES. Understanding the pitfalls of CCS cost estimates. Int J Greenh Gas Con

2012;10:181-90. https://10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.06.004

[60] Pettinau A, Ferrara F, Amorino C. Combustion vs. gasification for a demonstration CCS

(carbon capture and storage) project in Italy: A techno-economic analysis. Energy

2013;50:160-9. https://10.1016/j.energy.2012.12.012

38
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: