You are here:
Economic and environmental evaluation of coal-and-biomass-to-liquids-and-electricity plants equipped with carbon capture and storage
Citation:
Aitken, M., Dan Loughlin, R. Dodder, AND W. Yelverton. Economic and environmental evaluation of coal-and-biomass-to-liquids-and-electricity plants equipped with carbon capture and storage. CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 18(2):573-581, (2015).
Impact/Purpose:
Demonstrates the application of a MARKAL energy system model-based technology assessment methodology to the coal-and-biomass-to-liquids-and-electricity-with-CCS class of technologies. This is an interesting application of the methodology since the technology participates in multiple energy markets (e.g., liquid fuels and electricity production) and is thus impacted by factors affecting those markets. Furthermore, this technology has the potential to produce low-carbon or even negative-carbon energy, and thus is of interest from a climate change mitigation standpoint.
Description:
Among various clean energy technologies, one innovative option for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions involves pairing carbon capture and storage (CCS) with the production of synthetic fuels and electricity from co-processed coal and biomass. With a relatively pure CO2 stream as an inherent byproduct of the process, most of the resulting GHG emissions can be eliminated by simply compressing the CO2 for pipeline transport. The incorporation of CCS at such facilities can result in very low—perhaps even near-zero—net GHG emissions, depending on the fraction of biomass as input and its CO2 signature.To examine the potential market penetration and environmental impact of coal-and-biomass-to-liquids-and-electricity (CBtLE), a system-wide sensitivity analysis was performed using the MARKet ALlocation (MARKAL) energy model. In particular, CBtLE was found to be most competitive in scenarios with a combination of high oil prices, low CCS costs, and, unexpectedly, non-stringent carbon policies. In the scheme considered here (30 % biomass input on an energy basis and 85 % carbon capture), CBtLE fails to achieve significant market share in deep decarbonization scenarios, regardless of oil prices and CCS costs. Such facilities would likely require higher fractions of biomass feedstock and captured CO2 to successfully compete in a carbon-constrained energy system.
