Comparing post-combustion CO2 capture operation at retrofitted coal-fired power plants in the Texas and Great Britain electric grids

This work analyses the carbon dioxide (CO2) capture system operation within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and Great Britain (GB) electric grids using a previously developed first-order hourly electricity dispatch and pricing model. The grids are compared in their 2006 configurati...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental research letters 2011-04, Vol.6 (2), p.024001
Hauptverfasser: Cohen, Stuart M, Chalmers, Hannah L, Webber, Michael E, King, Carey W
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page 024001
container_title Environmental research letters
container_volume 6
creator Cohen, Stuart M
Chalmers, Hannah L
Webber, Michael E
King, Carey W
description This work analyses the carbon dioxide (CO2) capture system operation within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and Great Britain (GB) electric grids using a previously developed first-order hourly electricity dispatch and pricing model. The grids are compared in their 2006 configuration with the addition of coal-based CO2 capture retrofits and emissions penalties from 0 to 100 US dollars per metric ton of CO2 (USD/tCO2). CO2 capture flexibility is investigated by comparing inflexible CO2 capture systems to flexible ones that can choose between full-and zero-load CO2 capture depending on which operating mode has lower costs or higher profits. Comparing these two grids is interesting because they have similar installed capacity and peak demand, and both are isolated electricity systems with competitive wholesale electricity markets. However, differences in capacity mix, demand patterns, and fuel markets produce diverging behaviours of CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired facilities are primarily base load in ERCOT for a large range of CO2 prices but are comparably later in the dispatch order in GB and consequently often supply intermediate load. As a result, the ability to capture CO2 is more important for ensuring dispatch of coal-fired facilities in GB than in ERCOT when CO2 prices are high. In GB, higher overall coal prices mean that CO2 prices must be slightly higher than in ERCOT before the emissions savings of CO2 capture offset capture energy costs. However, once CO2 capture is economical, operating CO2 capture on half the coal fleet in each grid achieves greater emissions reductions in GB because the total coal-based capacity is 6GW greater than in ERCOT. The market characteristics studied suggest greater opportunity for flexible CO2 capture to improve operating profits in ERCOT, but profit improvements can be offset by a flexibility cost penalty.
doi_str_mv 10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024001
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_O3W</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2551227403</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2551227403</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-i259t-1cee55ea0113e5eefc0c38d2c26319c9cdce342fddd0dd453b1cea5d74da16263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkDFPwzAQhS0EEqXwDxgsMaIQ24mTdIQIChJSlzJbrn0prtLY2I6AnR-OSxFi6HRP7967kz6ELim5oaRpclqXTTYrWJVXOcsJKwmhR2jyZx__06foLIQNIbzkdTNBX63dOunNsMbOhpgpu12NIRo74HbBsJIujh6wdeDljysj9hC97UyMoLGyss8645N09h08dr0cYsBmwPEV8BI-ZMBy0HjuIVXvvIky7aAHFb1ReO2NDufopJN9gIvfOUUvD_fL9jF7Xsyf2tvnzDA-ixlVAJyDJJQWwAE6RVTRaKZYVdCZmimtoChZp7UmWpe8WKWG5LoutaRVCk3R1f6u8_ZthBDFxo5-SC8F45wyVpekSKl8nzLWCefNVvpPQYnYoRY7jmLHUVSCiT3q1Lg-0DiQFE53xTfOhIFc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2551227403</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing post-combustion CO2 capture operation at retrofitted coal-fired power plants in the Texas and Great Britain electric grids</title><source>IOP Publishing Free Content</source><creator>Cohen, Stuart M ; Chalmers, Hannah L ; Webber, Michael E ; King, Carey W</creator><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Stuart M ; Chalmers, Hannah L ; Webber, Michael E ; King, Carey W</creatorcontrib><description>This work analyses the carbon dioxide (CO2) capture system operation within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and Great Britain (GB) electric grids using a previously developed first-order hourly electricity dispatch and pricing model. The grids are compared in their 2006 configuration with the addition of coal-based CO2 capture retrofits and emissions penalties from 0 to 100 US dollars per metric ton of CO2 (USD/tCO2). CO2 capture flexibility is investigated by comparing inflexible CO2 capture systems to flexible ones that can choose between full-and zero-load CO2 capture depending on which operating mode has lower costs or higher profits. Comparing these two grids is interesting because they have similar installed capacity and peak demand, and both are isolated electricity systems with competitive wholesale electricity markets. However, differences in capacity mix, demand patterns, and fuel markets produce diverging behaviours of CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired facilities are primarily base load in ERCOT for a large range of CO2 prices but are comparably later in the dispatch order in GB and consequently often supply intermediate load. As a result, the ability to capture CO2 is more important for ensuring dispatch of coal-fired facilities in GB than in ERCOT when CO2 prices are high. In GB, higher overall coal prices mean that CO2 prices must be slightly higher than in ERCOT before the emissions savings of CO2 capture offset capture energy costs. However, once CO2 capture is economical, operating CO2 capture on half the coal fleet in each grid achieves greater emissions reductions in GB because the total coal-based capacity is 6GW greater than in ERCOT. The market characteristics studied suggest greater opportunity for flexible CO2 capture to improve operating profits in ERCOT, but profit improvements can be offset by a flexibility cost penalty.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1748-9326</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1748-9326</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024001</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bristol: IOP Publishing</publisher><subject>Carbon dioxide ; Carbon sequestration ; Coal ; Coal-fired power plants ; Cost control ; Electric power demand ; Electric power generation ; Electric power grids ; Electricity ; Emissions control ; Energy costs ; Firing (igniting) ; Flexibility ; Industrial plant emissions ; Peak demand ; Peak load ; Power plants ; Profits ; Retrofitting</subject><ispartof>Environmental research letters, 2011-04, Vol.6 (2), p.024001</ispartof><rights>Copyright IOP Publishing Apr 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024001/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Giop$$H</linktopdf><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,1547,27607,27903,27904,53881,53908</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/2/024001$$EView_record_in_IOP_Publishing$$FView_record_in_$$GIOP_Publishing</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Stuart M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chalmers, Hannah L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Webber, Michael E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Carey W</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing post-combustion CO2 capture operation at retrofitted coal-fired power plants in the Texas and Great Britain electric grids</title><title>Environmental research letters</title><description>This work analyses the carbon dioxide (CO2) capture system operation within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and Great Britain (GB) electric grids using a previously developed first-order hourly electricity dispatch and pricing model. The grids are compared in their 2006 configuration with the addition of coal-based CO2 capture retrofits and emissions penalties from 0 to 100 US dollars per metric ton of CO2 (USD/tCO2). CO2 capture flexibility is investigated by comparing inflexible CO2 capture systems to flexible ones that can choose between full-and zero-load CO2 capture depending on which operating mode has lower costs or higher profits. Comparing these two grids is interesting because they have similar installed capacity and peak demand, and both are isolated electricity systems with competitive wholesale electricity markets. However, differences in capacity mix, demand patterns, and fuel markets produce diverging behaviours of CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired facilities are primarily base load in ERCOT for a large range of CO2 prices but are comparably later in the dispatch order in GB and consequently often supply intermediate load. As a result, the ability to capture CO2 is more important for ensuring dispatch of coal-fired facilities in GB than in ERCOT when CO2 prices are high. In GB, higher overall coal prices mean that CO2 prices must be slightly higher than in ERCOT before the emissions savings of CO2 capture offset capture energy costs. However, once CO2 capture is economical, operating CO2 capture on half the coal fleet in each grid achieves greater emissions reductions in GB because the total coal-based capacity is 6GW greater than in ERCOT. The market characteristics studied suggest greater opportunity for flexible CO2 capture to improve operating profits in ERCOT, but profit improvements can be offset by a flexibility cost penalty.</description><subject>Carbon dioxide</subject><subject>Carbon sequestration</subject><subject>Coal</subject><subject>Coal-fired power plants</subject><subject>Cost control</subject><subject>Electric power demand</subject><subject>Electric power generation</subject><subject>Electric power grids</subject><subject>Electricity</subject><subject>Emissions control</subject><subject>Energy costs</subject><subject>Firing (igniting)</subject><subject>Flexibility</subject><subject>Industrial plant emissions</subject><subject>Peak demand</subject><subject>Peak load</subject><subject>Power plants</subject><subject>Profits</subject><subject>Retrofitting</subject><issn>1748-9326</issn><issn>1748-9326</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNptkDFPwzAQhS0EEqXwDxgsMaIQ24mTdIQIChJSlzJbrn0prtLY2I6AnR-OSxFi6HRP7967kz6ELim5oaRpclqXTTYrWJVXOcsJKwmhR2jyZx__06foLIQNIbzkdTNBX63dOunNsMbOhpgpu12NIRo74HbBsJIujh6wdeDljysj9hC97UyMoLGyss8645N09h08dr0cYsBmwPEV8BI-ZMBy0HjuIVXvvIky7aAHFb1ReO2NDufopJN9gIvfOUUvD_fL9jF7Xsyf2tvnzDA-ixlVAJyDJJQWwAE6RVTRaKZYVdCZmimtoChZp7UmWpe8WKWG5LoutaRVCk3R1f6u8_ZthBDFxo5-SC8F45wyVpekSKl8nzLWCefNVvpPQYnYoRY7jmLHUVSCiT3q1Lg-0DiQFE53xTfOhIFc</recordid><startdate>20110401</startdate><enddate>20110401</enddate><creator>Cohen, Stuart M</creator><creator>Chalmers, Hannah L</creator><creator>Webber, Michael E</creator><creator>King, Carey W</creator><general>IOP Publishing</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110401</creationdate><title>Comparing post-combustion CO2 capture operation at retrofitted coal-fired power plants in the Texas and Great Britain electric grids</title><author>Cohen, Stuart M ; Chalmers, Hannah L ; Webber, Michael E ; King, Carey W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-i259t-1cee55ea0113e5eefc0c38d2c26319c9cdce342fddd0dd453b1cea5d74da16263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Carbon dioxide</topic><topic>Carbon sequestration</topic><topic>Coal</topic><topic>Coal-fired power plants</topic><topic>Cost control</topic><topic>Electric power demand</topic><topic>Electric power generation</topic><topic>Electric power grids</topic><topic>Electricity</topic><topic>Emissions control</topic><topic>Energy costs</topic><topic>Firing (igniting)</topic><topic>Flexibility</topic><topic>Industrial plant emissions</topic><topic>Peak demand</topic><topic>Peak load</topic><topic>Power plants</topic><topic>Profits</topic><topic>Retrofitting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Stuart M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chalmers, Hannah L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Webber, Michael E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Carey W</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><jtitle>Environmental research letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cohen, Stuart M</au><au>Chalmers, Hannah L</au><au>Webber, Michael E</au><au>King, Carey W</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing post-combustion CO2 capture operation at retrofitted coal-fired power plants in the Texas and Great Britain electric grids</atitle><jtitle>Environmental research letters</jtitle><date>2011-04-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>024001</spage><pages>024001-</pages><issn>1748-9326</issn><eissn>1748-9326</eissn><abstract>This work analyses the carbon dioxide (CO2) capture system operation within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and Great Britain (GB) electric grids using a previously developed first-order hourly electricity dispatch and pricing model. The grids are compared in their 2006 configuration with the addition of coal-based CO2 capture retrofits and emissions penalties from 0 to 100 US dollars per metric ton of CO2 (USD/tCO2). CO2 capture flexibility is investigated by comparing inflexible CO2 capture systems to flexible ones that can choose between full-and zero-load CO2 capture depending on which operating mode has lower costs or higher profits. Comparing these two grids is interesting because they have similar installed capacity and peak demand, and both are isolated electricity systems with competitive wholesale electricity markets. However, differences in capacity mix, demand patterns, and fuel markets produce diverging behaviours of CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired facilities are primarily base load in ERCOT for a large range of CO2 prices but are comparably later in the dispatch order in GB and consequently often supply intermediate load. As a result, the ability to capture CO2 is more important for ensuring dispatch of coal-fired facilities in GB than in ERCOT when CO2 prices are high. In GB, higher overall coal prices mean that CO2 prices must be slightly higher than in ERCOT before the emissions savings of CO2 capture offset capture energy costs. However, once CO2 capture is economical, operating CO2 capture on half the coal fleet in each grid achieves greater emissions reductions in GB because the total coal-based capacity is 6GW greater than in ERCOT. The market characteristics studied suggest greater opportunity for flexible CO2 capture to improve operating profits in ERCOT, but profit improvements can be offset by a flexibility cost penalty.</abstract><cop>Bristol</cop><pub>IOP Publishing</pub><doi>10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024001</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 1748-9326
ispartof Environmental research letters, 2011-04, Vol.6 (2), p.024001
issn 1748-9326
1748-9326
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2551227403
source IOP Publishing Free Content
subjects Carbon dioxide
Carbon sequestration
Coal
Coal-fired power plants
Cost control
Electric power demand
Electric power generation
Electric power grids
Electricity
Emissions control
Energy costs
Firing (igniting)
Flexibility
Industrial plant emissions
Peak demand
Peak load
Power plants
Profits
Retrofitting
title Comparing post-combustion CO2 capture operation at retrofitted coal-fired power plants in the Texas and Great Britain electric grids
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T07%3A54%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_O3W&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20post-combustion%20CO2%20capture%20operation%20at%20retrofitted%20coal-fired%20power%20plants%20in%20the%20Texas%20and%20Great%20Britain%20electric%20grids&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20research%20letters&rft.au=Cohen,%20Stuart%20M&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=024001&rft.pages=024001-&rft.issn=1748-9326&rft.eissn=1748-9326&rft_id=info:doi/10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_O3W%3E2551227403%3C/proquest_O3W%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2551227403&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true