4.7 Article

Environmental analysis of bio-CCS in an integrated oxy-fuel combustion power plant with CO2 transport and storage

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 85, 期 -, 页码 109-118

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.12.008

关键词

Oxy-fuel combustion; Biomass; Thermoecological cost; Cumulative CO2 emission

资金

  1. National Centre for Research and Development [P/E/2/66420/10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxy-fuel combustion (OFC) belongs to one of the three commonly known clean coal technologies for which practical application may be in the offing. Similarly to conventional power plants, there is a possibility of biomass co-firing, thus an additional reduction of CO2 emission is possible. Including the biomass in the fuel mixture of an integrated OFC power plant allows to obtain the so called neutral CO2 status as biomass combustion does not contribute to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In OFC power plants without biomass co-firing, even if 100% of CO2 is captured, there are still additional CO2 emissions in processes like fossil fuel extraction, transportation and preparation. The same assumption applies also to biomass and other materials (e.g. limestone or raw water). A higher share of biomass in the fuel mixture can lead to negative CO2 emissions with may be helpful to compensate the unfulfilled goals in other sectors where reduction is required. The paper presents the system approach to the environmental analysis based on the inpute-output method and both the index of the thermoecological cost and cumulative CO2 emissions. Thermoecological cost includes, the cumulative exergy consumption of non-renewable energy sources and additional exergy consumption due to harmful emissions to the atmosphere. In order to investigate the impact of bio-CCS (both biomass co-firing and dedicated biomass boilers) on the net thermoecological cost of electricity production and cumulative CO2 emissions five cases have been analyzed. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据