This paper addresses the uncertainty and variability in techno-economic studies of carbon capture technologies, based on a detailed comparison of the results of different studies on postcombustion CO2 capture with advanced amines, and on an in-depth uncertainty analysis using a combination of sensitivity and pedigree analyses. The results show that despite efforts to harmonize capital cost estimates, the capital cost results of the same PCC carbon capture systems can still show large (65%) differences. This uncertainty may simply be inherent to early stage cost estimates. Amongst the most important causes for the variability shown in this work are differences in equipment sizing methods and purchased equipment cost estimates. This capital cost variability only mildly propagates into the Levelised Cost of Electricity and Cost of CO2 Avoided, more so in case of low power plant utilisation scenarios. To enhance insight into these uncertainties and enable their communication, the paper argues to use in-depth uncertainty evaluation for early stage techno-economic studies. It suggests to complement current practice of sensitivity analysis with pedigree analysis and to combine the results of both analyses in diagnostic diagrams. This may lead to more informed interpretation of the results of techno-economic studies, and helps focus techno-economic research efforts towards the parameters that most influence final performance indicators.@en

This work presents the results of a comparative life cycle assessment study for three CCS technologies applied to a coal-fired power plant: post-combustion capture with MEA, post combustion capture with AMP/PZ and cryogenic oxy-fuel. This study has been performed in the context of the EDDiCCUT project, which aims to develop an environmental due diligence framework for assessing novel CCUS technologies. The research shows that there are no significant differences in climate change potential (CCP) for the technologies under study. In the three cases the reduction is about 70% (70% for the plant with MEA, 71% for the plant with AMP-PZ, and 73% for the plant with oxy-fuel technology). With regard to other impacts (e.g., acidification, toxicity, resource depletion) the results show an increase in the impacts as consequence of CCS, mostly driven by the increase amount of feedstock per kWh. Contrary to CCS, there are clear differences among the technologies with results ranging between 20 and 30%. Toxicity impacts related to the operation of the solvent-based carbon capture unit were also considered; however, it was observed that their contribution was only around 2% of the total impact for human toxicity potential. Rather, the largest contributor to human toxicity impacts in the life cycle of coal power plants with and without CCS is coal mining waste disposal.

@en

This work presents a techno-economic analysis of a 2015 state-of-the art ASC PC oxyfuel power plant. This work adds to the existing body of techno-economic studies on coal oxycombustion that use less advanced oxyfuel technology and/or steam cycles. The study shows that this oxyfuel configuration has a net efficiency about 2%-pt. higher than a similar ASC PC plant with MEA postcombustion technology. This is partly due to the high gross efficiency of the oxyfuel power plant. The capital costs, LCOE, and cost of CO₂ avoided of the oxyfuel configuration are, however, slightly higher than those of the MEA configuration, despite the high efficiency of the oxyfuel plant. This means that the good technical performance of this state of the art oxy-fired coal plant is not necessarily translated into equally favourable economic performance. Rather, oxyfuel and PCC performance are rather comparable.

@en