Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (17) (remove)
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Conference Object (8)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (4)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Contribution to Periodical (1)
- Habilitation (1)
Language
- English (17) (remove)
Division
For the option of “carbon capture and storage”, an integrated assessment in the form of a life cycle analysis and a cost assessment combined with a systematic comparison with renewable energies regarding future conditions in the power plant market for the situation in Germany is done. The calculations along the whole process chain show that CCS technologies emit per kWh more than generally assumed in clean-coal concepts (total CO2 reduction by 72-90% and total greenhouse gas reduction by 65-79%) and considerable more if compared with renewable electricity. Nevertheless, CCS could lead to a significant absolute reduction of GHG-emissions within the electricity supply system. Furthermore, depending on the growth rates and the market development, renewables could develop faster and could be in the long term cheaper than CCS based plants. Especially, in Germany, CCS as a climate protection option is phasing a specific problem as a huge amount of fossil power plant has to be substituted in the next 15 years where CCS technologies might be not yet available. For a considerable contribution of CCS to climate protection, the energy structure in Germany requires the integration of capture ready plants into the current renewal programs. If CCS retrofit technologies could be applied at least from 2020, this would strongly decrease the expected CO2 emissions and would give a chance to reach the climate protection goal of minus 80% including the renewed fossil-fired power plants.
Recent trends in the German CCS debate : new players, arguments and legal framework conditions
(2010)
This study provides insight into the feasibility of a CO2 trunkline from the Netherlands to the Utsira formation in the Norwegian part of the North Sea, which is a large geological storage reservoir for CO2. The feasibility is investigated in competition with CO2 storage in onshore and near-offshore sinks in the Netherlands. Least-cost modelling with a MARKAL model in combination with ArcGIS was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the trunkline as part of aDutch greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy for the Dutch electricity sector and CO2 intensive industry. The results show that under the condition that a CO2 permit price increases from €25 per tCO2 in 2010 to €60 per tCO2 in 2030, and remains at this level up to 2050, CO2 emissions in the Netherlands could reduce with 67% in 2050 compared to 1990, and investment in the Utsira trunkline may be cost-effective from 2020–2030 provided that Belgian and German CO2 is transported and stored via the Netherlands as well. In this case, by 2050 more than 2.1 GtCO2 would have been transported from the Netherlands to the Utsira formation. However, if the Utsira trunkline is not used for transportation of CO2 from Belgium and Germany, it may become cost-effective 10 years later, and less than 1.3 GtCO2 from the Netherlands would have been stored in the Utsiraformation by 2050. On the short term, CO2 storage in Dutch fields appears more cost-effective than in the Utsira formation, but as yet there are major uncertainties related to the timing and effective exploitation of the Dutch offshore storage opportunities.
For parabolic trough power plants using synthetic oil as the heat transfer medium, the application of solid media sensible heat storage is an attractive option in terms of investment and maintenance costs. One important aspect in storage development is the storage integration into the power plant. A modular operation concept for thermal storage systems was previously suggested by DLR, showing an increase in storage capacity of more than 100 %. However, in these investigations, the additional costs needed to implement this storage concept into the power plant, like for extra piping, valves, pumps and control had not been considered. These aspects are discussed in this paper, showing a decrease of levelized energy costs with modular storage integration of 2 to 3 %. In a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) a comparison of an AndaSol-I type solar thermal power plant [1] with the original two-tank molten salt storage and with a "hypothetical" concrete storage shows an advantage of the concrete storage technology concerning environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the “hypothetical” concrete based AndaSol-I decrease by 7 %, considering 1 kWh of solar electricity delivered to the grid. Regarding only the production of the power plant, the emissions decrease by 9.5 %.