Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers in Energy

ISSN 2095-1701

ISSN 2095-1698(Online)

CN 11-6017/TK

Postal Subscription Code 80-972

2018 Impact Factor: 1.701

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Energy    2022, Vol. 16 Issue (2) : 307-320    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-021-0790-8
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A coal-fired power plant integrated with biomass co-firing and CO2 capture for zero carbon emission
Xiaojun XUE, Yuting WANG, Heng CHEN(), Gang XU
Beijing Key Laboratory of Emission Surveillance and Control for Thermal Power Generation, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China
 Download: PDF(1578 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

A promising scheme for coal-fired power plants in which biomass co-firing and carbon dioxide capture technologies are adopted and the low-temperature waste heat from the CO2 capture process is recycled to heat the condensed water to achieve zero carbon emission is proposed in this paper. Based on a 660 MW supercritical coal-fired power plant, the thermal performance, emission performance, and economic performance of the proposed scheme are evaluated. In addition, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to show the effects of several key parameters on the performance of the proposed system. The results show that when the biomass mass mixing ratio is 15.40% and the CO2 capture rate is 90%, the CO2 emission of the coal-fired power plant can reach zero, indicating that the technical route proposed in this paper can indeed achieve zero carbon emission in coal-fired power plants. The net thermal efficiency decreases by 10.31%, due to the huge energy consumption of the CO2 capture unit. Besides, the cost of electricity (COE) and the cost of CO2 avoided (COA) of the proposed system are 80.37 $/MWh and 41.63 $/tCO2, respectively. The sensitivity analysis demonstrates that with the energy consumption of the reboiler decreasing from 3.22 GJ/tCO2 to 2.40 GJ/ tCO2, the efficiency penalty is reduced to 8.67%. This paper may provide reference for promoting the early realization of carbon neutrality in the power generation industry.
Keywords coal-fired power plant      biomass co-firing      CO2 capture      zero carbon emission      performance evaluation     
Corresponding Author(s): Heng CHEN   
Online First Date: 25 November 2021    Issue Date: 25 May 2022
 Cite this article:   
Xiaojun XUE,Yuting WANG,Heng CHEN, et al. A coal-fired power plant integrated with biomass co-firing and CO2 capture for zero carbon emission[J]. Front. Energy, 2022, 16(2): 307-320.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/10.1007/s11708-021-0790-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/Y2022/V16/I2/307
Fig.1  Diagram of a 660 MW supercritical coal-fired power plant without CO2 capture.
Item Unit Value
Main steam Flow rate/(kg·s−1) 506.33
Pressure/MPa 24.20
Temperature/°C 566.0
Reheated steam Flow rate/(kg·s−1) 432.42
Pressure/MPa 3.82
Temperature/°C 566.0
Exhaust steam Flow rate/(kg·s−1) 296.19
Pressure/kPa 4.9
Temperature/°C 32.5
Exhaust flue gas temperature °C 130.0
Boiler efficiency % 93.53
Turbine efficiency % 47.70
Gross power output MW 660.0
Heat rate kJ/kWh 7507.1
Auxiliary power MW 33.00
Net power output MW 627.0
Net thermal efficiency % 42.74
CO2 emission rate gCO2/kWh 811.21
Tab.1  Basic parameters of the reference coal-fired power plant
Heater Extraction steam Drain water Feedwater
Pressure
/MPa		 Temperature
/°C		 Flow rate
/(kg·s−1)		 Temperature
/°C		 Flow rate
/(kg·s−1)		 Inlet/outlet temperature
/°C		 Flow rate
/(kg·s−1)
RH1 5.81 352.5 28.5 257.6 28.5 252.0/275.2 506.3
RH2 4.11 316.3 40.5 218.6 69.0 213.0/252.0 506.3
RH3 2.02 473.3 19.8 191.5 88.8 185.9/213.0 506.3
DEA 1.01 359.4 26.4 – – 140.0/185.9 391.3
RH5 0.39 253.1 24.0 109.3 24.0 103.7/140.0 391.3
RH6 0.13 136.9 12.9 89.5 36.9 83.9/103.7 391.3
RH7 0.06 86.7 16.1 63.8 53.0 58.2/83.9 391.3
RH8 0.02 61.0 15.3 38.8 68.3 32.6/58.2 391.3
Tab.2  Parameters of the heat regeneration system
Fig.2  Diagram of MEA absorption-desorption CO2 capture.
Fig.3  Diagram of the proposed system.
Item Coal/(%, mass fraction) Biomass/(%, mass fraction)
Moisture 17.40 10.06
Carbon 56.97 34.70
Hydrogen 3.50 4.56
Oxygen 9.18 32.51
Nitrogen 0.70 0.96
Sulfur 0.60 0.26
Ash 11.65 16.95
HHV/(MJ·kg−1) 21.67 13.10
Tab.3  Analysis of the selected coal and biomass
Items Value
Flue gas flow/(kg·s−1) 690.08
CO2/(%, volume fraction) 13.7
H2O/(%, volume fraction) 9.5
N2/(%, volume fraction) 72.9
O2/(%, volume fraction) 3.9
Tab.4  Parameters of the flue gas from the ESP
Items Reference coal-fired power plant Proposed system
Coal feed rate/(kg·s−1) 67.66 61.01
Biomass feed rate/(kg·s−1) 0 11.10
CO2 capture rate/% – 90.00 [37]
CO2 captured amount/(kg·s−1) – 127.56
CO2 emission rate/(gCO2·kWh−1) 811.21 0.00
CO2 capture rate/(gCO2·kWh−1) 0 811.21
Energy consumption of reboiler/MW – 410.35
Specific energy consumption/(GJ·tCO2−1) 0 3.22
Extraction steam flow rate/(kg steam·kgCO2−1) – 1.29
Gross power output/MW 660.00 562.59
Auxiliary power/MW 33.00 86.86
Net power output/MW 627.00 475.74
Net thermal efficiency/% 42.74 32.43
Efficiency penalty/% – 10.31
Tab.5  Performance of the reference coal-fired power plant and the proposed system
Fig.4  CO2 emissions of the two systems.
Title Value
Coal price/($·GJ LHV−1) [40] 3.80
Biomass price/($·GJ LHV−1) [41] 4.74
Annual utilization hours/h [16] 5000
Specific investment cost/($·kW−1) [16] 538
Equipment lifespan/a [16] 30
Discount rate/% [16] 12
Tab.6  Major assumptions for COE and COA calculation
Items Reference coal-fired power plant Proposed system
Net power output/MW 627.00 475.74
Net efficiency of plant/% 42.74 32.42
TPI/M$ 355.28 685.58
Specific plant investment (SPI)/($·kW−1) 566.64 1441.11
CO2 emission/(Mt·a−1) 2.54 0.00
CO2 captured/(Mt·a−1) 0 2.30
CO2 emission rate/(gCO2·kWh−1) 811.21 0.00
CO2 capture rate/(gCO2·kWh−1) 0 811.21
COE/($·MWh−1) 46.61 80.37
COA/($·tCO2−1) 0 41.63
Tab.7  Economic performance of the reference coal-fired power plant and the proposed system
Fig.5  Effect of the CO2 capture rate and biomass mass mixing ratio on CO2 emission rate.
Fig.6  Effect of the energy consumption of reboiler on the extraction steam flow rate and LPT inlet pressure.
Fig.7  Effect of the energy consumption of reboiler on the net power output and efficiency penalty.
Fig.8  Effect of BP and BMMR on COE and COA.
Fig.9  (a) Effect of EP and BMMR on COE; (b) effect of EP and BMMR on COA; (c) effect of TPI and BMMR on COE; (d) effect of TPI and BMMR on COA.
Influencing factor Performance indicator
Variation in COE/($·MWh−1) Variation in COA/($·tCO2−1)
0% BMMR − 30% BMMR 79.27 − 81.70 46.37 − 37.84
− 40% BP − 40% BP 77.41 − 85.95 33.23 − 42.45
− 40% EP − 40% EP 72.28 − 93.33 28.11 − 49.53
− 40% TPI − 40% TPI 66.77 − 96.58 21.76 − 53.92
Tab.8  Sensitivity analysis of the economic performance
k Discount rate
n Lifespan of equipment/a
W Annual electricity production/MWh
ref Reference coal-fired power plant
pro Proposed system
BP Biomass price/($·GJ−1)
BPT Boiler feed pump turbine
BMMR Biomass mass mixing ratio/%
COA Cost of CO2 avoided/($·tCO2−1)
COE Cost of electricity/($·MWh−1)
COM Compressor
CON Condenser
CP Condensate pump
DEA Deaerator
EP Efficiency penalty/%
ESP Electrostatic precipitator
FWP Feedwater pump
FGD Flue gas desulfurization
G Generator
HE Heat exchanger
HPT High-pressure turbine
IPT Intermediate-pressure turbine
LHV Low heat value/(MJ·kg−1)
LPT Low-pressure turbine
P Pump
RH Regenerative heater
SP Separator
SPI Specific plant investment/($·kW−1)
TPI Total plant investment/M$
  
Flow Reference coal-fired power plant Proposed system
Temperature/°C Pressure/MPa Mass flow/(kg·s−1) Temperature/°C Pressure/MPa Mass flow/(kg·s−1)
S1 566.0 24.20 140.65 566.0 24.20 140.65
S2 566.0 3.82 120.13 566.0 3.59 118.41
S3 369.4 1.06 107.27 274.2 0.48 96.77
S4 369.2 1.04 101.02 274.1 0.47 49.00
S5 369.0 1.01 7.40 273.9 0.45 7.40
S6 275.2 29.31 140.65 273.0 29.30 140.65
S7 352.5 5.81 7.93 348.1 5.62 8.34
S8 316.3 4.11 11.25 308.1 3.87 12.51
S9 473.3 2.02 5.49 455.5 1.69 9.63
S10 359.4 1.01 7.34 271.2 0.45 5.77
S11 253.1 0.39 6.68 175.7 0.18 1.97
S12 136.9 0.13 3.59 0.0 0.00 0.00
S13 86.7 0.06 4.48 0.0 0.00 0.00
S14 61.0 0.02 4.25 0.0 0.00 0.00
S15 32.5 0.01 82.04 32.5 0.01 47.04
S16 140.1 1.01 108.69 114.3 0.45 104.40
S17 32.5 0.01 108.69 32.5 0.01 58.57
S18 – – – 40.0 0.10 53.28
S19 – – – 48.0 0.10 42.84
S20 – – – 99.0 0.21 12.61
S21 – – – 48.0 0.21 12.61
S22 – – – 48.0 0.19 10.45
S23 – – – 38.0 8.00 10.44
  Table A1 Main data of the reference coal-fired power plant and the proposed system
1 S Gai, J Yu, H Yu, et al. Process simulation of a near-zero-carbon-emission power plant using CO2 as the renewable energy storage medium. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016, 47: 240–249
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.02.001
2 Y Tao, Z Wen, L Xu, et al. Technology options: can Chinese power industry reach the CO2 emission peak before 2030? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2019, 147: 85–94
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.020
3 D Li, G Huang, S Zhu, et al. How to peak carbon emissions of provincial construction industry? Scenario analysis of Jiangsu Province. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 144: 110953
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110953
4 J Liu. China’s renewable energy law and policy: a critical review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2019, 99: 212–219
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.007
5 W Shen. Who drives China’s renewable energy policies? Understanding the role of industrial corporations. Environmental Development, 2017, 21: 87–97
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2016.10.006
6 China Electricity Council. China Electric Power Industry Annual Development Report 2020. Beijing, China, 2020 (in Chinese)
7 BP. Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. 2020, available at the website of bp.com
8 J Dai, X Yang, L Wen. Development of wind power industry in China: a comprehensive assessment. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2018, 97: 156–164
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.044
9 M van der Spek, S Roussanaly, E S Rubin. Best practices and recent advances in CCS cost engineering and economic analysis. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2019, 83: 91–104
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.02.006
10 L Zhou, G Xu, S Zhao, et al. Parametric analysis and process optimization of steam cycle in double reheat ultra-supercritical power plants. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2016, 99: 652–660
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.01.047
11 R Zhai, J Qi, Y Zhu, et al. Novel system integrations of 1000 MW coal-fired power plant retrofitted with solar energy and CO2 capture system. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2017, 125: 1133–1145
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.07.093
12 P Ashworth, Y Sun, M Ferguson, et al. Comparing how the public perceive CCS across Australia and China. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2019, 86: 125–133
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.04.008
13 S Yun, S Oh, J Kim. Techno-economic assessment of absorption-based CO2 capture process based on novel solvent for coal-fired power plant. Applied Energy, 2020, 268: 114933
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114933
14 A Skorek-Osikowska, A Bartela, J Kotowicz. Thermodynamic and ecological assessment of selected coal-fired power plants integrated with carbon dioxide capture. Applied Energy, 2017, 200: 73–88
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.055
15 K Li, W Leigh, P Feron, et al. Systematic study of aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA)-based CO2 capture process: techno-economic assessment of the MEA process and its improvements. Applied Energy, 2016, 165: 648–659
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.109
16 C Xu, X Li, T Xin, et al. A thermodynamic analysis and economic assessment of a modified de-carbonization coal-fired power plant incorporating a supercritical CO2 power cycle and an absorption heat transformer. Energy, 2019, 179: 30–45
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.017
17 E S Rubin, J E Davison, H J Herzog. The cost of CO2 capture and storage. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015, 40: 378–400
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.018
18 D Wang, S Li, F Liu, et al. Post combustion CO2 capture in power plant using low temperature steam upgraded by double absorption heat transformer. Applied Energy, 2018, 227: 603–612
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.009
19 W Nimmo, S S Daood, B M Gibbs. The effect of O2 enrichment on NOx formation in biomass co-fired pulverised coal combustion. Fuel, 2010, 89(10): 2945–2952
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.12.004
20 P Basu, J Butler, M A Leon. Biomass co-firing options on the emission reduction and electricity generation costs in coal-fired power plants. Renewable Energy, 2011, 36(1): 282–288
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.06.039
21 V Nian. The carbon neutrality of electricity generation from woody biomass and coal, a critical comparative evaluation. Applied Energy, 2016, 179: 1069–1080
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.004
22 C Luan, C You, D Zhang. Composition and sintering characteristics of ashes from co-firing of coal and biomass in a laboratory-scale drop tube furnace. Energy, 2014, 69: 562–570
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.050
23 R Pérez-Jeldres, P Cornejo, M Flores, et al. A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers: synergistic effects and emissions profiles. Energy, 2017, 120: 663–674
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
24 A A Bhuiyan, J Naser. Computational modelling of co-firing of biomass with coal under oxy-fuel condition in a small scale furnace. Fuel, 2015, 143: 455–466
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.11.089
25 C Zhao, Y Guo, J Yan, et al. Enhanced CO2 sorption capacity of amine-tethered fly ash residues derived from co-firing of coal and biomass blends. Applied Energy, 2019, 242: 453–461
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.143
26 W Schakel, H Meerman, A Talaei, et al. Comparative life cycle assessment of biomass co-firing plants with carbon capture and storage. Applied Energy, 2014, 131: 441–467
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.045
27 B Yang, Y Wei, Y Hou, et al. Life cycle environmental impact assessment of fuel mix-based biomass co-firing plants with CO2 capture and storage. Applied Energy, 2019, 252: 113483
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113483
28 M Ruhul Kabir, A Kumar. Comparison of the energy and environmental performances of nine biomass/coal co-firing pathways. Bioresource Technology, 2012, 124: 394–405
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.07.106
29 G Xu, Y Hu, B Tang, et al. Integration of the steam cycle and CO2 capture process in a decarbonization power plant. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2014, 73(1): 277–286
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.07.051
30 S M Soltani, P S Fennell, N Mac Dowell. A parametric study of CO2 capture from gas-fired power plants using monoethanolamine (MEA). International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2017, 63: 321–328
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.06.001
31 N Razi, H F Svendsen, O Bolland. Cost and energy sensitivity analysis of absorber design in CO2 capture with MEA. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 19: 331–339
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.09.008
32 Q Liu, Y Shi, W Zhong, A Yu. Co-firing of coal and biomass in oxy-fuel fluidized bed for CO2 capture: a review of recent advances. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2019, 27(10): 2261–2272
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2019.07.013
33 M Verma, C Loha, A N Sinha, et al. Drying of biomass for utilising in co-firing with coal and its impact on environment – a review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017, 71: 732–741
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.101
34 X Zhang, K Li, C Zhang, et al. Performance analysis of biomass gasification coupled with a coal-fired boiler system at various loads. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 2020, 105: 84–91
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.01.039
35 L Yan, Z Wang, Y Cao, et al. Comparative evaluation of two biomass direct-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration. Renewable Energy, 2020, 147: 1188–1198
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.09.047
36 S Singh, H Lu, Q Cui, et al. China baseline coal-fired power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture: 2. Techno-economics. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2018, 78: 429–436
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.09.012
37 G Xu, Y Yang, J Ding, et al. Analysis and optimization of CO2 capture in an existing coal-fired power plant in China. Energy, 2013, 58: 117–127
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.012
38 K Jana, S De. Biomass integrated combined power plant with post combustion CO2 capture – performance study by ASPEN Plus®. Energy Procedia, 2014, 54: 166–176
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.260
39 A Wang, X Han, M Liu, et al. Thermodynamic and economic analyses of a parabolic trough concentrating solar power plant under off-design conditions. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2019, 156: 340–350
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.04.062
40 China Coal Market Online. Price indices of typical coals. 2021, available at the website of (in Chinese)
41 X G Zhao, T T Feng, M Yu, et al. Analysis on investment strategies in China: the case of biomass direct combustion power generation sector. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015, 42: 760–772
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.081
42 G Xu, Y Yang, J Ding, et al. Analysis and optimization of CO2 capture in an existing coal-fired power plant in China. Energy, 2013, 58: 117–127
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.012
43 CEPP Institute. The Reference Cost Index of Thermal Power Engineering Rationed Design (2018). Beijing: China Electric Power Press, 2019
44 National Energy Technology Laboratory of USA. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants volume 1a. 2015–07–06, available at the website of
45 Z Abbas, T Mezher, M R M Abu-Zahra. CO2 purification. Part II: techno-economic evaluation of oxygen and water deep removal processes. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 16: 335–341
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.01.052
46 C Bassano, P Deiana, G Girardi. Modeling and economic evaluation of the integration of carbon capture and storage technologies into coal to liquids plants. Fuel, 2014, 116: 850–860
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.05.008
47 S Campanari, P Chiesa, G Manzolini, et al. Economic analysis of CO2 capture from natural gas combined cycles using Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells. Applied Energy, 2014, 130: 562–573
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.011
48 C Xu, Y Gao, G Xu, et al. A thermodynamic analysis and economic evaluation of an integrated cold-end energy utilization system in a de-carbonization coal-fired power plant. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 180: 218–230
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.10.081
49 C Xu, P Bai, T Xin, et al. A novel solar energy integrated low-rank coal fired power generation using coal pre-drying and an absorption heat pump. Applied Energy, 2017, 200: 170–179
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.078
50 W Zhang, X Jin, W Tu, et al. Development of MEA-based CO2 phase change absorbent. Applied Energy, 2017, 195: 316–323
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.050
51 Q Zhou, Q He, C Lu, et al. Techno-economic analysis of advanced adiabatic compressed air energy storage system based on life cycle cost. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 265: 121768
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121768
[1] Ershuai YIN, Qiang LI, Yimin XUAN. Effect of non-uniform illumination on performance of solar thermoelectric generators[J]. Front. Energy, 2018, 12(2): 239-248.
[2] Jufang FAN, Weikun DING, Zhigeng WU, Yaling HE, Wenquan TAO, Yongxin ZHENG, Yifeng GAO, Ji SONG. A new performance evaluation method and its application in fin-tube surface design of small diameter tube[J]. Front Energ, 2011, 5(1): 59-68.
[3] Zhong ZHENG , Dan GAO , Linwei MA , Zheng LI , Weidou NI , . CO capture and sequestration source-sink match optimization in Jing-Jin-Ji region of China[J]. Front. Energy, 2009, 3(3): 359-368.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed