Engineering and Economic Evaluation of COb2s Removal from Fossil-fuel-fired Power Plants: Coal gasification-combined-cycle power plants PDF Download

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Carbon dioxide
Languages : en
Pages : 128

View

Book Description

Author: C. Hendriks
Publisher: Springer Science & Business Media
ISBN: 9401103011
Category : Technology & Engineering
Languages : en
Pages : 232

View

Book Description
1. 1. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. 1. 1. Emissions and concentrations of greenhouse gases 3 1. 1. 2. Impact of increasing greenhouse gases concentration 4 1. 2. Options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 5 1. 2. 1. Carbon dioxide removal 8 1. 3. Scope of the thesis 10 1. 4. Outline of the thesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. 4. 1. General evaluation method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. 4. 2. Some notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 II. Simulation and optimization of carbon dioxide recovery from the flue gases of a coal-fired power plant using amines 14 Abstract 19 2. 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2. 2. The chemical absorption process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2. 2. 1. General process description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2. 2. 2. Types of absorbent 23 2. 2. 3. Effects of flue gas contaminants 24 2. 3. Simulation of the scrubber in ASPEN PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2. 3. 1. ASPEN PLUS for flow sheet simulation 26 2. 3. 2. Simulation of the performance for the base-case design . . 26 the scrubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2. 3. 3. Optimization of 2. 3. 4. Design and results 32 2. 3. 5. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2. 4. Integration of the scrubber in the power plant 35 2. 4. 1. Power loss caused by steam extraction 36 2. 4. 2. Power saved by avoiding preheating boiler feed water . . . 38 2. 4. 3. Power consumption by the carbon dioxide scrubber . . . . . 38 2. 4. 4. Power consumption for carbon dioxide compression . . . . . 38 2. 4. 5. Calculation of plant efficiency losses " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2. 5.

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Air quality management
Languages : en
Pages : 84

View

Book Description

Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration (Fossil Fuels)
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Coal
Languages : en
Pages : 748

View

Book Description

Author: Mark Gaffigan
Publisher: DIANE Publishing
ISBN: 1437914284
Category : Technology & Engineering
Languages : en
Pages : 9

View

Book Description
Discusses a recent report on the Dept. of Energy's (DoE) decision to restructure the FutureGen program. The original FutureGen plant was to capture and store underground about 90% of its CO2 emissions. Concerned about escalating costs, DoE announced in Jan. 2008 that it had decided to restructure FutureGen. DoE requested supplemental info. from restructured FutureGen applicants, which will be reviewed before any selection decision. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, known as the stimulus law, provides DoE an additional $3.4 billion for "Fossil Energy R&D." Such a substantial amount of funding could significantly impact DoE's decisions about how to move forward with programs such as FutureGen.

Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Coal
Languages : en
Pages : 120

View

Book Description

Author: Stan M. Kaplan
Publisher: DIANE Publishing
ISBN: 1437928366
Category : Science
Languages : en
Pages : 34

View

Book Description
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants can cut greenhouse gas emissions. One option is to replace some coal power with natural gas (NG) generation, a low carbon source of electricity, by increasing the power output from underutilized NG plants. This report provides an overview of the issues. Contents: (1) Intro.; (2) Background on Gas-Fired Generation and Capacity: Trends; Factors Supporting the Boom in Gas-Fired Plant Construction; Carbon Dioxide Emissions; (3) Coal Displacement Feasibility Issues; Estimates of Displaceable Coal-Fired Generation and Emissions; Transmission System Factors; Long-Distance Transmission Capacity; Transmission System Congestion; NG Supply and Price; NG Transport. and Storage.

Author: IEA Coal Industry Advisory Board
Publisher: OECD
ISBN:
Category : Technology & Engineering
Languages : en
Pages : 52

View

Book Description

Author: C. E. Jahnig
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Coal gasification
Languages : en
Pages : 54

View

Book Description

Author: Peter Folger
Publisher: Createspace Independent Pub
ISBN: 9781478326663
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 30

View

Book Description
On March 27, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new rule that would limit emissions to no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt-hour of production from new fossil-fuel power plants with a capacity of 25 megawatts or larger. EPA proposed the rule under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. According to EPA, new natural gas fired combined-cycle power plants should be able to meet the proposed standards without additional cost. However, new coal-fired plants would only be able to meet the standards by installing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. The proposed rule has sparked increased scrutiny of the future of CCS as a viable technology for reducing CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. The proposed rule also places a new focus on whether the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) CCS research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program will achieve its vision of developing an advanced CCS technology portfolio ready by 2020 for large-scale CCS deployment. Congress has appropriated nearly $6 billion since FY2008 for CCS RD&D at DOE's Office of Fossil Energy: approximately $2.3 billion from annual appropriations and $3.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or Recovery Act). The large and rapid influx of funding for industrial-scale CCS projects from the Recovery Act may accelerate development and deployment of CCS in the United States. However, the future deployment of CCS may take a different course if the major components of the DOE program follow a path similar to DOE's flagship CCS demonstration project, FutureGen, which has experienced delays and multiple changes of scope and design since its inception in 2003. A question for Congress is whether FutureGen represents a unique case of a first mover in a complex, expensive, and technically challenging endeavor, or whether it indicates the likely path for all large CCS demonstration projects once they move past the planning stage. Since enactment of the Recovery Act, DOE has shifted its RD&D emphasis to the demonstration phase of carbon capture technology. The shift appears to heed recommendations from many experts who called for large, industrial-scale carbon capture demonstration projects (e.g., 1 million tons of CO2 captured per year). Funding from the Recovery Act for large-scale demonstration projects was 40% of the total amount of DOE funding for all CCS RD&D from FY2008 through FY2012. To date, there are no commercial ventures in the United States that capture, transport, and inject industrial-scale quantities of CO2 solely for the purposes of carbon sequestration. However, CCS RD&D in 2012 is just now embarking on commercial-scale demonstration projects for CO2 capture, injection, and storage. The success of these projects will likely bear heavily on the future outlook for widespread deployment of CCS technologies as a strategy for preventing large quantities of CO2 from reaching the atmosphere while U.S. power plants continue to burn fossil fuels, mainly coal. Given the pending EPA rule, congressional interest in the future of coal as a domestic energy source appears directly linked to the future of CCS. In the short term, congressional support for building new coal-fired power plants could be expressed through legislative action to modify or block the proposed EPA rule. Alternatively, congressional oversight of the CCS RD&D program could help inform decisions about the level of support for the program and help Congress gauge whether it is on track to meet its goals.