Techno-economic comparison between different technologies for CO2-free power generation from coal

Since coal will be widely used in the next decades, mainly in the developing countries such as China and India, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies will have a key role in the containment of global warming. This paper presents a techno-economic comparison between the most promising power generation technologies for a CO2-free power generation in a short-term future. In particular, three different power generation technologies have been considered in their conventional (without CCS) and CO2-free configurations: (a) ultra supercritical (USC) pulverized coal combustion, (b) oxy-coal combustion (OCC) and (c) integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). Process simulation, based on Aspen Plus and Gate Cycle commercial tools, allows to calculate plant performance, including the energy penalty due to the CCS system (10.9% points for USC and 8.7% points for IGCC). In parallel, a detailed economic assessment shows that, among the commercial-ready technologies, USC could be the most convenient solution for power generation without CCS (presenting a levelized cost of electricity - LCOE - of 38.6 (sic)/MW h, significantly lower than 43.7 (sic)/MW h of IGCC), whereas IGCC becomes competitive for CO2-free systems (with a LCOE of 59.6 (sic)/MW h, to be compared with 63.4 (sic)/MW h of USC). Moreover, oxy-coal combustion, which is currently not mature enough for commercial-scale applications, promises to become strongly competitive for CCS applications due to its relatively low levelized cost of electricity (62.8 (sic)/MW h). This kind of analysis typically presents strong uncertainties, due to the variability of several key parameters (e.g. fuel and CCS prices, determined by the fluctuation of the international markets, or an improvement of the technologies). Therefore, a sensitivity analysis has been done to determine the effects of these potential fluctuation or the improvement on the economic performance of the plant. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.