Coal consumption accounted for 36% of America’s emissions in 2005, yet because coal is a relatively inexpensive, widely available, and politically secure fuel, its use is projected to grow in the coming decades (USEIA, 2007, “World Carbon Dioxide Emissions From the Use of Fossil Fuels,” International Energy Annual 2005, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/carbon.html). In order for coal to contribute to the U.S. energy mix without detriment to an environmentally acceptable future, implementation of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology is critical. Techno-economic studies establish the large expense of CCS due to substantial energy requirements and capital costs. However, such analyses typically ignore operating dynamics in response to diurnal and seasonal variations in electricity demand and pricing, and they assume that capture systems operate continuously at high removal and permanently consume a large portion of gross plant generation capacity. In contrast, this study uses an electric grid-level dynamic framework to consider the possibility of turning capture systems off during peak electricity demands to regain generation capacity lost to capture energy requirements. This practice eliminates the need to build additional generation capacity to make up for capture energy requirements, and it might allow plant operators to benefit from selling more electricity during high price time periods. Post-combustion absorption and stripping is a leading capture technology that, unlike many other capture methods, is particularly suited for flexible or on/off operation. This study presents a case study on the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) electric grid that estimates capture utilization, system-level costs, and emissions associated with different strategies of using on/off capture on all coal-fired plants in the ERCOT grid in order to satisfy peak electricity demand. It compares base cases of no capture and “always on” capture with scenarios where capture is turned off during: (1) peak demand hours every day of the year, (2) the entire season of peak system demand, and (3) system peak demand hours only on seasonal peak demand days. By eliminating the need for new capacity to replace output lost to capture energy requirements, flexible capture could save billions of dollars in capital costs. Since capture systems remain on for most of the year, flexible capture still achieves substantial emissions reductions.
Skip Nav Destination
e-mail: stuart.cohen@mail.utexas.edu
e-mail: gtr@che.utexas.edu
e-mail: webber@mail.utexas.edu
Article navigation
June 2010
Research Papers
Turning Capture On and Off in Response to Electric Grid Demand: A Baseline Analysis of Emissions and Economics
Stuart M. Cohen,
Stuart M. Cohen
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
e-mail: stuart.cohen@mail.utexas.edu
University of Texas at Austin
, Austin, TX 78712
Search for other works by this author on:
Gary T. Rochelle,
Gary T. Rochelle
Department of Chemical Engineering,
e-mail: gtr@che.utexas.edu
University of Texas at Austin
, Austin, TX 78712
Search for other works by this author on:
Michael E. Webber
Michael E. Webber
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
e-mail: webber@mail.utexas.edu
University of Texas at Austin
, Austin, TX 78712
Search for other works by this author on:
Stuart M. Cohen
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Texas at Austin
, Austin, TX 78712e-mail: stuart.cohen@mail.utexas.edu
Gary T. Rochelle
Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Texas at Austin
, Austin, TX 78712e-mail: gtr@che.utexas.edu
Michael E. Webber
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Texas at Austin
, Austin, TX 78712e-mail: webber@mail.utexas.edu
J. Energy Resour. Technol. Jun 2010, 132(2): 021003 (8 pages)
Published Online: May 17, 2010
Article history
Received:
March 1, 2009
Revised:
March 29, 2010
Online:
May 17, 2010
Published:
May 17, 2010
Citation
Cohen, S. M., Rochelle, G. T., and Webber, M. E. (May 17, 2010). "Turning Capture On and Off in Response to Electric Grid Demand: A Baseline Analysis of Emissions and Economics." ASME. J. Energy Resour. Technol. June 2010; 132(2): 021003. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001573
Download citation file:
Get Email Alerts
Stage-wise kinetic analysis of ammonia addition effects on two-stage ignition in dimethyl ether
J. Energy Resour. Technol
Related Articles
Technical and Economical Assessment of the Indirectly Heated Carbonate Looping Process
J. Energy Resour. Technol (July,2016)
Feasibility Investigation and Modeling Analysis of CO 2 Sequestration in Arbuckle Formation Utilizing Salt Water Disposal Wells
J. Energy Resour. Technol (June,2009)
A SOFC-Based Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell Cycle With CO2 Capture
J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power (July,2011)
Application of MCFC in Coal Gasification Plants for High Efficiency CO 2 Capture
J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power (January,2012)
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Chapters
Combined Cycle Power Plant
Energy and Power Generation Handbook: Established and Emerging Technologies
Carbon Capture for Coal-Fired Utility Power Generation: B&W's Perspective
Energy and Power Generation Handbook: Established and Emerging Technologies
The Application of the PSO Based Bp Network in Short-Term Load Forecasting
International Conference on Electronics, Information and Communication Engineering (EICE 2012)