We examine efficiency, costs and greenhouse gas emissions of current and future electric cars (EV... more We examine efficiency, costs and greenhouse gas emissions of current and future electric cars (EV), including the impact from charging EV on electricity demand and infrastructure for generation and distribution.Uncoordinated charging would increase national peak load by 7% at 30% penetration rate of EV and household peak load by 54%, which may exceed the capacity of existing electricity distribution infrastructure. At 30% penetration of EV, off-peak charging would result in a 20% higher, more stable base load and no additional peak load at the national level and up to 7% higher peak load at the household level. Therefore, if off-peak charging is successfully introduced, electric driving need not require additional generation capacity, even in case of 100% switch to electric vehicles.GHG emissions from electric driving depend most on the fuel type (coal or natural gas) used in the generation of electricity for charging, and range between 0 g km−1 (using renewables) and 155 g km−1 (using electricity from an old coal-based plant). Based on the generation capacity projected for the Netherlands in 2015, electricity for EV charging would largely be generated using natural gas, emitting 35–77 g CO2 eq km−1.We find that total cost of ownership (TCO) of current EV are uncompetitive with regular cars and series hybrid cars by more than 800 € year−1. TCO of future wheel motor PHEV may become competitive when batteries cost 400 € kWh−1, even without tax incentives, as long as one battery pack can last for the lifespan of the vehicle. However, TCO of future battery powered cars is at least 25% higher than of series hybrid or regular cars. This cost gap remains unless cost of batteries drops to 150 € kWh−1 in the future. Variations in driving cost from charging patterns have negligible influence on TCO.GHG abatement costs using plug-in hybrid cars are currently 400–1400 € tonne−1 CO2 eq and may come down to −100 to 300 € tonne−1. Abatement cost using battery powered cars are currently above 1900 € tonne−1 and are not projected to drop below 300–800 € tonne−1.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2014
ABSTRACT Projections of the deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies vary cons... more ABSTRACT Projections of the deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies vary considerably. Cumulative emission reductions by CCS until 2100 vary in the majority of projections of the IPCC-TAR scenarios from 220 to 2200 GtCO2. This variation is a result of uncertainty in key determinants of the baselines of different models, such as, technological development (IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York). Technological key parameters of CCS deployment are power plant efficiency and investment cost, capture cost, transport cost and storage capacity. This study provides insights in how uncertain the key parameters are and how this influences CCS deployment projections. For each parameter, ranges are determined on the basis of the existing literature. CCS deployment is systematically assessed for all of these parameter ranges in a global energy system model (TIMER). The results show that investment cost uncertainty causes the largest range in cumulative CO2 captured from global electricity production (13–176 GtCO2 in 2050) in a scenario with a medium fossil fuel price level. The smallest, but still significant range of 65–91 GtCO2 cumulatively captured until 2050, is caused by the uncertainty in the efficiency of the power plant and capture unit.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015
ABSTRACT This study developed a method to assess the techno-economic performance and spatial foot... more ABSTRACT This study developed a method to assess the techno-economic performance and spatial footprint of CO2 capture infrastructure configurations in industrial zones. The method has been successfully applied to a cluster of sixteen industrial plants in the Dutch industrial Botlek area (7.1 MtCO2/y) for 2020–2030. The configurations differ inter alia regarding capture technology (post-, pre-, oxyfuel combustion) and location of capture components (centralized vs. plant site). Results indicate that oxyfuel combustion with centralized oxygen production and decentralized CO2 compression is the most cost effective and realistic configuration when applying CO2 capture to all industrial plants (61€/tCO2; 5.8 MtCO2/y avoided), mainly due to relatively low energy costs compared to post- and pre-combustion. However, oxyfuel combustion at plant level is economically preferable when capturing CO2 from only the three largest industrial plants. For post-combustion, a separated absorber-stripper configuration (73€/tCO2; 7.1 MtCO2/y avoided) is preferable from a cost perspective, due to economic scale effects of capture equipment. The optimal pre-combustion configuration shows a slightly less favorable performance (81€/tCO2; 4.4 MtCO2/y avoided). Whereas many industrial plants have insufficient space available for capture equipment, centralized/hybrid configurations show no insurmountable space issues. The deployment of the most favorable configurations is addressed in Part B.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2014
ABSTRACT Coal-fired power generation with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is projected as a cost... more ABSTRACT Coal-fired power generation with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is projected as a cost-effective technology to decarbonize the power sector. Intermittent renewables could reduce its load factor and revenues, so flexible capture unit operation strategies (flexible CCS) have been suggested to increase profits: CO2 venting and lean- and rich-solvent storage. In this study we quantify the benefits of flexible CCS for both the power plant operator and the total Dutch power system. We use a unit commitment and dispatch model of the northwest European electricity system to simulate the hourly operation of two coal-fired power plants with flexible CCS in 2020 and 2030. We find that flexible capture unit operation hardly affects electricity generation (revenues) because the flexible operation capabilities are not often utilized. CO2 venting is hardly used due to high CO2 prices (43 €/tCO2 in 2020 and 112 €/tCO2 in 2030). The impact of rich-solvent storage is limited because of regeneration constraints of the base-load power plant. The main benefit of flexible CCS is an increase in reserve capacity provision by the power plant of 20–300% compared to non-flexible operation.
Mega structures for CO2 storage, such as the Utsira formation in the North Sea, could theoretical... more Mega structures for CO2 storage, such as the Utsira formation in the North Sea, could theoretically supply CO2 storage capacity for several countries for a period of several decades. Their use could increase the cost-effectiveness of CCS in a region while minimizing opposition from the public to CO2 storage. However, this will not only depend on their potential available capacity
We examine efficiency, costs and greenhouse gas emissions of current and future electric cars (EV... more We examine efficiency, costs and greenhouse gas emissions of current and future electric cars (EV), including the impact from charging EV on electricity demand and infrastructure for generation and distribution.Uncoordinated charging would increase national peak load by 7% at 30% penetration rate of EV and household peak load by 54%, which may exceed the capacity of existing electricity distribution infrastructure. At 30% penetration of EV, off-peak charging would result in a 20% higher, more stable base load and no additional peak load at the national level and up to 7% higher peak load at the household level. Therefore, if off-peak charging is successfully introduced, electric driving need not require additional generation capacity, even in case of 100% switch to electric vehicles.GHG emissions from electric driving depend most on the fuel type (coal or natural gas) used in the generation of electricity for charging, and range between 0 g km−1 (using renewables) and 155 g km−1 (using electricity from an old coal-based plant). Based on the generation capacity projected for the Netherlands in 2015, electricity for EV charging would largely be generated using natural gas, emitting 35–77 g CO2 eq km−1.We find that total cost of ownership (TCO) of current EV are uncompetitive with regular cars and series hybrid cars by more than 800 € year−1. TCO of future wheel motor PHEV may become competitive when batteries cost 400 € kWh−1, even without tax incentives, as long as one battery pack can last for the lifespan of the vehicle. However, TCO of future battery powered cars is at least 25% higher than of series hybrid or regular cars. This cost gap remains unless cost of batteries drops to 150 € kWh−1 in the future. Variations in driving cost from charging patterns have negligible influence on TCO.GHG abatement costs using plug-in hybrid cars are currently 400–1400 € tonne−1 CO2 eq and may come down to −100 to 300 € tonne−1. Abatement cost using battery powered cars are currently above 1900 € tonne−1 and are not projected to drop below 300–800 € tonne−1.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2014
ABSTRACT Projections of the deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies vary cons... more ABSTRACT Projections of the deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies vary considerably. Cumulative emission reductions by CCS until 2100 vary in the majority of projections of the IPCC-TAR scenarios from 220 to 2200 GtCO2. This variation is a result of uncertainty in key determinants of the baselines of different models, such as, technological development (IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York). Technological key parameters of CCS deployment are power plant efficiency and investment cost, capture cost, transport cost and storage capacity. This study provides insights in how uncertain the key parameters are and how this influences CCS deployment projections. For each parameter, ranges are determined on the basis of the existing literature. CCS deployment is systematically assessed for all of these parameter ranges in a global energy system model (TIMER). The results show that investment cost uncertainty causes the largest range in cumulative CO2 captured from global electricity production (13–176 GtCO2 in 2050) in a scenario with a medium fossil fuel price level. The smallest, but still significant range of 65–91 GtCO2 cumulatively captured until 2050, is caused by the uncertainty in the efficiency of the power plant and capture unit.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015
ABSTRACT This study developed a method to assess the techno-economic performance and spatial foot... more ABSTRACT This study developed a method to assess the techno-economic performance and spatial footprint of CO2 capture infrastructure configurations in industrial zones. The method has been successfully applied to a cluster of sixteen industrial plants in the Dutch industrial Botlek area (7.1 MtCO2/y) for 2020–2030. The configurations differ inter alia regarding capture technology (post-, pre-, oxyfuel combustion) and location of capture components (centralized vs. plant site). Results indicate that oxyfuel combustion with centralized oxygen production and decentralized CO2 compression is the most cost effective and realistic configuration when applying CO2 capture to all industrial plants (61€/tCO2; 5.8 MtCO2/y avoided), mainly due to relatively low energy costs compared to post- and pre-combustion. However, oxyfuel combustion at plant level is economically preferable when capturing CO2 from only the three largest industrial plants. For post-combustion, a separated absorber-stripper configuration (73€/tCO2; 7.1 MtCO2/y avoided) is preferable from a cost perspective, due to economic scale effects of capture equipment. The optimal pre-combustion configuration shows a slightly less favorable performance (81€/tCO2; 4.4 MtCO2/y avoided). Whereas many industrial plants have insufficient space available for capture equipment, centralized/hybrid configurations show no insurmountable space issues. The deployment of the most favorable configurations is addressed in Part B.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2014
ABSTRACT Coal-fired power generation with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is projected as a cost... more ABSTRACT Coal-fired power generation with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is projected as a cost-effective technology to decarbonize the power sector. Intermittent renewables could reduce its load factor and revenues, so flexible capture unit operation strategies (flexible CCS) have been suggested to increase profits: CO2 venting and lean- and rich-solvent storage. In this study we quantify the benefits of flexible CCS for both the power plant operator and the total Dutch power system. We use a unit commitment and dispatch model of the northwest European electricity system to simulate the hourly operation of two coal-fired power plants with flexible CCS in 2020 and 2030. We find that flexible capture unit operation hardly affects electricity generation (revenues) because the flexible operation capabilities are not often utilized. CO2 venting is hardly used due to high CO2 prices (43 €/tCO2 in 2020 and 112 €/tCO2 in 2030). The impact of rich-solvent storage is limited because of regeneration constraints of the base-load power plant. The main benefit of flexible CCS is an increase in reserve capacity provision by the power plant of 20–300% compared to non-flexible operation.
Mega structures for CO2 storage, such as the Utsira formation in the North Sea, could theoretical... more Mega structures for CO2 storage, such as the Utsira formation in the North Sea, could theoretically supply CO2 storage capacity for several countries for a period of several decades. Their use could increase the cost-effectiveness of CCS in a region while minimizing opposition from the public to CO2 storage. However, this will not only depend on their potential available capacity
Uploads
Papers by Machteld Van Den Broek