- Email: [email protected]
The LCOE of Chinese coal-fired power plants with CCS technology: a comparison with natural gas power plants
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online atwww.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com Available online Available online at at www.sciencedirect.com Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
ScienceDirect ScienceDirect ScienceDirect ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 Energy Procedia Procedia 00 154(2017) (2018)000–000 29–35 Energy Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Applied Energy Symposium and Forum, Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage, CCUS 2018, 27–29 June 2018, Perth, Australia AppliedThe Energy Symposium and Forum,coal-fired Carbon Capture, Utilization andwith Storage, CCUS 2018, LCOE Chinese power plants CCS The 15thof International Symposium on District Heating andStorage, Cooling Applied Energy Symposium and Forum, Carbon Capture, Utilization and CCUS 2018, 27–29 June 2018, Perth, Australia technology: a comparison with natural gas power plants 27–29 June 2018, Perth, Australia a,b,c dheat d Assessing the ofa, using the demand-outdoor TheFanLCOE of feasibility Chinese power plants CCS Jing-Li , Shi-Jie Weia, Maocoal-fired Xu Ping Zhong , Xian Zhangwith , Yang Yangc,d, The LCOE of Chinese coal-fired power plants with CCS
technology: a comparison with natural gas power plants temperature function for a long-term heat demand forecast d district technology: a comparison with natural gas power plants * Hang Wang a,b,c a a d d c,d Jing-Li Fana,b,c , Shi-Jie Wei , Ping Zhong a a, Mao Xu b d, Xian Zhangcd, Yang Yangcc,d, I. Andrić A. Pina , P. Ferrão Fournier ., B. Lacarrière Le Corre Jing-Li Fan a,b,c, *, Shi-Jie Wei , Mao Xua,a,J.Ping Zhong , Xian Zhang ,,O. Yang Yang , Hang Wang * Hang Wang *
a.School of Resources & Safety Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology, Beijing (CUMTB), Beijing 100083, China; d of Mining and Technology), Beijing 100083, China; b.State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining (China University a d Institute c. for Center for Energy and Environmental Research, Beijing of Technology, Beijing China; IN+ Center Innovation, Technology and Policy Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1,100081, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal b d.The Administrative Centre for China's Agenda 21 (ACCA21), MinistryDreyfous of Science and Technology (MOST), Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Daniel, 78520 Limay, FranceBeijing 100038, China. a.School of Resources & Safety Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology, Beijing (CUMTB), Beijing 100083, China; c Département ÉnergétiquesChina et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred (CUMTB), Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France a.School Resources &Systèmes Safety Engineering, University of Mining & Technology, b.State of Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining (China University of MiningBeijing and Technology),Beijing Beijing100083, 100083,China; China; b.State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining (China Beijing University of Mining and Technology), Beijing 100083, c. Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China; China; c. Center forCentre Energy Environmental Research, Beijing Instituteand of Technology, d.The Administrative forand China's Agenda 21Policy (ACCA21), Ministry of Science Technology Beijing (MOST),100081, BeijingChina; 100038, China. Abstract d.The Administrative Centre for China's Agenda 21 (ACCA21), Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Beijing 100038, China.
Abstract In the process of energy transformation in China, the potential competitiveness of natural gas power plants and coal-fired power District heatingwith networks commonly addressed in the literatureshould as onebeofconsidered. the most effective solutions decreasing the plants equipped carbonarecapture and storage (CCS) technology In this study, the for levelized cost of Abstract greenhouse gas emissions thetobuilding sector. These systems require whichplants. are returned through thethat heat Abstract electricity (LCOE) method from is used compare the competitiveness of thesehigh twoinvestments types of power The results show Due changed climate building competitiveness renovation demand inplants the future could regardless of to whether a carbon pricingconditions mechanism is included, the LCOE ispolicies, lower forheat coal-fired power plants CCS decrease, than for Insales. the process ofthe energy transformation in China, and the potential of natural gas power andwith coal-fired power prolonging the investment return period. In the process of energy transformation in China, the potential competitiveness of natural gas power plants and coal-fired power natural gas power plants if the coal-fired power plants have the same level of emission reduction as the natural gas power plants plants equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology should be considered. In this study, the levelized cost of The main scopewith of method this paper is to assess the feasibility oftechnology using the heat demand –types outdoor temperature function for demand or ensure deep emission reductions. When thethecoal price reaches 750 CNY/t, the coal-fired power plants withheat the CCS plants equipped carbon storage (CCS) should be In thisplants. study, the results levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is capture used toand compare competitiveness of these twoconsidered. of power The show that forecast. of The district Alvalade, in the Lisbon (Portugal), was used as 158 afor case The district consisted ofthat 665 electricity (LCOE) method is used tolocated compare competitiveness of these two types ofstudy. power plants. Theis results show technology lose their competitive advantage when carbon price is less CNY/t. In power Shanxi province, the coal-fired regardless whether a of carbon pricing mechanism isthe included, the LCOE is than lower coal-fired plants with CCS than for buildings that vary ina technology both periodplants and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) andCCS three district regardless whether carbon pricing is included, the LCOE isoflower for coal-fired power with than for power plants with CCS havemechanism apower greater competitive advantage than the natural gas power natural gasof power plants if theconstruction coal-fired have the same level emission reduction asplants. the plants natural gas power plants scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained demand values were natural gas deep power plants if reductions. the coal-fired powertheplants same level of emission aspower the heat natural gaswith power orrenovation ensure emission When coal have pricethereaches 750 CNY/t, the reduction coal-fired plants theplants CCS © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Keywords: coal-fired power plants; natural gas power plants; LCOE; China compared with results from a dynamic heat demand model, developed and validated the authors. or ensure deep emission reductions. When the coal pricepreviously reachesis750 theCNY/t. coal-fired power plants with the CCS technology lose access their competitive when the carbon less CNY/t, than 158 Inby Shanxi province, the coal-fired This is an open article underadvantage the CC BY-NC-ND licenseprice (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) The results showed that when only weather change is carbon considered, ofnatural errorCNY/t. could be for some technology lose their competitive advantage when the pricethe is margin less than 158 In acceptable Shanxi province, theapplications coal-fired power plants with CCS technology have a greater competitive advantage than the gas power plants. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Applied Energy Symposium and Forum, Carbon (the error inwith annual demand wasCCUS lower2018. 20% for all weather scenarios considered). after introducing renovation power plants CCS technology have a than greater competitive advantage than the natural gasHowever, power plants. Capture, Utilization and Storage, scenarios, the error value increased 59.5% (depending on the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered). 1. Introduction Keywords: coal-fired power plants; naturalup gasto power plants; LCOE; China Keywords: coal-fired power plants; natural gas power plants; LCOE; The value of slope coefficient increased on average withinChina the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139hmore during the60% heating (depending on the combinationinofChina. weatherThe and For a number of years, coal has comprised than of season the primary energy consumption renovation scenarios On theconstitutes other hand,about function increased for 7.8-12.7% pertechnologies decade (depending on in the 1. Introduction installed capacity of considered). coal-fired plants 57%intercept of all types of power generation in 2016 coupled scenarios). The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and 1. Introduction China[1] and the CO2 emissions by coal-fired power plants account for 37% of all the CO2 emissions produced by improve accuracy of heat coal demand For a the number of years, hasestimations. comprised more than 60% of the primary energy consumption in China. The
fossil fuels combustion[2]. As a means of emission abatement with a large emission reduction potential, carbon For a capacity number of years, coalplants has comprised the primary consumption in China. The installed of coal-fired constitutesmore aboutthan 57%60% of alloftypes of powerenergy generation technologies in 2016 in © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. installed capacity of coal-fired plants constitutes about 57% of all types of power generation technologies in 2016 in emissions by coal-fired power plants account for 37% of all the CO emissions produced by China[1] and the CO 2 2 Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and emissions by coal-fired power plants account for 37% of all the CO emissions produced by China[1] and the CO 2 2 fossil fuels combustion[2]. As a means of emission abatement with a large emission reduction potential, carbon Cooling. fossil fuels combustion[2]. As a means of emission abatement with a large emission reduction potential, carbon * Corresponding author: Hang Wang, E-mail address: [email protected]. Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change
1876-6102 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review responsibility the scientific committee of the Applied Energy Symposium and Forum, Carbon Capture, * Corresponding author: under Hang Wang, E-mail of address: [email protected]. Utilization and Storage, CCUS * Corresponding author: Hang2018. Wang, E-mail address: [email protected]. 1876-6102Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published byrights Elsevier Ltd. 1876-6102 © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All reserved. 1876-6102 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1876-6102 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier All rights reserved.of Peer-review under responsibility of theLtd. Scientific Committee The 15thof International on District Cooling. Selection peer-review under responsibility the scientific committee the AppliedSymposium Energy Symposium andHeating Forum,and Carbon Capture, This is anand open access article under the CCofBY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Selection under responsibility of theofscientific committee of the Applied Symposium and Forum, Carbon Capture,Carbon Utilization andpeer-review Storage, CCUS 2018. Selectionand and peer-review under responsibility the scientific committee of theEnergy Applied Energy Symposium and Forum, Utilization and Storage, CCUS 2018. Capture, Utilization and Storage, CCUS 2018. 10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.006
30 2
Jing-Li Fan et al. / Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
capture and storage (CCS) technology of coal-fired power plants has received increased attention. CCS technology is also the bridge connecting traditional power generation with renewable energy power generation[3]. Natural gas plays an important role in the energy transformation[4]. Much importance has been placed on the use of natural gas to improve energy structure. However, due to the limited resources of natural gas, China's natural gas production cannot meet the consumer demand, leading to relatively high external dependence. In spite of this, the natural gas power generation has been still an alternative means of emission reduction. Considering the similarities of the two technologies in the energy transition and the potential competition, in this study, we identify the competitiveness of the two technologies by evaluating the power generation cost from the levelized perspectives. A cost-effectiveness analysis is conducted by considering the emission reduction benefits and other influencing factors of the coal-fired power plants with CCS technology (CPCCS) and the natural gas power plants (NGPP), in order to provide an implication for the rational choice of power generation technology under the current development requirements. Nomenclature CPCCS Coal-fired power plant with CCS NGPP Natural gas power plant 2. Methods and data 2.1. Levelized Cost of Electricity The levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) refers to the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated during the construction and operating period of a power generation project. It is a widely recognized and transparent method for calculating the cost of power generation. The LCOE is often used as a metric to rank the competitiveness of power generation technologies and it is widely used as a standard for comparing different technologies[5]. This study uses the LCOE model to calculate the unit cost of power generation by calculating the ratio of the discounted total cost of the power generation to the total output during the life cycle of the project, as shown in equations (1)(4) for CPCCS and equation (5)-(7) for NGPP, respectively. n C PC CoCCS & mt (1 )Qcoalt Pcoalt QPCct Pct CIPC CICCS o & mt t t 1 1 r (1) LCOEPC CCS n QPCet
t 1
1 r
Qcoalt QPCet QPCct Qcoalt
t
(2) (3)
(4) QPCet CapPC H PCt where LCOEPC CCS represents the LCOE of a new CPCCS; CIPC and CCCS denote the initial investment cost of a coal-fired power plant and carbon capture device respectively; CoPC& mt and CoCCS & mt denote the annual operating and maintenance costs of the coal-fired power plant and the capture device at time t, respectively; is the ratio of the energy penalty caused by carbon capture device ; Qcoalt is the coal consumption of the coal-fired power plant at time t; Pcoalt is the coal price at time t; is CO2 capture rate of the coal-fired power plant； QPCct is the annual CO2 emission of the coal-fired power plant at time t; Pct represents the CO2 price; QPCet is the power output of the coalfired power plant at time t; r is the discount rate; n is the operating time of the coal-fired power plant; is the coal consumption of a unit of electricity; is the CO2 emission of a unit of electricity; CapPC is the installed capacity of the coal-fired power plant; H PCt is the annual full-load operation time of the coal-fired power plant at time t.
Jing-Li Fan et al. / Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 k
CoNP &mt Qgast Pgast QNPct PNPct
t 1
1 r
CINP LCOENP
k
t 1
QNPet
1 r
31 3
t
(5)
t
Qgast QNPet
(6)
(7) QNPet CapNP H NPt NP where LCOENP represents the LCOE of the NGPP; denotes the initial investment cost of the NGPP; Co & mt are the operating and maintenance costs of the NGPP at time t; Qgast is the natural gas consumption of the NGPP at time t; Pgast is the natural gas price at time t; k is the operating time of the NGPP; is the natural gas consumption per unit; CapNP is the installed capacity of the NGPP; H NPt is the full-load operation time of the NGPP at time t. 2.2. Scenarios As shown in Table 1, two scenarios for CPCCS are set according to adjusting different CO2 capture rates. In the first scenario (S1), capture rate for the CPCCS is set at 41.5% to meet the same emission level of the NGPP. In the second scenario (S2) when the CPCCS makes full use of its capture capability, the capture rate is 90% and this scenario is regarded as deep emission reduction scenario. The additional energy consumption of the coal-fired power plant installing will also change due to the carbon capture technology. Table 1. Scenarios of the power generation costs. Scenarios Capture rate of CPCCS
Description
S1
With a capture rate of 41.5%
The same emission reduction of NGPP
S2
With a capture rate of 90%
Deep emission reduction
2.3. Data collection The economic parameters of the CPCCS and NGPP are shown in Table 2 and Table 3: Table 2. Economic parameters of the CPCCS Parameters
Value
Source
Installed capacity of the supercritical pulverized coal power plant (SCPC) (MW)
600
[6]
Annual full-load operation time (h)
4186
[1]
Initial investment cost of the SCPC (CNY/kW)
3163
[1]
Initial investment cost of capture device (CNY/kW)
4395.77
[7]
Annual O&M cost of SCPC (CNY/kWa)
133
[8]
Annual O&M cost of the capture device (CNY/kWa)
120.71
[7]
Energy penalty（with capture rate of 90%）
32%
[9]
Energy penalty（with capture rate of 41.5%）
15%
[10]
Coal consumption of one unit of electricity (g/kWh)
326.67
[11]
Coal price (CNY/t)
426.04
[12]
CO2 emission factor (tCO2/t)
2.24
Calculate by the method used by the IPCC 2006
CO2 price (CNY/t)
48.11
[13]
Operation time of SCPC (year)
40
[1]
Discount rate (%)
8%
[14]
Note: The IPCC represents the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Jing-Li Fan et al. / Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
32 4
Table 3. Economic parameters of the NGPP Parameters
Value
Source
Installed capacity of NGPP (MW)
600
Set at the same level as the coal-fired power plant.
Annual full-load operation time (h)
2701
[1]
Initial investment cost of NGPP (CNY/kW)
2555
[1]
Annual O&M cost of NGPP (CNY/kWa)
106
[8]
Natural gas consumption of one of unit electricity (m3/kWh)
0.2
[15]
CO2 emission factor (kg/m3)
2.14
Calculating by the method used by the IPCC 2006.
Natural gas price (CNY/m3)
1.71
[16]
Operation time of NGPP (year)
20
[1]
3. Results and discussion 3.1. The impact of introducing a carbon pricing benefit As Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show, at the current price levels of natural gas, coal and carbon and regardless of whether the CPCCS and NGPP enjoy the carbon pricing benefits, the LCOE is higher for the NGPP than the CPCCS. When neither of them is involved in carbon pricing benefit, the LCOE of the NGPP and CPCCS with low and high capture rates are 0.480 CNY/kWh (NGPP), 0.382 CNY/kWh (S1), and 0.407 CNY/kWh (S2) respectively. The LCOE of the CPCCS is 20% and 15% lower than that of the NGPP in S1 and S2, respectively. The cost of the CCS makes up 36.4% and 40.3% of the total LCOE in S1 and S2 respectively, while the cost of the fuel investment comprises more than 40% and 70% of the total LCOE of the CPCCS and NGPP, respectively. Therefore, the fuel price is the most influential factor in the two technologies.
LCOE/(CNY/kWh)
0.500 0.400
0.382
0.407
0.480
Coal-CCS 6%
Coal-CCS 12%
Coal-CP 38%
Coal-CP 36%
0.200
O&M CCS 8% O&M CP 8%
O&M 7% O&M 7%
0.100
I-CCS 23%
I-CCS 22%
I-CP 17%
I-CP 16%
O&M NGPP 8% I-NGPP 20%
S1
S2
NGPP
0.300
0.000
Natural gas 72%
Fig. 1. The LCOE of the CPCCS and NGPP without CO2 emission reduction benefit.
When the power plants benefit in the carbon pricing system, the LCOE of the NGPP and CPCCS with a low and high capture rate are 0.466 CNY/kWh (NGPP), 0.367 CNY/kWh (S1), and 0.375 CNY/kWh (S2) respectively. As shown in Fig. 2, this results in a reduction of 4%, 8%, and 3% compared to the original LCOE. It is evident that the CPCCS has advantages over the NGPP with regard to the LCOE and a greater emission reduction potential exists.
Jing-Li Fan et al. /Procedia Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy 00 (2018) 000–000
0.500 LCOE/(CNY/kWh)
0.400
0.465
0.375
0.367
335
0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000
-0.015
-0.032
-0.015
S1
S2
NGPP
-0.100
Fig. 2. The LCOE of the CPCCS and NGPP with CO2 emission reduction benefit.
3.2. The impact of carbon and fuel price changes on the LCOE In Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, the three cases of high, medium, and low coal prices are shown. For the CPCCS with a capture rate of 41.5% (S1), at the average natural gas price of 1.723 CNY/m3, the LCOE is lower for the NGPP than the CPCCS only when the coal price is 750 CNY/t; the fluctuations are consistent with the change in the carbon price.
LCOE/(CNY/kWh)
0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000
CPCCS 150 CPCCS 750 4
20
40
60
CPCCS 450 NGPP 80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Carbon price/(CNY/t) Fig. 3. Changes in the LCOE of the CPCCS and NGPP in S1.
For the CPCCS with a capture rate of 90% (S2), as the carbon price increases, the LCOE decreases more rapidly than for the CPCCS with a lower capture rate (S1). When the coal price is 750 CNY/t and the carbon price is higher than 158 CNY/t, the CPCCS have an advantage over the NGPP with regard to the LCOE. When the price of the coal is 150–450 CNY/t, the CPCCS with a high capture rate has an advantage over the NGPP regardless whether the carbon price is at a low level or is expected to increase in the future.
LCOE/(CNY/kWh)
0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 CPCCS 150 CPCCS 750
0.100 0.000
4
20
40
CPCCS 450 NGPP
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Carbon price/(CNY/t) Fig. 4. Changes in the LCOE of the CPCCS and NGPP in S2.
200
34 6
Jing-Li Fan et al. / Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
3.3. The impact of the provincial resource differences on the LCOE At the same average current carbon price of 48.11 CNY/t and considering the influence of the natural gas prices and coal prices in different provinces, the CPCCS with the different capture rates have lower LCOE than the NPGG (Fig. 5). In the two scenarios, Shanxi has the largest LCOE gap between the CPCCS and NGPP; in both scenarios, the LCOE of the NGPP is 0.171 CNY/kWh higher than those of the CPCCS. However, the gap between LCOE of CPCCS and NGPP is smallest in Shaanxi because of the abundant natural gas and coal resources, which results in low fuel prices and a narrow gap. The situation is opposite in Hainan; due to a lack of fossil fuels, where the fuel prices are relatively high, resulting in similar values of the LCOE for the CPCCS and NGPP.
Fig. 5. A comparison of the provinces’ LCOE for the CPCCS and NGPP.
4. Conclusions Under the existing market and policy conditions, when CCS technology is used in coal-fired power plants to reduce carbon emissions and when the entire operating period is considered, although the investment cost of CCS capture devices is relatively high, the LCOE is still relatively lower for the CPCCS than the NGPP when the emission level is equal to that of the NGPP or the carbon emissions are reduced by 90%. Combined with China's coal-based resource endowment conditions, the positioning of CCS technology for coal-fired power plants in the alternative process should be further clarified, at least from the cost-effective LCOE perspective. Carbon benefit is an efficient and necessary supplement to maintain the competitiveness of the CPCCS when coal prices are high. With the establishment of China's national carbon trading market, CPCCS would realize great emission reduction potential if it is considered as the main trading entities. In addition, as the most influential factor in the two technologies, the fuel price in China is also affected by the region and the policies. To ensure the LCOE advantage of the CPCCS, the relevant influencing factors should be comprehensively taken into account so that changes in coal prices can be effectively evaluated. Considering the cost-effectiveness, Shanxi could be a pilot project area to develop CPCCS to meet the emission mitigation requirements at relatively low cost. Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (no. CBA2018-02MY-Fan). References [1]. CEC, China Power Industry Development Report 2017. 2017, China Electricity Council. [2]. NBS, China Energy Statistics Yearbook 2017. 2017.
Jing-Li Fan et al. / Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
35 7
[3]. Valentić, V., S. Žiković, and A. Višković, Can CCS save coal fired power plants – The European perspective. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016. 47: p. 266-278. [4]. Mcglade, C., et al., A bridge to a low carbon future? Modelling the long-term global potential of natural gas. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 2014. 1(3-4): p. 113-141. [5]. Lazard, LAZARD'S LEVELIZED COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS-VERSION 10.0. 2017. [6]. Zhu, L. and Y. Fan, Modelling the investment in carbon capture retrofits of pulverized coal-fired plants. Energy, 2013. 57(3): p. 66-75. [7]. Abadie, L.M. and J.M. Chamorro, European CO 2 prices and carbon capture investments. Energy Economics, 2008. 30(6): p. 2992-3015. [8]. Jiang, T., Economic Analysis of Natural Gas Power Generation Projects. 2004, Tsinghua University. [9]. IPCC, IPCC Special Report on Cardon Dioxide Capture and Storage. 2005: Geneva. [10]. Harkin, T., A. Hoadley, and B. Hooper, Optimisation of power stations with carbon capture plants – the trade-off between costs and net power. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2012. 34: p. 98-109. [11]. NBS, China Energy Statistics Yearbook 2017. 2017, National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China. [12]. IMCEC. 2017; Available from: http://www.imcec.cn/zgdm. [13]. CBEE. 2018; Available from: http://www.bjets.com.cn/article/jyxx/. [14]. Ouyang, X. and B. Lin, Energy Policy, 2014. 70: p. 64-73. [15]. Changhong Zhao, H.Z., Xingping Zhang, Jiaha Yuan, Economic research on centralized gas power generation projects. International Petroleum Economics, 2016(12): p. 57-63,74. [16]. NDRC. Notice of the National Development and Reform Commission on Reducing the Price of Non-residential Natural Gas Reference Gate Stations. 2017; Available from: http://www.ndrc.gov.cn/zcfb/gfxwj/201708/t20170830_859307.html.
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online atwww.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com Available online Available online at at www.sciencedirect.com Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
ScienceDirect ScienceDirect ScienceDirect ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 Energy Procedia Procedia 00 154(2017) (2018)000–000 29–35 Energy Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Applied Energy Symposium and Forum, Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage, CCUS 2018, 27–29 June 2018, Perth, Australia AppliedThe Energy Symposium and Forum,coal-fired Carbon Capture, Utilization andwith Storage, CCUS 2018, LCOE Chinese power plants CCS The 15thof International Symposium on District Heating andStorage, Cooling Applied Energy Symposium and Forum, Carbon Capture, Utilization and CCUS 2018, 27–29 June 2018, Perth, Australia technology: a comparison with natural gas power plants 27–29 June 2018, Perth, Australia a,b,c dheat d Assessing the ofa, using the demand-outdoor TheFanLCOE of feasibility Chinese power plants CCS Jing-Li , Shi-Jie Weia, Maocoal-fired Xu Ping Zhong , Xian Zhangwith , Yang Yangc,d, The LCOE of Chinese coal-fired power plants with CCS
technology: a comparison with natural gas power plants temperature function for a long-term heat demand forecast d district technology: a comparison with natural gas power plants * Hang Wang a,b,c a a d d c,d Jing-Li Fana,b,c , Shi-Jie Wei , Ping Zhong a a, Mao Xu b d, Xian Zhangcd, Yang Yangcc,d, I. Andrić A. Pina , P. Ferrão Fournier ., B. Lacarrière Le Corre Jing-Li Fan a,b,c, *, Shi-Jie Wei , Mao Xua,a,J.Ping Zhong , Xian Zhang ,,O. Yang Yang , Hang Wang * Hang Wang *
a.School of Resources & Safety Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology, Beijing (CUMTB), Beijing 100083, China; d of Mining and Technology), Beijing 100083, China; b.State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining (China University a d Institute c. for Center for Energy and Environmental Research, Beijing of Technology, Beijing China; IN+ Center Innovation, Technology and Policy Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1,100081, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal b d.The Administrative Centre for China's Agenda 21 (ACCA21), MinistryDreyfous of Science and Technology (MOST), Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Daniel, 78520 Limay, FranceBeijing 100038, China. a.School of Resources & Safety Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology, Beijing (CUMTB), Beijing 100083, China; c Département ÉnergétiquesChina et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred (CUMTB), Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France a.School Resources &Systèmes Safety Engineering, University of Mining & Technology, b.State of Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining (China University of MiningBeijing and Technology),Beijing Beijing100083, 100083,China; China; b.State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining (China Beijing University of Mining and Technology), Beijing 100083, c. Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China; China; c. Center forCentre Energy Environmental Research, Beijing Instituteand of Technology, d.The Administrative forand China's Agenda 21Policy (ACCA21), Ministry of Science Technology Beijing (MOST),100081, BeijingChina; 100038, China. Abstract d.The Administrative Centre for China's Agenda 21 (ACCA21), Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Beijing 100038, China.
Abstract In the process of energy transformation in China, the potential competitiveness of natural gas power plants and coal-fired power District heatingwith networks commonly addressed in the literatureshould as onebeofconsidered. the most effective solutions decreasing the plants equipped carbonarecapture and storage (CCS) technology In this study, the for levelized cost of Abstract greenhouse gas emissions thetobuilding sector. These systems require whichplants. are returned through thethat heat Abstract electricity (LCOE) method from is used compare the competitiveness of thesehigh twoinvestments types of power The results show Due changed climate building competitiveness renovation demand inplants the future could regardless of to whether a carbon pricingconditions mechanism is included, the LCOE ispolicies, lower forheat coal-fired power plants CCS decrease, than for Insales. the process ofthe energy transformation in China, and the potential of natural gas power andwith coal-fired power prolonging the investment return period. In the process of energy transformation in China, the potential competitiveness of natural gas power plants and coal-fired power natural gas power plants if the coal-fired power plants have the same level of emission reduction as the natural gas power plants plants equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology should be considered. In this study, the levelized cost of The main scopewith of method this paper is to assess the feasibility oftechnology using the heat demand –types outdoor temperature function for demand or ensure deep emission reductions. When thethecoal price reaches 750 CNY/t, the coal-fired power plants withheat the CCS plants equipped carbon storage (CCS) should be In thisplants. study, the results levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is capture used toand compare competitiveness of these twoconsidered. of power The show that forecast. of The district Alvalade, in the Lisbon (Portugal), was used as 158 afor case The district consisted ofthat 665 electricity (LCOE) method is used tolocated compare competitiveness of these two types ofstudy. power plants. Theis results show technology lose their competitive advantage when carbon price is less CNY/t. In power Shanxi province, the coal-fired regardless whether a of carbon pricing mechanism isthe included, the LCOE is than lower coal-fired plants with CCS than for buildings that vary ina technology both periodplants and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) andCCS three district regardless whether carbon pricing is included, the LCOE isoflower for coal-fired power with than for power plants with CCS havemechanism apower greater competitive advantage than the natural gas power natural gasof power plants if theconstruction coal-fired have the same level emission reduction asplants. the plants natural gas power plants scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained demand values were natural gas deep power plants if reductions. the coal-fired powertheplants same level of emission aspower the heat natural gaswith power orrenovation ensure emission When coal have pricethereaches 750 CNY/t, the reduction coal-fired plants theplants CCS © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Keywords: coal-fired power plants; natural gas power plants; LCOE; China compared with results from a dynamic heat demand model, developed and validated the authors. or ensure deep emission reductions. When the coal pricepreviously reachesis750 theCNY/t. coal-fired power plants with the CCS technology lose access their competitive when the carbon less CNY/t, than 158 Inby Shanxi province, the coal-fired This is an open article underadvantage the CC BY-NC-ND licenseprice (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) The results showed that when only weather change is carbon considered, ofnatural errorCNY/t. could be for some technology lose their competitive advantage when the pricethe is margin less than 158 In acceptable Shanxi province, theapplications coal-fired power plants with CCS technology have a greater competitive advantage than the gas power plants. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Applied Energy Symposium and Forum, Carbon (the error inwith annual demand wasCCUS lower2018. 20% for all weather scenarios considered). after introducing renovation power plants CCS technology have a than greater competitive advantage than the natural gasHowever, power plants. Capture, Utilization and Storage, scenarios, the error value increased 59.5% (depending on the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered). 1. Introduction Keywords: coal-fired power plants; naturalup gasto power plants; LCOE; China Keywords: coal-fired power plants; natural gas power plants; LCOE; The value of slope coefficient increased on average withinChina the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139hmore during the60% heating (depending on the combinationinofChina. weatherThe and For a number of years, coal has comprised than of season the primary energy consumption renovation scenarios On theconstitutes other hand,about function increased for 7.8-12.7% pertechnologies decade (depending on in the 1. Introduction installed capacity of considered). coal-fired plants 57%intercept of all types of power generation in 2016 coupled scenarios). The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and 1. Introduction China[1] and the CO2 emissions by coal-fired power plants account for 37% of all the CO2 emissions produced by improve accuracy of heat coal demand For a the number of years, hasestimations. comprised more than 60% of the primary energy consumption in China. The
fossil fuels combustion[2]. As a means of emission abatement with a large emission reduction potential, carbon For a capacity number of years, coalplants has comprised the primary consumption in China. The installed of coal-fired constitutesmore aboutthan 57%60% of alloftypes of powerenergy generation technologies in 2016 in © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. installed capacity of coal-fired plants constitutes about 57% of all types of power generation technologies in 2016 in emissions by coal-fired power plants account for 37% of all the CO emissions produced by China[1] and the CO 2 2 Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and emissions by coal-fired power plants account for 37% of all the CO emissions produced by China[1] and the CO 2 2 fossil fuels combustion[2]. As a means of emission abatement with a large emission reduction potential, carbon Cooling. fossil fuels combustion[2]. As a means of emission abatement with a large emission reduction potential, carbon * Corresponding author: Hang Wang, E-mail address: [email protected]. Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change
1876-6102 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review responsibility the scientific committee of the Applied Energy Symposium and Forum, Carbon Capture, * Corresponding author: under Hang Wang, E-mail of address: [email protected]. Utilization and Storage, CCUS * Corresponding author: Hang2018. Wang, E-mail address: [email protected]. 1876-6102Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published byrights Elsevier Ltd. 1876-6102 © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All reserved. 1876-6102 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1876-6102 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier All rights reserved.of Peer-review under responsibility of theLtd. Scientific Committee The 15thof International on District Cooling. Selection peer-review under responsibility the scientific committee the AppliedSymposium Energy Symposium andHeating Forum,and Carbon Capture, This is anand open access article under the CCofBY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Selection under responsibility of theofscientific committee of the Applied Symposium and Forum, Carbon Capture,Carbon Utilization andpeer-review Storage, CCUS 2018. Selectionand and peer-review under responsibility the scientific committee of theEnergy Applied Energy Symposium and Forum, Utilization and Storage, CCUS 2018. Capture, Utilization and Storage, CCUS 2018. 10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.006
30 2
Jing-Li Fan et al. / Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
capture and storage (CCS) technology of coal-fired power plants has received increased attention. CCS technology is also the bridge connecting traditional power generation with renewable energy power generation[3]. Natural gas plays an important role in the energy transformation[4]. Much importance has been placed on the use of natural gas to improve energy structure. However, due to the limited resources of natural gas, China's natural gas production cannot meet the consumer demand, leading to relatively high external dependence. In spite of this, the natural gas power generation has been still an alternative means of emission reduction. Considering the similarities of the two technologies in the energy transition and the potential competition, in this study, we identify the competitiveness of the two technologies by evaluating the power generation cost from the levelized perspectives. A cost-effectiveness analysis is conducted by considering the emission reduction benefits and other influencing factors of the coal-fired power plants with CCS technology (CPCCS) and the natural gas power plants (NGPP), in order to provide an implication for the rational choice of power generation technology under the current development requirements. Nomenclature CPCCS Coal-fired power plant with CCS NGPP Natural gas power plant 2. Methods and data 2.1. Levelized Cost of Electricity The levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) refers to the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated during the construction and operating period of a power generation project. It is a widely recognized and transparent method for calculating the cost of power generation. The LCOE is often used as a metric to rank the competitiveness of power generation technologies and it is widely used as a standard for comparing different technologies[5]. This study uses the LCOE model to calculate the unit cost of power generation by calculating the ratio of the discounted total cost of the power generation to the total output during the life cycle of the project, as shown in equations (1)(4) for CPCCS and equation (5)-(7) for NGPP, respectively. n C PC CoCCS & mt (1 )Qcoalt Pcoalt QPCct Pct CIPC CICCS o & mt t t 1 1 r (1) LCOEPC CCS n QPCet
t 1
1 r
Qcoalt QPCet QPCct Qcoalt
t
(2) (3)
(4) QPCet CapPC H PCt where LCOEPC CCS represents the LCOE of a new CPCCS; CIPC and CCCS denote the initial investment cost of a coal-fired power plant and carbon capture device respectively; CoPC& mt and CoCCS & mt denote the annual operating and maintenance costs of the coal-fired power plant and the capture device at time t, respectively; is the ratio of the energy penalty caused by carbon capture device ; Qcoalt is the coal consumption of the coal-fired power plant at time t; Pcoalt is the coal price at time t; is CO2 capture rate of the coal-fired power plant； QPCct is the annual CO2 emission of the coal-fired power plant at time t; Pct represents the CO2 price; QPCet is the power output of the coalfired power plant at time t; r is the discount rate; n is the operating time of the coal-fired power plant; is the coal consumption of a unit of electricity; is the CO2 emission of a unit of electricity; CapPC is the installed capacity of the coal-fired power plant; H PCt is the annual full-load operation time of the coal-fired power plant at time t.
Jing-Li Fan et al. / Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 k
CoNP &mt Qgast Pgast QNPct PNPct
t 1
1 r
CINP LCOENP
k
t 1
QNPet
1 r
31 3
t
(5)
t
Qgast QNPet
(6)
(7) QNPet CapNP H NPt NP where LCOENP represents the LCOE of the NGPP; denotes the initial investment cost of the NGPP; Co & mt are the operating and maintenance costs of the NGPP at time t; Qgast is the natural gas consumption of the NGPP at time t; Pgast is the natural gas price at time t; k is the operating time of the NGPP; is the natural gas consumption per unit; CapNP is the installed capacity of the NGPP; H NPt is the full-load operation time of the NGPP at time t. 2.2. Scenarios As shown in Table 1, two scenarios for CPCCS are set according to adjusting different CO2 capture rates. In the first scenario (S1), capture rate for the CPCCS is set at 41.5% to meet the same emission level of the NGPP. In the second scenario (S2) when the CPCCS makes full use of its capture capability, the capture rate is 90% and this scenario is regarded as deep emission reduction scenario. The additional energy consumption of the coal-fired power plant installing will also change due to the carbon capture technology. Table 1. Scenarios of the power generation costs. Scenarios Capture rate of CPCCS
Description
S1
With a capture rate of 41.5%
The same emission reduction of NGPP
S2
With a capture rate of 90%
Deep emission reduction
2.3. Data collection The economic parameters of the CPCCS and NGPP are shown in Table 2 and Table 3: Table 2. Economic parameters of the CPCCS Parameters
Value
Source
Installed capacity of the supercritical pulverized coal power plant (SCPC) (MW)
600
[6]
Annual full-load operation time (h)
4186
[1]
Initial investment cost of the SCPC (CNY/kW)
3163
[1]
Initial investment cost of capture device (CNY/kW)
4395.77
[7]
Annual O&M cost of SCPC (CNY/kWa)
133
[8]
Annual O&M cost of the capture device (CNY/kWa)
120.71
[7]
Energy penalty（with capture rate of 90%）
32%
[9]
Energy penalty（with capture rate of 41.5%）
15%
[10]
Coal consumption of one unit of electricity (g/kWh)
326.67
[11]
Coal price (CNY/t)
426.04
[12]
CO2 emission factor (tCO2/t)
2.24
Calculate by the method used by the IPCC 2006
CO2 price (CNY/t)
48.11
[13]
Operation time of SCPC (year)
40
[1]
Discount rate (%)
8%
[14]
Note: The IPCC represents the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Jing-Li Fan et al. / Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
32 4
Table 3. Economic parameters of the NGPP Parameters
Value
Source
Installed capacity of NGPP (MW)
600
Set at the same level as the coal-fired power plant.
Annual full-load operation time (h)
2701
[1]
Initial investment cost of NGPP (CNY/kW)
2555
[1]
Annual O&M cost of NGPP (CNY/kWa)
106
[8]
Natural gas consumption of one of unit electricity (m3/kWh)
0.2
[15]
CO2 emission factor (kg/m3)
2.14
Calculating by the method used by the IPCC 2006.
Natural gas price (CNY/m3)
1.71
[16]
Operation time of NGPP (year)
20
[1]
3. Results and discussion 3.1. The impact of introducing a carbon pricing benefit As Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show, at the current price levels of natural gas, coal and carbon and regardless of whether the CPCCS and NGPP enjoy the carbon pricing benefits, the LCOE is higher for the NGPP than the CPCCS. When neither of them is involved in carbon pricing benefit, the LCOE of the NGPP and CPCCS with low and high capture rates are 0.480 CNY/kWh (NGPP), 0.382 CNY/kWh (S1), and 0.407 CNY/kWh (S2) respectively. The LCOE of the CPCCS is 20% and 15% lower than that of the NGPP in S1 and S2, respectively. The cost of the CCS makes up 36.4% and 40.3% of the total LCOE in S1 and S2 respectively, while the cost of the fuel investment comprises more than 40% and 70% of the total LCOE of the CPCCS and NGPP, respectively. Therefore, the fuel price is the most influential factor in the two technologies.
LCOE/(CNY/kWh)
0.500 0.400
0.382
0.407
0.480
Coal-CCS 6%
Coal-CCS 12%
Coal-CP 38%
Coal-CP 36%
0.200
O&M CCS 8% O&M CP 8%
O&M 7% O&M 7%
0.100
I-CCS 23%
I-CCS 22%
I-CP 17%
I-CP 16%
O&M NGPP 8% I-NGPP 20%
S1
S2
NGPP
0.300
0.000
Natural gas 72%
Fig. 1. The LCOE of the CPCCS and NGPP without CO2 emission reduction benefit.
When the power plants benefit in the carbon pricing system, the LCOE of the NGPP and CPCCS with a low and high capture rate are 0.466 CNY/kWh (NGPP), 0.367 CNY/kWh (S1), and 0.375 CNY/kWh (S2) respectively. As shown in Fig. 2, this results in a reduction of 4%, 8%, and 3% compared to the original LCOE. It is evident that the CPCCS has advantages over the NGPP with regard to the LCOE and a greater emission reduction potential exists.
Jing-Li Fan et al. /Procedia Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy 00 (2018) 000–000
0.500 LCOE/(CNY/kWh)
0.400
0.465
0.375
0.367
335
0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000
-0.015
-0.032
-0.015
S1
S2
NGPP
-0.100
Fig. 2. The LCOE of the CPCCS and NGPP with CO2 emission reduction benefit.
3.2. The impact of carbon and fuel price changes on the LCOE In Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, the three cases of high, medium, and low coal prices are shown. For the CPCCS with a capture rate of 41.5% (S1), at the average natural gas price of 1.723 CNY/m3, the LCOE is lower for the NGPP than the CPCCS only when the coal price is 750 CNY/t; the fluctuations are consistent with the change in the carbon price.
LCOE/(CNY/kWh)
0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000
CPCCS 150 CPCCS 750 4
20
40
60
CPCCS 450 NGPP 80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Carbon price/(CNY/t) Fig. 3. Changes in the LCOE of the CPCCS and NGPP in S1.
For the CPCCS with a capture rate of 90% (S2), as the carbon price increases, the LCOE decreases more rapidly than for the CPCCS with a lower capture rate (S1). When the coal price is 750 CNY/t and the carbon price is higher than 158 CNY/t, the CPCCS have an advantage over the NGPP with regard to the LCOE. When the price of the coal is 150–450 CNY/t, the CPCCS with a high capture rate has an advantage over the NGPP regardless whether the carbon price is at a low level or is expected to increase in the future.
LCOE/(CNY/kWh)
0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 CPCCS 150 CPCCS 750
0.100 0.000
4
20
40
CPCCS 450 NGPP
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Carbon price/(CNY/t) Fig. 4. Changes in the LCOE of the CPCCS and NGPP in S2.
200
34 6
Jing-Li Fan et al. / Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
3.3. The impact of the provincial resource differences on the LCOE At the same average current carbon price of 48.11 CNY/t and considering the influence of the natural gas prices and coal prices in different provinces, the CPCCS with the different capture rates have lower LCOE than the NPGG (Fig. 5). In the two scenarios, Shanxi has the largest LCOE gap between the CPCCS and NGPP; in both scenarios, the LCOE of the NGPP is 0.171 CNY/kWh higher than those of the CPCCS. However, the gap between LCOE of CPCCS and NGPP is smallest in Shaanxi because of the abundant natural gas and coal resources, which results in low fuel prices and a narrow gap. The situation is opposite in Hainan; due to a lack of fossil fuels, where the fuel prices are relatively high, resulting in similar values of the LCOE for the CPCCS and NGPP.
Fig. 5. A comparison of the provinces’ LCOE for the CPCCS and NGPP.
4. Conclusions Under the existing market and policy conditions, when CCS technology is used in coal-fired power plants to reduce carbon emissions and when the entire operating period is considered, although the investment cost of CCS capture devices is relatively high, the LCOE is still relatively lower for the CPCCS than the NGPP when the emission level is equal to that of the NGPP or the carbon emissions are reduced by 90%. Combined with China's coal-based resource endowment conditions, the positioning of CCS technology for coal-fired power plants in the alternative process should be further clarified, at least from the cost-effective LCOE perspective. Carbon benefit is an efficient and necessary supplement to maintain the competitiveness of the CPCCS when coal prices are high. With the establishment of China's national carbon trading market, CPCCS would realize great emission reduction potential if it is considered as the main trading entities. In addition, as the most influential factor in the two technologies, the fuel price in China is also affected by the region and the policies. To ensure the LCOE advantage of the CPCCS, the relevant influencing factors should be comprehensively taken into account so that changes in coal prices can be effectively evaluated. Considering the cost-effectiveness, Shanxi could be a pilot project area to develop CPCCS to meet the emission mitigation requirements at relatively low cost. Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (no. CBA2018-02MY-Fan). References [1]. CEC, China Power Industry Development Report 2017. 2017, China Electricity Council. [2]. NBS, China Energy Statistics Yearbook 2017. 2017.
Jing-Li Fan et al. / Energy Procedia 154 (2018) 29–35 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
35 7
[3]. Valentić, V., S. Žiković, and A. Višković, Can CCS save coal fired power plants – The European perspective. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016. 47: p. 266-278. [4]. Mcglade, C., et al., A bridge to a low carbon future? Modelling the long-term global potential of natural gas. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 2014. 1(3-4): p. 113-141. [5]. Lazard, LAZARD'S LEVELIZED COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS-VERSION 10.0. 2017. [6]. Zhu, L. and Y. Fan, Modelling the investment in carbon capture retrofits of pulverized coal-fired plants. Energy, 2013. 57(3): p. 66-75. [7]. Abadie, L.M. and J.M. Chamorro, European CO 2 prices and carbon capture investments. Energy Economics, 2008. 30(6): p. 2992-3015. [8]. Jiang, T., Economic Analysis of Natural Gas Power Generation Projects. 2004, Tsinghua University. [9]. IPCC, IPCC Special Report on Cardon Dioxide Capture and Storage. 2005: Geneva. [10]. Harkin, T., A. Hoadley, and B. Hooper, Optimisation of power stations with carbon capture plants – the trade-off between costs and net power. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2012. 34: p. 98-109. [11]. NBS, China Energy Statistics Yearbook 2017. 2017, National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China. [12]. IMCEC. 2017; Available from: http://www.imcec.cn/zgdm. [13]. CBEE. 2018; Available from: http://www.bjets.com.cn/article/jyxx/. [14]. Ouyang, X. and B. Lin, Energy Policy, 2014. 70: p. 64-73. [15]. Changhong Zhao, H.Z., Xingping Zhang, Jiaha Yuan, Economic research on centralized gas power generation projects. International Petroleum Economics, 2016(12): p. 57-63,74. [16]. NDRC. Notice of the National Development and Reform Commission on Reducing the Price of Non-residential Natural Gas Reference Gate Stations. 2017; Available from: http://www.ndrc.gov.cn/zcfb/gfxwj/201708/t20170830_859307.html.