Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 2840 – 2847

GHGT-11

Full chain analysis and comparison of gas-fired power plants

with CO2 capture and storage with clean coal alternatives
Zhenggang Nie, Anna Korre* Sevket Durucan
Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Royal School of Mines, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BP, UK

Abstract

This paper presents the new models developed for the natural gas fuelled power generation chain, involving various
natural gas production methods, gas processing routes, gas transport options, and alternative gas based power
generation with/without CO2 capture. The comprehensive and quantitative Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) database
developed models inputs/outputs of processes at high level of detail, allowing to account for technical and geographic
differences in the power generation value chain scenarios analysed. With the advantage of LCI models developed at
unit process level, this work successfully identified the key operational parameters for alternative gas-fuelled power
plants and the key component processes that emit the majority of GHGs across the gas supply chains.

© 2013 The
TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
PublishedbybyElsevier
ElsevierLtd.Ltd.
Selection and/orpeer-review
Selection and/or peer-reviewunder
underresponsibility
responsibility
of of GHGT
GHGT

Keywords: Life cycle assessment, natural gas, LNG, power generation, CO2 capture and storage

1. Introduction

According to IEA [1] the share of fossil fuels in global primary energy consumption is predicted to fall
slightly from 81% in 2010 to 75% in 2035; natural gas is the only fossil fuel to increase its share in the
global mix over the period to 2035. The growth of energy demand has the potential to cause a significant
increase in greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions. The development of renewables, clean fossil fuel
technology with carbon capture and storage (CCS), and nuclear energy is expected to make a low-carbon
and oil-independent power generation mix a reality [1, 2]. However, the new power generation
technologies involve new processes, which may cause GHGs emissions or other environmental burdens

* Corresponding author. +44-20-594-7372; fax: +44-20-594-7444.

E-mail address: [email protected]

1876-6102 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of GHGT
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.169
 Zhenggang Nie et al. / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 2840 – 2847 2841

either from on-site operations or upstream processes involved [3-5]. Therefore, it is imperative to conduct
a comprehensive environmental assessment of alternative CCS options in power generation, which is
capable of tracking GHG releases throughout all stages of power generation life cycle and provide
accurate information for decision makers.
The life cycle GHGs emissions of various gas fuelled power generation plant configurations with
alternative CO2 capture, transport, and storage scenarios have been investigated by few previous Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies [6-11]. These studies indicate that the average life-cycle GHGs
emissions of gas fired power plants with alternative CCS are 133.49 kg CO2-e per MWh electricity
generated and conventional natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants with average life-cycle GHGs
emissions of 413.96 kg CO2-e per MWh. This indicates that CCS can reduce 68% of life-cycle GHGs
emissions. However, all these studies are based on a low resolution analysis (plant level analysis or gate-
to-gate data from generic databases or specific case studies), and they report wide ranging results for life
cycle GHGs emissions from 91.90 to 177.84 kg CO2-e per MWh. Furthermore, previous studies also show
that gas production and supply chains account for more than 50 % of life-cycle GHGs emissions in most
cases, ranging from 37.51 to 120.30 kg CO 2-e per MWh. This implies that it is necessary to investigate
gas production and supply chains in detail when analysing life-cycle GHGs emissions of gas fuelled
power plants with alternative CCS. Two previous studies analysed the natural gas domestically extracted
from the US and natural gas supplied from overseas to the US [7, 9], and provided detailed GHGs
emissions from gas production, gas processing and gas transportations for the US cases only.
This paper firstly presents the newly developed models for the natural gas based power generation
chains, including conventional and unconventional gas production methods, gas processing routes, gas
transport options, and alternative gas fuelled power generation systems with or without CO2 capture and
storage. The comprehensive and quantitative Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) database developed models
inputs and outputs of processes at high level of detail, allowing to account for technical and geographic
differences in the power generation value chain. Secondly, the models developed are applied to various
gas supply scenarios and a full chain analysis covering the gas supply chain and alternative power
generation systems with and without CCS are presented. Finally, the life cycle GHG emissions
performance of gas based power plants are compared with the clean coal technology alternatives
considering realistic fuel supply chain and power generation scenarios from around the world.

2. LCA model scope and boundaries

The boundaries of the LCA system developed are presented in Fig. 1, which illustrates all subsystems
that are modeled individually.
The functional unit selected for the value chain is 1 MWh of electricity generated. The comparison
between different conventional and unconventional natural gas production alternatives are presented
using kg of natural gas produced as the reference unit. The subsystems shown in Fig. 1 were further
broken down or modularised so they can be modelled accurately. Through modularisation, the LCI
models quantify flows of materials, natural resources, energy, intermediate products or emissions at
component or unit process level. This approach allows to account for the technical, spatial and temporal
differences that exist between different industrial sites and operations by modifying the parameters of the
component unit processes as necessary. Furthermore, modularisation allows plant operators and designers
to model and compare different technical and engineering scenarios from a life cycle perspective,
eliminating the limitations introduced by the linear input/output coefficients used by conventional LCI
models. The following sections present four comparative analyses that illustrate the depth, flexibility and
accuracy of the LCI models developed.
2842 Zhenggang Nie et al. / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 2840 – 2847

Fig. 1. Generalised natural gas based power generation routes with CCS LCA system and boundaries.

3. Comparative assessment of different natural gas supply chain options

3.1. GHGs emissions from different gas production operations

The models developed were applied to different gas reservoirs and alternative gas production
operations as described in Table 1. Given the operational parameters shown in Table 1, the GHG
emission results in Fig. 2 illustrate that the gas production method used, which is specific to the type of
gas reservoir in question, is the main factor which determines the amount of GHG emitted. For instance,
GHG emissions from onshore gas production, CBM production and shale gas production are significantly
higher than offshore gas production processes, which have the lowest GHG emissions with 0.018 kg CO2-
e per kg natural gas produced. The majority of the GHG emissions from offshore gas production are from
drilling and well completion. The GHG emissions from shale gas (0.119 kg CO2-e per kg natural gas
produced) are slightly higher than that of onshore gas production and CBM production. In shale gas
production, the use of compressors to increase the pressure of natural gas for pipeline transport creates
significantly high rates of GHG emissions. Shale gas well completion activities include hydraulic
fracturing and a flowback period to clean the well from flowback water (which contains methane) and
any excess sand (fracturing proppant). In this study, it is assumed that the flowback water is routed
through a separation equipment to separate water, gas, and sand. The separated gas is then routed to the
flare stack.

3.2. Comparison of different gas supply chains

The models developed were also applied to various gas supply chains, with natural gas sourced and
transported to the UK from geographically different reservoirs. Two example supply chains and the data
used in modelling these options are presented in Tables 2 and 3. As some gas reservoirs produce natural
 Zhenggang Nie et al. / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 2840 – 2847 2843

Table 1. Assumptions for different gas reservoirs and alternative natural gas production operations.

Natural gas production rate 800 MMscf/day

On shore

Reservoir life span 30 years

Production rate per well 0.384 MMscf/day
Onshore well number 2,083
Natural gas platform production rate 200 MMscf/day
Reservoir life span 20 years
Platform drilling no
Offshore

Number of wells in whole life span 12 wells

CO2 content in raw gas 3.50% in volume
20 MW gas driven compression is installed 6 years after the first gas
production to maintain peak production
Field production rate 800 MMscf/day
Shale gas

Single vertical well production rate 11 MMscf/day

Well numbers in total 73 -
Reservoir life span 30 years
Coal bed methane gas production rate 1,360 MMscf/day
CBM reservoir life span 30 years Fig. 2. GHG emissions from alternative
gas production methods.
CBM

CBM per well production rate 0.8 MMscf/day

CBM well number 1,700 wells
Life cycle CBM well number 6,000 wells

Table 2 Parameterisation of the LCA model for North Sea offshore natural gas production and supply to the UK.

Production rate 200 MMscf/day

Reservoir life span 20 years
Platform drilling - no of wells
Low case: 3.5
CO2 content in raw gas % volume
High case: 9.0

North Sea offshore platform natural Low case: 0 (no capture)

CO2 capture rate % volume
gas production High case: 74

Final CO2 content in produced Low case:3.5

% volume
gas High case: 2.5
Low case: no storage
CO2 storage in saline aquifer no storage
High case:
100 %
Pipeline to onshore processing plant Distance 125 Km
Plant throughput 200 MMscf/day
Processing plant
CO2 content in produced gas 2.5 % volume
Pipeline to distribution system Distance 5 km
2844 Zhenggang Nie et al. / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 2840 – 2847

Table 3 Parameterisation of the LCA model for Middle East offshore natural gas production and LNG transport to the UK.

Production rate 1,730 MMscf/day

Reservoir life span 20 years
Middle East offshore platform natural
Platform drilling duration 3.5 years
gas production
Number of wells predrilled 10 wells
CO2 content in raw gas 0.50 % volume
Pipeline to NG processing plant Distance 80 Km
Onshore NG processing plant Plant throughput 1,730 MMscf/day
Plant capacity 0.0 MTPA
Onshore LNG plant
Number of trains 2
Distance 11,300 Km
LNG shipping Velocity 36.12 Km/hour
Carrier volume 266,000 m3
UK Onshore LNG receiving terminal Capacity 1,730 MMscf/day

Fig. 3. Comparison of various gas based supply chains.

gas with high CO2 content (such as gas production from the Sleipner field in the North sea), the gas
supply scenarios included both low CO2 concentration produced gas and high CO2 concentration
produced gas with CO2 capture and saline aquifer storage, or venting options.
Fig 3 presents the life cycle GHG emissions per kg gas produced and delivered to the UK customer
from geographically different sources. The life cycle GHG emissions for different supply chains studied
vary significantly from 0.1406 to 0.5734 kg CO2-e/kg natural gas supplied, with emissions due mainly to
the CO2 capture unit (if implemented), the gas processing plant, the LNG plant and/or LNG shipping.
Unless geologically stored, the original CO2 concentration in the produced raw gas affects the life
cycle GHG emissions to a great extent, since the CO2 in the natural gas will eventually be released to
atmosphere from the CO2 capture plant (if implemented), the processing plant or the LNG plant. This is
illustrated by the case of North African gas with high CO2 content (12 % volume in the produced raw
 Zhenggang Nie et al. / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 2840 – 2847 2845

gas), platform CO2 capture and venting followed by LNG transport to the UK (Fig.3). As the high CO2
content North Sea natural gas example in Fig. 3 illustrates, the platform based CO2 capture and saline
aquifer storage case yielded the lowest GHG emissions in all the scenarios studied. After CCS, the CO 2
content of the produced gas was reduced to 2.5%, demonstrating the vital role of CO2 storage in
minimising the volume of CO2 vented to the atmosphere. The distance between the gas production site
and the customer also plays an important role, as LNG production, LNG shipping and LNG receiving
processes also contribute to the GHG emissions. It was found that the GHG emissions from the natural
gas processing activities are higher than the emissions generated from natural gas production processes in
all cases. It is also shown (Fig. 3) that the LNG related processes introduce significant GHG emissions. In
summary, the CO2 content of the raw natural gas and the distance to the customer are important factors
which determine the life cycle GHG emissions per kg natural gas supplied.

3.3. Full chain analysis of UK power generation with LNG sourced from the Middle East

A Middle East based LNG supply chain was integrated with different natural gas power generation,
CO2 capture and saline aquifer storage options using the LCA models developed. The operational
parameters used for the scenarios considered are illustrated in Tables 4 and 5 and the results of the
analysis are presented in Fig. 4.

Table 4. Operational parameters for gas fired power plants with and without alternative CO2 capture routes.

Power plant capacity (MW) 500

3.886
fuel to air equivalence ratio 0.85
pc / pc is the pressure drop rate in the combustor (%) 3.0
CCGT power plant
Pc/Pref is the combustor inlet pressure/reference pressure 15.8
Tc/Tref is the combustor inlet temperature / reference temperature 1.8
pc is the combustor inlet pressure (MPa) 1.6
X is steam/fuel ratio 0
Power plant capacity (MW) 500
3.886
CCGT with MEA fuel to air equivalence ratio 0.85
CO2 capture power
pc is the combustor inlet pressure (MPa) 1.6
plant
Flue gas bypass rate 0
Gas turbine plant thermal efficiency (%) 55
Power plant capacity (MW) 500
NG Hydrogen/Carbon ratio(HC) 3.886
ATR with PSA Steam/Carbon ratio(SC) 2
power plant O2/Carbon ratio(OC) 0.5
H2 recovery ratio(HR) 0.95
H2 to electricity efficiency (HE) 60%
Power plant capacity (MW) 500

Steam Methane Natural gas hydrogen to carbon H/C ratio 3.8862

Reforming with H2 SMR + Membrane temperature (K) 1,000
Membrane power SMR + Membrane pressure (bar) 20
plant Steam/carbon ratio 3
H2 to electricity efficiency (%) 60
2846 Zhenggang Nie et al. / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 2840 – 2847

Table 5. Operational parameters considered for the CO2 transport, injection and storage processes.

CO2 transport CO2 injection and storage

Mass flow rate of CO2 product in
pipeline (kg/s) 44.84 CO2 injection rate (t/hr) 161.44
Length of the pipeline (km) 150 Depth of reservoir (m) 1239
CO2 velocity in pipeline (m/s) 2 Reservoir horizontal permeability (mD) 22
CO2 inlet pressures (MPa) 15 Reservoir vertical permeability (mD) 22
CO2 outlet pressures (MPa) 15 Reservoir pressure (MPa) 8.4
CO2 temperature (°C) 425 Reservoir Thickness (m) 171
Surface temperature (F) 68
Temperature increase in CO2 heater (F) 5

In this example, natural gas is produced from an offshore platform and transported by an undersea
pipeline to the onshore processing plant and is liquefied to LNG. The LNG is shipped to UK South Hook
receiving terminal where it is re-gasified and transported to the power plant by pipeline. Four different
options of power plant configurations were considered. These are conventional NGCC plant; NGCC plant
with post-combustion CO2 capture; steam reforming plant with membrane CO2 capture; and an auto-
thermal reforming (ATR) plant with pressure swing adsorption CO2 capture. The captured CO2 is
transported by pipeline to a saline aquifer storage site, where CO2 is injected into the reservoir.
Fig. 4 demonstrates that natural gas power plants with CO2 capture and storage can reduce life cycle
GHG emissions by 74 -85 %. In the case of gas power plants with CO2 capture, the majority life cycle
GHG emissions are from the gas processing plant, the LNG plant, LNG shipping and the power plant.
Other processes or the plant construction activities account for insignificant GHG emissions in the life-
cycle perspective.

Fig 4. Life cycle GHG emissions for alternative natural gas fired power plant configurations with CO 2 capture, injection and storage
using LNG supplied from the Middle East.

Fig. 5 compares the life cycle of GHG emissions for alternative coal and natural gas fired power plant
configurations with coal and natural gas supplied to customers from various sources worldwide. This
 Zhenggang Nie et al. / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 2840 – 2847 2847

Fig 5. Life cycle of GHG emissions for alternative coal and natural gas fired power plant configurations with coal and natural gas
supplied to customers from various sources worldwide.

study has shown that the life cycle GHG emissions from coal based CCS chains vary more significantly
than the emissions from gas based CCS chains. This is due to different rates of uncontrolled methane
emissions from different rank coal deposits when the coal is being mined. For the gas chain cases
illustrated, the CO2 content of the produced gas ranged from 0.5% to 35%. Although this is a very wide
range, it nevertheless resulted in a relatively lower GHG emission range compared to that obtained for the
coal chains. As shown in Fig. 5, the life cycle GHG emissions can be as low as 43 kg CO2-e/MWh for gas
based chains; while the life cycle GHG emissions for coal based chains with CCS can be as low as 77 kg
CO2-e/MWh.

References

[1] IEA. IEA world energy outlook 2011. International Energy Agency; 2011.
[2] Bulteel B, Capros P. Untying the Energy Knot of Supply Security Climate Change Economic Competitiveness: the Role of
Electricity; 2007, World Energy Council: Rome.
[3] Korre A, Nie Z, Durucan S. Life cycle modelling of fossil fuel power generation with post combustion CO2 capture. Energy
Procedia, 2009. 1(1):3771-3778.
[4] Nie Z. Life Cycle Modelling of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geological Storage in Energy Production. PhD thesis, Imperial
College London; 2009.
[5] Postnote, Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation. UK Houses of Parliament, The Parliamentary Office of Science and
Technology; 2011.
[6] FEEM. New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability (NEED): Tasks 2.3-2.6. Burdens, Impacts And Externalities
From Natural Gas Chain. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM); 2007.
[7] James RJ, Skone TJ, Drauker LC, Bromiley R. Life Cycle Analysis: Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Power Plant.
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL); 2012.
[8] Singh, B., Strømman, A.H., and Hertwich, E., Life cycle assessment of natural gas combined cycle power plant with post-
combustion carbon capture, transport and storage. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2011; 5(3):457-466.
[9] Skone TJ, Littlefield J, Marriott J. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Natural Gas Extraction, Delivery and Electricity
Production. National Energy Technology Laboratory; 2011.
[10] Viebahn P. Daniel V, Samuel H. Integrated assessment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the German power sector and
comparison with the deployment of renewable energies. Applied Energy, 2012; 97(0):238-248.
[11] Wuppertal-Institut Für Klima. Energie, RECCS: Strukturell-ökonomisch-ökologischer Vergleich regenerativer
Energietechnologien(RE) mit Carbon Capture and Storage(CCS); 2007.