Weighting of environmental trade-offs in CCS-an LCA case study of electricity from a fossil gas power plant with post-combustion CO_2 capture, transport and storage

摘要

Purpose Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is increasingly acknowledged as a potent global warming abatement option. It is demonstrated that whilst the global warming potential (GWP) decreases, the other environmental impact category potentials often increase in a life cycle perspective. Despite this, only a few studies clearly address this trade-off or use weighting to compare the positive and negative effects of CCS. The present life cycle assessment (LCA) study focuses, therefore, on presenting several environmental indicators and on weighting the inventory results in order to ascertain which of the analysed systems is to be preferred. Method The case studied is a projected gas power plant at Tjeldbergodden (Norway), where it is proposed to include post-combustion CCS. Four main scenarios have been analysed, one without and three with CCS. The principal variation between the CCS scenarios is that the steam required for amine regeneration is produced in three different ways: in a separate gas fuelled steam boiler; in a separate biomass fuelled steam boiler; and delivered from the low-pressure steam turbine in the power plant. Design information and technical specifications have been available. The study has used LCA methodology based on the ISO standard 14044, SimaPro 7.3.2.4 software and the Ecoinvent 2.0 database. The functional unit is 1 TWh electricity delivered to the grid. The following environmental impact categories have been included: GWP, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) and cumulative energy demand (CED). Three weighting methods have been used to ascertain the robustness of the weighting results: ReCiPe, EPS 2000 and IMPACT 2002+. Results and discussion The characterisation results show that the CCS scenarios have reduced impacts only in the case of GWP. The weighting demonstrates that in the ReC-iPe model, climate change is strongly in focus, whilst in EPS 2000, human health and depletion of reserves are dominant. Climate change is also an important factor in IMPACT 2002+, together with effects on human health (respiratory inorganics). The process integration scenario has, however, the best result for all three weighting models. This contrasts with the results from the impact analysis where four of the five analysed impact categories rated the CCS-3 scenario as worse than the reference scenario. One possible option for improving the biofuel boiler scenario is to capture the CO_2 from the combustion of biomass in the external steam boiler. This would not, in all probability, affect the acidification, eutrophication, POCP and CED to any significant degree, but the GWP, and hence the ReCiPe and the IMPACT 2002+, weighting results could be expected to improve. Conclusions The weighting exercise has identified toxicity as a concern with regard to the biofuel boiler scenarios (CCS-2) and human health issues as having importance for the CCS-3 scenario. It would seem that process integration is a better CCS option than that of CCS providing steam from a separate steam boiler (without CCS), even where this boiler is biomass-fuelled. Any future analysis should focus both on the process integration scenario and the biofuel boiler scenario with CCS of biological CO_2.