Techno-Economic Comparison of Chemical Looping Combustion (CLC) in Canada and Sweden

Abstract

In order to mitigate global warming by reducing industrial emissions, use of CO2 capture technologies is critical. Chemical Looping Combustion (CLC) is a promising, yet uncommer cialized, method with potentially improved environmental benefits compared to conventional carbon capture technologies. The aim of this work is to investigate the commercialization po tential of a 100 MW CLC power plant in Sweden and Canada through simulations using Aspen Plus and a techno-economic analysis. A reference simulation was developed, which was based on the Örtofta combined heat and power (CHP) plant in Sweden, that was used as a basis for building the CLC cases. For the Canadian CLC case, sub-bituminous coal was used as the fuel and district heating was excluded, while the Swedish CLC case used bark as fuel and co-generated electricity and district heating. Ilmenite was selected as the oxygen carrier (OC) in all CLC scenarios. Key assumptions included an investment return rate of 9% and a 30 year plant lifetime. When comparing the CLC scenarios, significantly higher commercialization potential could be observed for the Swedish CLC plant, with a payback period (PBP) of 11.45 years and a net present value (NPV) of -e37.05 million, compared to 41.02 years and -e231.74 million for the Canadian case. The primary factor behind this difference was identified to be the choice of including district heating or not. Of all simulation scenarios, the Canadian CLC case had the by far highest electricity yield (2127.7 kWh/tonne fuel) but generated the least profit (e7.18 million/year). The Swedish CHP plant without CO2 capture had the lowest levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) at e0.0899/kWh, as well as superior results compared to the CLC scenarios regarding the NPV and the PBP at e173.86 million and 5.74 years. Sensitivity analysis showed that capital expenditure (CAPEX) had the most significant influ ence on NPV in all simulation cases, while electricity price came as the second most important. Comparatively, fuel and OC costs had minor impacts. To make the NPV of the Canadian CLC plant positive, the incentive for CO2 capture in Canada would need to be increased by 3.6 times (to e220/tCO2). In order to make the NPV of the Swedish CLC case positive, the incentive would need an increase of about 1.2 times (to e110/tCO2). For the Swedish CLC scenario to have a higher NPV than that of the Swedish CHP plant without CO2 capture, either the incentive would need to be increased by 2.4 times (to e220/tCO2) or the carbon tax for biofuels would need to be increased by 4.6 times (to e160 /tCO2).