Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Life cycle energy-economic-CO2 emissions evaluation of biomass/coal, with T

and without CO2 capture and storage, in a pulverized fuel combustion power
plant in the United Kingdom
Qun Yia,b, Yingjie Zhaob, Yi Huangb, Guoqiang Weic, Yanhong Haod, Jie Fengb,
⁎ ⁎
Usama Mohameda, Mohamed Pourkashaniana, William Nimmoa, , Wenying Lib,
a
Energy 2050 Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Sheffield, S102TN, UK
b
Key Laboratory of Coal Science and Technology (Taiyuan University of Technology), Ministry of Education and Shanxi Province, Training Base of State Key Laboratory
of Coal Science and Technology Jointly Constructed by Shanxi Province and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiyuan 030024, PR China
c
Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Guangzhou 510640, PR China
d
Environmental Engineering Department, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030013, PR China

H I GH L IG H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• sions
Lifecycle energy-economic-CO emis-
2
of PB/PC/PCB w/o CCS is eval-
uated.
• PB/PB-CCS shows near carbon-neutral
compared to PC/PCB-CCS (∼830/
150 kg CO2/MWh)
• Energy consumption of PB/PCB w/o
CCS is nearly two times of that of PC/
PCB w/o CCS.
• Cost input of PB w/o CCS is 50–100
£/MWh higher than that of PC/PCB
w/o CCS.
• Energy efficient and low-cost biomass
supply chain is imperative for PB/
PCB-CCS.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Biomass to power generation is an alternative for fossil fuel to power pathways and plays a significant role in
Lifecycle electricity supply and CO2 emissions reduction of the United Kingdom (UK). Additionally, the UK government
Biomass plans to phase out coal to power in the near future (2025), implying that all coal power plants in the future must
Coal be deployed with CO2 capture and storage (CCS). In this study, life cycle evaluation of energy use, CO2 emissions
CO2 capture
and cost requirements for pulverized fuel combustion power plants using white wood pellets and bituminous
Power plant
coal, a typical coal widely consumed in coal power station in the UK, as feedstocks, with and without (w/o) post-
combustion CCS are investigated for deep understanding application and challenges of these technologies. The
life cycle evaluation covers the whole power generation process including wood pellets/coal supply chain and
electricity generation at the power plant. The analysis demonstrates that biomass or biomass/coal co-fired plants
w/o CCS has no advantage in comparison to coal fired plant w/o CCS regarding the energy use due to the high
energy consumption during the biomass supply chain process. From a life cycle viewpoint, CO2 released when
combusting biomass will be consumed during plant growth, resulting in an approximate carbon neutral com-

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: w.nimmo@sheffield.ac.uk (W. Nimmo), [email protected] (W. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.013
Received 3 February 2018; Received in revised form 10 April 2018; Accepted 3 May 2018
Available online 14 May 2018
0306-2619/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

bustion process with additional CO2 emissions from the supply chain process. The biggest handicap for biomass
power plants is the high operational cost of the feedstock supply chain process, with the additional high capital
cost of the carbon capture plant, if considered. These results are a comprehensive guide which can help decision
makers perform suitable measures to push forward development and application of coal/biomass power gen-
eration with CCS.

Nomenclature EOR enhance oil recovery

ECBM enhance coal bed methane
Abbreviations EGR enhance gas recovery
GHG greenhouse gas
Ci cost input of the ith sub process in feedstock supply chain HHV high heat value
and CO2 transport and storage IECM Integrated Environmental Control Model
CEi CO2 emissions of the ith sub process in feedstock supply LCA life cycle assessment
chain LCI life cycle inventory
CEj CO2 emissions of the jth sub process in CO2 compression, LCIA life cycle impact assessment
transport and storage MEA monoethanolamine
CEpp CO2 emissions from fuel combustion O&M management and operation
Cpp annual capital cost PC pulverized coal power plant
Ei energy consumption in the ith sub process PCC post combustion capture
Db dry basis PC-CCS pulverized coal power plant with post-combustion CO2
hrs hours capture
Vpp annual variable cost PB pulverized biomass power plant
Yr year PB-CCS pulverized biomass power plant with post-combustion
CO2 capture
Acronyms PCB pulverized coal/biomass co-firing power plant
PCB-CCS pulverized coal/biomass co-firing power plant with post-
ACC annual capital cost combustion CO2 capture
BECCS bio energy with carbon capture and storage ROCs Renewable Obligation Certificates
CCS carbon capture and storage TLCCE total life cycle of CO2 emissions
CCUS carbon capture use and storage TLCCI total life cycle cost input
COE cost of electricity TLCEI total life cycle energy input
DOE/NETL Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology UK United Kingdom
Laboratory WWP white wood pellets
DR discount rate

1. Introduction Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies are considered to be a pro-

mising countermeasure to mitigate CO2 emission, and provide nearly
Global climate change as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas 20% of the global emission reduction required by 2050 [7]. Post-
(GHG) emission has drawn wide attention from the international combustion capture technologies provide essential means for CO2
community. The Paris Agreement called for an urgent action to limit capture from the flue gas streams of traditional power generation plant
warming levels well below 2 °C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C. [8,9]. For example, the monoethanolamine (MEA) solvent absorption
The Agreement additionally sets a target for net zero global emissions in method is one of the most mature technologies and is the most widely
the second half of this century [1]. used approach for post-combustion CO2 capture from coal-fired power
Fossil fuel is the primary source of high amounts of CO2 emission. plants due to its high CO2 capture efficiency and selectivity [10–12]. It
About 70% of CO2 emissions are from coal-based power generation has been demonstrated that the aforementioned post combustion cap-
plants [2]. It is a primary task to reduce CO2 emissions of coal-based ture (PCC) technology can capture above 90% of CO2 from power
power plants throughout this century. GHG emissions can be reduced generation plant.
by means of improving energy efficiency, applying CO2 capture and Possible renewable alternatives for existing power plants are based
recovery technology as well as using non-fossil or renewable energy on the use of biomass. Biomass is considered as a CO2-neutral fuel, since
alternatives. By the end of year 2016, renewable energy targets were in it releases the same quantity of CO2 into the atmosphere during its
place in 176 countries. The majority of aims continue to focus on re- combustion as that absorbed during its growth. As a result, bio energy
newable energy use in the power sector, with targets for a specific share with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is regarded as the only up to
of renewable power instituted in 150 countries [3]. The EU proposed a date large scale technology solution for CO2 negative emissions. The
new 2030 Framework under which it aims for renewables to account study showed that the utilization of white wood pellets (WWP) in
for at least 27% of total energy consumption and at least a 27% im- electricity generation can avert about 3 million tonnes of CO2 emissions
provement in energy efficiency (relative to a business-as-usual scenario) per year from a 650 MW power plant [13]. Biomass-coal co-firing has
to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% in 2030, relative to also been widely acknowledged as a feasible and economic way for CO2
1990 levels [4]. China’s newest Five-Year Plan sets an overall goal of reduction [14–17]. What’s more, biomass-fired or co-firing im-
increasing renewable energy capacity to 680 GW by 2020, accounting plementation in power plant will lead to a significant reduction of SO2
for 27% of total power generation [5]. Leaders of Canada, Mexico and and NOx emissions due to low content of sulphur and nitrogen in bio-
the United States reached a deal to source 50% of the region's electricity mass [18–20].
from non-carbon sources by 2025 (including renewable energy, nuclear Up till now, approximately 30.71 TWh of electricity comes from
energy, and carbon capture and storage technologies) [6]. Carbon coal-based power plants in the United Kingdom (UK) [21], while facing

259
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

tremendous pressure on cutting down greenhouse gas emissions. The Mellon University with support from the US Department of Energy’s
UK’s current long-term target is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL) [44]. The process
by at least 80% by the year 2050, relative to 1990 levels. This 2050 performance model calculations are based on fundamental mass and
target was conceived as a contribution to a global emissions reduction energy balances. The initial investments of the power plants were cal-
target aimed at keeping global average temperature at around 2 °C culated by Aspen Plus interfaced with the Aspen process economic
above pre-industrial levels [1]. In order to complete this arduous task, analyzer for its complete process package of combustion power plant
coal power generation with CCS and bioenergy to power generation with CCS technologies [13].
strategies are implemented. The forthcoming policy from UK govern-
ment implies that new generations of coal-fired power plants beyond 2.1. Scope definition, objective and calculation method
2025, should only be considered if CO2 is captured and stored (CCS).
This provides opportunity for CCS from both coal and biomass fired Coal/biomass power plants with CCS have the potential to play a
plant with a common infrastructure for transport and storage and could critical role in the UK’s future low carbon energy mix. In order to
significantly affect the economic viability of investment in post capture guarantee the security of power supply and requirements of CO2
pipeleines etc. in terms of scale of operation. Bioenergy production and emissions reduction, these low carbon power generation schemes will
low carbon electricity deployment has increased significantly since be deployed in the near future according to the new low carbon power
2013. The 2016 energy statistics report from the UK Department for strategy of the UK government. Hence, six types of power plants w/o
Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy indicates an increase of 102% CCS are investigated herein: pulverized coal power plant (PC), pul-
(4.93–9.99 million tonnes of oil equivalent) in bioenergy used for verized coal power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture (PC-CCS),
power generation from 2012 to 2016 [21], power generation from pulverized biomass power plant (PB), pulverized biomass power plant
bioenergy (including biodegradable wastes) are 30 TWh, about 32% of with post-combustion CO2 capture (PB-CCS), pulverized coal/biomass
which are from pellets and woodchips resource [22,23]. co-firing power plant (PCB) and pulverized coal/biomass co-firing
Many investigations have been focusing on economic and environ- power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture (PCB-CCS). A generic
mental analysis and the cost effectiveness of biomass or co-firing power wood pellets biomass used in power plants in the UK are imported from
plants [13,17,24–29] with/without (w/o) CCS technologies in the UK. America. Pellet manufacturers in the U.S. South have been a reliable
However, the scope of these studies considered analyzing internal fac- and steadily growing supplier to the U.K. over the past five years, ac-
tors of the power plant. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of power genera- counting for over 50 percent of the total import volume [45]. The ash
tion, including analysing both internal and external factors of a power yield of wood pellets is 0.2 wt% on a dry basis and moisture content is
plant that affect energy, economic and environmental performance of 7.1 wt%. The elemental composition of biomass sample is C, 44.4; H,
power plants, have been widely conducted worldwide in the past ten 4.6; N, 0.2; S, 0.01; O, 43.5 and the high heat value (HHV) is
years [15,30–39]. Several LCA studies on coal-fired power generation 18.7 MJ·kg−1 on a dry basis (wt%, db). The total coal consumption
were undertaken in the UK [40–42]. Since LCA study is an important (2016) of the UK was estimated about 12.7 million tonnes, 1/3 of which
contributor to understanding impacts of renewables on power genera- was from domestic production, and 12.1 million tonnes coal were used
tion systems in the country of interest, a detailed investigation of power for power generation. Bituminous coal, mainly used by power stations,
generation systems specific to that country is required in advance [40]. accounted for 90 per cent of total coal production and 99 per cent of
However, there are only a few studies that refer to LCA analysis of total coal import in the UK [21]. The properties of the coal are as fol-
biomass or co-firing power stations w/o CCS in the UK, hence there is a lows: C, 59.6; H, 3.8; N, 1.5; S, 1.8; O, 5.5; Cl, 0.2 and ash, 15.6 (wt%,
need to provide more data for performance comparisons in term of db), and moisture content, 12 wt% and HHV, 24.61 MJ·kg−1 (db). In
energy-economy-environment from the viewpoint of lifecycle. the PCB and PCB-CCS plant, the blend feedstock is composed of 75%
The life cycle analysis of energy input, CO2 emissions and cost input coal and 25% wood pellets on a weight basis. Amine method is used for
of biomass/coal power plants w/o CCS technologies are based on data CO2 capture in CO2 captured power plants. The scopes of the life cycle
reflecting the current status in the UK. The objectives of this paper are analysis of the above power plants includes the following processes:
to: (i) undertake the life cycle analysis of energy use, CO2 emissions and wood harvest & transport, wood processing at pellets plant, wood pel-
cost effectiveness of combustion based power plants using white wood lets transport, port handling & storage, coal mining and washing, coal
pellets and coal w/o CCS technologies in the UK; (ii) quantify and transport, power generation, CO2 capture and compression, CO2
compare the energy-economy-CO2 emissions of different power gen- transport and CO2 sequestration (see Fig. 1). The basic information of
eration pathways; (iii) disclose the key factors that affect comprehen- the six plants is presented in Table 1.
sive performance of power plants from the life cycle point of view. The method for calculating the total life cycle energy input (TLCEI)
Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis for the final results will be in- per MWh electricity (MJ/MWh) is expressed by Eq. (1).
vestigated. Based on the findings from this study, policy makers can n
decide on appropriate policies and measures to promote deployment of ∑i = 1 Ei
TLCEI =
biomass/coal power plants with CCS technologies in the framework of Total no. of hrs / yr ∗ Net electrical output MW (1)
GHG emissions mitigation.
where Ei is the energy consumption in the ith sub process.
The total life cycle of CO2 emissions (TLCCE) per MWh electricity
2. Methodology
(kg/MWh) is calculated using Eq. (2) based on [46]. This includes CO2
emissions arising from fuel combustion and during fuel production &
The methodology used to perform the life cycle assessment is the
transportation.
one described by the ISO standard 14040, which generally consists of
n n
four steps: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI), life ∑i = 1 CEi + CEpp + ∑ j = 1 CEj
cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and interpretation [43]. The Integrated TLCCE =
Total no. of hrs / yr ∗ Net electrical output MW (2)
Environmental Control Model (IECM, version 8.02), which provides a
relatively complete process package for the modelling of fossil energy where the first term and the third term in Eq. (2) represent the fugitive
and biomass energy to power generation with/without CCS options, CO2 emissions, and CEpp refers to the emissions from fuel combustion.
was used to calculate the techno-economic performance of the plants on CEi is the CO2 emission of the ith sub process in feedstock supply chain,
the basis of previous work [13,28]. The IECM is a widely used com- and CEj is the CO2 emission of the jth sub process in CO2 compression,
puter-modelling program for calculating the performance, emissions, transport and storage.
and cost of power plant with/without CCS developed by Carnegie Accordingly, the total life cycle cost input (TLCCI) per MWh

260
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

Pulverized coal power

plant with CO2 capture
(PC-CCS)

Pulverized Coal power

plant (PC)
Wood production Transport /
Pellet plant
harvest & transport handling storage
Pulverized biomass power
plant (PB)
CO2
CO2 transport CO2 storage
Biomass Pulverized biomass power
compression
Coal mining &
Coal transport plant with CO2 capture
washing
(PB-CCS)

Pulverized coal-biomass
Coall power plant (PCB)

Pulverized coal-biomass
power plant with CO2
capture (PCB-CCS)

Fig. 1. Life cycle scope of coal/biomass power plants w/o CCS.

Table 1 2.2. Life cycle inventory analysis

Key parameters and plant configuration for life cycle analysis.
Parameter PC PC-CCS PB PB-CCS PCB PCB-
LCI is a tool used to collected resource and material use, energy
CCS input, and air pollutant emissions for each stage of LCA, in which the
data show corresponding quantities per functional unit.
Feedstock type Bituminous coal Wood pellets Bituminous coal Wood biomass is harvested and often chipped, before it is trans-
+25 wt% wood
ported to pellets plant. The transportation of the harvested biomass is
pellets
Gross plant size, MW 650 650 650 650 650 650 usually done by truck or by railway, the most common methods for
Net power output, 605 526 607.4 500 605.5 520.8 inland transporting of pellets [49]. The transporting stage is however
MW [13,28] not considered individually in this study, since these costs are limited
Plant life, y 20 20 20 20 20 20
due to harvesting ground being relatively close to the pellet factory and
Capacity factor, % 85 85 62.3 62.3 85 85
[13,28] included in the feedstock price [50]. At the pellets plant, the untreated
Feedstock input, t/h 231.1 270 311.3 364.1 246.2 302.5 biomass is refined through drying, size reduction and pelletization etc.
Net plant efficiency, 38.3 28.5 37.56 26.44 38.27 26.8 to increase its’ energy density and make it more suitable for transport
HHV% [13,28] [50]. After being upgraded, the biomass is distributed to consumers.
CO2 capture 90 90 90 90 90 90
The distribution can be composed of several stages of transport with
efficiency,%
Capital cost 1184 2236 1132 1171 1187 2244 transhipment and storage between them depending on the distance and
required, ₤/kW the conditions. Taking transatlantic exports as an example, includes
[13,28] transport to a port, ocean shipping and finally delivering to end users in
the importing country. When delivered, the biomass is stored then
consumed after milling. According to the application of the end user,
electricity (kg/MWh) can be written by Eq. (3). biomass handling would differ. The application also has significant ef-
n fects on the implementation of biomass, for example co-firing with coal
∑i = 1 Ci + Cpp + Vpp
TLCCI = process.
Total no. of hrs / yr ∗ Net electrical output MW (3) The actual first stage is transportation of the pellets from the pellets
n plant to a loading port, the second is ocean shipping and the last is from
where ∑i = 1 Ci is the total cost input of the ith sub process from coal/ the receiving port to the end user. A summary of biomass or
biomass supply chain and CO2 transport and storage, £/yr. The second
coal + biomass power plants in England are listed in Table 2 [51,52]. It
item is the annualized capital cost of power plant and the last item is
is clear that both Drax and Drax Ouse are the largest power stations
annual variable cost, £/yr. Herein, the total life cycle cost input can also
with blend feedstocks or biomass in the UK, and have huge potential in
be regarded as the cost of electricity (COE) for power plants based on
utilization of biomass in the near future. Hence, Drax power station as a
the previous study [13]. It is worth note that the life cycle energy
typical case will be investigated in the following. In this study, this
consumption and CO2 emissions are limited in fuel production and
means the pellets are transported by rail 149 km from Tifton, Georgia
transport, and those during equipment manufacturing and infra-
(U.S.), to the port of loading in Savannah where it is transhipped to a
structure construction are not included.
Handymax ship with 45,000 tonne capacity [53]. It is shipped about
The annual capital cost (ACC) (£) is annualized through formula (4).
7500 km to the port of Hull, UK, from where it is transported by trucks
Capital cost the last 50 km to a combined coal/biomass plant (Drax power plant).
ACC = The storage and handling costs at the port of Savannah are were in-
1−(DR% + 1)−lifetime (4)
dicated to be £ 4.5 per tonne [50]. Once onshore in the UK, imported
where DR% is discount rate percentage, 10% [47]; lifetime represents biomass may be transferred to store a short distance from the dock, with
the plant life (20 years) [13]. Annual variable cost is the sum of O&M an additional £ 6.5/t for handling & storage [54].
costs and labour costs, and 4% of capital cost is added as O&M costs, Currently, only opencast mining of coal takes place in the UK due to
and labour costs is dependent on the number of staffs [48], and the the closure of all the deep, coal mines in recent years. It is unlikely that
labour rate is set as 30.25 £/h [13]. these will be re-opened in the foreseeable future. According to the

261
 Q. Yi et al.

Table 2
The typical coal + biomass or biomass power plants in England.
Name Location County Region Type Total net Opened Steam parameters Feedstocks
capacity (MW)

Didcot A Didcot Oxfordshire South East Coal + Biomass 2109 1968 (2013
closed)
Drax Selby North Yorkshire Yorkshire and the Coal + Biomass 3906 1974 565 °C, 166 bar Coal, wood and petcoke
Humber
Fiddlers Ferry Widnes–Warrington Cheshire North West Coal + Biomass 1989 1971
Lynemouth Lynemouth Northumberland North East Coal + Biomass 420 1972 Coal, sawdust and Wood pellets
Drax Ouse Selby North Yorkshire Yorkshire and the Biomass 300 Plan
Humber
Wilton 10 Wilton Redcar and Cleveland North East Biomass 30 2007 SST 400 steam turbine/ Sawmill waste and wood
generator set

262
Stallingborough Biomass Stallingborough North East Lincolnshire Yorkshire and the Biomass 65 Wood-based material
Humber
Teesport Teesport Redcar and Cleveland North East Biomass 300 2013 540 °C, 112 bar Wood pellets and chips
Immingham Heron Immingham Docks North East Lincolnshire Yorkshire and the Biomass 290 Plan
Humber
Brigg Biomass Brigg North Lincolnshire Yorkshire and the Biomass 40 2012 540 °C, 112 bar Straw
Humber
Glanford Scunthorpe North Lincolnshire Yorkshire and the Biomass 13.5 1993 450 °C, 67 bar
Humber
Blackburn Meadows Blackburn Meadows Sheffield Yorkshire and the Biomass 25 2014 Waste wood
Biomass Humber
Barton-upon-Irwell Biomass 20 TBD
Steven's Croft Dumfries and Galloway Scotland Southwest Pacific Biomass 44 2008 537 °C, 137 bar 60% sawmill coproducts and small round wood; 20%
short rotation coppice (willow); 20% recycled fibre
Sleaford Sleaford Lincolnshire East Midlands Biomass 40 2014 540 °C, 112 bar Straw
Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

distribution of coal mines in the UK, it is found that several opencast emission is from wood processing (32.5 and 46.1 kg CO2/MWh) at the
mines such as Northumberland, Kirklees, Derbyshire and Telford & pellets plant for both power plants. Regarding the PB-CCS plant, the
Wrekin etc. are located beside the Drax power station and coal is total CO2 emission from biomass combustion is 1201.4 kg CO2/MWh, of
transported by rail to the power plant at the range of 50–150 km [55]. which 1081.3 kg CO2/MWh is captured. CO2 emission during the bio-
The average energy consumption for mining and washing is estimated mass supply chain process is 75.5 kg CO2/MWh, whereas CO2 com-
at 0.9 MJ/MWh based on [46,56]. As for coal transportation, energy use pression, transport and storage account towards 9.6 kg CO2/MWh, and
is similar to any other commodity and largely depends on the trans- uncaptured CO2 also contributes emission of 120.1 kg CO2/MWh. The
portation mode, the type of fuel used and the fuel efficiency. The net CO2 emission of PB-CCS is 205.2 kg CO2/MWh, which is lower than
average energy consumption is 203 kJ/t/km diesel oil and 78 kJ/t/km that consumed during biomass growth. Hence, PB-CCS power plant can
electricity for typical railway coal transportation [46]. The fugitive CO2 be regarded as a CO2 negative emission power generation technology
emissions during coal (mining & washing) and transport are also con- from a lifecycle viewpoint.
sidered in this paper, which are reported to be 19 g/kWh and 1 g/kWh, The life cycle cost input of PB and PB-CCS are 116.7 and 206.6
respectively, for coal power plant in the UK [40]. Mining and washing £/MWh (see Fig. 4), respectively. The two largest costs depleting pro-
cost (including the coal feedstock price) is estimated to be £52 per cesses in biomass supply chain are wood production & transport and
tonne. According to the research inquiry held by the Energy and Cli- wood processing which accounts for about 30–45% of the electric cost.
mate Change Committee, evidence was provided that UK coal operators Besides, annual capital cost is another significant component of COE,
required a coal selling price of between £52.50 and £55 per tonne in costing 26.2 £/MWh for PB and 49.7 £/MWh for PB-CCS. Compared to
Europe to be profitable [57]. Rail costs for coal transport (the study PB, the cost of wood biomass from harvest to user increases by 35.4
showed that using rail is a cheaper method compared to road trans- £/MWh, the annual capital cost increases by 23.5 £/MWh and O&M
portation) is estimated £ 2.12 per tonne within 100 km in the UK [58]. and labour costs increase by 3.7 £/MWh in PB-CCS. In addition, CO2
CO2 captured from the amine process will be compressed to su-
percritical state (11 MPa) for transportation. Generally, saline aquifers, Table 3
enhance oil recovery (EOR), enhance coal bed methane (ECBM), and Input data for energy input, CO2 emissions and cost input.
enhance gas recovery (EGR), etc. are common methods for CCS or Parameter Unit Value
CCUS. CO2 storage in aquifers is considered in this study duo to its huge
capacity for CO2 storage. Pipeline is regarded as one of the cheapest and Energy consumption
most commonly used methods for large scale and long distance CO2 Coal mining & washing [46,56] MJ/MWhe 0.9
Coal transport (by rail) [46] MJ/t km 0.281 (100 km)
transportation [46]. Furthermore, the captured CO2 emissions during Wood production harvest & transport MJ/MWh-biomass 9.9
compression pipeline transportation and sequestration are also con- [53]
sidered. According to the methodology developed by the IPCC report, Wood processing in pellets plant [53] MJ/MWh-biomass 573.3
the captured CO2 emissions is 7.0–116.1 t CO2/MW/y from compressor Handling & storage [53] MJ/MWh-biomass 3.8
Wood pellets transport to port (by rail) MJ/MWh-biomass 11.1
and 0.2–23.2 t/km/y from pipeline transportation [59]. CO2 is assumed
[53]
to be recompressed from 10.76 to 15 MPa, a typical value for geological Wood pellets ocean transport [53] MJ/t km 0.03
storage in some existing operational projects, before injection into the Wood pellets transport to power plant (by MJ/t km 2.3
underground. Electricity use for recompression calculated to be 7 kWh truck) [53]
electricity consumption per 1 tonne of CO2. The total CO2 emission CO2 compression [39] kWh/tCO2 111
CO2 storage (injection compression) [39] kWh/tCO2 7
factor of aquifer storage is 7.01 kg CO2/t CO2 [60]. Besides, it is as-
sumed that 50 km pipeline is recommended since most CO2 capture CO2 emissions
Coal mining & washing [40] g/kWh 19
plant matched to its nearby storage site. All the basic information in-
Coal transport (by rail) [40] g/kWh 1
volved with energy consumption, CO2 emissions and cost input for life Wood production harvest & transport kgCO2/t 1.6
cycle different stages of coal/biomass plants based on the literatures are [53]
calculated and summarized in Table 3. Wood processing in pellets plant [53] kgCO2/MWh- 12.2
biomass
Handling & storage [53] kgCO2/MWh- 0.28
3. Results and discussion
biomass
Wood pellets transport to port (by rail) kgCO2/t km 0.01
3.1. Life cycle inventory [53]
Wood pellets ocean transport [53] kgCO2/t km 0.004
Wood pellets transport to power plant (by kgCO2/t km 0.12
On the basis of scope range and data input, the life cycle energy
truck) [53]
input, CO2 emissions and cost input of the different biomass/coal–fired CO2 compression (fugitive CO2 emission tCO2/MW/yr 23.2(7.0–116.1)
power plants are calculated, compared and discussed below. compressor) [39]
CO2 transport (fugitive CO2 emission tCO2/MW/yr 2.32(0.2–23.2)
3.1.1. Life cycle analysis of biomass fired power plants pipeline) [39]
Fugitive CO2 emission from CO2 storage kg CO2/t CO2 7.01
Fig. 2 shows the energy input required by the whole production [60]
chain for power plant using wood pellets feedstock. With the same gross
Cost input
power output (650 MW), PCB-CCS requires 273.9 MW more wood
Coal mining & washing £/t 52
biomass feedstock compared to PCB. The most energy intensive sub- Coal transport (by rail) [58] £/t 2.12
process during biomass production is wood drying and pelletization at Wood production harvest & transport £/MWh-biomass 10.97
the pellets plant, which shares 1526.4 MJ/MWh and 2168.4 MJ/MWh [53]
Wood processing in pellets plant [53] £/MWh-biomass 8.47
for PCB and PCB-CCS, respectively. Besides, CO2 compression and
Wood pellets transport to port (by rail) £/MWh-biomass 2.19
transport also contributes a large part of energy consumption in PCB- [53]
CCS, reaching up to 432.1 MJ/MWh. Load port handling & storage [50] £/t 4.5
The estimated total life cycle CO2 emissions of PB is 898.85 kg CO2/ Wood pellets ocean transport [53] £/MWh*km 0.00036
MWh, of which 53.15 kg CO2/MWh is released from wood biomass Receiving port handling & storage [51] £/t 6.5
Wood pellets transport to power plant (by £/t km 0.46
harvesting, processing and transportation processes (see Fig. 3). The
truck) [54]
remaining 845.7 kg CO2/MWh is released in the form of flue gas which CO2 transport & storage [13] £/t-CO2 25.275
can be absorbed by biomass during its growth. Clearly, the major CO2

263
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

Fig. 2. Energy input distribution in life cycle subprocess of the PB/PB-CCS plants.

capture, transport and sequestration also brings about the cost increase nearly the same as PC (605 MW). However, the total energy input of
of 27.3 £/MWh. PCB (840.5 MJ/MWh) is higher than that of PC (730.7 MJ/MWh) due to
higher energy consumption during the biomass supply chain process
3.1.2. Life cycle analysis of coal fired power plants compared to coal supply chain. Besides, the low heat value and carbon
Fig. 5 shows the life cycle energy input, CO2 emissions and cost content of biomass leads to an increase in feedstock input flowrate and
input of PC/PC-CCS plants. With the same gross power output a decrease in CO2 content in the flue gas, therefore the PCB-CCS plant
(650 MW), the total energy input is 730.7 MJ/MWh for PC and consume more energy to capture CO2 in comparison to the PC-CCS.
1411.7 MJ/MWh for PC-CCS. Coal feedstock required for PC and PCB- Accordingly, the CO2 emission life cycle and cost input of PCB/PCB-CCS
CCS are 1579.6 and 1845.6 MW, respectively. The energy input mainly are higher than that of PC/PC-CCS with pure coal feedstock.
comes from coal mining and washing. However, CO2 compression,
transport and storage lead to extra energy consumption of 429.8 MJ/ 3.1.4. Summary and comparison of life cycle analysis of coal/biomass w/o
MWh for PCB-CCS. Flue gas from PC is the major contributor towards CCS
CO2 release sharing about 97% (834.7 kg CO2/MWh) of the total CO2 A summary of the results is presented in Fig. 7. Fig. 7a presents the
emissions (854.7 kg CO2/MWh). However, 90% of CO2 is captured at total energy input, Fig. 7b the CO2 emissions and Fig. 7c the costs input.
the plant while allowing only 112.2 kg CO2/MWh to be released into PC demonstrates the lowest total life cycle energy input compared to
the atmosphere. Nevertheless, CO2 compression, transport and storage the other five power plants. The life cycle energy input of PB and PB-
will give rise to indirect CO2 emissions of 8.9 kg/MWh. Coal mining & CCS are higher than those of PC and PCB w/o CCS power pathways
washing cost, CO2 transportation & sequestration cost and the annual mainly due to high energy consumption from wood processing at pellets
capital cost are the main components of the total cost input in PC/PC- plant in biomass supply chain. CO2 compression, transport and storage
CCS. The life cycle cost input is 57.8 £/MWh for PC and 111.8 £/MWh accounts for nearly 1/3 of the total energy input of the CO2 capture
for PC-CCS. Obviously, PC-CCS leads to extra cost of 25.5 £/MWh plant.
caused by CO2 transportation & sequestration, and an additional 19.1 The life cycle CO2 emissions of power plants without CO2 capture
£/MWh annual capital cost compared to PC. range from 830 to 900 kgCO2/MWh. Less CO2 is released to the at-
mosphere using PC-CCS/PB-CCS/PCB-CCS due to 90% of CO2 captured,
3.1.3. Life cycle analysis of coal+biomass-fired power plants and it is estimated to be below 210 kg CO2 per MWh net electricity
The life cycle energy input, CO2 emissions and cost input of PCB/ output. The carbon emissions mainly come from uncaptured CO2 in the
PCB-CCS are presented in Fig. 6. The blend feedstock is composed of exhaust gas. However, as to power plants with biomass or blend feed-
coal (75 wt%) and wood pellets (25 wt%). The blend feedstock input stock, the emitted CO2 from biomass combustion can be consumed
into the PCB and PCB-CCS plants are 1582.3 and 1943.5 MW, respec- during biomass growth. Therefore, the CO2 emissions are lower than
tively. The total energy input, CO2 emissions and cost input per MWh the actual discharge from a lifecycle viewpoint. For instance, the life
electricity are 840.5 MJ/MWh, 829.8 kg CO2/MWh and 65.4 £/MWh cycle CO2 emissions of the PB and PB-CCS are 900 and 205 kg CO2/
for PCB and 1632.3 MJ/MWh, 155.6 kg CO2/MWh and 130.4 £/MWh MWh respectively, as presented in the Fig. 7b. Nevertheless, the life
for PCB-CCS, respectively. The net power output of PCB (605.5 MW) is cycle CO2 emission also can be estimated to be 53.15 kg CO2/MWh for

264
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

Fig. 3. CO2 emissions in life cycle subprocess of the PB/PB-CCS plants.

PB and negative emission for PB-CCS when CO2-neutral cycle in eco- 3.2. Life cycle impact assessment
logical system is considered in life cycle. In this case, PB will be the
better power generation pathway, as it simultaneously considers energy 3.2.1. Sensitivity or uncertainty analysis
use and CO2 emissions. It is noted that some outdated data are used for the life cycle ana-
PB-CCS shows the highest total life cycle cost input of 206.6 lysis, since it is very difficult to obtain all the latest figures. Besides,
£/MWh, while PC presents the lowest cost input of 57.8 £/MWh. The these data will also change as time passes and technologies develop.
cost mainly comes from biomass supply chain for PB and PB-CCS plants. Therefore, a sensitivity or uncertainty analysis has been performed to
As for CO2 captured power plants, CO2 transport & storage contributes find which parameters have a significant effect on the final results. The
to about 25–30 £/MWh increase of cost input. Besides, the capital cost basis data of energy input, CO2 emissions and cost input involved for
for power plants including CO2 captured increases to approximate two coal and the biomass supply chain as well as CO2 compression, trans-
times compared to the power plants without CCS. On the basis of the port and storage process have been selected for the sensitivity analysis
above analysis, biomass power plants have no obvious advantages in over the expected range of parameters variation for PC/PB/PCB power
both energy use and cost saving in comparison with PC and PCB w/o plants w/o CCS as presented in Fig. 8. In addition, the parameters re-
CCS. Seeking an efficient and low-cost biomass supply chain will be an lated to the economic evaluation such as capital cost, variable cost,
effective solution to promote biomass power plant application. plant life and discount rate are also considered in sensitivity analysis.
In addition, carbon tax policy and the specific subsidy on captured The total life cycle energy input is most sensitive to the energy required
emissions from BECCS (Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) during wood processing for PB w/o CCS, and coal mining & washing
price) will be the significant incentives for boosting the commerciali- and CO2 compression & transport for PC/PCB w/o CCS. Accordingly,
zation of PB/PCB -CCS power generation technologies based on the wood processing for pellets production has the greatest impact on total
investigation of our previous work [13,61,62]. CO2 emissions for PB plants, and can bring about 10% variation in total

265
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

Fig. 4. Cost input in life cycle subprocess of the PB/PB-CCS plants.

CO2 emission when CO2 emissions of wood processing rises up or drops environmental impacts of these power plants from the life cycle view-
by 40%. Moreover, CO2 emissions of PC/PCB power plants are very point in the UK. Significant conclusions drawn from the analysed results
sensitive to coal mining & washing. Regarding the PC/PB/PCB power are presented as follows:
plants, feedstock cost (the cost of biomass harvest & transport and coal
mining & washing) is a significant factor on the total cost input; as for (1) From a life cycle viewpoint, the CO2 released due to power gen-
the PC/PB/PCB-CCS power plants, capital cost become the dominant eration dominates the total lifecycle CO2 emission. PB can produce
factor, varying it by 40% leads to cost input changing by about 15 electricity with near carbon-neutral with relatively little CO2
£/MWh. Besides, reducing the biomass transport distance is also worth emissions are from biomass supply chain, while PB-CCS can pro-
a mention. At the same time, the total cost input of all investigated duce negative-emissions of CO2. Using CCS can reduce CO2 emis-
power plants decreases with increasing plant life, and 30 years for the sions during generation to a level that can meet the targets applied
plant life will be a better index in reduction of cost. The results imply in the UK. However, the emissions from upstream processes (coal
that technology reforming and improving to reduce energy consump- and biomass supply chain) become dominant especially for PB-CCS,
tion in processes of wood pellets production, coal mining & washing as of which CO2 emissions from biomass supply chain reach up to
well as CCS process is the main challenge for cutting down life cycle 90 kg/MWh, accounting for near 50% of the total life cycle CO2
energy input and CO2 emissions of power plants. Additionally, using emissions. Biomass/coal feedstock source, wood pellets processing
cheap biomass resource and reducing capital cost (especially for CCS technology and coal mining & washing methods will play a sig-
power plants) are the most effective ways to enhance the economic nificant role in determining the final CO2 emission.
performance of power plants. (2) In regards to the energy use, power plants with coal feedstock
showed advantages compared to wood pellets. The total energy
4. Conclusions input of coal during the supply chain is lower than that of biomass
feedstock, as a large amount of energy consumption from wood
In the past, coal as a main energy source has played an important transport and wood processing involved with drying, size reduc-
role supplying electricity in the UK due to its wide availability, stability tion, palletization and cooling etc. at pellets plant. CO2 compres-
of supply and cost. Nevertheless, utilization of coal leads to high CO2 sion, transport and storage also give rise to an extra energy con-
emissions. Biomass-to-power as an alternative technology has received sumption of 500 MJ per MWh electricity production which accounts
extensive attention recently due to its sustainability and being carbon for nearly 30% of the total life cycle energy input. This means that
neutral. On the basis of commercialized coal-biomass combined pul- energy-effective wood pellets processing and CCS technologies are
verized power plants in the UK, this study presented an analysis on urgent to develop in the near future.
energy-economy-CO2 emission performance of coal/biomass power (3) The economic performance of biomass power plants is inferior to that
plants w/o CCS technology, including the feasibility, economics and of coal power plants. The high cost input from biomass supply chain is

266
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

Fig. 5. Life cycle energy input, CO2 emissions and cost input of the PC/PC-CCS plants.

the dominant reason. In addition, using CCS will lead to about 100% (4) To reduce the total life cycle energy input and CO2 emissions, it is
increment of capital cost as well as extra 25–30 £/MWh from CO2 imperative to cut down energy consumption in the key processes
transport & storage compared to power plants without CCS. related to wood pellets processing, coal mining & washing as well as

267
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

Fig. 6. Life cycle energy input, CO2 emissions and cost input of the PCB/PCB-CCS plants.

CCS process by technology upgrading. Biomass power plants at technology still progressing, lower life cycle energy input and lower
present time do not show advantages over coal power pathways in costs are possible. When energy security, environmental protection
terms of life cycle energy use and cost effectiveness, yet, with the and its energy efficiency improvement potentials are all considered,

268
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

Fig. 7. Comparison of life cycle energy input-CO2 emissions-cost input.

biomass power generation will still be a promising pathway. (5) The results showed that coal or coal and biomass co-firing power
Development and utilization of advanced technologies to reduce plants with CCS presented disadvantage in economy feasibility at
capital cost and seeking low-cost biomass resource (such as the current status. However, in a scenario with new coal power plant
local industrial biomass waste, agricultural biomass and forest and CCS technology deployment in the UK, local coal will be in-
biomass etc.) will be the most effective way to boost the economic sufficient to meet the requirements of the power sector and a large
performance of power plants. quantity of coal will be imported from the neighboring countries in

269
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

(a) Pulverized biomass power plant (b) Pulverized coal power plant
Fig. 8. Sensitivity of life cycle energy input, CO2 emissions and cost input of coal/biomass power plants w/o CCS.

Europe or wider afield on the open market. In that case, the cost of coal power plant with CCS can be a low carbon, economic pathway
electricity of coal-based power plant will be significantly reduced of power generation, and biomass (from local cheap biomass re-
due to cheap coal feedstock from the imported countries. By then, sources) combined with coal as feedstocks will be a better scheme

270
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

government (such as carbon tax policy and ROCs price) is necessary for
facilitating the commercialization of power generation with CCS tech-
nologies. Nevertheless, technological progress is the final driving force
for wide application and industrialization of coal/biomass power gen-
eration coupled with CCS in the long-term future.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the

National Natural Science Foundation of China (51776133, 51404164),
Shanxi Province Outstanding Youth Natural Science Foundation
(201601D201004) and the University of Sheffield for hosting the
Fellowship.

References

[1] UK Climate action following the Paris Agreement. In: Change CoC, 2016.
[2] Duan L, Xia K, Feng T, Jia S, Bian J. Study on coal-fired power plant with CO2
capture by integrating molten carbonate fuel cell system. Energy 2016;117:578–89.
[3] Sawin JL, Sverrisson F, Seyboth K, Adib R, Murdock HE, Lins C, Edwards I, Hullin
M, Nguyen LH, Prillianto SS, Satzinger K. Renewables 2017 global status report.
[4] European Commission (EC). 2030 energy strategy. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/
en/topics/energystrategy/2030-energystrategy [accessed April 10, 2018].
[5] IEA/IRENA joint policies and measures database. China 13th Electricity
Development Five Year Plan (2016–2020). http://www.iea.org/
policiesandmeasures/pams/china/name-160313-en.php [accessed April 10, 2018].
[6] Jean C, Emily H. 7 questions about the ‘Three Amigos’ energy deal”. http://www.
eenews.net/stories/1060039657 [accessed April 10, 2018].
[7] Helseth JM. Biomass with CO2 capture and storage (Bio-CCS): the way forward for
Europe; 2012.
[8] Wang M, Joel AS, Ramshaw C, Eimer D, Musa NM. Process intensification for post-
combustion CO2 capture with chemical absorption: a critical review. Appl Energy
2015;158:275–91.
[9] Hadri NE, Dang VQ, Goetheer ELV, Zahra MRMA. Aqueous amine solution char-
acterization for post-combustion CO2 capture process. Appl Energy
2017;185:1433–49.
[10] Li K, Leigh W, Feron P, Yu H, Tade M. Systematic study of aqueous mono-
ethanolamine (MEA)-based CO2 capture process: techno-economic assessment of
the MEA process and its improvements. Appl Energy 2016;165:648–59.
[11] Li BH, Zhang N, Smith R. Simulation and analysis of CO2 capture process with
aqueous monoethanolamine solution. Appl Energy 2016;161:707–17.
[12] Oh SY, Binns M, Cho H, Kim JK. Energy minimization of MEA-based CO2 capture
process. Appl Energy 2016;169:353–62.
[13] Alqayim K, Nimmo W, Pourkashanian M. Comparative techno-economic assessment
of biomass and coal with CCS technologies in a pulverized combustion power plant
in the United Kingdom. Intl J Greenh Gas Con 2015;43:82–92.
[14] Agbor E, Oyedun AO, Zhang X, Kumar A. Integrated techno-economic and en-
vironmental assessments of sixty scenarios for co-firing biomass with coal and
natural gas. Appl Energy 2016;169:433–49.
[15] Schakel W, Meerman H, Talaei A, Ramírez A, Faaij A. Comparative life cycle as-
sessment of biomass co-firing plants with carbon capture and storage. Appl Energy
2014;131:441–67.
[16] De S, Assadi M. Impact of cofiring biomass with coal in power plants – a techno-
economic assessment. Biomass Bioenerg 2009;33:283–93.
[17] Ali U, Font-Palma C, Akram M, Agbonghae EO, Ingham DB, Pourkashanian M.
Comparative potential of natural gas, coal and biomass fired power plant with post
– combustion CO2 capture and compression. Int J Greenh Gas Con 2017;63:184–93.
[18] Rokni E, Ren X, Panahi A, Levendis YA. Emissions of SO2, NOx, CO2, and HCl from
Co-firing of coals with raw and torrefied biomass fuels. Fuel 2018;211:363–74.
[19] Roni MS, Chowdhury S, Mamun S, Marufuzzaman M, Lein W, Johnson S. Biomass
co-firing technology with policies, challenges, and opportunities: a global review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;78:1089–101.
[20] Mun TY, Tumsa TZ, Lee U, Yang W. Performance evaluation of co-firing various
kinds of biomass with low rank coals in a 500 MWe coal-fired power plant. Energy
2016;115:954–62.
[21] Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Electricity statistics and
energy and climate change: evidence and analysis; 2017.
[22] Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Digest of UK Energy
Statistics (DUKES): electricity; 2017.
[23] Stephenson AL, MacKay DJ. Life cycle impacts of biomass electricity in 2020. UK
Department of Energy and Climate Change; July, 2014.
(c) Pulverized coal/biomass co-firing power plant [24] Wright DG, Dey PK, Brammer J. A barrier and techno-economic analysis of small-
scale BCHP (biomass combined heat and power) schemes in the UK. Energy
Fig. 8. (continued) 2014;71:332–45.
[25] Mcilveen-Wright DR, Huang Y, Rezvani S, Redpath D, Anderson M, Dave A, et al. A
technical and economic analysis of three large scale biomass combustion plants in
for power generation both considering sustainability and economic the UK. Appl Energy 2013;112:396–404.
feasibility. [26] Huang Y, Mcilveen-Wright D, Rezvani S, Wang YD, Hewitt N, Williams BC. Biomass
co-firing in a pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC) combined cycle power
plant: a techno-environmental assessment based on computational simulations.
At present, the specific policy and economic support from the Fuel Process Technol 2006;87:927–34.

271
Q. Yi et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 258–272

[27] Patel C, Lettieri P, Simons SJR, Germanà A. Techno-economic performance analysis biomassmagazine.com/articles/13866/uk [accessed Dec.08, 2017].
of energy production from biomass at different scales in the UK context. Chem Eng J [44] Ning S, Hung M, Chang Y, Wan H, Lee HT, Shih RF. Benefit assessment of cost,
2011;171:986–96. energy, and environment for biomass pyrolysis oil. J Clean Prod 2013;59:141–9.
[28] Catalanotti E, Hughes KJ, Porter RTJ, Price J, Pourkashanian M. Evaluation of [45] Integrated Environmental Control Model. Mellon, U.o.C.; 2017. https://www.cmu.
performance and cost of combustion-based power plants with CO2 capture in the edu/epp/iecm/about.html.
United Kingdom. Environ Prog Sustain 2015;33:1425–31. [46] Li S, Gao L, Jin H. Life cycle energy use and GHG emission assessment of coal-based
[29] Hammond GP, Spargo J. The prospects for coal-fired power plants with carbon SNG and power cogeneration technology in China. Energy Convers Manage
capture and storage: a UK perspective. Energy Convers Manage 2014;86:476–89. 2016;112:91–100.
[30] Petrescu L, Cormos CC. Environmental assessment of IGCC power plants with pre- [47] Department of Energy & Climate Change. Electricity generation costs; 2012.
combustion CO2 capture by chemical & calcium looping methods. J Clean Prod [48] Vliet OPRV, Faaij APC, Turkenburg WC. Fischer-Tropsch diesel production in a
2017;158:233–44. well-to-wheel perspective: a carbon, energy flow and cost analysis. Energy Convers
[31] Petrescu L, Bonalumi D, Valenti G, Cormos AM, Cormos CC. Life cycle assessment Manage 2009;50:855–76.
for supercritical pulverized coal power plants with post-combustion carbon capture [49] Sénéchal S, Grassi G, Nordenmark M, Vivarelli F, Junginger M, Sikkema R. Logistic
and storage. J Clean Prod 2017;157:10–21. management of wood pellets: Data collection on transportation, storage and de-
[32] Restrepo Á, Bazzo E. Co-firing: an exergoenvironmental analysis applied to power livery management. Brussels: EUBIA-European Biomass Industry Association; 2009.
plants modified for burning coal and rice straw. Renew Energy 2016;91:107–19. [50] Beets MDA. A torrefied wood pellet supply chain. A detailed cost analysis of the
[33] Golden JS, Morrison B. Life cycle assessment of co-firing coal and wood pellets in comptetitiveness of torrefied wood pellets compared to white wood pellets. Master's
the southeastern United States. J Clean Prod 2017;150:188–96. thesis, Utrecht University; 2017.
[34] Tang L, Yokoyama T, Kubota H, Shimota A. Life cycle assessment of a pulverized [51] List of power stations in England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List of power
coal-fired power plant with CCS technology in Japan. Energy Proc stations in England [accessed Nov.20, 2017].
2014;63:7437–43. [52] Wood burning power station at Wilton 10. https://www.power-technology.com/
[35] Singh B, Strømman AH, Hertwich E. Life cycle assessment of natural gas combined projects/wood-burning/ [accessed Dec.20, 2017].
cycle power plant with post-combustion carbon capture, transport and storage. Int J [53] Gårdbro G. Techno-economic modeling of the supply chain for torrefied biomass.
Greenh Gas Con 2011;5:457–66. Master's thesis, Umeå University; 2014.
[36] Kannan R, Leong KC, Osman R, Ho HK. Life cycle energy, emissions and cost in- [54] Department of Energy and Climate Change. Biomass prices in the heat and elec-
ventory of power generation technologies in Singapore. Renew Sustain Energy Rev tricity sectors in the UK; 2010.
2007;11:702–15. [55] Opencast coal statistics; 2014. https://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=
[37] Liang X, Wang Z, Zhou Z, Huang Z, Zhou J, Cen K. Up-to-date life cycle assessment 3020 [accessed April 10, 2018].
and comparison study of clean coal power generation technologies in China. J Clean [56] IEA-ETSAP. Coal mining and logistics. http://iea-etsap.org/ [accessed Dec.20,
Prod 2013;39:24–31. 2017].
[38] Hardisty PE, Clark TS, Hynes RG. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from elec- [57] The real cost of coal providing the UK with energy security is £469 million – and the
tricity generation: a comparative analysis of australian energy sources. Energies cost is rising. http://londonminingnetwork.org/ [accessed Nov.17, 2017].
2012;5:872–97. [58] Analysis of road and rail costs between coal mines and power stations. MDS
[39] Koornneef J, Keulen TV, Faaij A, Turkenburg W. Life cycle assessment of a pul- transmodal; 2012.
verized coal power plant with post-combustion capture, transport and storage of [59] IPCC IPCC. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. vol. 2, Energy.
CO2. Int J Greenh Gas Con 2008;2:448–67. IGES, Japan, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme;
[40] Odeh NA, Cockerill TT. Life cycle analysis of UK coal fired power plants. Energy 2006.
Convers Manage 2008;49:212–20. [60] Wu Y, Xu Z, Zheng L. Lifecycle analysis of coal-fired power plants with CCS in
[41] Odeh NA, Cockerill TT. Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants with China. Energy Proced 2014;63:7444–51.
carbon capture and storage. Energy Pol 2008;36:367–80. [61] Laude A, Jonen C. Biomass and CCS: the influence of technical change. Energy Pol
[42] Stamford L, Azapagic A. Life cycle sustainability assessment of UK electricity sce- 2013;60:916–24.
narios to 2070. Energy Sustain Dev 2014;23:194–211. [62] Ricci O. Providing adequate economic incentives for bioenergies with CO2 capture
[43] UK wood pellet imports expected to reach new record in 2016. http:// and geological storage. Energy Pol 2012;44:362–73.

272