Effects of technological learning on future cost and performance of power plants with CO 2 capture Machteld van den Broek a, * , Ric Hoefnagels a , Edward Rubin b , Wim Turkenburg a , Andre ´ Faaij a a Department of Science, Technology and Society, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht University, 3584 CS Utrecht, the Netherlands b Department of Engineering and Public Policy, BH 128A, 5000 Forbes Ave, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA article info Article history: Received 23 February 2009 Accepted 8 May 2009 Available online 1 July 2009 Keywords: Technological learning Experience curve CO 2 capture PC plants IGCC plants NGCC plants abstract This paper demonstrates the concept of applying learning curves in a consistent manner to performance as well as cost variables in order to assess the future development of power plants with CO 2 capture. An existing model developed at Carnegie Mellon University, which had provided insight into the potential learning of cost variables in power plants with CO 2 capture, is extended with learning curves for several key performance variables, including the overall energy loss in power plants, the energy required for CO 2 capture, the CO 2 capture ratio (removal efficiency), and the power plant availability. Next, learning rates for both performance and cost parameters were combined with global capacity projections for fossil-fired power plants to estimate future cost and performance of these power plants with and without CO 2 capture. The results of global learning are explicitly reported, so that they can be used for other purposes such as in regional bottom-up models. Results of this study show that IGCC with CO 2 capture has the largest learning potential, with significant improvements in efficiency and reductions in cost between 2001 and 2050 under the condition that around 3100 GW of combined cycle capacity is installed worldwide. Furthermore, in a scenario with a strict climate policy, mitigation costs in 2030 are 26,11,19 V/t (excluding CO 2 transport and storage costs) for NGCC, IGCC, and PC power plants with CO 2 capture, respectively, compared to 42, 13, and 32 V/t in a scenario with a limited climate policy. Additional results are presented for IGCC, PC, and NGCC plants with and without CO 2 capture, and a sensitivity analysis is employed to show the impacts of alter- native assumptions on projected learning rates of different systems. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 458 2. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 460 2.1. Overview ............................................................. ..................................................... 460 2.2. Theoretical background ....................................................... ............................................... 460 2.2.1. Performance parameters ................................................... ........................................... 460 2.2.2. Cost parameters ..................................................................................................... 462 2.3. Assessment of learning parameters for performance variables ..................................................................... 462 2.4. Future projections of fossil-fired power plants .................................................................................. 462 2.5. Technology spillover ......................................................................................................... 463 3. Data and assumptions ............................................................................................................. 463 3.1. Historic development of power plant capacities .................................................................................. 463 3.1.1. Pulverised coal plants ................................................................................................. 463 3.1.2. IGCC plants .......................................................................................................... 463 3.1.3. NGCC plants ........................................................ ................................................ 464 3.2. Future power plant capacities ................................................................................................. 465 3.2.1. Capacity projections per power plant type .......................................... .................................... 465 3.2.2. Capacity projections per technology component ......................................................................... 465 3.2.3. Location of projected power generation capacities ....................................................................... 465 * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ31 302532216; fax: þ31 302537601. E-mail address: m.a.vandenbroek@uu.nl (M. van den Broek). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Progress in Energy and Combustion Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pecs 0360-1285/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2009.05.002 Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 35 (2009) 457–480