Green Markets

EWN Publishing

Cost for electricity produced by an IGCC plant with the full range of CO2 dump technology will range between A$51 – 107 per MWh, in 2010

Posted by gmarkets on 3 September, 2007

A Federal-controlled review – chaired by Chair, Petro Georgiou Liberal MP, of the Electoral Division of Kooyong (Vic), with terms of reference aimed to promote commercial development of CO2 dumps – used as evidence, the data collated by CO2 dump investors, and concluded, on that data, that; • more free money should be allocated to CO2 dump developers, in a competitive tender;

• It did not advise allocation of funds for risk-analysis of CO2 dump damage; and instead

• concluded CO2 dump investors take short-term profits and leave long term management and clean-up to governments, and the taxpayer.

• It noted CO2 dumps were not economic, and the waste management costs were higher the current average cost of wholesale electricity.

Waste cost A$ 51- 107 per MWh in 2010: The report “Between a rock and a hard place: The science of geosequestration”, by the House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Science and Innovation, referred to The International Eergy Agency (IEA) and ABARE estimate that the cost for electricity produced by an an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, plant with the full range of CCS (CO2 dump) technology will range between A$ 51- 107 per MWh in 2010, with costs decreasing over time. The Committee had not received an estimate for the total cost of CCS at a pulverised coal power station in Australia.

CO2 stripping: “Pre-combustion technology can only be applied to IGCC. Australia has no IGCC plant (though an IGCC demonstration plant is planned for QLD). IGCC is, however, the basis for many clean coal technology programmes worldwide, many of which envision IGCC as the first step to a hydrogen economy”.

No IGCC plant: “An MIT study notes that cost competitiveness has made IGCC plants the preferred candidate for electricity generation with CCS. The cost of generating electricity from an IGCC plant compared to a conventional pulverised coal plant is, however, considerably more expensive.”

Coal lobby funded research advice: “The Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development (CCSD) commissioned a techno-economic assessment of power generation options for Australia and concluded that IGCC ‘is likely to remain significantly more expensive than advanced of [pulverised fuel], even with CO2 capture, for electricity generation’. Yet the report also noted that ‘learning rates from increased implementation, and the need for CO2 capture and other emissions controls, will give the technology [IGCC] an overall cost advantage in the longer term’”.

Pre-combustion “advantage”: “The costs of pre-combustion capture may also be potentially offset by the considerable economic benefits of converting coal into a liquid fuel. The House of Commons inquiry concluded that ‘for new a plant, pre-combustion capture offers a significant advantage, in a carbon constrained world, as a potential source of hydrogen’”.

Reference: ‘Between a rock and a hard place: The science of geosequestration’. House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Scienc eand Innovation, August 2007, Canberra. For Media comment: contact the Committee Chair, Mr Petro Georgiou MP, on (02) 6277 4419 or the Deputy Chair, Mr Harry Quick MP, (02) 6277 4304. For information: contact the Commettee Secretary on (02) 6277 4150. Issued by: Liaison and Projects Office, House of Representatives, Phone: (02) 6277 2392. Copies of the report can be obtained from the website:

Erisk Net, 13/8/2007


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: