International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 63 (2017) 1219

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc

Carbon capture power plants: Decoupled emission and generation outputs MARK
for economic dispatch

Abdirahman Mohamed Abdilahi , Mohd Wazir Mustafa
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Integrating exibly-operated carbon capture and storage (CCS) into the existing power plants has operational
Carbon capture and storage benets for the future low carbon power systems. This paper proposes an improved formulation for exible
Economic dispatch operation of carbon capture power plants (CCPPs) within the conventional economic dispatch (ED) problem. The
Low carbon power systems main contribution of this work is the simplication and the practicality of the variables used for the exible
Metaheuristic optimization algorithms
operation control of the facility. The optimal ED problem of thermal power generation portfolio with CCPPs
Power system operations
Carbon pricing
within the mix are computed using a chaos-enhanced Cuckoo Search optimization algorithm. To test the
proposed formulations, an IEEE 30 bus test system was used. The impact of varying carbon prices on the system
dispatch was investigated. The results reveal the potentiality of decoupling the generation and emission outputs
of the thermal power plants.

1. Introduction researchers investigated the operational formulations of the power

Following the recent Paris Agreement on climate change, the global
power systems, which account more than 42% (International Energy
Agency, 2014) of the global CO emissions, are subjected to shift to a
low-carbon future. To put the low-carbon future in to perspective, for
instance, in the European Union (EU) alone the power sector emission
reductions are projected to achieve reductions of 54%-68% by 2030
and 93%-99% by 2050 compared to 1990 (Brouwer et al., 2015). The
transitions to these systems, in global scale, demands a shift to low-
carbon technologies such as renewable technologies, nuclear power and
fossil-fuel generators with carbon capture and storage (CCS) (Global
CCS Institute, 2015). Carbon capture power plants (CCPPs) which result
from retrotting existing fossil-red power plants with CCS technolo-
gies is at the forefront of emission mitigation measures.
Among the many benets of the CCPP units over the other rival low
carbon technologies is their ability for system dispatch. From the
perspectives of power system operations and planning, the existing
literature of exible operation of CCPPs can be categorized into three
major divisions. The rst group of researchers emphasized the indivi-
dual plant operation benets within the competitive electricity markets
e.g. the works of (Oates et al., 2014; Cohen et al., 2012). The second
group of researchers concentrated the long term planning horizons e.g.
Brouwer et al. (2015), van der Wijk et al. (2014). The last group of
systems such as (Lou et al., 2015; Ji et al., 2013). This work
concentrates on the last category.
On this note, future power system operation routines need to be
reconsidered under various contexts. Two important mitigation mea-
sures are concurrently considered. Firstly, adoption of the CCS technol-
ogy is genuinely accelerated globally (with rst practical facility
coming online on 2014 (IEAGHG, 2015)). Secondly, the CO2 emission
pricing is highly promoted globally (Kossoy et al., 2015). Carbon
pricing instruments will further aect the generation cost (hence the
operating prots). Coupling these two aspects brings a new phase to the
conventional economic and emission dispatch approaches.
Most of the current literature of economic dispatch within the eld
of thermal generators focused on enhancements of the methods while
addressing various issues related to plant characteristics. These include
the prohibited operating zones (Tao et al., 2015), valve-point loadings
(Zhan et al., 2015) and multi-fuel (Barisal and Prusty, 2015) character-
istics of the plants. Similarly, in terms of emission solution approach,
the focus of the previous studies was concerned on the short term
mitigation approaches. These included optimization-based approaches
such as the use of multiobjective and the Pareto optimality (Secui,
2015) and the use of emission constraints (Fan and Zhang, 1998). Other
research works also investigated the consideration of conventional low
carbon technologies such as wind and solar within the dispatch

Abbreviations: CCPP, carbon capture power plants; CCS, carbon capture and storage; CP, carbon price; CS, cuckoo search; CT, carbon Tax; ED, Economic dispatch; EU, European Union;
IEA, International Energy Agency; NP, non-capture plant

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: abdirahmaan11@gmail.com, abdirahman@ieee.org (A.M. Abdilahi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.05.001
Received 11 January 2017; Received in revised form 19 April 2017; Accepted 7 May 2017
1750-5836/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.M. Abdilahi, M.W. Mustafa International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 63 (2017) 1219

Nomenclature and abbreviations CE Emission cost of the non-capture plants

CFC Fuel cost of the CCPPs
Carbon Capture Power Plant (CCPP) Formulation CEC Emission cost of the CCPPs

PN Net power output B Fuel Cost Coecients

PG Gross power output (scheduled)
PCP Capacity penalty of the gross power output ai, bi, ci Fuel cost characteristic of the plants
PBP Basic penalty power ei, fi Valve point loading coecients
POP Operating penalty power
wCC Amount of energy consumed by the CCS for every CO2 C Emission Cost Coecients
treated
EC Captured emission CP Carbon price
EG Gross emission ef Emission factor
EN Net emission fi, gi, hi Fuel consumption coecients (emission coecients)
eE Emission intensity
C Normalized rate of the treating ability of the stripper and D System Variables
the compressor
aC Capture rate of the scrubber PD Total system demand
PL Power loss
Indices Penalty factor multiplier
Pmax Maximum stable generation
NCP Number of CCPPs Pmin Minimum stable generation
NNP Number of non-capture plants
ND Number of population Optimization (CS) Algorithm
Nx Number of decision variables
d Index counter for non-capture plants y (t ) Value of the chaotic map at each iteration t
k Index counter for CCPPs y0 Initial value of the chebyshev chaotic map
i Index counter for individuals within the population xi,j Population of nests
j Index counter for number of dimensions of the problem xinew New solution candidates
t Index counter for iterations of the algorithm Levy ight exponent
Levy ( ) Levy ight function
Formulation of Economic Dispatch (ED) xm and xn Two dierent solutions selected randomly by permutation
H (u ) Heaviside function controlled by a switching parameter Pa
Pd Scheduled power of the non-capture plant Pa Switching parameter
Uniformly distributed random number
A Costs

CF Fuel cost of the non-capture plants

formulations (e.g. the work in Hetzer et al., 2008).
The consideration of the operational exibility of CCPPs within
dispatch formulation has been, so far, addressed in few literatures (Ji
et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2012; Lu et al., 2013). First,
an innovative work from Chen et al. (2010) and their follow-up work
(Chen et al., 2012) have provided initial grounds for formulations of the
exible operation of the CCPPs. However, their works incorporate the
generation eciency thread within the formulations. However,
existing ED formulations are based on output power thread. Second,
the approach presented in (Lu et al., 2013), which was used in other
studies (Lou et al., 2015; Jiaming et al., 2015), does not formulate
emission as an independent controllable variable. Instead, the pre-
sented formulation is a multi-decision-oriented procedure that is aimed
to determine the captured emission and net power output of the CCPP.
Thirdly, while the work of Ji et al. (2013) formulates emission as a
dispatchable resource, the work has two inherent mathematical com-
plexity. First, the four auxiliary decision variables, employed to help the
optimization routine to select an operating point, signicantly increase
the problem complexity by multiplying four extra decision variables for
each considered CCPP unit within the system. From the mathematical
optimization point of view, this is called the curse of dimensionality
problem i.e. the exponential rise in the time and space required to
compute an approximate solution to a problem as the dimension (i.e.
the number of control variables) increases. Second, the work also
developed two additional equality constraints; one for the auxiliary
decision variables and one for the coordination between net emission,
net power output and the gross power output. For large-scale systems in
particular, this approach presents a considerable complexity when
using advanced metaheuristic optimization techniques.
Capitalising the existing formulations and aiming to address the
existing weaknesses, the main objective of this work is to develop a
modied model formulation of the exible operation of CCPP units
suitable for the conventional static ED problem. Based on the proposed
CCPP model, the conventional ED is reformulated taking into account
the generation mix diversity. Then the impact of CCPP within the
generation mix on dierent aspects of the power system such as
generation mix, generation cost, CO2 cost, emission intensity and others
are studied.
As far as our current literature is concerned, this paper presents the
rst attempt to integrate the CCPP within a set of thermal generators for
the static ED problem. This is important to provide understanding of the
optimal operating characteristic of the facility while using snapshots of
plant operation. The presented model may be useful in incorporating
within the future releases of the professional power system operations
software available to system planners and operators. For example,
authors in van der Wijk et al. (2014) unavoidably developed a separate
Excel-based module for CCS operation and then integrated it with
PLEXOS, a professional power system operations tool.
The work presented is organized as follows. The existing model
formulations are rstly improved within the Section 1. It is then

13
A.M. Abdilahi, M.W. Mustafa International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 63 (2017) 1219

implemented with the ED formulations at Section 2. Section 3 develops
a metaheuristic-based optimization methodology to solve the estab-
lished problem. It is then followed by the results and discussion of the
paper, presented at Section 4. The paper is concluded at Section 5.
2. Modelling the exible operation of CCPP
Flexible operation of CCS units is the ability of these plants being
built such that part-load operation and partial CO2 capture capabilities
are enabled. Flexibly operated CCS have the ability to signicantly
reduce emissions while providing system support services within the
power grid.
2.1. Mathematical formulations
There is an inherent energy penalty with the installation of CCS
retrot into the existing fossil-red power plants. Taking this energy
penalty into account, the net power output (PN ) of the facility can be
described as:
PN = PG PCP (1)
The ability of the stripper/compressor units to treat rich solvent is
assumed to be larger than the ability of the scrubber (absorber) by 20%.
This allows higher stripping rate because of the potential availability of
stored rich solvent. Therefore, the Cmax is set to 120%. According to
Cohen et al. (2011), this equipment sizing allows a maximum of four
hours of full storage mode, assuming a daily cycling operation of the
storage system.
With the above formulations, one can draw an operating region for
the CCPP by considering the two output variables that are of interest for
the system operator i.e. PN and EN, as shown in Fig. 1.
From this operating region, the two inputs (i.e.PGand C) aect the
controllability of the net emission and net power output. For instance,
when the operating penalty of the CCS is at its minimum, the plant can
achieve its highest variation in both net emission and net power output.
This phenomena is indicated by line 1 as shown at Fig. 1. However,
when the operating penalty of the CCS is high, any change to the gross
power output has minimum eect on net emission variation and the
range of the net power output decreases considerably. This is indicated
by line 2. In this way, the plants outputs are controlled as shown in the
block diagram in Fig. 2.

The capacity penalty can be broadly divided into a basic penalty
(PBP ) and an operating penalty(POP ) as shown below:
PCP = PBP + POP (2)
The basic power penalty is incurred due to changing the plant
structure for CCS retrot such as diversion of heating systems. This is
normally a xed value that contributes a small percentage to the overall
capacity loss of the basic plant. The second component is the power
used to operate the various modules of the CCS. Typically, it is
dependent to the amount of operation of the CCS. This power can be
associated with the amount of CO2 treated (EC ) as shown below:
POP = wCC EC (3)
On the other hand, the total amount of emission generated from the
power cycle (EG ) is presented as:
2.3. Comparison of proposed model with existing models
Table 2 summarizes the dierences between the proposed model
and those presented in the existing literature (Ji et al., 2013; Chen et al.,
2012; Lu et al., 2013).
3. Mathematical formulation
To demonstrate the eect of the decoupled emission and generation
output within system dispatch, a system-wide optimization model is
constructed. The model makes operating decisions for the plant in such
a way as to minimize the overall operating costs.
The mathematical model of the new ED problem is presented as
follows:
NNP
NCP

EG = eE PG (4) Minimize OC = [CFd (Pd ) + CEd (Pd )] + [CFCk (PGk ) + CECk (E Nk )]

d =1

k =1
Meanwhile, the captured emission by the installed CCS (EC ) can be (7)
presented as:
2
where CFd (Pd ) = ad + bd Pd + cd Pd + ed sin(fd (Pd Pd min ))
(8)
EC = EG C aC (5)
CEd (Pd ) = CP efd (fd + gd Pd + hd Pd 2 ) (9)
where aC is the capture rate of the scrubber module while C represents
a normalized rate of the treating ability of the stripper and the CFCk = ak + bk PGk + ck PG2k + ek sin(fk (PGk PGmin ))
k (10)
compressor. The desorption and compression units are assumed to be
strictly operated at the same rate so that immediate compression is CECk (E Nk ) = CP E Nk (11)
proceeded once gaseous CO2 is released via the desorption process.
TheCis implemented to indicate the amount of CO2 compressed by the
Table 1
compressor. Because this amount is physically measurable by either a CCS model used for simulation.
market operator or regulator, in a similar way as one can measure the
power generation output of the facility, the parameter C is chosen as CCS Parameter Symbol Values REF
the independent control variable for controlling the CCS operation.
Solvent Type 7 molal Mono-
With CCS installed, the net emission output (EN ) of the facility can Ethanol-Amine
be obtained as: Enabling Mechanism for Bypass and
Flexible Operation solvent storage
EN = EG EC (6) tanks
CO2 Treatment Rate (MWh/ 0.269 Chen et al.
tCO2) wCC (2012)
2.2. Operating region Basic Penalty Power (MW) 0.5% x PGmax Ji et al.
(2013)
PBP
To model the CCS, this work considers a post-combustion-based CCS Capture Rate (%) 90%
technology. The choice for post-combustion for the analysis is based on aC
its suitability for retrots and high maturity level at the moment. The Maximum Loading Rate of a 120% Cohen
study assumes that two major exibility-enabling mechanisms (i.e. combined stripper and et al.
Cmax
compressor (%) (2011)
solvent storage tanks and bypass mechanism) are installed appropri- Emission Intensity (Coal) 0.74 Ji et al.
ately in order to allow ecient control for the ow of solvent between (tCO2/MW) eE (2013)
absorber and stripper columns and the ow of ue gas (Table 1).

14
A.M. Abdilahi, M.W. Mustafa International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 63 (2017) 1219

Fig. 1. The operating region of the CCPP.

Fig. 3. Flowchart of the algorithm (Yang and Deb, 2014).

Fig. 2. Block diagram showing the two control inputs and the resulting outputs.
4. Optimization methodology
NNP NCP
subject to Pd + PNk PD PL = 0 In this paper, the Cuckoo Search (CS) algorithm, an ecient global
d =1 k =1 (12) metaheuristic optimization algorithm developed in (Yang and Deb,
2009), is adopted as the solver. The algorithm couples Gaussian
PGmin
k
PGk PGmax
k (13) distribution-based random walk for local exploitation with Levy ight
for global search. With this balanced characteristic, the algorithm is
Pd min Pd Pd max (14) suitable for solving multimodal functions a characteristic present in
non-convex ED formulations. The complete and detailed owchart of
Eqs. (7) is the overall cost function of the optimization problem. the algorithm is shown in Fig. 3.
Eqs. (8) and (9) represent the fuel and emission cost functions of the non-capture
power plants, respectively.
power
Eqs. (10) and (11) represent the fuel and emission cost functions of the carbon capture
plants, respectively.
Eq.
4.1. Implementation of the optimization algorithm
(12) represents the power balance (equality) constraint of the problem.
Eqs. (13) and (14) represent the power output limits for both capture and non-capture
power plants. 4.1.1. Initialization step
In this modication, the aim is to explore potential techniques for
Furthermore, heat-run tests of thermal generators indicate that ED initializing more intelligently. Initial locations of the search agents for
problems are more accurately modelled as non-convex, non-dierenti- population-based optimization techniques aect signicantly the abil-
able and multimodal problem. This is due to the ripple eect produced ity of achieving optimal solution. In this study, the Latin Hypercube
by valve-point loading as the generators output is increased (Walters Sampling (LHS) technique is proposed as a potential replacement for a
and Sheble, 1993). To represent this eect, the WalterSheble model Gaussian distribution-based random variable. Using this mechanism, a
(Walters and Sheble, 1993) is used, whereby a sinusoidal function is population of nests is initialized randomly, so that each decision
included in the thermal fuel cost function. To model the carbon price variable satises its operating limits as shown in (15):
(CP ) eects in the ED formulations, the model used in Fang et al. (2012)
xi, j = ximin + (ximax ximin ) lhsdesign (ND , Nx ) (15)
has been adopted as presented in Eq. (9).

Table 2
Comparison between the proposed model and the existing models.

REFs Features within the Existing Models Features within the Proposed Model

Chen et al.
(2012)
Formulates the problem using eciency thread. Formulates the problem using the power generation thread, which is more suitable for
dispatch computations.
Lu et al. (2013) Does not formulate emission as an output variable that
inuences the dispatch.
Formulates
dispatch.
both emission and generation outputs as variables that directly inuence the

Uses multi-decision, heuristic-based calculations to

achieve optimal decisions.
Formulates
model.
the operation with two controllable, decision variables, leading to a simplied

Ji et al. (2013) Employs four auxiliary optimization variables for

decision making within the optimization routine.
Employs extra equality constraint that combines the
auxiliary variables usage with operating region.
Does not have auxiliary variables for decision-making, leading to reduced problem
complexity. This model is also more practical as the decision variables can be controlled by
the plant operators.
Does not employ extra constraint equations.
15
A.M. Abdilahi, M.W. Mustafa
i ND andj = 1,2,...Nx
min max
where x and x are the upper and lower limits of each decision
variable within the considered set of online thermal generators. The
function lhsdesign is a MATLAB command used to statistically generate
random sample positions for each nest. Our preliminary experiments
with this command revealed that the number of population required to
achieve certain quality are smaller with the use of this command in
replacement of classical rand operator.
4.1.2. Adjustment of Levy ight steps
Within CS, the Levy ight is employed in order to carry out a global
exploration search by performing occasional long-distance jumps.
These sudden jumps increase the search eciency of the CS signi-
cantly. The updating formula for the Levy ight process is given as
follows:
xinew = xi + randn Scale Levy ( ) (16)
where Scale is the length scale used to control the length of the steps
taken by the Levy ight and randnis a normally distributed stochastic
number. In order to transform the original algorithm to problem
specic type which makes it more ecient and less volatile in nding
the global optimal solution (Yang and Deb, 2014), this work proposes
the integration of the decision variables limits as part of the length
scale of the Levy ight equation. This is expected to increase the
awareness of the algorithm about the search-space characteristics. The
length scale is dened as follows:
(ximax ximin )
Scale =
100 (17)
4.1.3. Chaotic maps at the discovery stage
To perform local exploitation, the CS algorithm metaphorically
mimics the concept of discovery of the Cuckoo egg within the host nest.
Mathematically, this concept brings in a randomization feature and a
local search. In the standard CS, the randomization is implemented
using a Gaussian distribution-controlled random walk. On the other
hand, recent research indicates the potentiality of chaotic maps in
16
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 63 (2017) 1219
providing better randomness characteristics than the Gaussian distribu-
tion based variables, particularly in the metaheuristic optimization
techniques (Fister et al., 2015). In another study, we found out that the
chaotic maps introduce an additional explorative power in the swarm
intelligence-based search process that prevents the search agents from
trapping in local optima (Mustafa et al., 2016). For that reason, this
study adopts a chaotic sequence to improve the performance of the
original CS algorithm. Table 3 shows the original and modication
proposed for the updating equations implemented at the discovery
stage of the CS.
The current authors carried out an in-depth experimental investiga-
tion for eight dierent chaotic sequences at several dierent locations
within the CS. The chaotic sequences are obtained from Gandomi et al.
(2013). Based on statistical robustness of each resultant variant as a
result of the chaotic sequence used, the Chebyshev chaotic sequence
proofed to be highly potential for integrating CS. The Chebyshev
chaotic sequence can be described mathematically as:
y (t + 1) = cos(t cos1 y (t )) (18)
where y (t ) is the value of the chaotic map at each iteration t. In order to
draw this map, an initial value of y0 = 0.1 is used and the resulting
waveform is as shown in Fig. 4.
The detailed methodology and the appropriate simulations that
follow are explained in Mustafa et al. (2016). This paper, without loss of
generality, focuses on the low carbon economic dispatch formulations
with advanced metaheuristic optimization technique.
Table 3
Illustration of modications implemented.
Equations Involved
Original
xinew = xi + rand H (Pa ) (xm xn )
Modied
xinew = xi + yt H (Pa ) (xm xn )
A.M. Abdilahi, M.W. Mustafa International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 63 (2017) 1219

Table 5
Emission factors thermal Generating units.

Emission Factor (CO2) Coal (kg/kg) Gas (t/m3) Oil (kg/kg)

Ef 3.1604 1.84 103 2.8523

5. Numerical illustrations

In this section, the eect of decoupled emission and generation

Fig. 4. Illustration of Chebyshev chaotic map used in the study.
4.2. Economic dispatch implementation within CS
4.2.1. Problem representation
The decision variables are represented within the optimization as
follows:
xj = [P1, P2 ....PNNP, PG1, PG 2, ....PG NCP, 1, 2 ....NCP ]
where j = 1, 2, ..., Nx.The number of decision
areNx = NNP + 2 NCP.
4.2.2. Fitness function
The tness evaluation for all population individuals is performed
based on the following tness equation:
NNP NCP
Fitness (Pd , PNk ) = OC + Pd + PNk PD PL
d =1 k =1
In this equation, the net power output(PNk ), which is a controlled
variable within the CCPP, contributes to the system demand instead of
the gross power output(PGk ). The parameter is the penalty factor
multiplier to amplify the error values so that it weakens the goodness of
the tness function when there are equality constraint violations.
4.2.3. Adjustment of the CCPP operating region
Due to the exible operation of the CCPP, the operating region has a
negative emission section. The negative sign implies that the total CO2
emission exiting from the ue gas is smaller than the amount of CO2
measured at the end of the compression unit by the market operator or
regulator. However, the negative sign in the operating region brings a
dierent meaning into the optimization algorithm. Because the objec-
tive function is to minimize the operating cost of the system, the
negative sign becomes an attractive operating point as it further
reduces the operating cost without actual meaning of a negative
emission cost. Therefore, to avoid this phenomena, the operating region
is re-adjusted as follows:
EN
EN = 0 when E 0
N
With this adjustment, all the points that exist within the negative
emission region will be shifted up to the zero line.
output within system dispatch is demonstrated with system-wide
optimization model. The model makes operating decisions for the
CCPP plant and other dispatchable generators within the mix to
minimize the overall operating costs. All the experiments implemented
in this work were carried out using MATLAB software.
5.1. Case study
(19)
To test the developed system formulations, a standard IEEE 30 bus
variables test system was used. The system has six thermal generators. The data
used for this system is shown in Table 4 and Table 5 (Fang et al., 2012).
In order to simulate the CCPP unit, the plant with the highest capacity
(600 MW, G6) is assumed to be retrotted with CCS facility. This is
because CCS can be applied to base-load coal-red generators (Global
CCS Institute, 2015).
5.2. Sensitivity of carbon price
(20)
In this experiment, the eects of varying carbon prices (CP) on the
optimal operating points of the generation settings within the system
are investigated. The CP was varied between 1 $/tCO2 up to 10 $/tCO2
with steps of 0.5 $/tCO2. The reason for the small increment is to
judiciously observe how the CCPP unit responds to the changing prices.
The results of the analysis is summarized at Table 6.
The results at Table 6 reveal the ve dierent optimal generation
output obtained as a result of the inuence induced by the CP value. At
the rst CP range (1.04.5 $/tCO2), the optimal operation does not
experience inuence from the price despite increasing the overall
operating cost (shown in Fig. 5). At the second CP range, which is
comparatively very small, the optimal dispatch algorithm justies that
it is better to operate at minimum limit for unit 2 (G2) which is a
heavily polluting coal-red facility. The CCPP unit slightly operates the
CCS facility to capture its emission accordingly (shown in Fig. 6). These
two steps slow down the increasing emission cost (shown in Fig. 5).
The third CP range is a critical single point (6 $/tCO2). At this point,
the optimal allocation schedules the gas generator (G3) at higher level,
increasing its previous output by 16%. This increase is in replacement
of a combination between a power penalty of the CCPP (20 MW) and
G4 pushed back to operate at its lower limit. The local minimum
(21)
analysis presented in Zhan et al. (2015) explains and justies the
change occurred to the optimal value of the G4. It is both economical
and technically suitable to operate the G4 unit at its lower limit, from

Table 4
Cost and emission coecients of the six unit system.

Unit Type Pmin Pmax Fuel Coecients Emission Coecients

a b c (x103) d e f g h (x106)

G1 Coal 20 110 2000 10 2.000 200 0.084 40 0.2 40

G2 Coal 20 100 2500 15 2.500 300 0.035 50 0.3 50
G3 Gas 110 520 923.4 18 3.150 150 0.063 2462.4 48 8400
G4 Gas 110 500 950 20 3.200 100 0.084 2500 50 9000
G5 Oil 40 200 124.8 23.4 3.432 80 0.098 1.248 0.234 34.3
G6 Coal 300 600 6000 9 1.800 400 0.042 80 0.12 24

Note: (1) The coecients of ai, bi, and ci are in $/MW2, $/MW, and $.

17
A.M. Abdilahi, M.W. Mustafa International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 63 (2017) 1219

Table 6
Optimal generation settings (in MW) at dierent CP (in $/tCO2).

Carbon Optimal Generation Output (MW)

Price Range G1 (Coal) G2 (Coal) G3 (Gas) G4 (Gas) G5 (Oil) G6 (CCPP) Total

1.04.5 94.80 100.00 259.00 110.00 40.00 596.20 1200

5.05.5 94.80 20.00 309.47 147.40 40.00 588.33 1200
6.0 94.80 20.00 359.33 110.00 40.00 575.87 1200
6.57.5 94.80 20.00 459.07 110.00 40.00 476.13 1200
8.010.0 94.80 20.00 359.33 222.20 40.00 463.67 1200

Fig. 5. The impact of a varying carbon price on the three dierent categories of system costs: fuel, emission and overall operating cost.

Fig. 6. The optimal settings of gross generation (MW) and the normalized rate of the stripper/compression units for dierent carbon prices.

an optimal dispatch point of view. Consequently, the G3 becomes the
slack unit that is dispatched in order to balance the load demand.
With a CP range between 6.5 $/tCO2 and 7.5 $/tCO2, a high
operation of the CCS is economically justiable, leading to a decreased
net output of the CCPP by a 17% (as shown in Fig. 6). At this point, the
penalty power consumed by the CCS is 123 MW leading to a penalty
cost of 2,340.12 $/h based on the resulting cost per unit of the fuel cost
of the plant. This penalty cost becomes justiable than an emission cost
caused by the vented CO2 of the facility (as shown in Fig. 6). As a result
of this, the emission cost of the whole system is lowered down (as
shown in Fig. 5).
With a CP range higher than 8 $/tCO2, the optimal setting of the
CCPP unit is to fully operate its CCS unit. Consequently the highest
penalty power (135.53 MW) is incurred leading to a degradation of the
plants output by 22% with an eective net power output of only
463.67 MW (shown in Fig. 6). With this power output setting, the plant
has a fuel cost of $11,393.96 $/h. As a result of the penalty power of the
CCS, the plant incurs an inclusive fuel cost of up to 2,577.14 $/h. On
the other hand, despite the expensive operation of the CCS, the plant
has a capturing capability of 443 tCO2/h.
Beyond this price level, any CP increase leads to higher operating
expenses from system-wide perspectives as shown in Fig. 5. The carbon
price does not aect the operation of the CCPP unit and only forces the
heavy-polluting non-capture units to operate at part-load operation,
similar to the observation presented in Fang et al. (2012).
It is worth-noting that the optimization involved in this work
focuses the perspectives of the system operator. However, other studies
might have other perspectives such as maximizing the prots of

18
A.M. Abdilahi, M.W. Mustafa
operating the CCPP as an individual generator.
Fig. 6 shows that despite the changing CP value, the control of the
net emission variation only aects the net power output supplied to the
grid. However, it does not aect the gross power output of the facility
throughout the whole CP spectrum (as shown in Fig. 6). The connection
between the net power output and the net emission is the amount of
penalty power incurred as a result of operation adjustment of the CCS.
6. Conclusion
Optimal dispatch of emission and generation output has been a
classical problem for utilities. Earlier formulations solved the problem
while emission and generation outputs are dependent to each other.
However, with the genuine adoption of the CCS technology, the
resulting thermal power plants present a new opportunity for the
system operators. Operating the CCPPs exibly can lead to the
independent control of the emission and generation outputs of the
facilities. This paper has proposed and investigated the concept of
decoupling emission and generation outputs as a result of exible
operation of CCPPs. When the exible CCPP is considered within the
power generation mix, the system or plant operators are able to
capitalize from the existing market and/or regulatory situation. In line
with that, the operators dispatch routines should be altered in a way
that utilizes the resources available to them in respect to the opportu-
nities within the regulation/market.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Higher
Education, Malaysia and the Universiti of Teknologi Malaysia for
providing nancial support under the Malaysian International
Scholarship.
References
Barisal, A.K., Prusty, R.C., 2015. Large scale economic dispatch of power systems using
oppositional invasive weed optimization. Appl. Soft Comput. 29, 122137.
Brouwer, A.S., van den Broek, M., Seebregts, A., Faaij, A., 2015. Operational exibility
and economics of power plants in future low-carbon power systems. Appl. Energy
156, 107128.
Chen, Q., Kang, C., Xia, Q., 2010. Modeling exible operation mechanism of capture
power plant and its eects on power-system operation. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.
25, 853861.
Chen, Q., Kang, C., Xia, Q., Kirschen, D.S., 2012. Optimal exible operation of a CO2
capture power plant in a combined energy and carbon emission market. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 27, 16021609.
Cohen, S.M., Rochelle, G.T., Webber, M.E., 2011. Optimal operation of exible post-
19
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 63 (2017) 1219
combustion CO2 capture in response to volatile electricity prices. Energy Procedia 4,
26042611.
Cohen, S.M., Rochelle, G.T., Webber, M.E., 2012. Optimizing post-combustion CO2
capture in response to volatile electricity prices. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 8,
180195.
Fan, J.-Y., Zhang, L., 1998. Real-time economic dispatch with line ow and emission
constraints using quadratic programming. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 13, 320325.
Fang, Y., Zhao Yang, D., Ke, M., Zhao, X., Iu, H.H., Kit Po, W., 2012. Quantum-inspired
particle swarm optimization for power system operations considering wind power
uncertainty and carbon tax in Australia. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 8, 880888.
Fister, I., Perc, M., Kamal, S.M., 2015. A review of chaos-based rey algorithms:
perspectives and research challenges. Appl. Math. Comput. 252, 155165.
Global CCS Institute, 2015. The Costs of CCS and Other Low-carbon Technologies 2
Global CCS Institute (July).
Hetzer, J., Yu, D.C., Bhattarai, K., 2008. An economic dispatch model incorporating wind
power. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 23, 603611.
IEAGHG, 2015. Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage Project at SaskPower's Boundary
Dam Power Station. (August).
International Energy Agency, 2014. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion-Highlights,
2014 edition. IEA, Paris.
Ji, Z., Kang, C., Chen, Q., Xia, Q., Jiang, C., Chen, Z., et al., 2013. Low-carbon power
system dispatch incorporating carbon capture power plants. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
28, 46154623.
Jiaming, L., Jinyu, W., Xingning, H., 2015. Low-carbon unit commitment with intensive
wind power generation and carbon capture power plant. J. Mod Power Syst. Clean
Energy 3, 6371.
Kossoy, A., Grzegorz, P., Oppermann Klaus, Prytz, N., Alyssa, G., Klein Noemie, Lam
Long, Wong, L., 2015. Carbon Pricing Watch. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 2015.
Lou, S., Lu, S., Wu, Y., Kirschen, D.S., 2015. Optimizing spinning reserve requirement of
power system with carbon capture plants. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 30, 10561063.
Lu, S., Lou, S., Wu, Y., Yin, X., 2013. Power system economic dispatch under low-carbon
economy with carbon capture plants considered. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 7,
9911001.
Mustafa, M., Abdilahi, A.M., Mustapha, M., 2016. Chaos-enhanced cuckoo search for
economic dispatch with valve point eects. TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication
Computing Electronics and Control) 14.
Oates, D.L., Versteeg, P., Hittinger, E., Jaramillo, P., 2014. Protability of CCS with ue
gas bypass and solvent storage. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 27, 279288.
Secui, D.C., 2015. A new modied articial bee colony algorithm for the economic
dispatch problem. Energy Convers. Manage. 89, 4362 (1/1/2015).
Tao, D., Rui, B., Fangxing, L., Hongbin, S., 2015. A Bi-level branch and bound method for
economic dispatch with disjoint prohibited zones considering network losses. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 30, 28412855.
Walters, D.C., Sheble, G.B., 1993. Genetic algorithm solution of economic dispatch with
valve point loading. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 8, 13251332.
Yang, X.-S., Deb, S., 2009. Cuckoo Search via Lvy Flights, in World Congress on
Nature & Biologically Inspired Computing. NaBIC 2009pp. 210214.
Yang, X.-S., Deb, S., 2014. Cuckoo search: recent advances and applications. Neural
Comput. Appl. 24, 169174.
Zhan, J., Wu, Q., Guo, C., Zhou, X., 2015. Economic dispatch with non-smooth
objectivespart I: local minimum analysis. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 30, 710721.
van der Wijk, P.C., Brouwer, A.S., van den Broek, M., Slot, T., Stienstra, G., van der Veen,
W., et al., 2014. Benets of coal-red power generation with exible CCS in a future
northwest European power system with large scale wind power. Int. J. Greenh. Gas
Control 28, 216233.
Gandomi, A.H., Yun, G.J., Yang, X.-S., Talatahari, S., 2013. Chaos-enhanced accelerated
particle swarm optimization. Commun. Nonlin. Sci. Numer. Simulat. 18, 327340.