IEA OECD ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM

IEA ETSAP www.etsap.org Technology Brief E02 September 2009

Gas-Fired Power
PROCESS AND TECHNOLOGY STATUS - Overall, 20% of the worlds electricity production is based on natural gas. The
electricity generation capacity in Europe is approximately 800 GWe, of which 20% is based on natural gas. In the United States (US), the total generating capacity is approximately 1,000 GWe, of which 395 GWe is based on gas. The worlds gasfired generation capacity amounts to 1,124 GWe (end of 2006). There are two main types of gas-fired plants, viz. combinedcycle gas turbine (CCGT) and open-cycle gas turbine (OCGT) plants. CCGT is the dominant gas-based technology for intermediate and base-load power. OCGT plants are used for peak load. They consist of a gas turbine and compressor connected to an electric generator via a shaft. A CCGT plant consists of one or more gas turbine electricity generators equipped with heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) to capture heat from the gas turbine exhaust. Steam produced in the HRSGs powers a steam turbine generator to produce additional electric power. Usually, in CCGT plants the gas turbine and the steam turbine are aligned on a single axis with the electricity generator. It is an important design criterion that CCGT plants respond relatively fast to changes in supply (from base-load capacity) and demand. Technological development aims to increase the efficiency by raising the gas-turbine inlet temperature and simultaneously decrease the investment cost and emissions of CCGT plants. Their generating efficiency is expected to increase from todays 5260% (lower heating value, LHV) to some 64% by 2020. CCGT plants offer flexible operation. They may be operated at 50% of their nominal capacity with a moderate drop of generating efficiency (5052% at 50% load compared to 5859% at full load). OCGT plants have a much lower generating efficiency, viz. approximately 3542% (LHV based) at full load. Presumably, their maximum generating efficiency may be increased to a maximum of 45% in 2020. Compared to coal-fired power plants, CCGT plants have much lower specific investment costs. They emit roughly half as much CO2 per kWh as coal-fired power plants. Nongreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions e.g., SO2, NOx, and particles are also relatively low. Due to their low specific investment costs but relatively high fuel costs (natural gas) compared to coal-fired plants, CCGT plants are generally lower in the merit order, which means they are operated in intermediate rather than in base load (whereas the opposite is true for coal-fired power plants).

COSTS - Due to the high price of materials and equipment and the increasing demand for new CCGT plants (until recently)
the investment cost of a CCGT power plant has increased from approximately $800/kWe in 2002 to $1,100/kWe in 2009. In this fact sheet, costs are quoted in 2008 US dollars. Technology learning is not expected to reduce significantly the investment cost of CCGT plants as the technology is mature. In comparison with the 2008 peak, investment costs might decline in the near future because of the material cost reduction induced by the current economic crisis and the decline of demand for new capacity. Technological development may also result in reduced investment cost. The investment cost of CCGT plants may decline from $1,100/kWe in 2010, to $1,000/kWe in 2020, and to $900/kWe in 2030. The specific investment cost of OCGT plants is approximately $900/kWe. Also for OCGT plant, modest cost reductions are envisioned, viz. $850/kWe in 2020, and $800/kWe in 2030. The annual operation and maintenance costs of CCGT and OCGT are estimated at 4% of the specific investment costs (i.e., $44/kWe/a in 2010 for CCGT). Representative generation costs of CCGT are $6580/MWh (typical $72.5/MWh), of which $3045/MWh for natural gas. Generation costs of OCGT are much higher, e.g. $200225/MWh (typical $210/MWh), of which $45-70/MWh for natural gas (fuel costs may be up to 50% higher per kWh than for CCGT). The main reason for the extraordinarily high generation cost of an OCGT plant is that the investment costs have to be recouped from 800 full-load hours instead of, e.g., 4,200-5,200 for CCGT plants.

POTENTIAL & BARRIERS - CCGT plants mainly compete with coal-fired plants. The latter offer lower fuel costs, but have
much higher investment costs, higher emissions (e.g., CO2), and a longer construction time. While the CO2 price is low today and may impact the electricity generation cost only in the European market, in the future it may become a barrier to coal-fired power generation. However, uncertainty on future availability and price of natural gas (i.e., security of supply) and on CO2 price makes it difficult to adopt robust strategies for CCGT as well. Electricity companies in the EU have to comply with the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). This may result in a changing balance between the economics of CCGT and coal-fired plants. In the near future, renewable electricity, e.g., from wind power, will increase its share in power generation, which has to be factored in.

________________________________________________________________________________ PROCESS AND TECHNOLOGY STATUS Since early 1990s, CCGT (combined-cycle gas turbine) is the preferred technology for new gas-based power (IEA, 2008). CCGT technology is mature, and it is the dominant gas-based technology used for intermediate load (2000 to 5000 hrs/a) or base load (>5000 hrs/a). In the last decade, a large number of CCGT plants has been built in North America, Europe (e.g., the UK), Asia, and the Middle East.
OCGT (open-cycle gas turbine) plants have been introduced decades ago and are still used, commonly for peak load. In a simple-cycle mode (open-cycle gas turbine plant), the gas turbine and compressor are connected to an electric generator via a shaft. Figure 1 shows capacity additions of OCGT and CCGT plants in the US from 1998 to 2008 (McManus et al, 2007). Figure 2 presents a scheme of an OCGT plant.

Figure 1- Gas-turbine based capacity additions in the US (Source: McManus et al, 2007).

1
Please send comments to A. J. Seebregts (seebregts@ecn.nl) (Author), and to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org) (Project Co-ordinators)

IEA OECD ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM

IEA ETSAP www.etsap.org Technology Brief E02 September 2009

Figure 2 - Scheme of open-cycle gas turbine plant (Source:Siemens, 2008) A CCGT plant consists of one or more gas turbine generators equipped with heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) to capture heat from the gas-turbine exhaust (Figure 3). Hot gases leave the HRSG at around 90C and are discharged into the atmosphere. In the gas-turbine section, filtered air is compressed in the air compressor, and subsequently used to combust natural gas in the combustion chamber of the gas turbine. Around two-thirds of the gross power output of the gas turbine is needed to compress air for combustion, and the remainder (one-third) actually drives the generator. Steam produced in the HRSGs powers a steam turbine generator to produce additional electric power. CCGT plants commonly consist of one gas turbine and one steam turbine that are aligned on a single axis with an electric generator. Figure 4 - Gas turbine range (Source: Alstom, 2008) Technological development aims to increase the efficiency by raising the gas-turbine inlet temperature and simultaneously decrease the investment cost and emissions of CCGT plants. The current state-of-the-art is a generating efficiency between 52% and 60% at full load. Figure 5 shows the current generating efficiency of a CCGT plant compared with pulverised coal-fired power (PC) as a function of the maximum temperature (for CCGT the gas-turbine inlet temperature).

Figure 3 - Scheme of gas -fired CCGT plant (Source:Siemens, 2008) Power plants based on the combined-cycle (CCGT) configuration have become the workhorses of independent power producers all across the world. With individual heavyframe gas turbines available in unit sizes up to 300 MWe, such plants can be based on modules of around 300430 MWe. Approximately two-thirds of the total power is generated by the gas turbine and one-third by the steam turbine. Figure 4 presents the range of gas turbines available from one of the worlds gas turbine manufacturers. It shows that a small gas turbine is rated at 56 MWe, whereas the largest currently available is 288 MWe. Relatively small gas turbines are often used for (industrial) CHP (Combined Heat and Power), the largest happen to be used merely for power generation.

Figure 5 - Efficiency of GTCC and PC as a function of gas or steam temperature (Source: Blum et al, 2006) OCGT plants have lower generating efficiencies than CCGTs, viz. approximately 3542% (LHV). However, these plants are commonly used for peak load only. Aero-derivative gas turbines provide relatively high simple cycle efficiencies (4142%), but these are traditionally limited in size to 4050 MWe. Table 1 lists the fuels and energy sources that may be used in different types of power plants. Some gas turbines can burn heavy/crude oil. Industrial (heavy-duty) gas turbines are more suitable for this type of fuel than aero-derivate gas turbines. Large combustion chambers are better capable of burning heavy fuels than those with several small burners/combustion chambers that are more sensitive to changes in flame length, etc (Kehlhofer et al, 2009).

2
Please send comments to A. J. Seebregts (seebregts@ecn.nl) (Author), and to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org) (Project Co-ordinators)

IEA OECD ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM

IEA ETSAP www.etsap.org Technology Brief E02 September 2009 Table 1 - Fuel flexibility of various types of power plants Fuel Natural gas Distillate (Diesel No.2 fuel) Heavy/crude oil Coal Refuse Biomass Low-calorific gas Solar heat Nuclear fuel Gas Turbine b X X X d X X Combined Cycle b Xc X X d e X Steam P.Plant a a e X Biomass P.Plant X X X X X X X NOx emission [mg/m03] [g/GJfuel] [g/kWh] (Selective Catalytic Reduction of NOx). Table 2 provides characteristic data of NOx emission of a CCGT plant without and with SCR. Table 2 - Characteristic NOx emissions of a CCGT plant with and without SCR Fuel Unit Combined Cycle plant (no SCR) 52.5 45 0.30 Combined Cycle plant with SCR 23 20 0.13

a Due to the lower efficiency of a steam power plant using this kind of fuel leads to higher production costs. b Heavy oil or crude oil can be burned in some older types of gas turbines. c Coal can be gasified and coal gas burned in an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant, see below. d For combustion of low-calorific gas in gas turbines (e.g., coal gas in an IGCC), modifications are necessary. e Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) plants.

COSTS The investment cost of CCGT power plants increased rapidly due to high prices of steel, other materials, and equipment, from around $800/kWe (2008 US$) in 2002 to approximately $1,100/kWe (King, 2008; Norske Shell, 2008). Figure 7 shows an overview of reported specific investment costs of CCGT plants. Similar investment costs are reported for a combined cycle plant at Rotterdam, viz. 700 million for an 870 MWe CCGT, which is equivalent to 800/kWe (EBR, 2009).
$1,500 $1,400 $1,300 $1,200 $1,100 $1,000 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0

Source:

Kehlhofer et al, 2009.

Overnight capital cost (2006$/kW)

There is potential to increase the generating efficiency of CCGT plants by raising the gas-turbine inlet temperature and simultaneously decrease the investment cost and emissions. Figure 6 shows the generating efficiency as a function of the temperature. According to (Ishikawa et al, 2008), CCGT plant with a 1,700C class gas turbine may attain a generating efficiency of 6265% (LHV base). Therefore, it is assumed that the generating efficiency of CCGT plants may be increased from 5260% today to a maximum of 64% in 2020.

Estimates Transactions As-built Costs Harry Allen Range

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year of Service

Figure 7 - Specific investment costs of CCGT power plants (Source: King, 2008). It is assumed that the investment cost of a CCGT plant which is a mature technology, may be reduced to a limited extent: $1,100/kWe in 2010; $1,000/kWe in 2020, based on limited learning effects; $900/kWe in 2030, based on incremental learning. The current (2009) global economic crisis induces significantly lower material prices and lower demand for new capacity. Figure 6 - Generating efficiency combined-cycle power plants (Source: Ishikawa et al, 2008) For OCGT plants, generating efficiencies may also be increased. It is assumed that the generating efficiency will rise from 3542% (LHV) today to a maximum of 45% in 2020. It is an important design criterion that CCGT plants respond relatively fast to changes in supply (from base-load capacity) and demand. They may be operated between 4050% and 100% of nominal capacity with a moderate efficiency drop: 5052% efficiency at 50% load vis--vis 5859% at full load. Best available CCGT power plants emit approximately 50 per cent less CO2 and up to nine times less nitrogen oxides (NOx) per kWh than coal-fired power plants. The emission of NOx of a CCGT plant may be reduced by application of SCR The investment cost of an OCGT plant is estimated at $900/kWe, which may be reduced as follows: $900/kWe in 2010; $850/kWe in 2020; $800/kWe in 2030. The operation and maintenance (O&M) cost is estimated at 4% of the specific investment cost per year. For a CCGT plant, O&M costs are estimated at $44/kWe/a per year in 2010, $40/kWe/a in 2020, and $36/kWe/a in 2030. For OCGT plants, O&M costs are $36/kWe/a in 2010, $34/kWe/a in 2020, and $32/kWe/a in 2030. Representative generation costs of CCGT are $6580/MWh (typical $72.5/MWh), of which $3045/MWh for natural gas. Generation costs of OCGT are much higher: e.g., $200225/MWh (typical $210/MWh), of which $45-70/MWh for natural gas (fuel costs may be up to 50% higher per kWh than for CCGT). 3
Please send comments to A. J. Seebregts (seebregts@ecn.nl) (Author), and to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org) (Project Co-ordinators)

IEA OECD ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM

IEA ETSAP www.etsap.org Technology Brief E02 September 2009 may impact the electricity generation cost only in the European market, in the future it may become a barrier to coal-fired power generation. However, uncertainty on future availability and price of natural gas (i.e., security of supply) and on CO2 price makes it difficult to adopt robust strategies for CCGT as well. Electricity companies in the EU have to comply with the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). This may result in a changing balance between the economics of CCGT and coal-fired plants. In the near future, renewable electricity, e.g., from wind power, will increase its share in power generation, which has to be factored in.

POTENTIAL & BARRIERS CCGT plants mainly compete

with coal-fired plants. The latter offer lower fuel costs, but have much higher investment costs, higher emissions (e.g., CO2), and a longer construction time. (IEA, 2008) estimates the capacity need of new CCGT plants at around 110 GW per year in the Baseline scenario for the entire period 20052050. As a matter of fact, the cumulative investment is estimated at $ 4,000 billion which is equivalent to approximately 5,300 GW of CCGT plants. Note that investment in CCGT capacity in other scenarios is considerably lower. While the CO2 price is low today and

Tab.1 - Key Gas-based Power Technology: Data and Figures Technical Performance Energy input Output Technologies Efficiency, % Construction time, months Technical lifetime, yr Load (capacity) factor, % Max. (plant) availability, % Typical (capacity) size, MWe Installed (existing) capacity, GWe Average capacity aging Environmental Impact CO2 and other GHG emissions, kg/MWh NOx, g/MWh Costs Investment cost, including interest during construction, $/kW (OCGT / CCGT) O&M cost (fixed and variable), $/kW/a Fuel cost, $/MWh Economic lifetime, yr Interest rate, % Total production cost, $/MWh (OCGT / CCGT) Market share Data Projections Technology Net Efficiency (LHV) Investment cost, including interest during construction, $/kW (OCGT / CCGT) Total production cost, $/MWh Market share, % of global electricity output References and Further Information Typical current international values and ranges Natural gas Electricity OCGT CCGT 3542% 5260% Minimum 24; Typical 27; Maximum 30 30 1020 2060 92 10300 60430 1,124 (end of 2006) Differs from country to country. CCGT plant construction started around 1990. Typical current international values and ranges 480575 340400 50 30 Typical current international values and ranges, US$ 2008 800 1,000; Typical 900 (2010) 1,000 1,250; Typical 1,100 (2010) 36 4570 25 10 200 225 / Typical 210 20 2010 OCGT 35-42% 900 100 20 CCGT 52-60% 1,100 72.5 OCGT 45% 850 95 18 2020 CCGT 64% 1,000 70 OCGT 45% 800 95 15 2030 CCGT 64% 900 70 65 80 / Typical 72.5 44 3045

Alstom (2009): Gas Turbines for simple and combined cycle applications. Alstom, 2009. http://www.power.alstom.com/home/new_plants/gas/products/gas_turbines/39930.EN.php?languageId=EN&dir=/home/new_plants/gas/product s/gas_turbines/ Blum, R. et al (2006): Development of a PF Fired High Efficiency Power Plant (AD700). DONG Energy Generation, Fredericia, Denmark, 2006. http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/reports/ris-r-1608_69-80.pdf. EBR (2009): Siemens Bags EUR700 Million Order From Eneco To Construct CCG plant In The Netherlands. Energy Business Review (EBR), 26-May-2009. http://www.energy-businessreview.com/news/siemens_bags_eur700_million_order_from_eneco_to_construct_combined_cycle_gas_plant_in_the_netherlands_090526. IEA (2008): Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 - in support of the G8 Plan of Action. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, June 2008. Siemens (2008): Siemens Combined Cycle Power Plant. Siemens, Germany, 2008. http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/productssolutions-services/power-plant-soln/combined-cycle-power-plants/CCPP.htmnetl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf. Ishikawa, M. et al (2008): Development of High Efficiency Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Plant. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Technical Review Vol. 45 No. 1 (Mar. 2008). http://www.mhi.co.jp/technology/review/pdf/e451/e451015.pdf. Kehlhofer, R. et al (2009): Combined-cycle gas & steam turbine rd power plants. PennWell, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 3 Edition, 2009. King, J. (2008): Proposed Combined-Cycle Power Plant Planning Assumptions. Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Power Committee Portland, OR, USA, October 15, 2008. http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/grac/meetings/2008/10/Combined-cycle%20planning%20assumptions%20%206P%20Draft%20101608.ppt#482,1,Sixth Northwest Conservation & Electric Power Plan Proposed Combined-cycle Power Plant Planning Assumptions. McManus, M. et al (2007): Integrated Technologies that Enhance Power Plant Operating Flexibility. POWER-GEN International 2007, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 11-13, 2007. http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/NR/rdonlyres/97BD3507-B414-44E0-AA971CD8AAB5CCAE/0/PowerGen2007PaperFinal_.pdf. Norske Shell (2008): Mid-Norway Power Study. A/S Norske Shell E&P, Norway, June 2008. http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/OED/Rapporter/Shell%20Mid-Norway%20power%20study%20juli%2008.pdf.

4
Please send comments to A. J. Seebregts (seebregts@ecn.nl) (Author), and to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org) (Project Co-ordinators)