ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy 32 (2007) 10–24

www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A quantitative comparison of gas turbine cycles with CO2 capture

Hanne M. Kvamsdala,, Kristin Jordala, Olav Bollandb
a
SINTEF Energy Research, N-7465 Trondheim, Norway
b
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
Received 19 October 2005

Abstract

Nine different concepts for natural gas fired power plants with CO2 capture have been investigated, and a comparison is made based
on net plant efficiency and emission of CO2. The cycles are one post-combustion, six oxy-fuel and two pre-combustion capture concepts.
A 400 MW combined cycle plant is applied as a reference case. A common basis for the comparison of all concepts is defined and
employed in heat- and mass-balance simulations of the various concepts. As gas turbine cooling impacts the net plant efficiency at high
turbine inlet temperatures, a simplified turbine cooling model has been applied in the simulations. It is found that the concepts, in which
novel technology (the hydrogen membrane separation reformer—-MSR-H2, the advanzed zero emission power plant—AZEP, the solid
oxide fuel cell combined with a gas turbine—SOFC þ GT and the chemical looping combustion—CLC concepts) is employed, exhibit
the best performance with respect to both efficiency and in most cases also CO2 capture (capture rates close to 100%). Post-combustion
capture and pre-combustion capture with auto-thermal reforming, which are based on more mature technology, show a lower efficiency
and a capture rate of typically 90%. The SOFC þ GT concept exhibits the best cycle performance and even better than a standard CC
plant, however, any realization of a SOFC-GT 400 MW plant has a very distant future perspective. In order to conduct a complete
assessment of these diverse concepts, other criteria for comparison such as e.g. technology level and costs should also be considered. This
is not, however, included in the present work.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: CO2 capture; Concept comparison; Energy efficiency

1. Introduction Eight different concepts as well as a reference case are

Cycle performance studies found in the literature have
been carried out with various models and computational
assumptions, and with the application of different software
tools with various thermodynamic property models. Con-
sequently, results from various sources are difficult to
compare. The intention of this paper is to make a
comparison of various natural gas (NG)-fired power cycle
concepts with CO2 capture, based on the same set of
modelling assumptions, in order to give a coherent picture
of the cycle performance of several concepts that have been
proposed in the literature.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 73 550465; fax: +47 73 592889.
E-mail addresses: Hanne.Kvamsdal@sintef.no (H.M. Kvamsdal),
Kristin.Jordal@sintef.no (K. Jordal), Olav.Bolland@ntnu.no
(O. Bolland).
modelled in a general-purpose flowsheet simulator (PRO/II
by SIMSCI, Inc.) and a comparison is made based on the
net plant efficiency results. The concepts studied constitute
six variations of the oxy-fuel type of concept: (1) The oxy-
fuel combined cycle, (2) the water cycle, (3) the Graz cycle,
(4) the advanced zero emissions power plant (AZEP), (5)
solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) integrated with a gas turbine,
and (6) chemical looping combustion (CLC). Furthermore,
two variations of the pre-combustion de-carbonization
method are presented, involving NG reforming with: (7) an
auto-thermal reformer (ATR) and (8) a membrane reactor
(MSR-H2), respectively. These eight concepts, together
with one post-combustion concept based on a conventional
combined cycle (CC) with CO2 separation from the exhaust
gas by chemical absorption, are compared to a CC concept
(400 MW) without CO2 capture.
Benchmarking results based on net plant efficiency were
also presented in [1]. Compared to that publication, the

0360-5442/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.02.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24 11

Nomenclature CC combined cycle

Symbols CLC chemical looping combustion
FC fuel compression or fuel cell
m mass flow (kg/s) GT gas turbine
W work (MW) HPT high-pressure turbine
Z efficiency (dimensionless) HPST high-pressure steam turbine
HRSG heat recovery steam generator
Subscripts HTS high-temperature shift reactor
LHV lower heating value (MJ/kg)
c compression LPT low-pressure turbine
DC/AC direct current (DC) to alternate current (AC) LTS low-temperature shift reactor
conversion MEA mono-ethanol amine
e electricity MeO metal oxide
exp expansion MSR-H2 methane steam reformer with hydrogen se-
F fuel paration
FC fuel cell NG natural gas
t thermal OX oxidation reactor
PFD process flow diagram
Abbreviations PRE pre-reformer
RED reduction reactor
ABS absorber SOFC solid oxide fuel cell
ATR auto-thermal reforming ST steam turbine
AZEP advanced zero emission process TIT turbine inlet temperature (1C)
C compressor or combustor WC water cycle

Graz cycle configuration has been updated in the present
paper according to [2] and some minor changes in the
computational assumptions (Table 2) have been made. In
the present paper, the various concepts are compared based
on net plant efficiency and emission of CO2, whereas in a
planned second paper, a qualitative analysis will be given,
based on issues such as technology maturity and process
complexity.
In order to make a quantitative comparison of various
cycle concepts, a common basis for all concepts has been
defined. This common basis, described in this paper,
includes:

Configuration and definition of system boundaries.

Methodology (simulation tool, thermodynamic method,
calculation of net plant efficiency).

Unit operation models.

Detailed computational assumptions (such as turbine
inlet temperature (TIT), pressure ratio, live steam
pressure and condenser pressure).
As gas turbine cooling has an impact on the performance
at high TITs, a simplified cooling model has been
implemented in the flowsheet simulator.
2. Concept descriptions
Table 1 summarizes the various concepts. These concepts
are briefly described in the following, however, additional
information can be found as indicated by the given
references.
All the oxy-fuel concepts rely on near-to-stoichiometric
combustion with oxygen instead of air. In the concepts 1–4,
2% excess oxygen is assumed. In the oxy-fuel CC, the
water cycle and in the Graz cycle, the oxygen is assumed to
be produced by means of a cryogenic air separation unit.
2.1. Oxy-fuel CC
This concept is similar to the common air-based CC
concept, however with near-to-stoichiometric combustion
with oxygen instead of air in the gas turbine. The exhaust
gas containing mainly H2O and CO2, is supplied to the heat
recovery steam generator (HRSG), where steam is gener-
ated for the bottoming cycle. The major part of the H2O is
separated from the CO2 through cooling and condensation.
A large fraction (approximately 90%) of CO2 is recycled
back to the combustor in order to keep the TIT at a
required level. A sketch of the process flow diagram (PFD)
is shown in Fig. 1.
2.2. The water cycle
The water cycle can be categorized as a Rankine-type
power cycle. The working fluid (water) is compressed in the
liquid phase, and hot gases (mainly steam) are expanded to
provide work. In [6,8,11], there are various schemes for the
cycle configuration with respect to the reheat arrangement.
Both single and double reheat is applied. The concept with
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24

Table 1
Concept description, gas turbine cycles with CO2 capture

Concept name Short name Type of concept Steam Publications by Author Flowsheet
bottoming other authors publications reference
cycle

1. Oxy-fuel combined cycle Oxy-fuel CC Oxy-fuel Yes [3,4] [5] Fig. 1

2. Water cycle WC Oxy-fuel No [6–8,10,11] [9] Fig. 2
3. Graz cycle Graz Oxy-fuel No [12–14,2] [9] Fig. 3
4. Advanced zero emissions power plant AZEP Oxy-fuel Yes [15–18] Fig. 4
5. Solid oxide fuel cell integrated with a SOFC+GT Oxy-fuel No [19,20,22,23] [21] Fig. 5
gas turbine
6. Chemical looping combustion CLC Oxy-fuel Yes [24,25,27] [26] Fig. 6
7. Pre-combustion with an auto thermal ATR Pre-combustion Yes [28–30,33,34] [31,32] Fig. 7
reformer
8. Pre-combustion with a hydrogen- MSR-H2 Pre-combustion Yes [35,36] [37–39] Fig. 8
separating membrane reactor
9. Post-combustion with amine Amine Post- Yes [40,41,43] [42] Fig. 9
absorption combustion

83 % CO2
Pressurized
O2 15 % H2O
Pressurized 2 % O2 Condenser
NG HRSG
1 bar
1328°C
H2O CO2 to
compression
ST

GT Generator
96 % CO2
2 % H2O
2 % O2

≈ 90 % recycle

Fig. 1. Simplified PFD of the oxy-fuel CC concept.

a single reheat has been modelled in the present work. A
sketch of the PFD is given in Fig. 2 and a more in-depth
study is given in [9]. The common basis employed for the
comparison implies a similarity with the near-term case
according to [6], however, with some minor modifications
as described later.
2.4. The advanzed zero emission power plant (AZEP)
concept
This concept is based on a CC in which the combustor is
replaced with a mixed conductive membrane (MCM)
reactor. This MCM reactor has three main functions:

2.3. The Graz cycle (GRAZ)
Separation of O2 from air by a membrane.

The Graz cycle is based on a combination of a
recuperated steam injected oxy-fuel gas turbine cycle
and a Rankine-type of cycle. The concept modelled in
the present study is based on the version of the concept
as presented by [14], the S-Graz cycle. A sketch of the
PFD is shown in Fig. 3. A more in-depth study is given
in [9], however, the model parameters employed in
the present work are somewhat different and in accor-
dance to the common basis for comparison as described
later.

Combustion of fuel with near-to-stoichiometric com-
bustion.

Heat exchange (combustion heat to oxygen depleted
air).
In the present model, depleted air is expanded in the main
gas turbine. The exhaust gas containing mainly CO2 and
H2O is expanded in the CO2/steam turbine. The major part
of the H2O is easily separated from CO2 by cooling and
thereby condensing. The model is based on the work by
[16,46]. A sketch of the PFD is shown in Fig. 4.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24 13

Pressurized O2

Pressurized Pressurized
NG
O2
Reheat
Combustor Condenser
HP Combustor 0.045 bar
900 °C 1328 °C
83 bar 8.3 bar
b
Recup- 1bar
H2O liquid
erator
HPT LPT CO2 to
comp-
Generator
ression
Pressurized
Feed Cond. pump
NG
pump
H2O
H2O liquid

Fig. 2. Simplified PFD of the water cycle concept.

C3 C2
Cond. pump

Feed pump
H2O
Pressurized O2 HRSG CO2 to
compression
Pressurized
Steam CO2 /steam (11 % / 89 %)
180 bar
NG 1bar
H2O
40 bar liquid
HPT HPST LPT
C1
Com-
bustor Generator
1328 °C
0.046 bar
Steam
Condenser

Fig. 3. Simplified PFD of the Graz cycle concept (S-Graz version).

Recycle
MCM reactor CO2/steam
Pressurized
Heat turbine
NG HRSG
O2 Air

O2 depleted
air Condenser CO2 to
ST
Air 1 bar compression
GT
Generator H2O

Fig. 4. Simplified PFD of the AZEP concept.

As the TIT was lower (1200 1C) than in many of the
other concepts (TIT ¼ 1328  C), an alternative configura-
tion was investigated. This alternative includes an after-
burner with extra added fuel prior to the gas turbine in
order to raise the TIT. This will, as seen later, increase the
net plant efficiency remarkably. However, it also implies
increased emission of CO2 corresponding to the added fuel.
2.5. The SOFCþGT cycle (SOFCþGT)
This power cycle combines a SOFC system with a gas
turbine cycle. The SOFC unit replaces the combustor in
this cycle and similarly to the AZEP concept, the oxygen
depleted air coming from the cathode of the fuel cell is fed
to the main gas turbine. As the fuel is not completely
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24

converted in the fuel cell, an afterburner is necessary. In
order to capture CO2, the cathode and anode streams
should be kept separated in this part of the cycle.
A sketch of the PFD applied in the present work is
shown in Fig. 5. Three different afterburner technologies
have been evaluated in [21], and of these an SOFC unit is
applied here.
2.6. The chemical looping combustion cycle (CLC)
CLC means combustion without direct contact between
air and fuel. The combustion process is split up into
intermediate oxidation and reduction reactions, each
approaching near-to-thermodynamic equilibrium. This is
achieved by introducing a metal oxide as an oxygen carrier
that circulates between two reactors, RED and OX, as
depicted in Fig. 6. The oxygen depleted air and the exhaust
gas are expanded in separate turbines, and a steam
bottoming cycle is integrated with the oxygen depleted air
stream. The exhaust gas contains mainly CO2 and H2O.
The major part of the H2O is easily separated from CO2
by cooling and condensing. A sketch of the PFD is
shown in Fig. 6. Further details about the model can be
found in [26].
2.7. Pre-combustion with an auto-thermal reformer (ATR)
This concept is based on a CC, but with de-carboniza-
tion of the NG prior to combustion. A sketch of the PFD is
shown in Fig. 7. The air-blown reforming of NG and
water-gas shift reaction, results in a mixture of CO2, H2,
H2O, and N2. The major part of the H2O and CO2 is
removed, and the hydrogen-rich fuel is combusted in a gas
turbine (GT). The reforming section consists of a pre-
reformer unit, in which the heavier hydrocarbons in the
NG feed are converted to CH4 and H2, an ATR reactor

CO2 to compression Pressurized NG preheater

Condenser NG
1 bar Exhaust
Turbine
Air Air
H2O preheater 1 preheater 2 Exhaust
Recycle
AIR
Ext. Reformer
SOFC

AIR Anode
Generator Afterburner
Cathode

Air Air
AIR turbine
compressor

Fig. 5. Simplified PFD of the solid oxide fuel cell integrated with a gas turbine ðSOFC þ GTÞ concept.

MeO

Pressuirzed RED
NG CO2 /steam
turbine
O2 depleted
CO2 to OX air
HRSG
compression
Me
Condenser
1 bar

H2O
ST
Air
Generator

Fig. 6. Simplified PFD of the chemical looping combustion (CLC) concept.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24
H1
ATR HTS
55 % H2
45 % N2
1328 ˚C
GT
Air
Fig. 7. Simplified PFD of the pre-combustion with an auto thermal reformer (ATR) concept.
and two shift reactors. The excess H2O from the reactors is
separated from the product stream by cooling and
condensing, while the produced CO2 is separated from
the products by an absorber unit. The resulting fuel,
consisting of mainly H2 and N2, is fed to the combustor.
The exhaust is ducted through a HRSG. In order to obtain
an acceptable system performance, the steam cycle is highly
integrated with the reforming section. Further details
about this concept can be found in [31,32].
2.8. Pre-combustion with a hydrogen membrane reactor
(MSR-H2)
This concept has many similarities with the ATR
concept described previously ([38,39]). However, in this
concept the ATR, the two shift reactors and the absorption
unit for CO2 separation, are replaced with a membrane
reactor of the methane-steam reformer type with a
hydrogen separating membrane (MSR-H2). The hydrogen
is continuously removed as it is produced from NG steam
reforming in the membrane reactor. The required heat for
the steam reforming reaction is supplied to the reactor by
heat exchange with the hot exhaust gas from the gas
turbine, after the temperature has been further increased
through supplementary firing (SF). Steam extracted from
the steam cycle is used as sweep gas for the separated
hydrogen on the permeate side of the membrane, and this
mixture (approx. 42/58 vol% H2O/H2) is fed to the gas
15
1 bar
CO2
to
compression
ABS
FC
H2
Condenser
H2
PRE STEAM O
HRSG Exhaust
ST
Generator
Pressurized
NG
turbine. The other products from the membrane reactor
are mainly CO2 and H2O, which are fed to a CO2/steam
turbine prior to cooling and condensation of H2O. Several
applications of the membrane reactor in power cycles have
been demonstrated, and the one applied here is shown
schematically in Fig. 8. Further details about this concept
can be found in [38,39].
Opposed to the ATR concept, in which all the involved
units can be regarded as mature, the MSR-H2 concept
belongs to the group of novel concepts as a hydrogen
membrane reactor is not yet developed for this kind of
application.
2.9. Post-combustion with amine absorption (amine)
In this concept CO2 is separated from the exhaust gas by
means of absorption using 30 wt% mono-ethanol amine
(MEA). The exhaust gas containing 3.9 vol% CO2 in
addition to mainly N2, O2, and H2O, is cooled to 40–50 1C
and fed to the absorption tower (see Fig. 9, in which a
sketch of the PDF is given). It is here assumed that 90% of
the CO2 is captured. The CO2 rich amine is fed to the
amine stripper, in which the amine is regenerated and fed
back to the amine absorption tower. The released CO2 and
steam are cooled for water removal and the CO2 is
compressed for transportation and storage. The low-
pressure (LP) steam required for the amine stripper boiler
is extracted upstream of the LP steam turbine.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24

800 °C 1 bar
CO2/steam CO2 to
SF turbine compression
67 bar MSR-H2 Condenser

H2O
58 % H2
PRE
42 % H2O
HRSG Exhaust

1328 °C

Air GT
Generator

Pressurized NG

Fig. 8. Simplified PFD of the pre-combustion with hydrogen membrane reactor (MSR-H2) concept.

Condenser
N2, 1 bar
O2,
Exhaust: H2O CO2 to
CO2,N2, O2 ,H2O Amine 45 °C compression
absorption
Pressurized NG
HRSG
40 °C Amine stripper
Pre-cooler

Re-
CO2-rich
boiler
ST amine

GT Generator
Air
Lean amine
LP steam (4 bar, 140 °C)

Fig. 9. Simplified PFD of the post-combustion with amine absorption concept (amine).

3. Common basis for comparison of concepts
The elements in the common basis are described in the
following.
3.1. Configuration and definition of system boundaries
It is especially important to determine a common system
boundary and to include all concept-specific units. In the
latter case, it is for instance necessary to include the energy
requirement of oxygen production in oxy-fuel processes.
Here, the system boundary is defined such that all units,
which contribute to the net plant efficiency, are included.
Input streams (fuel, air or O2, cooling water) and the CO2
output stream conditions are shown in Table 2. The
produced electricity from the SOFC in the SOFC þ GT
concept is direct current (DC), while the produced
electricity from the gas turbine generator is alternating
current (AC). Thus, a DC/AC converter is considered in
the SOFC case and all energy loss contributors (included
generator loss) in the gas and steam turbines are taken into
account.
3.2. Methodology
All models (except for the post-combustion concept),
have been implemented in the steady-state flow sheet
simulator PRO/II (SIMSCI, Inc.). GTPRO (Thermoflow
Inc.) has been applied to provide input parameters for the
modelling of gas turbines and steam turbines in PRO/II.
All concepts should, in accordance with the common basis,
have been implemented in the same flowsheet simulator,
but a different approach for the amine concept was chosen.
The total energy requirement is obtained partly from
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24 17

Table 2 Combustion chamber

Composition and some properties and conditions for feed streams and for
the outlet CO2 stream Mg, Tg, Cpg

Fuel feed stream Fuel

Composition
N2 (mol%) 0.9
CO2 (mol%) 0.7 Coolant
C1 (mol%) 82 mc, Tc, Cpc
C2 (mol%) 9.4 TIT
C3 (mol%) 4.7
C4 (mol%) 1.6
C5þ (mol%) 0.7
Air
Properties
Pressure (bar a) 50 Cooled Uncooled
Temperature (1C) 15
Tc
Molecular weight (g/mol) 20.05
Density (kg/Sm3 ) 0.851
Fig. 10. A sketch of a gas turbine with cooling arrangement modelled in
Conditions
PRO/II, m is mass flow, T is temperature, Cp is heat capacity.
lower heating value ðkJ=Sm3 Þ 40 448
lower heating value (kJ/kg) 47 594
Air feed stream
Composition concepts. However, some modifications have been neces-
N2 (mol%) 77.3 sary, especially some related to complex and integrated
CO2 (mol%) 0.03 units, and units involving new technology (e.g. gas turbine,
H2O (mol%) 1.01
hydrogen membrane reactor, SOFC, MCM). These in-
Ar (mol%) 0.92
O2 (mol%) 20.74 tegrated units are modelled with combinations of existing
Properties unit models available in PRO/II (e.g. heat exchanger,
Pressure (bar a) 1.013 reactor, splitter, mixer) in order to represent the physical
Temperature (1C) 15 phenomena taking place. In the case of the CLC concept, a
Oxygen feed stream
model for the reactors has been coded in FORTRAN and
Composition
O2 (mol%) 95 linked to the flowsheet simulator [26].
N2 (mol%) 2 The gas turbine input data in PRO/II reflects an
Ar (mol%) 3 appropriate state-of-the-art gas turbine. Here, it was
Properties chosen to use the technology level of the GE9351FA gas
Pressure (bar a) 2.38
turbine type as the basis for all concepts. The component
Temperature (1C) 15
Conditions parameters were derived using GTPRO. However, some
Energy production requirement (kJ/kg O2) 812 deviations exist regarding the turbine pressure ratios for
CO2 outlet the oxy-fuel CC, the WC and the Graz cycle concepts. In
Composition these cases, the optimal pressure ratio was set in
CO2 concentration (mol%) 88.6–99.8
accordance to the literature ([3,11,14], respectively). Eight
Properties
Pressure (bar a) 200 of the nine concepts (all except the SOFC þ GT case) in
Cooling water addition to the base case CC, require that gas turbine
Inlet/outlet temperature (1C) 8/18 cooling is taken into account. The cooled turbine model in
the present work is based on [44] and also presented in [45].
The implementation in the flowsheet simulator is shown in
Fig. 10. The key feature of the turbine-cooling model is
simulation of the base case (CC without CO2 capture) and that all of the coolant is mixed with the hot gas flow
partly from determining the energy requirement related to upstream of the expansion, and that the efficiency of the
the chemical absorption of CO2 according to [42]. For expander is reduced accordingly, in order to match
example, it is assumed that the steam requirement in the the technology level of a state-of-the-art gas turbine. The
reboiler of the stripper is 3.6 MJ/kg captured CO2 and the model calculates the required cooling flow and reduction of
corresponding loss in energy is determined from the PRO/ turbine efficiency caused by the cooling, based on the
II simulation of the base case (CC). properties of the gas expanding in the turbine, the
The SRK method available in PRO/II has largely been properties of the coolant, the TIT and pressure ratio. All
applied for determining thermodynamic properties. How- of the coolant (except in the Graz and WC cycles) is
ever, the thermodynamic method GPSA has been used to extracted downstream of the compressor and mixed with
determine the solubility of acidic gases as CO2 in water. the hot gas before the work extraction begins. The
The unit models available in the flowsheet simulator have implemented cooling model is tuned against GTPRO data
been applied for most of the unit operations of the various for the GE9351FA gas turbine type.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
18 H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24

The steam bottoming cycle applied in six of the concepts Table 3 (continued )
(the oxy-fuel CC, the AZEP, the CLC, the ATR, the MSR-
Condenser pressure, Graz cycle (bar a) 0.046
H2, and the amine concepts) is a triple-pressure (111, 27, Condenser pressure, Oxy-fuel CC (bar a) 1.01
and 4 bar) reheat steam-turbine cycle. Four compressors Cooling water inlet temperature (1C) 8
with inter-cooling are used to compress the captured CO2- Cooling water outlet temperature (1C) 18
rich gas (which might contain other components such as CO2-capture-specific cycle units
CO2 absorption recovery rate, ATR and post- (%) 90
H2O and O2) up to the assumed transport pressure of
combustion
200 bar. CO2 stripper outlet pressure, ATR and post- (bar a) 1.01
combustion
3.3. Computational assumptions Amine re-boiler steam requirement (MJ/kg 3.4
CO2)
Pressure drop in absorption column (mbar) 150
Feed streams (fuel, air or O2, cooling water) and the CO2 Methane conversion MSR-H2 (%) 99.8
output stream conditions are shown in Table 2. It is Shift reaction conversion MSR-H2 (%) 99
assumed that NG is available at a pressure of 50 bar. The H2 separation MSR-H2 (%) 99.6
unit operation input data is specified in Table 3. CLC degree of carrier oxidation (%) 100
CLC degree of carrier reduction (%) 70
CLC degree of fuel utilisation (%) 100
Auxiliaries
Table 3 Generator mechanical efficiency (%) 98
Computational assumptions O2 and CO2 compression mechanical drive (%) 95
efficiency
Heat exchangers Auxiliary power requirements (of net plant (%) 1
Pressure drop (%) 3 output)
DTmin gas/gas (1C) 30
DTmin gas/liquid (1C) 20
HRSG DT steam out/exhaust in (1C) 20
HRSG pinch point (1C) 10
CO2 compression intercooler temperature (1C) 30
Gas side pressure drop through HRSG (mbar) 40 It is emphasized that since the GE9351FA gas turbine
type has been considered in the present analysis, the inlet
Reactors
GT Combustor and reactor pressure drop (%) 5 pressures and pressure ratios should be similar in all cases.
Duct burner pressure drop (%) 1 However, for three of the oxy-fuel cycles (the oxy-fuel CC,
Combustor outlet temperature (max) (1C) 1328 the WC, and the Graz cycles), the inlet pressures and the
Reactor outlet temperature, CLC and AZEP (1C) 1200 pressure ratios are different as these are regarded as
Turbomachinery efficiencies concept specific.
Main GT compressor polytropic efficiency (%) 91 The WC model employed for the present comparison
Main GT un-cooled turbine polytropic efficiency (%) 91 implies a similarity with the near-term case in accordance
Small compressor polytropic efficiency (%) 87
to [6], however with some minor modifications. In the
Small turbine polytropic efficiency (%) 87
CO2 compression isentropic efficiency stage 1 (%) 85 model, there are two turbines (the second corresponds to
CO2 compression isentropic efficiency stage 2 (%) 80 the IPT and LPT reported by [10]). The first TIT is 900 1C,
CO2 compression isentropic efficiency stage 3 (%) 75 and the TIT of the second is 1328 1C, as for the other
CO2 compression isentropic efficiency stage 4 (%) 75 concepts. Furthermore, a condenser pressure of 0.045 and
SOFC/GT cycle compressor polytropic efficiency (%) 87.5
0.046 bar for the WC concept and the Graz cycle
SOFC/GT cycle turbine polytropic efficiency (%) 87.5
AZEP and SOFC/GT recirc. compressor (%) 50 respectively, has been determined as the lower limit for
polytropic efficiency the condensation pressure, in order to make it thermo-
HP steam turbine isentropic efficiency (%) 92 dynamically comparable with pure steam condensation at
IP steam turbine isentropic efficiency (%) 92 0.04 bar (as in the steam cycle), i.e. the same condensation
LP steam turbine isentropic efficiency (%) 89
temperature has been assumed in all cases. In the flowsheet
Pump efficiency (incl. motor drive) (%) 75
simulations of the CLC concept, the TIT is 1200 1C due to
Note: Small compressor/turbine refers to H2O/CO2 recirculation the assumed temperature limitation of the two CLC
compressor, ATR and MSR-H2 fuel compressors, MSR-H2, CLC, and
reactors. Two cases are defined for the AZEP concept:
AZEP CO2/steam turbines.
Steam power cycle (1) 100% (with TIT 1200 1C limited by the AZEP reactor)
Max steam temperature, pure steam cycle (1C) 560 and (2) 85% capture of CO2, respectively. The latter case
HP steam turbine inlet pressure (bar a) 111 corresponds to the option mentioned previously, in which
IP steam turbine inlet pressure (bar a) 27 SF is employed to an amount corresponding to the
LP steam turbine inlet pressure (bar a) 4
maximum TIT (here 1328 1C). It should be noted that the
Max temperature WC HP turbine (1C) 900
Deaerator pressure (bar a) 1.2 model of the AZEP concept is based on an earlier reported
Condenser pressure, pure steam cycle (bar a) 0.04 configuration rather than the newer version as published
Condenser pressure, water cycle (bar a) 0.045 e.g. in [46]. In this newer version the CO2/steam turbine is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24 19

omitted thereby reducing the plant efficiency and a more 70.0%

67 %
efficient double acting HRSG unit has been introduced in 65.0%
order to recover heat from both the oxygen depleted air
and the CO2/steam stream. Altogether, the net plant 60.0%
57 %
efficiency of this new configuration (400 MWe case) is very

Efficiency
55.0%
53 %
close to the values obtained for the present implementation 51 %
50.0% 50 % 50 %
of the concept, in both the 100% capture case and the 48 % 47 % 47 % 49 %
85% capture case [47]. By omitting the CO2/steam turbine, 45.0%
45 %
the new version however, might be more economically
40.0%
attractive, but a study of economic aspects is beyond
the scope of the present paper. The SOFC unit applied 35.0%
as afterburner in the SOFC+GT cycle is operated at

se

LC

0%

T
ra
in

-H

/G
AT

85
ca

C
Am

10
SR

FC
el
0.3 V and contributes to the electricity production.

EP
se

fu

EP
M

SO
xy

AZ
ba

AZ
Ninetyfive percent fuel utilization is achieved in this

afterburner (see [21]).
For six of the concepts (the Oxy-fuel CC, WC, Graz,
SOFC þ GT, AZEP, MSR-H2 concepts) there will be
some other components than CO2 and H2O present in the
stream sent to storage. In the case of NG as fuel, these may
comprise nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and nitrous oxides. It
might be necessary to remove these components prior to
transportation. It was found that purifying the CO2 imply
a power cycle efficiency reduction up to 0.4%-points.
However, it is here assumed that the effect on the overall
efficiency is negligible (within the limits of the uncertainty),
and this issue is not considered further here.
4. Quantitative comparison of concepts
4.1. Net plant efficiency
Net plant efficiency is defined as
Zcycle
P P P
ð W_ exp  W_ c Þ  Zt!e þ W
_ FC  W
_ DC=AC  W_ consumers
¼ The reduction in turbine work regarding the amine
mF  LHV
ð1Þ
The first term is related to the thermodynamic work of gas
turbines and steam turbines. This net thermodynamic work
is multiplied with a turbine to electricity grid efficiency,
Zt!e , which is 0.97 in all cases except for the SOFC þ GT
concept, where it is 0.9 [48]. The second term is the fuel cell
electric output while the third term accounts for the losses
related to DC to AC conversion. The last term is the sum
of work related to consumers as auxiliaries, pumps, ejectors
ðSOFC þ GTÞ, fans (Amine), CO2 compression, and O2
production and compression.
The net plant efficiency in % of the NG fuel LHV for the
nine concepts is shown in Fig. 11 together with the base
case CC without CO2-capture. The different terms of
Eq. (1) in % of fuel LHV together with the net plant
efficiency, can be seen from Table 4 for each of the
concepts and the CC plant. As can be seen from Fig. 11 the
net plant efficiencies of the amine, the ATR, the oxy-fuel
CC and the Graz cycle concepts are similar, while the
concepts involving new and emerging technology (CLC,
O
C
C
Fig. 11. Net plant efficiency of the nine concepts and a CC concept in %
of fuel LHV.
MSR-H2, AZEP 100%, AZEP 85%, and SOFC þ GT)
show the best results. In fact, the SOFC þ GT concept
exhibits better efficiency than a standard CC plant. It must
be emphasized here that since the electrical output of the
largest demonstration plant without CO2-capture is
220 kW and plants up to 20 MW are foreseen, a realization
of a SOFC-GT 400 MW plant must regarded as long-term.
It is emphasized that the emerging technologies imply
higher uncertainty in the process modelling assumptions
and consequently higher uncertainty in the calculated net
plant efficiency. The determined efficiency values for these
concepts (CLC, MSR-H2, AZEP 100%, AZEP 85%, and
SOFC þ GT) are optimistic and as such the uncertainty is
estimated to be in the range of 0 to 2%. The uncertainty
for the oxy-fuel CC, the WC, and the Graz cycle concepts is
estimated to 1:5% while the uncertainty for the amine
and the ATR concepts is estimated to 1%.
concept is due to LP steam withdrawal from the steam
cycle used in the stripper column of the absorption plant.
Furthermore, the 2% reduction shown for the ‘‘amine
absorption’’ term (Table 4) is work related to compression
of exhaust gas to compensate for the pressure drop in the
absorption column.
The first three oxy-fuel concepts (oxy-fuel CC, WC, and
Graz) are estimated to have a medium-time frame to
realization due to the required development of a new gas
turbine operating on mainly CO2 as the working fluid. One
of the major causes of reduction in efficiency for these
concepts, is the cryogenic production of oxygen as can be
seen from Table 4. In case of the oxy-fuel CC, the exhaust
gas temperature (approx. 640 1C) is not completely utilized
due to the fixed steam temperature of 560 1C that has been
adopted in the present paper. The other main cause of
reduction in efficiency regarding the WC and the Graz
cycle is the CO2 compression work (see below).
It should be noted that the AZEP concept exhibits much
better efficiency in case of reduced CO2 capture compared
to the 100% capture case. It is an interesting option as a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
20 H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24

SOFC/GT
compromise between plant performance and CO2 emis-

10.5%
100.0% sions.

61.2%

58.2%
32.5%
17.3%
15.3%

13.7%

67.3%
0.7%
3.1%

1.4%
1.5%

2.6%
4.6%
As in the case of the AZEP concept, the CLC concept
performance is limited by the maximum temperature in the
reactors, and the operation at pressurized conditions adds
AZEP85%

100.0%

yet another element of complexity. The CLC reactor

99.5%
44.2%
55.3%

54.2%

52.5%
0.5%
1.1%

0.3%

0.8%
1.6%

4.2%
system can be regarded as being in a very early stage of
development. The CLC concept is regarded as promising,
but with a long-term time frame for realization.
AZEP100%

The application of the hydrogen selective membrane in

100.0%
104.5%
51.8%
52.8%

51.7%

50.0%
the MSR-H2 concept still needs some more refinement.
0.5%
1.1%

0.2%

1.0%
1.7%

6.8%
The challenging part of its realization is the development
of a stable membrane for integration in a steam reform-
MSR-H2

ing reactor. Also the design and manufacturing of the

100.0%
87.6%
33.4%
54.3%

53.2%

49.6%
0.5%
1.1%

0.3%

2.7%
3.6%

7.1%
membrane reactor, including sealing, may be a major
challenge.
The CO2 compression work is almost equal for the
100.0%
103.0%
47.5%
55.5%

54.4%

51.3%
concepts except for the Water cycle and the Graz cycle. The
0.5%
1.1%

2.5%
3.1%

5.5%
CLC

reason for the higher level in the latter concepts is the low
condenser pressure from which the CO2 is recompressed.
100.0%
102.7%

The amine, ATR and AZEP 85% compression work is

36.6%
66.1%

64.8%

16.2%
48.6%
0.6%
1.3%

0.5%

6.5%
2.7%

5.9%

8.2%
Graz

slightly lower than for the other concepts, but the reason is
the assumption that only 90% of the CO2 is separated from
Net plant efficiency in % of fuel LHV and the different terms of Eq. (1) for each of the nine concepts and a CC plant

100.0%

the fuel in the absorption unit and 85% in the AZEP 85%
44.6%
62.0%

61.9%

60.7%

16.1%

12.5%
0.7%
0.1%

1.2%

0.2%

6.6%
2.5%

6.1%

case. On the other hand, it is assumed that only CO2 is

WC

absorbed and desorbed in the amine and ATR absorption

units. For the other concepts, the content of other
Oxyfuel CC

components in the CO2 compression stream varies (see

100.0%

47.0%
89.7%
28.7%
60.9%

59.7%

12.7%

Table 5) depending on the assumptions regarding separa-

0.6%
1.2%

0.3%

6.4%
2.4%

3.0%

9.7%

tion method, conversion of fuel (membrane) and stoichio-

metric combustion (oxy-fuel). Dependent on trans-
100.0%

portation and storage specifications, it might be required

46.9%
85.7%
34.9%
50.8%

49.8%

0.5%
1.0%

0.2%

2.2%
2.9%

9.9%
ATR

that some of these components should be removed prior to

transportation. As discussed in Section 3.3, the contribu-
100.0%

tion to the overall efficiency will most likely not be

Amine

47.9%
92.0%
37.6%
54.4%

53.3%

0.5%
1.1%

0.6%

2.0%
2.3%
5.4%

8.8%

adequate and as such it is beyond the scope of the present

paper. However, it will have an important cost issue.
In the present paper, the S-version of the Graz cycle has
CC base case

been implemented and the resulting net plant efficiency is

100.0%

much higher than that of the Graz cycle version

56.7%
96.4%
37.6%
58.8%

57.6%

0.6%
1.2%

0.3%

0.8%

implemented in [1]. The S-version implies a recycle of both

CO2 and water at a higher pressure than in the previous
version. The total content of recycled water/steam is 92%
%-points

%-points
%-points
%-points
%-points
%-points
%-points
%-points
%-points
%-points
%-points

%-points
%-points
%-points
%-points
%-points
%-points
%-points

%-points

in the S-version, while the corresponding value is 48% in

the old version. Additionally, the temperature of the
recycle stream is higher in the S-version and the total
Reduction compared to the base case

effect is an increase of 2.6%-points compared to the old

version. Furthermore, the condenser pressure is lower
Chemical energy in fuel (LHV)

Generator and mechanical eff.

(0.046 bar) and the expansion work is increased. Finally, it

Net fuel cell electric output

should be noted that the input data for cryogenic

Efficiency, DC to AC grid

Compression work, CO2

separation of oxygen (refer to Table 3) has been updated

Fuel Cell DC output

Oxygen compression

since the work reported in [1]. This update has lead to an

Oxygen production

Amine absorption

Total consumers
Net shaft power

increase in plant efficiency of 2–2.4%-points for all

Net efficiency
Compressors
Gross power

concepts making use of this technology. According to

Auxiliaries

[10], a further possible improvement might be tighter

Turbines

Ejectors
Table 4

Pumps

integration of the air separation (ASU) part with the oxy-

fuel-based power plant.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24 21

Table 5 Table 6
Composition (mol%) of the compressed CO2 stream (200 bar) CO2 emissions related to the amine and ATR concepts and the AZEP 85%
option
CO2 H2O H2 CO N2 O2 Ar CH4
CC Amine ATR AZEP 85%
Oxy-fuel CC 89.97 0.22 4.22 0.24 5.35
WC 88.57 0.22 0.01 4.19 1.69 5.32 CO2 emission ðg=kWhel Þ 367 43 42 60
Graz 88.66 0.22 4.20 1.59 5.33 CO2 emission avoided ðg=kWhel Þ 0 323 324 307
SOFC þ GT 99.07 0.22 0.71 Capture level (%) 0 90 90 84.4
AZEP 99.01 0.22 0.77 Relative reduction (%) 0 88.2 88.5 83.7
CLC 99.78 0.22
ATR 99.78 0.22
MSR-H2 96.58 0.22 1.44 0.83 0.70 0.23
Amine 99.78 0.22

The WC turbine work is considerably lower than the

other concepts. As the combustor (gas generator) is fed
with water, some of the fuel LHV is used directly for the
steam generation, instead of, as in a CC, being used first to
heat the gases in the gas turbine, and then using the exhaust
gas for steam generation. Furthermore, the oxygen and
NG that is used for combustion is compressed up to almost
90 bar, before being mixed with water/steam in the
combustion chamber. After the HP combustion chamber,
the partial pressure of the combustion products is less than
10% of the total pressure, which is slightly below 80 bar.
This means that a major part of the compression work of
oxygen and to some extent also NG (recall that it is
assumed to be available at 50 bar) has been wasted before
expansion begins in the HP turbine, which inevitably
implies thermodynamic losses. On the other hand, as the Fig. 12. CO2 production, capture and avoidance. The increased CO2
recycle compression work in the water cycle is related to production resulting from loss in overall efficiency of power plants due to
water pumping, this work is much lower than in both the the additional energy required for capture, transport and storage (lower
bar) relative to the reference plant (upper bar) without capture. Source:
Graz and the oxy-fuel CC concepts, but it appears that this [49].
is not enough to compensate for the losses described above.

4.2. CO2 emission
As mentioned above, some of the concepts do not exhibit
100% of CO2 capture, namely the amine, the ATR, and the
AZEP option with SF. The CO2 emission per kWh
produced electricity, the avoided emission of CO2 per
kWh produced electricity, the capture level in % of CO2,
actually captured, and the relative reduction (%) in CO2
emission compared to the reference case (CC) are given for
these concepts in Table 6.
As the produced CO2 per kWhel is increased compared
to the reference CC case, the relative reduction or avoided
CO2 emission is lower than the capture level (illustrated in
Fig. 12). Furthermore, this effect is higher for the amine
and ATR concepts than the AZEP 85% concept as the net
thermal efficiency for the latter is higher.
It is theoretically possible to capture all the CO2 in an
absorption plant. However, the investment costs will
increase tremendously with a capture level approaching
100%. As for the AZEP 85% concept, this is a matter of
adaptation between costs and CO2 emission. It should be
noted that the net plant efficiency is less sensitive to capture
level compared to that of the costs. In one study [50], the
reduction was less than 1%-point going from a capture
level of 90–100%, while in [51], the reported efficiency
seems in fact to be slightly increased by increasing the
capture level from 90% to 95%. In the latter study, several
parameters (as e.g. lean and rich loadings) were optimized
for each case, which was not done in [1]. Irrespective of
this, the capture level is a degree of freedom in the design of
these concepts, and the decision of plant layout in this
respect will be made based on, among other things,
estimated future cost of CO2 emissions.
It should be noted that the other concepts are considered
to have a capture level of 100%, however, a trace amount
(approximately 0.002%) of CO2 will in any case dissolve in
water depending on the condensing water pressure.
The difference in the captured CO2 and the actually
avoided emission of CO2 compared to the base case is
reflected both in the reduction of efficiency and the level of
CO2 capture for each of the concepts (see Fig. 12 and 13).
The avoided emission for the concepts with 100% capture
is of course the same as the emission of CO2 for the base
case. The difference between the amount captured and the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24

600,00

500,00 485
Avoided 471

Captured
421 418
405 405
390 401
400,00
CO2 [g CO2 /kWh el]

367 367 367 367 367 367 367

323 325 326

306 309
300,00

200,00

100,00

00
0,00
se

%
2

0%
C

T
e

LC
z
C
R

-H
in
ca

/G
85
C

ra
W
AT
Am

10
C

SR
G

FC
el

EP
se

fu

EP
M

SO
ba

AZ
xy

AZ
O
C
C

Fig. 13. Captured CO2 and avoided emission of CO2 compared to the base case for all concepts.

amount avoided is directly related to the reduction in technology (SOFC+GT, AZEP, CLC, MSR-H2), may
efficiency, meaning that the difference e.g. in case of the involve higher uncertainty in the calculations as these are
oxy-fuel CC, is higher than in the case of the CLC concept. based on unverified data. Thus, by taking into account the
The difference in case of the SOFC/GT concept is of course uncertainty in the efficiency calculations for all concepts,
negative as the efficiency is higher than the base case. the distinction between the concepts, which can be
classified as near-term and mid-term and those concepts
5. Overall conclusion involving emerging technology, is not that clear as shown
in Fig. 11. Both qualitative aspects such as technology
Nine different concepts for NG fired power plants with complexity and maturity and cost aspects for investment
CO2 capture have been investigated and a quantitative and operation and maintenance, will have an impact on
comparison based on net plant efficiency and CO2 selection of technology in a case when a power plant with
emissions is presented. These concepts constitute: one or without CO2 capture is to be built. Altogether, it is very
post-combustion based, six oxy-fuel based and two pre- difficult to conclude which is the best plant concept based
combustion based concepts. It is concluded that the on net plant efficiency and CO2 emissions only.
ranking of concepts based on net plant efficiency is (1)
SOFC þ GT (67.3%), (2) AZEP 85 % (52.5%), (3) CLC
Acknowledgments
(51.3%), (4) AZEP 100% (50.0%), (5) MSR-H2 (49.8), (6)
Graz (48.6%), (7) Amine (47.9%), (8) OXY-Fuel CC
This work has been sponsored by the Norwegian
(47%), (9) ATR (46.9%) and (10) WC (44.6%). Taking the
CO2 capture efficiency into account, the ranking of the Research Council. Additional financial support from Lyse
Energy, Norway, is highly appreciated. Ola Maurstad has
AZEP 85%, amine and the ATR concepts will be poorer.
also been involved in the work, but not directly involved in
For consistency in all cases, a 400 MW CC without CO2
the present paper.
capture was employed as a reference case, although this is
considered a rather unrealistic power plant size in the
SOFC-GT case. However, none of the concepts have, in References
that respect, been demonstrated at this scale and due to the
long-term perspective of the other concepts involving [1] Kvamsdal HM, Maurstad O, Jordal K, Bolland O. Benchmarking of
emerging technology (AZEP, CLC, and MSR-H2) it is gas-turbine cycles with CO2 capture. In: Proceedings of the seventh
presently difficult to assess if they will ever be realized at international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies—
GHGT-7, September 5–9, 2004, Vancouver, Canada. Paper no. 76,
that scale. 2004.
It should be noted that the model parameters applied in [2] Sanz W, Jericha H, Moser M, Heitmeir F. Thermodynamic and
the concepts that make use of units comprising emerging economic investigation of an improved graz cycle power plant for
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24
CO2 capture. In: Proceedings of the ASME turbo expo conference,
June 14–17, 2004, Vienna, Austria. Paper no. GT2004-53722, 2004.
[3] Bolland O, Mathieu P. Comparison of two removal options in
combined cycle power plants. Energy Convers Manage 1998;39:
1653–63.
[4] Ulizar I, Pilidis P. A semiclosed-cycle gas turbine with carbon
dioxide-argon as working fluid. J Eng Gas Turbines Power Trans
ASME 1997;119:612–6.
[5] Ulfsnes R, Bolland O, Jordal K. Modelling and simulation of
transient performance of the semi-closed O2/CO2 gas turbine CYCLE
for CO2-capture. In: Proceedings of the ASME turbo expo
conference, June 16–19, 2003, Atlanta, USA. Paper no. GT2003-
38068, 2003.
[6] Anderson RE, Hoffman LC, Viteri F. Integration of clean energy
systems’ technology with air separation units, gas turbines, and steam
turbines into zero-emission power plants. Natural Gas Technologies
Conference II, Phoenix, Arizona, February 8–11, 2004.
[7] Anderson R, Brandt, H, Mueggenburg H, Taylor J, Viteri F. A
power plant concept which minimizes the cost of carbon dioxide
sequestration and eliminates the emission of atmospheric pollutants.
In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on greenhouse
gas control technologies, Interlaken, Switzerland, Amsterdam: Else-
vier Science Ltd; 1998.
[8] Anderson R, Brandt H, Doyle SE, Mueggenburg H, Taylor J, Viteri
F. A unique process for production of environmentally clean electric
power using fossil fuels. In: Proceedings of the eighth international
symposium on transport phenomena and dynamics rotating machin-
ery, ISROMAC-8, Honolulu, Hawaii. Washington: Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation; 2000.
[9] Bolland O, Kvamsdal HM, Boden JC. A comparison of the
efficiencies of the oxy-fuel power cycles water-cycle, Graz-cycle, and
Matiant-cycle. I: Carbon dioxide capture for storage in deep geologic
formations—results from the CO2 capture project. Amsterdam:
Elsevier Science Ltd; 2005. p. 499–512.
[10] Marin O, Bourhis Y, Perrin N, Di Zanno P, Viteri F, Anderson R.
High efficiency, zero emission power generation based on a high-
temperature steam cycle. Presented at the 28th international technical
conference on coal utilization and fuel systems, NETL, March 10–13,
2003, Clearwater, Florida, USA, 2003.
[11] Smith JR, Surles T, Marais B, Brandt H, Viteri F. Power production
with zero atmospheric emissions for the 21st century. In: Proceedings
of the fifth international conference on greenhouse gas control
technologies–GHGT-5, 2000, Cairns, Queensland, Australia. Colling-
wood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing; 2005.
[12] Jericha H, Fesharaki M. The graz cycle-1500 1C max temperature
potential H2–O2 fired CO2 capture with CH4–O2 firing. ASME cogen-
turbo power conference 1995, Vienna, Austria. ASME paper 95-
CTP-79. Atlanta: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1995.
[13] Jericha H, Sanz W, Woisetschläger J, Fesharaki M. CO2-retention
capability of CH4/O2-fired graz cycle. CIMAC conference 1995,
Interlaken, Switzerland. CIMAC Paper G07. Frankfurt: Interna-
tional Council on Combustion Engines; 1995.
[14] Jericha H, Göttlich E, Sanz W, Heitmeir F. Design optimisation of
the Graz prototype plant. In: Proceedings of the ASME turbo expo
conference 2003, Atlanta, USA. Paper no. GT-2003-38120. Atlanta:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2003.
[15] Anundskås A, Julsrud S. AZEP—a technical update. Presented at the
second Trondheim conference on CO2 capture, transport and storage,
Trondheim, Norway, October 25–26, 2004, hhttp://www.energy.sin-
tef.no/arr/co2_2004/index.aspi.
[16] Eklund H, Sundkvist SG, Wilhelmsen K, Åsen KI, Griffin T.
Development of a membrane based CO2 emission free gas turbine
system. In: Proceedings of clean air 2003, Lisbon, Portugal, July
7–10, Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto Superior Técnico; 2003.
[17] Griffin T, Sundkvist SG, Åsen KI, Bruun T. Advanced zero emission
gas turbine power plant. In: Proceedings of ASME turbo expo 2003,
Atlanta, USA. Paper no. GT2003-38426. Atlanta: American Society
of Mechanical Engineers; 2003.
23
[18] Åsen KI, Wilhelmsen K. CO2 capture in power plants using mixed
conducting membranes (MCM). Presented at PowerGen Europe
2003. Arranged by PennWell Deutschland GMBH, 2003.
[19] Campanari S. Thermodynamic model and parametric analysis of a
tubular SOFC module. J Power Sources 2001;92:26–34.
[20] Chan SH, Ho HK, Tian Y. Modelling of simple hybrid solid oxide
fuel cell and gas turbine power plant. J Power Sources 2002;109:
111–20.
[21] Maurstad O, Bredesen R, Kvamsdal HM, Schell M, Bolland O.
SOFC and gas turbine power systems—evaluation of configurations
for CO2 capture. In: Proceedings of the seventh international
conference on greenhouse gas control technologies—GHGT-7,
September 5–9, 2004, Vancouver, Canada. Paper no. 577, 2004.
[22] Inui Y, Matsumae T, Koga H, Nishiura K. High performance SOFC/
GT combined power generation system with CO2 recovery by oxygen
combustion method. Energy Convers Manage 2005;46(11–12):
1837–47.
[23] Liese EA, Gemmen RS. Performance comparison of internal
reforming against external reforming in a SOFC, gas turbine hybrid
system. In: Proceedings of ASME turbo expo 2003, Atlanta, USA.
Paper no. GT2003-38566. Atlanta: American Society of Mechanical
Engineers; 2003.
[24] Lyngfelt A, Kronberger B, Adánez J, Morin J-X, Hurst P.
Development of oxygen carrier particles for chemical-looping
combustion. Design and operation of a 10 kW chemical-looping
combustor. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference
on greenhouse gas control technologies—GHGT-7, September 5–9,
2004, Vancouver, Canada, 2004.
[25] Lyngfelt A, Leckner B, Mattisson TI. A fluidized-bed combustion
process with inherent CO2 separation-application of chemical-
looping combustion. Chem Eng Sci 2000;56:3101–313.
[26] Naqvi R, Bolland O, Brandvoll Ø, Helle K. Chemical looping
combustion analysis of natural gas fired power cycle with inherent
CO2-capture. In: Proceedings of ASME turbo EXPO 2004, Vienna,
Austria. Paper no. GT2004-53359. Atlanta: American Society of
Mechanical Engineers; 2004.
[27] Ryu HJ, Bae DH, Jin GT. Carbon deposition characteristics of NiO
based oxygen carrier particles for chemical-looping combustor. In:
Proceedings of the sixth international conference on greenhouse gas
control technologies—GHGT-6, October 2002, Kyoto, Japan, 2002.
[28] Freund P, Haines MR. Precombustion decarbonisation for power
generation. In: Proceedings of the sixth GHGT-6, Kyoto, Japan,
2002.
[29] Audus A, Kaarstad O, Skinner G. CO2 Capture by pre-combustion
decarbonisation of natural gas. In: Proceedings of the fourth
international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies,
GHGT-4, Interlaken, Switzerland. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd,
1999. p. 557–62.
[30] IEA Greenhouse House Gas R&D Programme. CO2 capture via
partial oxidation of natural gas. Report PH3/21: 2000. hhttp://
www.ieagreen.org.uk/i.
[31] Ertesvåg IS, Kvamsdal HM, Bolland O. Exergy analysis of a gas
turbine combined-cycle power plant with pre-combustion CO2
capture. Energy 2005;30(1):5–39.
[32] Kvamsdal HM, Ertesvåg IS, Bolland O, Tolstad T. Exergy analysis of
gas turbine combined cycle with CO2 capture using pre-combustion
of natural gas. In: Proceedings of ASME turbo expo 2002,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Paper no. 2002-GT-30411. Atlanta:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2002.
[33] IEA Greenhouse House gas R&D programme. Leading options for
the capture of CO2 emissions at power stations. Report No. PH3/14;
2000. hhttp://www.ieagreen.org.uk/i.
[34] IEA Greenhouse house gas R&D programme. Precombustion
decarbonisation study. Report PH2/19; 1998. hhttp://www.ieagreen.
org.uk/i.
[35] Hufton JR, Allam RJ, Chiang R, Middleton P, Weist EL, White V.
Development of a process for CO2 capture from gas turbines using a
sorption enhanced water gas shift reactor system. In: Proceedings of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
24 H.M. Kvamsdal et al. / Energy 32 (2007) 10–24
the seventh international conference on greenhouse gas control
technologies—GHGT-7, September 5–9, Vancouver, Canada. Paper
no. 489, 2004.
[36] Åsen K, Vigeland T, Norby T, Larring Y, Mejdell T. Development of
a hydrogen membrane reformer based CO2 emission free gas fired
power plant. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference
on greenhouse gas control technologies—GHGT-7, September 5–9,
2004, Vancouver, Canada. Paper no. 136.
[37] Bredesen R, Jordal K, Bolland O. High temperature membranes in power
processes with CO2 capture. J Chem Eng Process 2004;43(9):1129–58.
[38] Johannessen E, Jordal K. Investigation of a H2 separating membrane
reactor for integration in power processes with CO2 capture. In:
Proceedings of the conference ECOS 2003, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Copenhagen: Technical University of Denmark; 2003.
[39] Jordal K, Bredesen R, Kvamsdal HM, Bolland O. Integration of H2-
separating technology in gas gurbine processes for CO2 sequestration.
In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on greenhouse
gas control technologies—GHGT-6 2002, Kyoto, Japan. Published in
Energy 2004; 29 (9–10): 1269–78.
[40] Chapel DG, Ernest J, Mariz CL. Recovery of CO2 from flue gases:
commercial trends. In: Proceedings of the Canadian society of
chemical engineers annual meeting, Saskatoon, Canada, October
1999.
[41] Gibbins JR, Crane RI, Lambropoulus D, Booth C, Roberts CA,
Lord M. Maximising the effectiveness of post combustion CO2
capture systems. In: Proceedings of the seventh international
conference on greenhouse gas control technologies—GHGT-7,
September 5–9 2004, Vancouver, Canada. Paper no. 412.
[42] Bolland O, Undrum H. A novel methodology for comparing CO2
capture options for natural gas-fired combined cycle plants. Adv
Environ Res 2003;7:901–11.
[43] Reddy S, Scherffius J, Freguia S, Viejo A, Roberts C. Flour‘s
Econamine FG plus technology. An enhanced amine-based CO2
capture process. In: Proceedings of the second national conference
on carbon sequestration, May 5–8, 2003, Alexandria, USA, 2003,
p. 1–11.
[44] Jordal K. Modeling and Performance of gas turbine cycles with
various means of blade cooling. Doctoral thesis, Lund University,
Sweden; 2001.
[45] Jordal K, Bolland O, Klang Å. Aspects of gas turbine modeling for
the semi-closed O2/CO2 cycle with CO2 capture. J Eng Gas Turbines
Power 2004;126(3):507–15.
[46] Griffin T, Winkler D, Wolf M, Appel C, Mantzaras J. Staged
catalytic combustion method for the advanced zero emissions gas
turbine power plant. In: Proceedings of the ASME turbo expo 2004,
Vienna, Austria, June 14–17, 2004. Paper no. GT2004-54101, 2004.
[47] Møller BF, Torisson T, Assadi M, Sundkvist SG., Sjødin M, Klang
Å, et al. AZEP gas turbine combined cycle power plants—thermo-
economic analysis. In: Proceedings of ECOS2005, June 20–22, 2005,
Trondheim, Norway, 2005. p. 819–26.
[48] Lundberg WL, Israelson GA, Moeckel MD, Veyo SER, Holmes A,
Zafred PR, et al. A high efficiency PSOFC/ATS-gas turbine power
system. Report by Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation 2001,
Pittsburgh for US Department of Energy. Contract no. DE-AC26-
98FT40455; 2001.
[49] Rubin E, Meyer L, Coninck Heleen de. Carbon dioxide capture and
storage technical summary. IPCC Working Group III Special
Report; 2005. hhttp://www.ipcc.ch/i.
[50] Kvamsdal HM, Mejdell T, Steineke F, Weydahl T, Aspelund A, Hoff
KA, et al. Tjeldbergodden power/methanol—CO2 reduction efforts—
SP2: CO2 capture and transport, Report No. TR F6062. SINTEF
Energy Research, Trondheim, Norway; 2005.
[51] Jassim M, Rochelle GT. Innovative Absorber/stripper configurations
for CO2 capture by aqueous monoethanolamine. Ind Eng Chem Res
2006. hhttp://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/asap.cgi/iecred/asap/pdf/ie050547s.pdi,
accepted for publication.