Back to Top
Skip to main content
NETL Logo

8.4. IGCC Efficiency / Performance

Consideration of efficiency and relative performance of current technology-based integrated gasification combined cycles (IGCC) has been made by NETL in ongoing studies.1 These include IGCC power plants based upon a commercially available gasification technologies, as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. IGCC Power Plant Without CO2 Capture
Figure 1

On these bases, estimated net efficiencies for near-term high efficiency ~625 MW-size (non-CC) integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants, designed for Illinois No. 6 coal feed, without carbon dioxide (CO2) capture, range from:1

  • 39.9% higher heating value (HHV) basis for the GE Energy radiant gasification-based IGCC;
  • 41.1% (HHV) for the E-Gas™ two-stage gasification-based IGCC;
  • 43.0% (HHV) for the Shell dry-feed gasification-based IGCC.

These illustrate the relative IGCC efficiency advantage among the three gasification technologies. Because the dry-feed technology eliminates the need to vaporize water in the gasifier, the Shell-based IGCC is more efficient than the two slurry-feed GE and E-Gas™-based IGCC. Considering the slurry-feed GE and E-Gas™-based IGCC cycles, the 2-stage E-Gas™ technology is more efficient because of its lower operating temperature, as measured by the gasifier syngas exit temperature.
IGCC plants corresponding to the foregoing, but including carbon capture, are as depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2. IGCC Power Plant With CO2 Capture
Figure 2.

Corresponding cycle efficiencies are as follows:

  • 33.7% (HHV) for the GE radiant gasification-based IGCC with carbon capture;
  • 30.2% (HHV) for the GE quench gasification-based IGCC with carbon capture;
  • 33.8% (HHV) for the E-Gas™ two-stage gasification-based IGCC with carbon capture;
  • 32.5% (HHV) for the Shell dry-feed gasification-based IGCC.

In the carbon capture cases, the relative efficiencies observed in the non-capture cases are both lowered and skewed by the significant energy penalty associated with process modifications for 90% carbon capture. These accrue from loss of gross power generation because of increased amount of steam diverted for use in the Selexol process, rise in air separation unit (ASU) compression load without combustion turbine integration, and increases in auxiliary power for the gas cleanup/CO2 capture. Taken together, the energy penalties happen to be least for the GE Energy-based cycle and most for the Shell cycle. Overall, with carbon capture included, this causes overall efficiencies to be more nearly equal among the four gasifier type cycles.

Table 3 summarizes the main performance parameters for all the above, in terms of power, heat rate, and efficiencies.

  GE (radiant) GE (quench E-Gas Shell
CO2 Capture NO YES YES NO YES NO YES
Gross Power (MW) 765 741 685 742 742 765 696
Auxillary Power
Air Separation Unit 74.3 76.9 77.0 65.8 75.1 66.2 71.0
N2 Compression 25.6 36.6 36.6 25.8 36.9 32.5 36.3
AGR/CO2 Capture 3.0 11.6 11.6 3.2 11.7 0.7 11.3
CO2 Compression - 31.7 31.7 - 31.9 - 31.0
BOP 28.2 28.1 28.8 27.6 29.2 26.1 27.2
Total Auxiliary Power (MW) 131 185 186 122 185 125 177
Net Power (MW) 634 556 499 641 557 640 519
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,554 10,118 11,287 8,308 10,101 7,940 10,497
Efficiency (HHV) 39.9 33.7 30.2 41.1 33.8 43.0 32.5
Energy Penalty* - 6.2 9.7 - 7.3 - 10.5

* CO2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 capture.

Table 3: IGCC Performance Results.

Table 4 summarizes the economic results for the various IGCC cases, including plant capital costs, cost of electricity, and cost of avoided CO2.

  GE (radiant) GE (quench E-Gas Shell
CO2 Capture NO YES YES NO YES NO YES
Total Plant Cost, $/kWe (2018$)*        
Gasifier & Auxiliaries 2,025  2,300 1,629    1,673   1,943  2,134    2,904
Air Separation Unit  446 519 578 410 511 412 529
Turbines & HRSG 514 565  600 489 561 489 578
AGR/CO2 Capture 346 1,264 1,296  336  1,571 319 1,575
BOP 776 921 1,110 749 915 734 960
Total 4,105 5,568 5,212 3,656 5,501 4,087 6,545
COE, $/MWh (2018$)
Capital 58.6 79.8 74.8 52.1 79.0 58.2 93.7
Fixed 21.4 28.7 27.3 19.2 28.4 21.3 33.5
Variable 14.9 20.3 19.8 13.3 20.3 14.3 23.2
Fuel 19.0 22.5 25.1 18.5 22.5 17.7 23.4
CO2 TS&M - 8.1 9.1 - 8.2 -  8.6
Total 114.0 159.4 156.2 103.2 158.3 111.5 182.3
Cost of CO2 Avoided, $/tonne (2018$) - 137.9 135.3 - 136.6 - 172.8

* Total Plant Capital Cost (Includes contingencies and engineering fees but not owner's costs)
† 280% Capacity Factor

Table 4: IGCC Economic Results

References/Further Reading
  1. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, DOE/NETL – 2023/4320, October 14, 2022

 

Power

 

Gasifipedia Home Button