IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v93y2012icp348-356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Learning rates and future cost curves for fossil fuel energy systems with CO2 capture: Methodology and case studies

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Sheng
  • Zhang, Xiaosong
  • Gao, Lin
  • Jin, Hongguang

Abstract

The broadly applicable equations for estimating learning rates of cost variables in energy systems with CO2 capture (CC) are formulated, in which the effect of overall plant efficiency upgrade on learning rates is reflected. Based on the equations, as a case study, we estimate the learning rates, predict the future cost trend of IGCC power plants with CC in China, and examine the effect of plant efficiency upgrade on its future cost. It is revealed that the learning rates of the whole CC plant are relevant not only to the learning rate of each subunit, but also to its cost proportion and the overall plant efficiency upgrade. Results from case study show that the learning rates of IGCC+CC in China are in the range of 0.0964–0.2022 for unit investment, 0.0726–0.1489 for COE, and 0.0636–0.1462 for cost of CO2 avoidance (COA). When the cumulative production reaches 100GW, the investment for IGCC+CC will decrease from the current level (approximately 2150$/kW) to around 760–1350$/kW, COE will decrease to 46–68$/MWh, and COA will fall from 33.4$/t to 16–25$/t. Sensitivity analysis indicates that overall plant efficiency upgrade and the capacity at which learning begins pose significant effects on cost reduction. Compared with PC+CC, for gradual learning with a low learning rate, the unit investment of IGCC+CC will be a little bit higher than that of PC+CC in the future. For rapid and moderate learning, IGCC+CC will be more expensive than PC+CC in the near term, while breakeven points are observed with the cumulative experiences growing, indicating that IGCC+CC can economically perform better than PC+CC in the medium and long term. The paper provides an approach to estimate the learning rates of CC plants, and thus to project their future cost curves, which will help to formulate the first clear-cut CCS roadmap in China and to aid the identification of key CC technologies that should be focused on.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Sheng & Zhang, Xiaosong & Gao, Lin & Jin, Hongguang, 2012. "Learning rates and future cost curves for fossil fuel energy systems with CO2 capture: Methodology and case studies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 348-356.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:93:y:2012:i:c:p:348-356
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261911008427
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.046?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Joskow & Nancy L. Rose, 1985. "The Effects of Technological Change, Experience, and Environmental Regulation on the Construction Cost of Coal-Burning Generating Units," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, Spring.
    2. Colpier, Ulrika Claeson & Cornland, Deborah, 2002. "The economics of the combined cycle gas turbine--an experience curve analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 309-316, March.
    3. Feichtinger, Gustav & Hartl, Richard F. & Kort, Peter M. & Veliov, Vladimir M., 2005. "Environmental policy, the porter hypothesis and the composition of capital: Effects of learning and technological progress," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 434-446, September.
    4. Joskow, Paul L & Rozanski, George A, 1979. "The Effects of Learning by Doing on Nuclear Plant Operating Reliability," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 61(2), pages 161-168, May.
    5. van der Zwaan, Bob & Rabl, Ari, 2004. "The learning potential of photovoltaics: implications for energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(13), pages 1545-1554, September.
    6. McDonald, Alan & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2001. "Learning rates for energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 255-261, March.
    7. Nemet, Gregory F., 2006. "Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3218-3232, November.
    8. Greaker, Mads & Lund Sagen, Eirik, 2008. "Explaining experience curves for new energy technologies: A case study of liquefied natural gas," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2899-2911, November.
    9. Rubin, Edward S. & Yeh, Sonia & Antes, Matt & Berkenpas, Michael & Davison, John, 2007. "Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with CO2 capture," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt46x6h0n0, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    10. Rao, Anand B. & Rubin, Edward S. & Keith, David W. & Granger Morgan, M., 2006. "Evaluation of potential cost reductions from improved amine-based CO2 capture systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3765-3772, December.
    11. Eelke Wiersma, 2007. "Conditions That Shape the Learning Curve: Factors That Increase the Ability and Opportunity to Learn," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(12), pages 1903-1915, December.
    12. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Hettinga, W.G. & Junginger, H.M. & Dekker, S.C. & Hoogwijk, M. & McAloon, A.J. & Hicks, K.B., 2009. "Understanding the reductions in US corn ethanol production costs: An experience curve approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 190-203, January.
    14. Nikolaos Kouvaritakis & Antonio Soria & Stephane Isoard, 2000. "Modelling energy technology dynamics: methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching," International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(1/2/3/4), pages 104-115.
    15. Junginger, Martin & de Visser, Erika & Hjort-Gregersen, Kurt & Koornneef, Joris & Raven, Rob & Faaij, Andre & Turkenburg, Wim, 2006. "Technological learning in bioenergy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 4024-4041, December.
    16. Klaassen, Ger & Miketa, Asami & Larsen, Katarina & Sundqvist, Thomas, 2005. "The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 227-240, August.
    17. Lena Neij & Per Dannemand Andersen & Michael Durstewitz, 2004. "Experience curves for wind power," International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2), pages 15-32.
    18. Lin, Hu & Jin, Hongguang & Gao, Lin & Han, Wei, 2010. "Economic analysis of coal-based polygeneration system for methanol and power production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 858-863.
    19. Riahi, Keywan & Rubin, Edward S. & Taylor, Margaret R. & Schrattenholzer, Leo & Hounshell, David, 2004. "Technological learning for carbon capture and sequestration technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 539-564, July.
    20. Chen, Chao & Rubin, Edward S., 2009. "CO2 control technology effects on IGCC plant performance and cost," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 915-924, March.
    21. Nakata, Toshihiko & Sato, Takemi & Wang, Hao & Kusunoki, Tomoya & Furubayashi, Takaaki, 2011. "Modeling technological learning and its application for clean coal technologies in Japan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 330-336, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    2. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2012. "A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 762-771.
    3. Karali, Nihan & Park, Won Young & McNeil, Michael, 2017. "Modeling technological change and its impact on energy savings in the U.S. iron and steel sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 447-458.
    4. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    5. Wu, X.D. & Yang, Q. & Chen, G.Q. & Hayat, T. & Alsaedi, A., 2016. "Progress and prospect of CCS in China: Using learning curve to assess the cost-viability of a 2×600MW retrofitted oxyfuel power plant as a case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1274-1285.
    6. Bossink, Bart, 2020. "Learning strategies in sustainable energy demonstration projects: What organizations learn from sustainable energy demonstrations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    7. Neij, Lena, 2008. "Cost development of future technologies for power generation--A study based on experience curves and complementary bottom-up assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2200-2211, June.
    8. Hong, Sungjun & Chung, Yanghon & Woo, Chungwon, 2015. "Scenario analysis for estimating the learning rate of photovoltaic power generation based on learning curve theory in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 80-89.
    9. Reinhard Haas & Marlene Sayer & Amela Ajanovic & Hans Auer, 2023. "Technological learning: Lessons learned on energy technologies," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), March.
    10. Lindman, Åsa & Söderholm, Patrik, 2012. "Wind power learning rates: A conceptual review and meta-analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 754-761.
    11. Santhakumar, Srinivasan & Meerman, Hans & Faaij, André, 2021. "Improving the analytical framework for quantifying technological progress in energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    12. Harashima, Taiji, 2012. "A Theory of Intelligence and Total Factor Productivity: Value Added Reflects the Fruits of Fluid Intelligence," MPRA Paper 43151, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Junginger, Martin & de Visser, Erika & Hjort-Gregersen, Kurt & Koornneef, Joris & Raven, Rob & Faaij, Andre & Turkenburg, Wim, 2006. "Technological learning in bioenergy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 4024-4041, December.
    14. Castrejon-Campos, Omar & Aye, Lu & Hui, Felix Kin Peng, 2022. "Effects of learning curve models on onshore wind and solar PV cost developments in the USA," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    15. Lafond, François & Bailey, Aimee Gotway & Bakker, Jan David & Rebois, Dylan & Zadourian, Rubina & McSharry, Patrick & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2018. "How well do experience curves predict technological progress? A method for making distributional forecasts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 104-117.
    16. Pettersson, Fredrik, 2007. "Carbon pricing and the diffusion of renewable power generation in Eastern Europe: A linear programming approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2412-2425, April.
    17. Arthur van Benthem & Kenneth Gillingham & James Sweeney, 2008. "Learning-by-Doing and the Optimal Solar Policy in California," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 131-152.
    18. Pettersson, Fredrik & Söderholm, Patrik, 2009. "The diffusion of renewable electricity in the presence of climate policy and technology learning: The case of Sweden," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(8), pages 2031-2040, October.
    19. Sascha Samadi, 2016. "A Review of Factors Influencing the Cost Development of Electricity Generation Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-25, November.
    20. Heuberger, Clara F. & Rubin, Edward S. & Staffell, Iain & Shah, Nilay & Mac Dowell, Niall, 2017. "Power capacity expansion planning considering endogenous technology cost learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 831-845.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:93:y:2012:i:c:p:348-356. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.