The potential for increased water use has often been noted as a challenge to the widespread deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Early studies, that are widely referenced and cited in discussions of CCS, indicated that installation of a capture system would nearly double water consumption for thermal power generation, while more recent studies show different results. The Global CCS Institute has conducted a comprehensive review of data available in order to clarify messages around water consumption associated with installation of a capture system. Changes in water use estimates over time have been evaluated in terms of capture technology, cooling systems, and how the data are reported. Guido Magneschi, Institute’s Senior Advisor – Carbon Capture, and co-author of the study, presented the results of the review and illustrated the main conclusions.

1. Water use in thermal power plants equipped with CO2 capture
systems
Webinar – Wednesday, 7 December 2016
Cover image: Overlooking the Quest Capture facility located at Shell -
Scotford, near Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta. Image provided by Shell.

2. Guido Magneschi
Senior Adviser Carbon Capture
• Guido Magneschi is a Senior Adviser for carbon
(CO2) capture at the Global CCS institute, for the
EMEA region (Europe, Africa and Middle East).
• Guido's main role at the Institute is to advise on the
developments of CO2 capture technologies, and their
implementation in the power and the industrial
sectors.
• He contributes to various working groups and works
with external parties to advocate for, and to promote
the deployment of CCS. During the three years he
spent at the Institute, Guido worked, among others,
on innovative carbon capture technologies, CCS
solutions for energy intensive industries, and BECCS
concepts.
• Guido holds a Master of Energy Engineering, and
before joining the Institute, he was a technical
consultant at DNV.GL, where he contributed to
several CCS projects. Guido lives and works in
Brussels, Belgium, and speaks English and Italian.

3. Questions
 We will collect questions during
the presentation.
 Your MC will pose these question
to the presenter after the
presentation.
 Please submit your questions
directly into the GoToWebinar
control panel.

4. A new publication authored by:
 Guido Magneschi
 Ron Munson
 Tony Zhang
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/water-use-thermal-power-plants-equipped-co2-capture-systems
Water use in thermal power plant equipped with CO2
capture systems

5. Background/objectives of the study
Why this study?
 Increased water use caused by CCS have raised some concerns
 To evaluate the often cited assertion that CCS automatically doubles
water consumption of thermal power plants
Objectives:
 To provide a comprehensive overview of the data available
 To clarify the effect of CCS on water consumption
 To highlight the differences between CCS technologies

6. Analytical approach
Literature screening
Review of sources
Data collection and processing
Analysis of the results
Reporting

7. Literature sources
IEAGHG, 2011. Water usage and loss analysis for bituminous coal power plant with CO2 capture. IEAGHG (2010/05).
DOE/NETL, 2012. Advancing Oxy-combustion Technology for Bituminous Coal Power Plants, Pittsburgh (PA), USA: U.S.
Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL-2010/1405).
DOE/NETL, 2013. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to
Electricity. Revision 2a, September 2013., Pittsburgh (PA), USA: U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology
Laboratory (DOE/NETL-2010/1397).
ROAD, 2014. Reduction of freshwater usage of a coal fired power plant with CCS by applying a high level of integration of all
water stream. Energy Procedia - 12th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-12,
63(2014), p. 7187–7197.
DOE/NETL, 2015a. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1a: Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural
Gas to Electricity. Revision 3, July 2015, Pittsburgh (PA), USA: U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology
Laboratory (DOE/NETL-2015/1723).
DOE/NETL, 2015b. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1b: Bituminous Coal (IGCC) to
Electricity. Revision 2b, July 2015, Pittsburgh (PA), USA: U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology
Laboratory (DOE/NETL-2015/1727).
Reference Post-combustion Pre-combustion Oxy-combustion
PC NGCC IGCC PC
IEAGHG, 2011 OC OC OC
DOE, 2012 RC
DOE, 2013 RC RC
ROAD, 2014 OC
DOE, 2015 RC RC RC
Legend: PC = pulverised coal (power plant), NGCC = natural gas combined cycle,
IGCC = integrated gasifier combined cycle, RC=recirculating cooling, OC= once-through cooling

8. Cooling systems
Recirculating Cooling
Withdrawal: water extraction
from a source
Consumption: water
dissipation (not returned to
the source)
PC power plant tonnes/MWh
Once-through
Withdrawal 86 – 103
Consumption 0.2 – 0.5
Recirculating
Withdrawal 1.8 – 2.7
Consumption 1.7 – 2.5
Once-through Cooling

9. Data processing
REFERENCE DOE 2013
Power plant Pulverised Coal (PC)
Cooling system Recirculating cooling
CO2 capture technology Fluor ECONAMINE FG+
Water balance w/o capture
Net power generated (MWe) 550
Total water withdrawal (t/MWh) 2.318
Withdrawal for cooling (t/MWh) 1.893
Withdrawal for make-up (t/MWh) 0.425
Total water out (t/MWh) 0.475
Cooling water returned to source (t/MWh) 0.475
Water disposal (Effluents) (t/MWh) 0.000
Total net water balance (used water) (t/MWh) 1.844
Net balance cooling water (t/MWh) 1.418
Net balance make-up/effluents (t/MWh) 0.425
Water balance w/ capture 90%
Net power generated (MWe) 395
Total water withdrawal (t/MWh) 4.396
Withdrawal for cooling (t/MWh) 3.780
Withdrawal for make-up (t/MWh) 0.616
Total water out (t/MWh) 1.025
Cooling water returned to source (t/MWh) 1.025
Water disposal (Effluents) (t/MWh) 0.000
Total net water balance (used water) (t/MWh) 3.371
Net balance cooling water (t/MWh) 2.755
Net balance make-up/effluents (t/MWh) 0.616
Data collected from
references has
been summarised
and processed
using a common
format and
consistent metrics
*All cases are calculated
as “retrofit”: the power
output with capture is
reduced compared to the
case without capture

10. Reporting metrics
REFERENCE DOE 2013
Percentage increase of NORMALISED figures
Based on increase in t/MWh
% Increase in NORMALISED withdrawal 90%
% Increase in NORMALISED net consumption 83%
Percentage increase of ABSOLUTE figures
Based on increase in t/h
% Increase in ABSOLUTE withdrawal 36%
of which for cooling 35%
of which for make up 1%
% Increase in ABSOLUTE net consumption 31%
of which for cooling 30%
of which for make up 1%

11. Absolute VS normalised water use (example)
100 t/h
150 t/h
Water
Water
100 MWe
Power
80 MWe
Power
Without Capture
With Capture
Power output
(MWh)
Absolute
water use
(t/h)
Normalised
water use
(t/MWh)
Without Capture
100 100 1
With Capture
80 150 1.87
Percentage increase
+50% +87%

12. Post-combustion systems

13. Pre-combustion systems

14. Oxy-combustion systems

15. Results: Recirculating cooling – consumption

16. Results: Recirculating cooling – withdrawal

17. Results: Once-through cooling – consumption

18. Results: Once-through cooling – withdrawal

19. Approaches to reduce water use
- Alternative technologies: newer technologies may have lower cooling or
make-up requirements compared to state of art (e.g. membranes)
- Water recycling: recover condensate generated in the capture system
and reuse it within the plant
• Reduces use of make-up water (e.g. condensate collected during flue
gas cooling)
- Waste heat integration: use of excess heat instead of dissipation by
cooling water
• Reduces cooling requirement of capture plant
(e.g. cooling compressor with boiler feed-water)

20. Concluding remarks
• Several estimates exists in literature, providing quantification of
water requirements for CO2 capture systems
• It is important to distinguish between normalised and absolute
consumption when reporting results.
• Different CO2 capture systems and approaches have different
impacts, with significant variability (from +90% to -96% for
normalised consumption)
• Increase in water use is influenced by the power plant type, the
capture technology, and the type of cooling systems employed.
• In light of the estimates available it is not correct to claim that CCS
systems automatically doubles water use in thermal power plants

21. Questions / Discussion
Please submit your questions in
English, directly into the
GoToWebinar control panel.

22. Please submit any feedback to: webinar@globalccsinstitute.com