Results: Browse all data

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. We would recommendthat you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biomass to power with amine-based carbon capture. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. We would recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biomass to power with chemical looping CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. Wewould recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. We would recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. We would recommend thatyou read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports wereshown to be invalid. We would recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown to be invalid. We would recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)

TESBiC: Techno-Economic Study of Biomass to power with CCS. This model was developed as part of Work Package 3. It examines changes in cost, efficiency and emissions under different operating conditions for biodedicated IGCC with CCS. It should be read in conjunction with the Work Package 3 reports on model specification and user documentation. The Biomass to Power with CCS Phase 1 project consisted of four work packages: WP1: Landscape review of current developments; WP2: High Level Engineering Study (down-selecting from 24 to 8 Biomass to Power with CCS technologies); WP3: Parameterised Sub-System Models development; and WP4: Technology benchmarking and recommendation report. Reports generally follow this coding. We would suggest that you do not read any of the earlier deliverables in isolation as some assumptions in the reports were shown tobe invalid. We would recommend that you read the project executive summaries as they provide a good summary of the overall conclusions. This work demonstrated the potential value of Biomass to Power with CCS technologies as a family, but it was clear at the time of the project, that the individual technologies were insufficiently mature to be able to 'pick a winner', due to the uncertainties around cost and performance associated with lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).