International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhydene

Co-production of hydrogen, electricity and CO2 from coal with

commercially ready technology. Part B: Economic analysis
Thomas Kreutza , Robert Williamsa , Stefano Consonnib , Paolo Chiesab,∗
a Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University, 25 Guyot Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
b Dipartimento di Energetica, Politecnico di Milano, P.zza Leonardo da Vinci, 32, 20133 Milan, Italy

Available online 1 December 2004

Abstract
This two-part paper investigates performances, costs and prospects of using commercially ready technology to convert coal
to H2 and electricity, with CO2 capture and storage. Part A focuses on plant configuration, performance, and CO2 emissions.
Part B focuses on the cost of producing H2 and electricity, with and without reduced CO2 emissions. Our estimates show that
the costs for ∼ 91% decarbonized energy (via quench gasification at 70 bar) are about 6.2 /kWh for electricity and about $
1.0/kg (8.5 $/GJ, LHV) for hydrogen; these are, respectively, 35% and 19% higher than the corresponding energy costs with
CO2 venting. Referenced to these analogous CO2 venting plants, the costs of CO2 emissions avoided are ∼ 24 $/tonne for
electricity and 11 $/tonne for H2 .
䉷 2004 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Coal; Hydrogen production; Electric power generation; CO2 sequestration; Combined cycles

1. Introduction
In this paper, we examine the economic ramifications
of the various plant configurations and design parameter
changes, e.g. alternative methods of syngas cooling, CO2
capture vs. H2 S–CO2 co-capture, the production of pure vs.
fuel grade H2 , and variations in gasifier pressure. We esti-
mate the capital cost and additionally calculate the cost of
coal-based electricity and H2 for each of the plants modeled
in Part A, using a set of simplified economic assumptions.
This is augmented by an exploration of the sensitivity of
H2 and electricity costs to variations in some of the basic
economic parameters.
∗ Corresponding author. +39-02-2399-3916; fax: +39-02-2399-
3940.
E-mail address: paolo.chiesa@polimi.it (P. Chiesa).
2. Plant configurations
This paper considers the same plants described in Part
A (see Table 1). In addition, we discuss configurations in
which H2 S and CO2 are co-captured and made available for
disposal in a single stream. Each plant is identified by a se-
quence of three letters, each having the following meaning:
• first letter identifies the main output of the plant: elec-
tricity (E) or pure H2 (H) or fuel-grade H2 (F);
• second letter identifies the fate of CO2 : venting (V), cap-
ture pure (P), co-capture with H2 S (C);
• third letter identifies the syngas cooling mode: quench
(Q) or syngas cooler (S).
Superscripts and subscripts signify the following:
• superscript∗ : steam cooled gas turbine;

0360-3199/$30.00 䉷 2004 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.08.001
770 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784

Nomenclature

Nomenclature TPI total plant investment

E net electric power/coal LHV power T+S CO2 transport and storage

H H2 LHV power/coal LHV power WGS water-gas shift

Acronyms Symbols of plant configurations (see Table 1)

ASU air separation unit 1st letter E = electricity, F = fuel-grade H2 ,

BOP balance of plant H = pure H2
CC combined cycle 2nd letter C = Co-capture of CO2 and H2 S,
CCR captial charge rate P = capture of pure CO2 , V = vent CO2
CCS CO2 capture, transport and storage 3rd letter Q = quench, S = syngas cooler
EF engineering fees
Superscripts and subscripts
GI gasification island
GT gas turbine * “Frame H”, steam-cooled gas turbine
HHV, LHV higher/lower heating value 120 gasification at 120 bar
HRSG heat recovery steam generator L low steam/carbon ratio
HX heat exchanger X no gas turbine
IDC interest during construction Y fraction of syngas passing the PSA
IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle system
mt metric tonne
O&M operation and maintenance Symbols used in tables
OC overnight capital C CO2 capture
PEMFC proton exchange membrane fuel cell Q quench cooling
PSA pressure swing adsorption R+C radiative + convective syngas cooling
ST steam turbine V CO2 venting
TIT turbine inlet temperature

Table 1
Summary of the plant configurations considered in this paper
Main output CO2 venting CO2 capture

Quench Syngas Quench Syngas

cooling cooling cooling cooling
State-of-the-art gas Electricity EVQ EVS EPQ EPS
turbines Pure H2 HVQ HVS HPQ, HPQ120 HPS, HPSL ,
HPSY , HPS120
Fuel-grade H2 FPQ
“H” gas turbine Electricity EVQ∗ EPQ∗

Gasificaton pressure is always 70 bar, except for cases HPQ120 and HPS120 , where it is 120 bar.

• subscript 120: gasification at 120 bar; all other cases are
for gasification at 70 bar;
• subscript L: higher electricity-to-H2 ratio obtained by
lowering the steam-to-carbon ratio and thus the amount
of H2 generated in the water-gas shift reactors;
• subscript Y: higher electricity-to-H2 ratio obtained by di-
recting to the gas turbine some clean, CO2 -free syngas in
addition to the PSA purge flow; the syngas added to the
purge flow by-passes the PSA system and is expanded
prior to saturation and injection into the gas turbine com-
bustor.
Part A gives a detailed description of the technology and
the plant design considered for each case. All plants are
based on a Texaco gasifier fed with Illinois #6 coal and 95%
pure oxygen generated by a stand-alone cryogenic air sepa-
ration unit (ASU). Power is generated by a combined cycle
based on state-of-the-art heavy duty gas turbines: Siemens
V94.3a for the plants producing only electricity, Siemens
V64.3a for the plants co-producing hydrogen and elec-
tricity. Sulfur is removed by physical absorption (Selexol)
at 35 ◦ C. Except for the plants producing only electricity
with no CO2 capture, all plants include two water–gas shift
 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784 771

Table 2a
Performances of plants producing only electricity
Configuration EVQ EVQ∗ EPQ EPQ∗ EVS EPS

Gasification pressure bar 70 70 70 70 70 70

CO2 venting vs. capture V V C C V C
Syngas cooling Q Q Q Q R+C R+C
Net power output MW 390.1 403.0 361.9 371.4 422.3 382.6
CO2 captured % of inputa 0 0 91.28 91.28 0 90.38
CO2 emissions g/kWh 751.8 719.8 70.1 67.0 692.6 73.4
Fuel input (LHV) MW 908.2 898.1 983.7 965.4 905.8 978.1

E (LHV)b % 42.95 44.87 36.79 38.47 46.63 39.12
Co-capture configuration ECQ ECQ∗ ECS
CO2 captured % of inputa 94.93 94.92 94.03
CO2 emissions g/kWh 38.0 36.4 43.3
Net power out MW 359.8 369.4 380.6

E (LHV)b % 36.58 38.27 38.91

Plants EVQ* and EPQ* are based on the General Electric 107H steam cooled gas turbine. All the others are based on the Siemens V94.3a.
a Percentage of the carbon in the input coal that is captured and stored as CO .
2
b For economic analyses, a part-load efficiency penalty (Table 3) is applied to these design-point plant efficiencies.

reactors (high/low temperature) and a Selexol system for
CO2 removal. Pure hydrogen is generated by a PSA system
with 85% hydrogen separation efficiency. Tables 2a and b
recap the overall plant performances described in Part A.
3. Methodology
3.1. “Basic” economic assumptions and parameters
Economic parameters used to estimate the cost of pro-
ducing H2 and electricity are given in Table 3. Our cost-
ing analysis uses the EPRI TAG methodology [1], and is
kept simple and transparent to facilitate revision by readers
wishing to use different economic assumptions. (Note that
many of these parameter values are varied in the sensitivity
analysis section below.) The assumed coal price, 1.26 $/GJ
LHV (1.20 $/GJ HHV), was the average cost to US electric
generators in 2001 [2]. Interest during construction (IDC)
is taken to be 12.3% of overnight capital (OC), based on a
4-year construction schedule with equal, annual payments,
and a real discount rate of 7.8%/year. The 30 year levelized
capital charge rate (CCR), applied to the total plant invest-
ment (TPI = OC+IDC), is assumed to be 15%/year.1 Oper-
ation and maintenance (O&M) costs are fixed at 4% of OC
per year. The plant capacity factor is assumed to be 80%.2
At these relatively large plant sizes, the flow rates of cap-
tured CO2 are quite high (e.g., 554 tonnes/h for HPQ), so
that transport and storage (T+S) costs are potentially mod-
est. The actual costs depend on multiple factors such as:
distance to storage site, aquifer characteristics, CO2 flow
rate, etc.; nevertheless, because the focus of this paper is
CO2 capture, we employ the simplifying assumption of a
constant T+S cost of $5/t CO2 for all cases.3 We sepa-
rately report costs for electricity and H2 production with
CO2 capture only, as well as with CO2 capture, transport
and storage (CCS), so that readers can easily test the sensi-
tivity of overall costs to variations in T+S cost. As a result
of part-load operation, equipment fouling and ageing, varia-
tions in ambient temperature, etc., the annual average plant
efficiency will be lower than the design point efficiencies
given in Part A (and Tables 2a and b). For the purposes of
economic analyses, we account for these affects be imposing
an efficiency “penalty” (which appears as an increase in fuel
use) estimated to be 3% for electricity-only plants and 2%

1 CCR is calculated using EPRI TAG methodology [1] with

the modified accelerated capital recovery system (MACRS) for tax
depreciation, assuming an inflation rate of 2%/year, a real discount
rate—assumed equal to the weighted, after-tax cost of capital—of
7.8%/year (based on real costs for debt and equity capital of 4.4
and 14.0%/year, respectively, and a capital structure consisting
of 55% debt and 45% equity), a book life of 30 years with no
plant salvage value, a tax life of 20 years, a federal+state income
tax rate of 38.2%/year, and annual owners costs of 5.5% of total
plant investment (TPI). Note that CCR includes property taxes and
insurance in the amount of 2% of total cash expended (or 1.71%
of TPI).
2 Recent studies suggest that a spare gasifier may be required
in order for Texaco-based IGCCs to achieve an 80% capacity factor
[3]. In this ‘basic” economic analysis, plants are not equipped with
a spare gasifier. The cost ramifications of including a spare gasifier
(with syngas cooling and scrubbing) are investigated below in the
cost sensitivity analysis section.
3 For comparison, a recent study of CO T+S costs [4] reports a
2
cost of $5.23/tonne CO2 for transporting 417 tonne/h CO2 through
a 100 km pipeline and injecting it into an aquifer 2 km below
ground for storage.
 772
T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784
Table 2b
Performance of plants co-producing H2 and electricity

Configuration HVQ HPQ HVS HPS HPSY HPSL FPQ FPQx HPQ120 HPS120

Gasification pressure bar 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 120 120

Hydrogen purity % 99.999 99.999 99.999 99.999 99.999 99.999 ∼ 93 ∼ 93 99.999 99.999
CO2 venting vs. capture V C V C C C C C C C
Syngas cooling Q Q R+C R+C R+C R+C Q Q Q R+C

Net power output MWe 78.4 38.9 111.0 73.82 89.49 100.3 38.34 −0.01 51.42 66.03
CO2 captured % of input a 0 91.28 0 90.43 90.65 73.53 91.28 91.24 91.11 90.12
CO2 emissionsb g/kWh 751.8 70.1 692.6 73.4 73.4 73.4 70.1 70.1 70.1 73.4
CO2 emissionsb kg/GJLHV 140.7 11.8 135.2 12.3 12.0 42.1 11.6 11.9 11.8 13.0
Fuel input (LHV) MW 1863 1863 1796 1796 1069 972.0 1863 1863 1837 1760
H2 output (LHV) MW 1070 1070 1032 1032 535.6 486.9 1084 1130 1052 1007

E (LHV) % 4.21 2.09 6.18 4.11 8.37 10.32 2.06 0 2.80 3.75

H (LHV) % 57.46 57.46 57.45 57.45 50.10 50.10 58.17 60.69 57.28 57.21

Co-capture configuration HCQ HCS HCSY HCSL FCQ FCQx HCQ120 HCS120

CO2 captured % of inputa 94.93 94.08 94.29 77.18 94.93 94.89 94.76 93.77
CO2 emissionsb g/kWh 38.0 43.3 43.3 43.3 38.0 38.0 38.0 43.3
CO2 emissionsb kg/GJLHV 6.4 7.2 6.9 37.3 6.3 6.5 6.5 7.8
Net power output MWe 35.0 70.1 87.3 98.3 34.5 −3.9 47.6 62.4

E (LHV) % 1.88 3.90 8.16 10.11 1.85 0 2.59 3.54

H (LHV) % 57.47 57.46 50.11 50.11 58.17 60.69 57.30 57.22

All plants are based on the Siemens V64.3a turbine.

a Percentage of the carbon in the input coal that is captured and stored as CO .
2
b The specific CO emissions (g/kWh) charged to electricity are assumed to equal those from the electricity-only plant that is most similar in design (see Table 2a); the remaining CO
2 2
emission are charged to H2 .
 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784
Table 3
Basic economic assumptions employed here
Coal price 1.26 $/GJ LHV
Capacity factor 80%
Capital charge rate (CCR) 15% per year
Interest during construction 12.3% of overnight capital
O&M costs 4% of overnight capital
Cost of CO2 transport + storage 5 $/tonne CO2
Part load efficiency penaltya 3% electric plants, 2% H2 plants
Carbon tax None
Co-product electricity price CO2 venting: 4.62 /kWh (EVQ)
(for H2 plants only)b CCS: 6.23 /kWh (via EPQ)
US dollars valued in year 2002
a For economic analyses, a part-load efficiency penalty is applied
to the design-point plant efficiencies given in Tables 2a and b.
b See explanation in text.
for H2 plants.4 Given the uncertain markets for byproduct
sulfur and slag, we assume their disposal cost and/or mar-
ket value is negligible. For simplicity, we assume zero car-
bon tax in this cost analysis. (We show below that the cost
of avoided CO2 emissions—approximately equal to the tax
needed to induce CCS—is ∼ $24 per tonne CO2 for plants
that produce only electricity, and ∼ $11 per tonne CO2 for
H2 plants.)
The H2 plants studied here yield two co-products, H2
and electricity. In such cases, a common method of eco-
nomic analysis is to calculate the internal rate of return as
a function of the values (or market price) of the two prod-
ucts. However, since our plants are heavily weighted toward
the production of H2 , relegating electricity to the role of a
minor co-product, it is more straightforward to simply as-
sume an electricity price, and calculate the resulting cost of
H2 . (As shown below in the sensitivity analysis section, the
latter is quite insensitive to the former.) While a single, fu-
ture “electricity price” obviously does not exist (rather, the
price will vary by region, depending on the mix of compet-
ing technologies, fuel prices, regulatory environments, po-
tential carbon taxes, etc.), the strategy is nonetheless use-
ful, enabling us to roughly quantify the cost of coal-based
H2 (with the minor caveat that the cost depends weakly on
the local electricity price). For H2 plants that vent CO2 , the
price of electricity is assumed to be set by the cost of the
least expensive IGCC power, seen below to be from plant
EVQ, $4.62 /kWh. In contrast, we assume that H2 plants
that capture and store CO2 exist only in environments (spa-
tial and temporal) where electricity is already decarbonized;
for these plants the price of electricity is set equal to the
4 The higher value assumed for plants producing only electric-
ity reflects the larger fraction of the plant dedicated to the power
train, which is most susceptible to these efficiency losses.
773
least expensive power via IGCC+CCS, seen below to be
from plant EPQ, $6.23 /kWh.
3.2. Capital cost estimation
Capital cost estimates for each component of the system
are taken mainly from a variety of detailed studies in the
open literature relating to coal-fired IGCC systems. Since
most of the components in the H2 plants studied here are
also used in IGCCs, we are able to calibrate and benchmark
our system cost and performance models by modeling IGCC
power plants and comparing our results with published data.
The methodology employed for estimating component cap-
ital costs follows that used by Holt [5] in a study compar-
ing alternative IGCC systems based on a series of detailed
EPRI-sponsored studies. We adopt Holt’s cost estimates for
standard IGCC components within the gasification island
(GI) and use estimates from other sources for equipment
related to CO2 capture, H2 purification, and power produc-
tion. Following Holt, for components within the GI, our
balance of plant (BOP) costs are 23% of GI installed cap-
ital costs, engineering fees (EF) are 15% of GI+BOP, pro-
cess and project contingency are 15% of GI+BOP+EF. The
power block is divided into three sections: the gas turbine,
HRSG, and steam cycle (including condenser), whose share
of civil buildings and mechanical and electrical construc-
tion is 15%, 42.5%, and 42.5%, respectively; BOP costs
are calculated as described above for the GI. Cost estimates
for the ASU, and O2 and N2 compressors include BOP,
engineering and a 5% contingency. Our cost model (see
Table 4) is based on the capital investment costs, scale fac-
tors, and training information assumed for each compo-
nent (for each plant, cost scaling factors are found either in
Tables 2a and b, or in the tables of the appendix.) Note that
most of the H2 plants modeled employ two equally sized
trains for all equipment outside of the power block; in con-
trast, power plants use a single train for all components.
Capital costs in Table 4 include installation, apportioned
BOP and general facilities, engineering, and process/project
contingencies. Other costs such as owners fees, royalties,
start-up and pre-production costs, initial inventory, working
capital, spare parts, and land are not included in this anal-
ysis. All cost estimates are converted to a year 2002 ba-
sis using implicit price deflators for the US gross domestic
product [6].
Component capital cost estimates found in the literature
vary widely, even after adjusting for differences in equip-
ment size and estimate date. In addition, there are significant
differences in associated costs such as installation, balance
of plant, general facilities, engineering, home office over-
head, and process and project contingencies. These dispar-
ities result from diverse cost estimation methodologies and
databases, different methods and degrees of cost disaggrega-
tion and reporting, different design goals and levels of con-
servatism (e.g. sparing philosophy), etc. Our review of the
available data led us to adopt the cost estimates given by Holt
774 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784

Table 4
Parameters used for estimating overnight capital costs (including installation, BOP, general facilities, engineering, overhead and contingencies)
in year 2002 US dollars

Plant component Scaling parameter Co (M$) So Specific cost f nj Notes

Air separation unit (O2 at 1.05 bar) Pure O2 produced 40.4 1839 tonne/day 22 $/kg/day 0.5 2/1 a
O2 compression (from 1.05 bar) Compression power 6.3 10 MWe 628 $/kWe 0.67 2/1 b
N2 compressor (GT NOx control) Compression power 4.7 10 MWe 471 $/kWe 0.67 2/1 b
Coal storage, prep, handling Raw coal feed 29.1 2367 tonne/day 12 $/kg/day 0.67 2/1 a
Gasifier + quench cooling/scrub MAF coal input (LHV) 61.9 680 MWth 91 $/kWth 0.67 2/1 a
Gasifier + syngas cooler & scrub MAF coal input (LHV) 144.3 697 MWth 207 $/kWth 0.67 2/1 a,c
WGS reactors, heat exchangers MAF coal input (LHV) 39.8 1377 MWth 29 $/kWth 0.67 2/1 b
Selexol H2 S removal & stripping Sulfur input 33.6 81 tonne/day 417 $/kg/day 0.67 2/1 a,d
Sulfur recovery (Claus, SCOT) Sulfur input 22.9 81 tonne/day 283 $/kg/day 0.67 2/1 a
Selexol CO2 absorption, stripping Pure CO2 captured 32.8 327 tonne/hr 100 $/kg/hr 0.67 2/1 b
CO2 drying and compression Compression power 14.8 13 MWe 1121 $/kWe 0.67 2/1 e
Pressure swing adsorption Purge gas flow 7.1 0.294 kmole/s 24 M$/kmole/s 0.74 2/0 f
PSA purge gas compressor Compression power 6.28 10 MWe 628 $/kWe 0.67 2/0 b
Syngas expander Expander power 3.14 10 MWe 314 $/kWe 0.67 0/1 b
Siemens V64.3A gas turbine Gas turbine power 30.6 67 MWe 456 $/kWe — — g
Siemens V94.3A gas turbine Gas turbine power 72.8 266 MWe 274 $/kWe — — g
General Electric 107H gas turbine Gas turbine power 83.0 276 MWe 301 $/kWe — — h
Heat recovery steam generator HX surface area 68.5 225, 000 m2 304 $/m2 0.67 1 i
Steam cycle (ST+condenser) ST gross power 59.2 136 MWe 435 $/kWe 0.67 1 i

The overnight cost, C, of a component having size, S, is related to the cost, Co , of a single train of a reference component of size, So ,
by the relationship: C = nC o [S/(nS o )]f , where n is the number of equally sized trains operating at a capacity of 100%/n, and f is the
scale factor.
a—Costs from Holt [5], Illinois #6 coal case Texaco-Q, assuming 2 trains. Scaling exponent from Moore [18].
b—Costs taken from Agahi [19] and Lozza and Chiesa [20].
c—Comparison of costs for syngas cooling via quench vs. surface heat exchangers from Holt [5] and Shelton and Lyons [8].
d—H2 S removal in [5] is assumed to employ Selexol. While the size and cost of the absorption tower depends upon the volume flow
of syngas, the capital cost of the tower and packing is only ∼ 12% of the entire H2 S absorption system [21]; the size of the remaining
equipment scales with sulfur flow.
e—Costs from Middleton [22]; the cost of CO2 dehydration via TEG is assumed to be 36% of the total cost [23].
f—Costs from Middleton [11]; PSA bed size and cost are assumed to scale with purge gas flow rather than with H2 flow (e.g., as used
in Hallale and Liu [24]).
g—Bare gas turbine costs from [25]; installation costs are described in the text.
h—Installed gas turbine cost is an intermediate value between those reported in [25] and [26].
i—Reported by Macchi [27].
j The “M/N” notation refers to different values of n for H /power plants. For cases HPS and HPS , n = 1 for components in the gasifier
2 Y L
train.

for the major system components, which allows us to utilize
the knowledge and experience represented by years of EPRI-
sponsored analyses. This also provides a degree of consis-
tency to our cost estimates which would be absent in a more
a la carte approach. Given the generally incomplete compo-
nent specifications and boundaries in most capital cost esti-
mates, it seems prudent to use as few different sources for
cost data as possible; this philosophy is evident in Table 4.
Furthermore, because installation, engineering, and process
contingency vary widely among different components (as
well as among various estimates), we cast our cost model in
terms of the total overnight cost for each component—which
includes these costs—rather than disaggregating for each
the bare capital cost, installation, BOP, engineering, and
contingencies.
3.3. Costs for gasification and syngas cooling
In Table 4, the capital cost of a coal-fed Texaco gasifier
with radiant and convective heat exchangers is seen to be
2.3 times higher (after scaling costs to equal coal input) than
that of a gasifier with quench cooling. This cost ratio is quite
close to that estimated in a detailed 1984 analysis of Texaco
IGCC by Fluor [7], which compares the cost of coal gasi-
fication with syngas cooling via: (1) radiant and convective
heat exchangers [R + C], (2) radiant heat exchangers only
[R], and (3) total syngas quench [Q]. The capital cost ratios
in that work are [R + C]/[Q] = 2.21, and [R]/[Q] = 1.66.
These same costs are used in the US DOEs 2000 “Base
Case” coal IGCC analyses [8] and also appear to be con-
sistent with a 1999 study by Texaco, GE and Praxair [9] in
 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784 775

which [R]/[Q] = 1.63. Closer analysis of the Fluor study

Capture
yields specific costs for heat exchange of $515/kWth for

538
548
599

653
(2002 M$)a

—
—
—

—
—
—
Scaled OC
the radiant syngas cooler and $646/kWth for the convective
syngas cooler. The extent to which these very high costs5

Vent

480
484
553
704
497
461

607
862
641
547
can be attributed to the relative novelty of these heat ex-
changers and the paucity of vendors is not clear. As will be
seen below, the large cost difference between [R + C] and

Capture
[Q] strongly favors plants which employ quench cooling. It

1531
1496
1654

1749
(orig.$/kWe)
should be noted that our gasifier and syngas cooler capi-

—
—
—

—
—
—
Specific OC
tal cost model does not take into account variations in cost
with gasifier pressure. As the pressure rises, the higher costs

1149
1305
1127
1201
1105

1383
1272
1315
1221
1187
Vent
of thicker vessel walls and flanges will be offset somewhat
by higher throughput (smaller specific volumes); for sim-
plicity, we assume that the capital costs are independent of

Capture
pressure [10]; this is consistent with recent cost data from

36.8
38.5
37.2

39.1
—
—
—

—
—
—
Texaco given in [11].

Efficiency
(% LHV)

a Cost of all plants in 2002 US dollars, and scaled to input coal capacity of 950 MW , LHV using power law exponent f = 0.8.
36.25

39.89
Vent

43.0
44.9
44.3

37.4
41.2

46.6

43.8
45.1
4. Benchmarking the cost of power generation

V94.3A - 1350 C

V94.3A - 1350 C

V94.3A - 1350 C
W501G - 1417 C

W501G - 1417 C
Although the technology for making H2 from coal us-

107H - 1430 C
ing modern coal-gasification technology is well-established Performance and cost comparison of detailed studies of coal-fed Texaco-based IGCC, with and without CO2 capture

Turbine class/

GE - 1204 C

GE - 1204 C
commercially (e.g., used in the manufacture of ammonia in

GE 7FA

GE 7FA
China [12]), there are few published peer-reviewed studies TIT (C)
that have carried out detailed estimates of costs for making

The top section of the table refers to quench systems, the bottom to radiant+convective syngas cooling.
H2 from coal. Moreover, a comparison of the H2 produc-
tion cost estimates developed here with estimates in the few
Capture

other studies that have been carried out is complicated by

our emphasis on state-of-the-art performance [e.g., our as-
70
70
—
—
—

70
—
—
—
70

sumed 85% H2 recovery efficiency (an important determi-

Pressure

th
nant of overall costs) and steam-cycle performance param-
(bar)

Vent

42.3

41.7

42.3

32.8
70
70
70

55

70

55
eters for co-product power are higher than in other studies,
as noted in Part A]. Nevertheless, the cost and efficiency
Capture

estimates presented in this study can be “benchmarked” by

comparing our estimates of coal power costs with those of
362
371
374

382
—
—
—

—
—
—
Net power

other detailed studies of costs for coal IGCC plants (see

(MWe)

Table 5). This benchmarking is relevant to H2 because costs

Vent

403
409
571
508
383

423
589
611
383
390

for making both H2 and electricity from coal are dominated

by costs associated with the GI, the ASU unit, and power
island equipment (compare Tables 6 and 7).
Capture

The studies of cost (and performance) of IGCC plants

983
964
1005
—
—
—

977
—
—
—
(MWth LHV)

presented in Table 5 all consider Texaco gasification of Illi-

Coal input

nois #6 coal. The gasification pressure and gas turbine class

(and turbine inlet temperature, TIT) are included because
907
898
922
1575
1381
930

907
1477
1414
849
Vent

of their significant effect on the overall system efficiency.

Differences in performance and system size make the indi-
cated originally reported specific overnight costs difficult to
Dollar

2002
2001
1983
1997
1999

2002
1983
1997
1999
2002
year

compare. To facilitate a comparison of system capital costs

(which are dominated by that of the gasification island), we
include a column labeled “scaled OC.” This cost is calcu-
Lozza & Chiesa [19]

Shelton & Lyons [6]

Shelton & Lyons [6]

lated by scaling the overnight cost of each plant to the same

Matchak et al. [7]

Matchak et al. [7]

Research group

5 For comparison, Simbeck [13] reports an overnight capital

This work
This work

This work
Holt [5]

Holt [5]

cost of $ 432/kWth for the fire-tube heat exchangers for use with
Table 5

the lower temperature (∼ 1000 ◦ C) raw syngas from the E-Gas

coal gasifier and $130/kWth for HRSG boilers.
776 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784

Table 6
Costs for electricity production

Turbine technology Siemens 94.3A GE 107H

Configuration EVQ EPQ EVS EPS EVQ∗ EPQ∗

CO2 Venting vs. Capture V C V C V C

Syngas cooling Q Q R+C R+C Q Q

Cost of plant components (M$)

Coal storage, prep, handling 35.4 37.3 35.3 37.2 35.1 36.9
Air separation unit (O2 at 1.05 bar) 46.3 48.2 46.0 47.8 46.0 47.7
O2 compression (from 1.05 bar) 8.9 9.4 8.8 9.3 8.8 9.3
N2 compressor (GT NOx control) 10.5 9.5 10.0 9.3 12.8 11.7
Gasifier, syngas cooling, scrubbing 75.1 79.2 172.0 181.1 74.6 78.3
WGS reactors, heat exchangers 0 31.8 0 31.7 0 31.4
Selexol H2 S removal & stripping 40.8 43.1 40.8 42.9 40.5 42.5
Sulfur recovery (Claus, SCOT) 27.8 29.3 27.7 29.2 27.6 28.9
Selexol CO2 absorption, stripping 0 30.4 0 30.0 0 30.0
CO2 drying and compression 0 21.3 0 21.2 0 21.1
Syngas expander 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.3 2.3
Gas turbine 72.8 72.8 72.8 72.8 83.0 83.0
Heat recovery steam generator 71.3 67.4 88.4 77.0 62.9 63.6
Steam cycle (turbine + condenser) 71.1 71.2 78.9 76.4 69.5 69.0

Total overnight cost (M$) 463.0 554.0 583.8 669.1 463.0 555.5
Construction interest (12.3% of OC) 57.0 68.1 71.8 82.3 57.0 68.3
Total plant investment (M$) 520.0 622.1 655.6 751.4 520.0 623.9
Specific overnight cost ($/kWe) 1187 1531 1382 1749 1149 1496

Electricity cost components ( /kWh)

Capital (15% of TCR) 2.85 3.68 3.32 4.20 2.76 3.60
O&M (4% of OC per year) 0.68 0.87 0.79 1.00 0.66 0.85
Fuel (at 1.26 $/GJ, LHV)a 1.09 1.27 1.00 1.20 1.04 1.22
Total, capture only ( /kWh) 4.62 5.83 5.12 6.40 4.46 5.67
CO2 transport/storage ($5/mt CO2 ) — 0.40 — 0.38 — 0.39
Total ( /kWh) 4.62 6.23 5.12 6.77 4.46 6.05

Installed capital costs include apportioned BOP and general facilities, engineering, and process/project contingencies.
a Calculated using design point efficiencies in Table 2a, modified by the efficiency penalty in Table 3. For example, for EVQ,
=
E
44.87% ∗ (100 − 3%) = 43.53%.

coal input capacity (950 MWth, LHV) and using GDP de-
flators to bring the costs to 2002 US dollars [6]. With the ex-
ception of Matchak et al. [7], which is almost 20 years old,
these scaled plant costs are surprisingly consistent, varying
by less than ±10% about the mean value. Since our capital
cost estimates are derived from studies such as these, it is
not surprising that our plant costs lie roughly in the middle
of the costs given in Table 5.
5. Electricity generation costs
In Table 6 highly disaggregated estimates of capital costs
for coal IGCC power plants are presented, along with esti-
mates of the “basic” cost of electricity, calculated under the
assumptions listed in Table 4.
The efficiency gains offered by syngas cooling via radiant
+ convective heat exchangers (EVS, EPS) instead of a total
water quench (EVQ, EPQ) have to be weighed against the
cost of the heat exchangers needed to realize these gains.
Syngas cooling increases the LHV electrical efficiency of the
CO2 venting plant by 8.5% (6.3% with CO2 capture) but the
cost of the gasifier with syngas coolers is more than double
its cost with a quench, increasing the specific overnight con-
struction cost of the plant by ∼195–220 $/kWe (14–16%)
and raising the “basic” cost of electricity by ∼ 0.5 /kWh
(10%). The incremental capital cost per unit of incremental
output power due to changing from quench to syngas cool-
ers plant (4200–6300 $/kWe, 3.5–4 times the specific cost
of the analogous quench plant) would not lead to a lower
generation cost unless the cost of coal were to increase by
a factor of 8–10. Thus, syngas cooling via R + C heat ex-
changers appears to be unwarranted with Texaco gasifiers at
Table 7
Costs for H2 production
Configuration HVQ HPQ HVS HPS HPSY HPSL FPQ FPQx HPQ120 HPS120

Gasification pressure (bar) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 120 120

Hydrogen purity (%) 99.999 99.999 99.999 99.999 99.999 99.999 ∼ 93 ∼ 93 99.999 99.999
CO2 Venting vs. Capture Q Q R+C R+C R+C R+C Q Q Q R+C
Syngas cooling V C V C C C C C C C

Cost of plant components (M$)

T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784

Coal storage, prep, handling 72.0 72.0 70.2 70.2 39.5 37.0 72.0 72.0 71.3 69.3
Air separation unit (O2 at 1.05 bar) 93.8 93.8 91.7 91.7 50.0 47.7 93.8 93.8 93.1 90.7
O2 compression (from 1.05 bar) 18.1 18.1 17.5 17.5 9.9 9.2 18.1 18.1 19.1 18.5
N2 compressor (GT NOx control) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 0 0 0
Gasifier, syngas cooling, scrubbing 152.8 152.8 341.9 341.9 192.2 180.3 152.8 152.8 151.4 337.4
WGS reactors, heat exchangers 61.3 61.3 59.8 59.8 33.6 31.5 61.3 61.3 60.7 59.0
Selexol H2 S removal & stripping 83.0 83.0 81.0 81.0 45.5 42.7 83.0 83.0 82.3 79.9
Sulfur recovery (Claus, SCOT) 56.5 56.5 55.1 55.1 31.0 29.1 56.5 56.5 55.9 54.4
Selexol CO2 absorption, stripping 58.5 58.5 56.0 56.8 32.0 26.1 58.5 58.5 57.9 55.9
CO2 drying and compression 0.0 41.1 0.0 40.0 22.5 18.3 41.1 41.1 40.7 39.3
Pressure swing adsorption 22.3 22.3 22.1 22.1 11.3 15.7 0 0 22.1 21.9
PSA purge gas compressor 8.8 8.8 9.2 9.2 4.7 6.3 0 0 8.7 9.1
Syngas expander 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 2.4 8.5 7.1
Gas turbine 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 0 30.6 30.6
Heat recovery steam generator 45.3 45.3 29.5 29.5 42.8 37.0 33.6 11.0 23.0 40.2
Steam cycle (turbine + condenser) 60.2 60.2 68.3 68.3 53.0 54.7 58.9 67.0 54.9 59.3

Total overnight cost (M$) 763.2 804.3 932.9 973.7 598.9 566.4 765.5 717.4 780.3 972.5
Construction interest (12.3% of OC) 93.9 98.9 114.8 119.8 73.7 69.7 94.2 88.2 96.0 119.6
Total plant investment (M$) 857.0 903.2 1047.7 1093.4 672.5 636.0 859.7 805.6 876.2 1092.1
Overnight cost ($/kWth H2 , LHV) 713 751 904 944 1118 1163 707 635 741 966

H2 Cost components, capture-only ($/kg H2 )

Capital (15% of TCR) 0.571 0.602 0.724 0.756 0.895 0.932 0.567 0.509 0.594 0.773
O&M (4% of OC per year) 0.136 0.143 0.172 0.180 0.213 0.221 0.135 0.121 0.141 0.184
Fuel (at 1.26 $/GJ, LHV)a 0.269 0.269 0.269 0.269 0.308 0.308 0.266 0.255 0.270 0.270
Electricity sales −0.113 −0.071 −0.166 −0.139 −0.324 −0.400 −0.069 0.000 −0.095 −0.127
Capture Only Total ($/kg H2 ) 0.863 0.943 0.999 1.065 1.092 1.061 0.898 0.885 0.909 1.100

H2 Cost components, capture + storage ($/kg H2 )

Electricity sales −0.113 −0.075 −0.166 −0.148 −0.347 −0.427 −0.074 0.000 −0.101 −0.136
CO2 transport + storage ($5/mt CO2 ) — 0.086 — 0.085 0.098 0.080 0.085 0.082 0.086 0.085
Total ($/kg H2 ) 0.863 1.024 0.999 1.141 1.168 1.113 0.979 0.966 0.989 1.176
Total ($/GJ H2 LHV) 7.192 8.538 8.332 9.512 9.733 9.279 8.157 8.054 8.245 9.806

Installed capital costs include apportioned BOP and general facilities, engineering, and process/project contingencies. All plants have two gasification trains except for HPSY and HPSL ,

777
which have only one.
a Calculated using design point efficiencies in Table 2a, modified by the efficiency penalty defined in Table 3.
778 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784
Table 8
Basic electricity and H2 plant costs for H2 S+CO2 co-capture and co-storage (identified by the middle letter “C” in each plant label)a
Configuration ECQ ECS
CO2 drying and compression (M$) 22.6 22.4
Total capital requirement (M$) 590.6 720.0
Specific OC ($/kWe or $/kg H2 ) 1462 1685
Capture-only cost ( /kWh or $/kg H2 ) 5.63 6.21
CCS cost ( /kWh or $/kg H2 ) 6.05 6.61
a The majority of costs given in Tables 6 and 7 for pure CO capture plants apply also to the co-capture analogs discussed here. To save
2
space, Table 8 presents only those values which differ from the pure CO2 capture cases.
70 bar unless ways can be found to reduce substantially the
heat exchanger costs.6
Table 6 indicates that CO2 capture increases the specific
overnight construction cost by 30% or ∼ $350/kWe. The
percentage increase in generation cost is even higher (35% or
1.6 /kWh) because of the efficiency loss and CO2 disposal
cost charges. The generation cost penalty relative to the
same IGCC plant with CO2 vented (see section below and
Table 8) is equivalent to an avoided CO2 emissions cost of
87 $/tonne C (24 $/tonne CO2 ).
Substituting the General Electric 107H gas turbine for the
Siemens V94.3A yields a 4.5% efficiency gain and a drop
in the basic cost of electricity of ∼3%.7
6. Hydrogen production costs
Table 7 presents disaggregated estimates of capital costs
for the H2 plants. Also shown are estimates of the “basic”
cost of H2 , calculated assuming the economic parameters in
Table 3. Roughly speaking, it can be seen that the cost of
H2 with CO2 capture and storage is of the order of $1 per
kg H2 . (Note: since a kg of H2 has almost the same LHV as
a gallon of gasoline, $1/kg H2 is comparable to $1/gallon
of gasoline equivalent fuel).
With regard to cost of H2 , it appears that syngas cooling
via surface heat exchangers (cases HVS and HPS) makes
even less sense for H2 than for electricity. Including syn-
6 In systems operating at lower pressure, the efficiency penalty
exacted by the quench (relative to syngas cooling) increases, mak-
ing the economics of syngas cooling relatively more attractive.
According to Holt [5,10], the efficiency gain from using radiant
+ convective syngas cooling instead of quench at 55 bar is almost
twice as high as seen here at 70 bar. However, in both the studies
[7] at 42 bar, and [8] at 42/33 bar, the efficiency difference between
quench and syngas coolers is almost identical to our 70 bar results.
7 Comparing 50 Hz (Siemens V94.3a) to 60 Hz machines (gen-
eral electric 107H) is justified because they originate plants of very
similar size (908 vs. 898 MW LHV fuel input for EVQ configura-
tion). The resulting reduction in cost is therefore exclusively due
to technological differences. A comparison between the Siemens
V.94.3a and the 50 Hz GE 109H would be influenced by scale
effects.
ECQ∗ HCQ HCS FCQ FCQx
22.3 43.5 42.3 43.5 43.5
592.8 842.5 1034.2 799.0 744.9
1429 701 893 657 588
5.47 0.902 1.026 0.858 0.844
5.88 0.987 1.105 0.942 0.929
gas coolers makes the plant almost 30% more capital inten-
sive (specific overnight cost increment of ∼190 $/kWth H2 ,
LHV), and the product H2 is costlier by ∼0.12 $/kg.
Focusing on the most economical (i.e. quench) H2
plants, the incremental cost for CO2 capture is seen to be
much less for H2 than for electricity generation: the spe-
cific overnight construction cost increases only about 5.4%
(38 $/kWth H2 , LHV) and the “basic” cost of H2 increases
19% (by 0.16 $/kg). The corresponding cost of CO2 emis-
sions avoided relative to the case with CO2 vented (see
section below) is also much less: 41 $/tonne C avoided
(11 $/tonne CO2 avoided)—reflecting the fact that water
gas shift reactors and CO2 removal equipment are charged
to CO2 capture in the power generation case but not in the
H2 case, where these operations are integral parts of the
production process even when CO2 is vented.
7. H2 Plant variations
7.1. Electricity and H2 co-production
Table 7 shows costs for plants HPSY and HPSL , whose
H2 -to-electricity ratios (6.0 and 4.9 MWth/MWe, LHV, re-
spectively) are less than half the values for the reference
plant HPS (14.0 MWth/MWe, LHV). Perhaps not surpris-
ingly, the PSA bypass method (HPSY ), which shows (see
Part A) a “neutral” thermodynamic performance (i.e. is es-
sentially a linear combination of the limiting plants, EPS
and HPS), also appears to exhibits “neutral” economic per-
formance. In other words, just as there is no apparent ther-
modynamic advantage to co-producing significant amounts
of electricity (i.e. more than the natural minimum set by the
PSA) along with H2 , neither does increased PSA bypass
have much effect on the cost of H2 ; note in Table 7 the sim-
ilarity of H2 costs for HPS and HPSY . [It is worth pointing
out that this result is predicated on two conditions: (1) the
gasifier trains must have similar scales, and (2) the price for
co-product electricity must be close to the cost of electricity
in the limiting case, EPS.] This result facilitates our under-
standing of how a “decarbonized H2 /electricity economy”
might develop over time; as the demand for H2 grows,
each new H2 plant can be designed with the H2 /electricity
 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784
ratio tailored to the local demand, and yet exhibit roughly
the same thermodynamic and economic performance as the
plants studied here.
The second method of increasing the electricity-to-H2 ra-
tio (used in HPSL ), lowering the steam-to-carbon ratio in the
WGS reactors, was seen above to yield non-negligible ther-
modynamic gains. The economic gains are small however;
the basic cost of H2 drops by only 2.8 /kg (3.6%) compared
to plant HPS. Three caveats are associated with this design,
however: (1) the steam-to-carbon ratio at the WGS reactor
inlet is 0.7, an unusually low value whose practicality must
be verified, (2) the specific CO2 emission increases, and (3)
this technique can be used only with (relatively expensive)
syngas cooling via surface heat exchangers, not total syngas
quench. So, although H2 from HPSL is slightly less expen-
sive than from HPS, it is still more costly than from HPQ.
7.2. Fuel grade H2
Table 7 also presents costs for producing low-carbon “fuel
grade” H2 (∼93% H2 , containing ∼1% CO)—suitable for
combustion in boilers and H2 -fueled internal combustion en-
gines but not pure enough for use in present-day proton ex-
change membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). The first case (FPQ)
is equivalent to the pure H2 case (HPQ) except that the PSA
unit and the purge gas compressor are absent. In the second
case (FPQx ), the PSA unit, purge gas compressor, and gas
turbine are removed, and the size of the power cycle is re-
duced; enough H2 is burned in the steam cycle to generate
all auxiliary power needs by the plant (so the net power is
essentially zero). These modifications lead to 6% and 15%
reductions in the specific capital cost (by 44 and 116 $/kWth
H2 LHV, respectively), and to 4.5–5.7% reductions in the
“basic” cost of H2 . These savings, while non-negligible, are
probably not large enough to warrant widespread adoption
of a system that precludes or significantly complicates the
widespread use of PEMFCs.
One additional fuel grade H2 plant design (not shown)
minimizes the plant cost and maximizes H2 output (i.e. uses
none for power production), but at the cost of purchasing
a significant amount (∼60 MWe) of electric power. Such a
plant is slightly less attractive economically at the “basic”
(decarbonized) electric power price of 6.2 /kWh. How-
ever, one might envision a future scenario in which decar-
bonized H2 plants co-exist with and import electricity from
traditional (i.e. CO2 venting, nuclear or future low-cost re-
newables) power plants that provide relatively cheap, e.g.
3–4 /kWh, electric power. In such a case, significant eco-
nomic gains are possible from this plant design.
7.3. High pressure gasification
The final two columns in Table 7 show our estimates
for the cost of H2 produced in gasifiers operating at ele-
779
vated pressure.8 Consistent with the findings in Part A for
the thermodynamic implications of increasing the pressure
from 70 to 120 bar,9 the basic cost of H2 falls by 3.3%
in the quench case and rises by 3.2% in the syngas cooler
plant. As expected, the discrepancy between the cost of H2
via quench versus syngas cooling grows with increasing
pressure.
8. H2 S–CO2 co-capture and co-storage
A promising alternative to traditional capture and storage
of (relatively) pure CO2 is the co-capture and co-storage of
both H2 S and CO2 . As described in Paper A, “co-capture”
plants differs from “pure CO2 capture” plants in only one
significant respect: the gases from the (flash drums and H2 S
stripper in the) H2 S absorption system that are normally
sent to the sulfur recovery system (i.e. Claus and SCOT
units) are instead dried, compressed and combined with the
supercritical CO2 stream from the CO2 removal system.
From the standpoint of plant economics, some additional
capital is needed for new dehydration units and compres-
sors, but much more is saved by removing the Claus and
SCOT plants. All other costs, e.g. transport and storage,
are assumed to be the same as in the pure CO2 storage
cases.
Plant capital cost, as well as the “basic” cost of electricity
and H2 , are given in Table 8 for selected co-capture plant
configurations. Co-capture is seen to reduce the specific cost
of the electricity and H2 plants by 4–5% and 5–8%, respec-
tively, lowering the basic cost of electricity by ∼ 0.2 /kWh
(3%)10 and the cost of H2 by ∼ 4 /kg (4%). As will be
seen below in Tables 9 and 10, the cost of avoided CO2
emissions falls from 23.6 to 20.0 $/tonne CO2 in shifting
from EPQ to ECQ, and from 11.2 to 8.3 $/tonne CO2 in
shifting from HPQ to HCQ. Further study, especially of the
8 Recall that our model assumes as a rough approximation that
gasifier cost is independent of pressure, consistent with cost data
in IEA 2003.
9 When the pressure is increased from 70 to 120 bar,
and
H

E change by −0.18 and +0.71 percentage points, respectively,
with the quench; but with syngas cooling,
H and
E change by
−0.24 and −0.36 percentage points, respectively (see Table 2b).
10 An analysis carried out by Foster Wheeler for the IEA Green-
house Gas R&D program [11] found [for a coal price of $1.5/GJ,
an 81% average capacity factor, and 1.1% S coal (MAF basis)] that
specific capital and generation costs would be reduced by 5.4%
and 3.2%, respectively, in shifting for IGCC from CO2 capture to
CO2 + H2 S co-capture. If the coal price is $1.5/GJ and the ca-
pacity factor is 81%, the present analysis estimates greater specific
capital cost ($/kW) and generation cost ( /kWh) reductions of
8.6% and 6.5%, respectively, in shifting for IGCC from CO2 cap-
ture to CO2 + H2 S co-capture, but that is probably due mainly to
the much higher coal sulfur content in the present analysis (4.3%,
MAF basis). The Foster Wheeler analysis also estimated a modest
efficiency gain (0.5 percentage points) in shifting to co-capture.
780 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784

Table 9 9. Cost of avoided CO2 emissions

Cost of CO2 captured and CO2 avoided for quench plants produc-
ing only electricity (referenced to plant EVQ) For electricity-only plants, the cost of avoided CO2
EVQ EPQ ECQ emissions (in $/tonne CO2 ) is simply the ratio of the extra
cost of electricity (in $/kWh) for CO2 capture (or CCS) to
CO2 emissions (g/kWh) 751.8 70.09 38.0 the reduction of specific CO2 emissions (in kg CO2 /kWh).
CO2 captured (g/kWh) — 807.7 844.7 Because capturing CO2 in a plant reduces its efficiency, the
CO2 avoided (g/kWh) — 681.7 713.8 amount of CO2 captured always exceeds the amount of CO2
avoided. For example, comparing EVQ to EPQ, the effi-
CO2 capture only (no disposal): ciency drops from 42.95% to 36.79%. As a result, EPQ cap-
Cost of electricity ( /kWh) 4.62 5.83 5.63 tures 807.7 g/kWh but only 681.7 g/kWh of CO2 emissions
Cost of CO2 captured ($/mt CO2 ) — 14.9 11.9 are avoided, and the cost of CO2 captured is less than the cost
Cost of avoided CO2 ($/mt CO2 ) — 17.7 14.1 of CO2 emissions avoided (see Table 9). The cost of CO2
transport and storage, assumed here to be $5/tonne, simply
CO2 capture + disposal (at $5/tonne CO2 ): adds to the cost of capture (14.9 $/tonne for EPQ), giving a
Cost of electricity ( /kWh) 4.62 6.23 6.05 total CCS cost of 20 $/tonne; however, the same 5 $/tonne
Cost of CO2 ($/mt CO2 ) — 19.9 16.9 storage cost translates into an increase in the avoided cost
Cost of avoided CO2 ($/mt CO2 ) — 23.6 20.0 from 17.7 to 23.6 $/tonne CO2 . [Table 9 presents the cost
of avoided CO2 emissions only for quench plants, refer-
enced to venting quench plant EVQ. The reader can readily
use the same methodology to compute the cost of avoided
CO2 emissions for plant EPS, for example. Using EVS as
chemical effects of H2 S and CO2 on the mineralogy of deep a reference yields the cost of CCS in a coal IGCC with
underground aquifers, is needed to see if these potential eco- syngas coolers, $26.8/tonne CO2 . On the other hand, using
nomic gains can be realized. EVQ as a reference yields the cost of CCS via plant EPS

Table 10
Cost of avoided CO2 emissions for quench plants co-producing H2 and electricity (referenced to plant HVQ)

HVQ HPQ HCQ FCQx

Hydrogen product (MWth, LHV) 1070 1070 1070 1130

Net electric power (MWe) 78.3 38.9 35.0 −3.9
CO2 emissions—electricity (g/kWh) 751.8 70.1 38.0 38.0
CO2 emissions—H2 (kg/GJ LHV) 140.8 11.7 6.4 6.5
CO2 emissions—H2 (% of total) l90.2% l94.3% l94.9% l100.6%
CO2 avoided—electricity (g/kWh) — 681.7 713.8 713.8
CO2 avoided - H2 (kg/GJ H2 LHV) — 129.1 134.4 134.3

CO2 capture only (no disposal):

Cost of electricity ( /kWh) 4.62 5.83 l5.63a l5.63a
Cost of H2 ($/kg) 0.863 0.943 0.902 0.844
Cost of avoided CO2 ($/mt CO2 ):
Electricity: — 17.7 14.1 14.1
Hydrogen: — 5.2 2.4 −1.2
Plant average (weighted): — 5.9 3.0 −1.3

CO2 capture + disposal (at $5/tonne CO2 ):

Cost of electricity ( /kWh) 4.62 6.23 l6.05a l6.05a
Cost of H2 ($/GJ, LHV) 0.863 1.024 0.987 0.929
Cost of avoided CO2 ($/mt CO2 ):
Electricity: — 23.6 20.0 20.0
Hydrogen: — 10.4 7.7 4.1
Plant average (weighted): — 11.2 8.3 4.0
a Electricity costs from plant ECQ (instead of EPQ).
 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784
compared to the coal IGCC with the lowest cost of elec-
tricity, $31.7/tonne CO2 ; the latter cost exceeds the former
because it takes into account the higher cost of electricity
from plants with syngas coolers relative to quench plants.]
In plants producing both electricity and H2 , we first com-
pute two separate costs of avoided CO2 emissions, one as-
sociated with H2 production and one for electricity. First,
the total plant CO2 emissions are divided between H2 and
electricity as described in Paper A. [Briefly, the electricity
co-product is assumed to be generated with the same specific
CO2 emissions (g/kWh) as that of the most closely-related
electricity-only plant, and the remaining CO2 emissions are
assigned to H2 production.] Separate costs of avoided CO2
emissions for H2 and electricity production are calculated
as described above for electricity-only plants (Table 10). Fi-
nally, we compute the average of these costs—weighted by
the relative fraction of CO2 emissions for each of the two
co-products—to arrive at a final cost of avoided CO2 emis-
sions for each H2 plant. [As in Table 9, we focus on the
more economical quench plants; avoided costs for the syn-
gas cooler plants can be readily calculated, referenced either
to HVS or HVQ.]
For plant EPQ, the avoided cost of CO2 emissions is
23.6 $/tonne CO2 ; for plant HPQ, it is 11.2 $/tonne CO2 .
As mentioned above, avoided costs for H2 are much less
than for electricity because much of the equipment needed
for CO2 capture (e.g., WGS reactors and CO2 separation
technology) are needed even for the H2 with venting plants
but must be added specifically to enable CO2 capture for
the electricity plants. Co-capture of H2 S with CO2 lowers
the cost of avoided CO2 emissions further (e.g. HCQ vs.
HPQ); in plant FPQx , the savings in capital costs actually
yields a negative cost for CO2 capture.
10. Sensitivity analysis
The “basic” economic parameters given in Table 3 rep-
resent only a single point in a large parameter space. It is
instructive to vary the values of these parameters over rea-
sonable ranges in order to understand how robust are our
economic observations above. In Table 11, we vary:
• The price of coal: from 0.9 to 1.5 $/GJ LHV.
• The capacity factor: from 65%—a common value for
coal steam electric plants in the US, to 95%—a level ex-
ceeded by the Eastman Chemicals facility in Kingsport,
TN (using a spare gasifier, which is not included in the
plants considered here, except below in Table 11) that
might be relevant for some refinery H2 or baseload elec-
tricity applications [24].
• The capital charge rate: from 10% to 20%.
• The cost of CO2 transportation and storage (or
“disposal”): 10 $/tonne CO2 —a value often assumed for
carbon capture analyses in the literature (e.g. David and
Herzog [14]).
781
• The value of byproduct electricity: 4 /kWh—a value
shown to be likely when H2 from coal with CO2 capture
becomes competitive with H2 from natural gas with CO2
venting [15].
In addition, at the bottom of Table 11, we investigate
the cost ramifications of including a spare gasifier (with
quench or syngas cooler, and syngas scrubber), which may
be necessary to reach the 80% capacity factor assumed in
our “basic” economic analysis.
In light of the high capital costs and low fuel costs for
coal gasification-based energy systems, it is not surprising
to see in Table 11 that variations in fuel cost have only a
moderate (−9 to +6%) effect on product cost, while varia-
tions in capacity factor and capital charge rate have a much
larger effect (−15 to +24%, and ±28%, respectively). Dou-
bling the cost of CO2 disposal is seen to increase the cost
of decarbonized H2 and electricity by ∼6–9%. For those
plants that co-produce a substantial amount of electric power
(e.g. HPSY and HPSL ), reducing the price of electricity to
4 /kWh significantly raises the cost of H2 (11–14%); for
other cases, the increase is much smaller (2–5%). Finally,
for plants with quench cooling, the inclusion of a spare gasi-
fier is seen to increase the cost of electricity by 10–12%, and
H2 by 7–8%; for plants with syngas coolers, these cost in-
creases are almost doubled. The success (an on-stream fac-
tor exceeding 98%) of the Texaco coal gasifier at Eastman
Chemical’s facility in Kingsport, TN, demonstrates that the
presence of pre-heated spare gasifier (and the adverse eco-
nomics of unforced outages!) can lead to extremely high ca-
pacity factors [16]. The third line of Table 11 indicates that
the economic benefit of such an increase in capacity factor
generally outweighs the increased costs associated with the
added capital.
11. Conclusions
Although decarbonized coal electricity based on gasifi-
cation is well studied, there are few detailed studies in the
public domain of the costs of making H2 from coal. We
have conducted a detailed but transparent analysis of the
cost of producing from coal via commercially ready tech-
nology (Texaco gasification, Selexol gas separation, PSA
H2 purification, and Siemens 94.3A and 64.3a gas turbines)
electricity only and H2 plus an electricity co-product, with
and without CO2 capture and storage. The analysis has high-
lighted similarities and differences for these decarbonized
energy technologies that share many common features.
We estimate that the “basic” costs for ∼ 91% decar-
bonized energy (via quench gasification at 70 bar) are
∼ 6.2 /kWh for electricity and ∼ $1.0/kg (8.5 $/GJ, LHV)
for H2 ; these are, respectively, 35% and 19% higher than
the corresponding energy costs with CO2 venting. Refer-
enced to these analogous CO2 venting plants, the costs of
CO2 emissions avoided are ∼24 $/tonne for electricity and
∼11 $/tonne for H2 . The energy cost penalties and avoided
 782
T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784
Table 11
Sensitivity of electricity and H2 costs to changes in economic parameters (% change from basic cost)
Turbine technology Siemens 94.3A GE 107H Siemens 64.3A

Configuration EVQ EPQ EVS EPS EVQ∗ EPQ∗ HVQ HPQ HVS HPS HPSY HPSL FPQ FPQx HPQ120 HPS120

Gasification pressure, bar 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 120 120

Hydrogen purity, % — — — — — — 99.999 99.999 99.999 99.999 99.999 99.999 ∼ 93 ∼ 93 99.999 99.999
CO2 Vent vs. Capture V C V C V C V C V C C C C C C C
Syngas cooling Q Q R+C R+C Q Q Q Q R+C R+C R+C R+C Q Q Q R+C

Basic product cost

(including CO2 T+S): Electric Power ( /kWh) Hydrogen ($/kg H2 )

Base case 4.62 6.23 5.12 6.77 4.46 6.05 0.86 1.02 1.00 1.14 1.17 1.11 0.98 0.97 0.99 1.18
Coal: 0.9 $/GJ, HHV −6.8 −5.9 −5.6 −5.1 −6.7 −5.8 −8.9 −7.5 −7.7 −6.8 −7.6 −8.0 −7.8 −7.6 −7.8 −6.6
Coal: 1.5 $/GJ, HHV 4.4 3.8 3.7 3.3 4.4 3.8 5.9 4.9 5.1 4.4 5.0 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.1 4.3
Capacity factor: 65% 17.6 16.9 18.5 17.7 17.7 17.0 18.9 16.8 20.7 18.9 21.9 23.9 16.5 15.0 17.1 18.8
Capacity factor: 95% −12.1 −11.5 −12.7 −12.1 −12.1 −11.6 −12.9 −11.5 −14.2 −12.9 −15.0 −16.4 −11.3 −10.3 −11.7 −12.8
Capital charge: 10% −20.6 −19.7 −21.7 −20.7 −20.6 −19.8 −22.1 −19.6 −24.2 −22.1 −25.6 −27.9 −19.3 −17.6 −20.0 −21.9
Capital charge: 20% 20.6 19.7 21.7 20.7 20.6 19.8 22.1 19.6 24.2 22.1 25.6 27.9 19.3 17.6 20.0 21.9
Disposal: 10 $/mt CO2 — 6.5 — 5.6 — 6.4 — 8.4 — 7.5 8.4 7.2 8.7 8.4 8.7 7.3
Electricity: 4 /kWh — — — — — — 1.8 2.6 2.3 4.7 10.7 13.8 2.7 0 3.7 4.2
Spare gasifier 12.4 10.5 23.7 20.8 12.3 10.4 8.2 6.9 16.4 14.4 30.5 33.0 7.2 6.9 7.2 14.1
 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784 783

costs are much smaller for H2 than for electricity because
much of the equipment needed for CO2 capture is already
required for H2 production with CO2 venting.
The cost implications of many plant design variations
were explored. Increasing system efficiency ∼2–4% points
by replacing the quench with radiant and convective syn-
gas coolers does not appear to be cost effective; the costs
of electricity and H2 rise by 9–11% and 11–16%, respec-
tively. Increasing gasifier pressure to 120 bar would give
rise to perhaps a modest H2 cost reduction with quench and
a cost increase with syngas cooling. Lowering the purity
of H2 from 99.999% to “fuel grade” H2 (∼93% H2 , with
∼1% CO) suitable for many combustion applications can
lead to H2 cost reductions of 5–7%. Another potential op-
portunity identified for cost reduction involves co-capture
and co-storage of H2 S with CO2 , which might lead to a
3–4% reduction in costs for both electricity and H2 , and
reduce the cost of avoided CO2 emissions to ∼20 $/tonne
CO2 for electricity and ∼8 $/tonne CO2 for H2 . With more
than a decade of experience with acid gas co-storage asso-
ciated with sour natural gas recovery operations [17], these
attractive costs alone suggest the importance of exploring
this option in depth to ascertain whether co-storage can be
a viable option for widespread applications. An analysis of
the sensitivity of electricity and H2 costs to variations in nu-
merous economic parameters suggests that the findings are
generally robust. The sensitivity of costs to plant capacity
factor (80% in this study) indicates the importance of
striving to increase reliability so as to be able to realize
higher (85–90%) capacity factors, in light of the fact that
low operating costs for these systems implies that under
competitive market conditions these plants would tend to be
dispatched first, if available.
The barriers to a widespread H2 economy are primarily
lack of cost-effective technologies for H2 storage and uti-
lization (e.g. fuel cells), and a H2 distribution infrastruc-
ture; by contrast, H2 production technologies appear eco-
nomically attractive. The major uncertainty in the viability
of producing H2 (and electricity) from coal in a world with
tight constraints on greenhouse gas emissions lies in the vi-
ability of widespread CO2 storage. The relatively low CO2
capture and storage cost penalty for H2 from coal and the
prospect that, with current technology, H2 from coal with
CCS might soon be competitive with H2 from natural gas
with CO2 venting, suggest that even with current technol-
ogy coal H2 has a promising future in a climate-constrained
world if H2 becomes a major energy carrier and if the CO2
storage challenge can be addressed effectively.
Appendix A
In order to enable the reader to reproduce all the plant
component costs given in Tables 7 and 8, Tables 12 and 13
provide the values for all cost scaling parameters (that are
not already given in Tables 2a and b) referred to in Table 4.

Table 12
Cost scaling parameters for electricity-only plants (in addition to those given in Table 2a).

Electricity plant EVQ EPQ EVS EPS EVQ∗ EPQ∗

Raw coal feed (mt/day) 3160 3423 3152 3404 3126 3360
Pure O2 input (tonne/day) 2419 2620 2392 2583 2393 2571
Sulfur flow (tonne/day) 107.8 116.7 107.5 116.1 106.6 114.6
Pure CO2 from CO2 absorber (tonne/h) — 292.3 — 287.8 — 286.8
Pure H2 S from H2 S absorber (kmole/h) 140.1 151.7 139.7 150.9 138.5 148.9
HRSG surface area (103 m2 ) 239.0 219.5 329.2 268.2 198.0 201.2
CO2 captured in H2 S absorber (tonne/h)a — 11.68 — 11.62 — 11.47

a For H S+CO co-capture plants only.

2 2

Table 13
Cost scaling parameters for H2 plants (in addition to those given in Table 2b)

Hydrogen plant HVQ HPQ HVS HPS HPSY H P SL FPQ FPQx HPQ120 HPS120

Raw coal feed 6483 6483 6249 6249 3721 3383 6483 6483 6394 6125
(mt/day)
Pure O2 input 4963 4963 4742 4742 2823 2566 4963 4962 4887 4638
(tonne/day)
Sulfur flow 221.1 221.1 213.1 213.1 126.9 115.3 221.1 221.1 218.0 208.9
(tonne/day)
Pure CO2 from 553.5 553.5 517.8 528.6 315.5 232.7 553.5 553.2 544.9 516.3
CO2 absorber (tonne/h)
Pure H2 S from 287.3 287.3 276.9 276.9 164.9 149.9 287.3 287.3 283.4 271.5
784 T. Kreutz et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 769 – 784
Table 13 (Continued)
Hydrogen plant HVQ HPQ HVS HPS
H2 S absorber (kmole/h)
PSA purge gas flow 1.076 1.076 1.068 1.068
(kmole/s)
HRSG surface area 121.6 121.6 63.91 63.91
(103 m2 )
CO2 captured in — 22.13 — 21.33
H2 S absorber (tonne/h)a
a For H S+CO co-capture plants only.
2 2
References
[1] EPRI. TAG—Technical Assessment Guide (electric supply),
EPRI Report TR-102275, vol. 1 Rev. 7, Electric Power
Research Institute, Paolo Alto, CA: June, 1993.
[2] EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2001. Energy Information
Administration (EIA), DOE/EIA0383(2001), January, 2003.
[3] Holt N, Booras G, Todd D. Summary of Recent IGCC
Studies of CO2 Capture for Sequestration, Proceedings of
the Gasification Technologies Conference, San Francisco, CA,
Oct. 14, 2003.
[4] Ogden J. “Modeling Infrastructure for a Fossil Hydrogen
Energy System with CO2 Sequestration”, Proceedings of the
6th International Meeting on Greenhouse Gas Control (GHGT-
6), Oct. 1-4, 2002, Kyoto, Japan.
[5] Holt N. IGCC Power Plants—EPRI Design and Cost
Studies. Proceedings of EPRI/GTC Gasification Technologies
Conference, San Francisco, CA: October 6, 1998.
[6] CEA. Economic indicators, February 2003. Prepared for the
Joint Economic Committee by the Council of Economics
Advisors to the 108th US Congress, US Government Printing
Office.
[7] Matchak TA, Rao AD, Ramanathan V, Sander MT. Cost
and performance for commercial application of gasification-
combined-cycle plants. EPRI Report AP-3486, April 1984.
[8] Shelton WW, Lyons JL. Texaco Gasifier IGCC Base Cases.
DOE/NETL Process Engineering Division, PED-IGCC-98-
001, June 2000 revision, http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/
gasification/system/texac3y.pdf (accessed 6/8/04).
[9] De Puy AR, Gulko GM, Brdar D, Anand A, Paolino J.
Lower cost of electricity using IGCC with GEs 9H gas
turbine. Proceedings of 1999 Gas Technologies Conference,
San Francisco, California: October 1999.
[10] Holt N. EPRI, April 22, 2003, personal communication.
[11] IEA. Potential for improvement in gasification combined cycle
power generation with CO2 capture. International Energy
Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Report PH4/19,
May 2003.
[12] SFA Pacific. Gasification—Worldwide Use and Acceptance.
Prepared for the US DOE, January, 2000.
[13] Simbeck DR. SFA Pacific Inc., Mountain View, CA, April 28,
2003, personal communication.
[14] David J, Herzog H. The cost of carbon capture. In: Williams
DJ, Durie RA, McMullan P, Paulson CAJ, Smith AY,
editors. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Collingwood, Victoria,
Australia: CSIRO Publishing; p. 985–90.
HPSY H P SL FPQ FPQx HPQ120 HPS120
0.551 0.861 — — 1.064 1.054
111.7 89.68 77.63 14.64 44.11 101.5
12.70 11.55 22.13 22.13 21.82 20.91
[15] Williams RH. Decarbonized fossil energy carriers and
their energy technological competitors. In: Proceedings
of the Workshop on Carbon Capture and Storage of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Regina,
Saskatchewan, Canada, 18–21 November, ECN, The
Netherlands: 2003. p. 119–36.
[16] Moock N. Reliability modeling. In: Proceedings of the
Gasification Technologies Conference. San Francisco, CA;
October 14, 2003.
[17] Bachu S, Gunter WD. Acid Gas Injection in the Alberta
Basin, Canada: a CO2 storage experience, to be published in
a Geological Society Special Publication. In: Baines SJ, Gale
J, Worden RH, editors. Geological storage of carbon dioxide
for emissions reduction: technology. 2003.
[18] Moore R. Air Products and Chemicals (retired). 2003, personal
communication.
[19] Agahi R. GE Power Systems, Rotoflow, Inc., December 2002
personal communication.
[20] Lozza G, Chiesa P. CO2 sequestration techniques for IGCC
and natural gas power plants: a comparative estimation of their
thermodynamic and economic performance. In: Proceedings
of International Conference on Clean Coal Technologies for
our Future. Chia Laguna (CA), Italy. October 2002.
[21] Doctor RD, Molburg JC, Chess KL, Brockmeier NF,
Thimmapuram PR. Hydrogen production and CO2 recovery,
trans-port and use from a KRW oxygen-blown gasification
combined-cycle system. Argonne National Laboratory draft
report, May 1999.
[22] Middleton P. BP, May 2002, personal communication.
[23] Lynch EP. Compression and Dehydration of Carbon Dioxide
for Oil Field Injection. Argonne National Laboratory,
ANL/CNSV-TM-158, April 1985.
[24] Hallale N, Liu F. Refinery Hydrogen management for Clean
Fuels Production. Adv. Environ. Res. 2002;6:81–98.
[25] GTW. Gas Turbine World 2002 Handbook. Fairfield CT:
Pequot Publishing; 2002.
[26] Buchanan T, DeLallo M, Schoff R, White J. Evaluation
of innovative fossil fuel power plants with CO2 removal.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, US DOE—Office of Fossil Energy,
Germantown, MD and US DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh, PA:
Interim report 2000.1000316, December 2000.
[27] Macchi E. Politecnico di Milano, Italy: November 2003,
personal communication.