This project examines the feasibility of natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants equipped with post-combustion carbon capture and storage (CCS) <\/strong>as a source of firm low-carbon electricity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Representative NGCC plant scales are evaluated, and an MEA-based capture system with geological storage is integrated into the analysis. Mass and energy balances quantify efficiency impacts, fuel requirements, and parasitic energy use. A discounted-cash-flow model estimates electricity costs and the cost of CO\u2082 avoided, with sensitivity to carbon pricing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Results show that CCS significantly lowers emissions but reduces net efficiency. Under supportive carbon price trajectories and with suitable storage resources, NGCC with CCS can act as a credible option for reliable low-carbon power in a decarbonizing grid.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n BC electricity demand is projected to grow significantly due to electrification of transport, buildings, and industry, plus new industrial loads (e.g., LNG). Large new hydro is limited, and variable renewables alone cannot fully provide firm capacity. Unabated gas generation conflicts with BC\u2019s climate targets and rising carbon price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Question: <\/strong>Can NGCC with post-combustion CCS offer reliable, low-carbon power that fits BC\u2019s policy and resource constraints?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Evaluate the technical performance and economic feasibility <\/strong>of integrating MEA-based post-combustion CCS on NGCC plants (100 MW and 1 GW) intended to operate at baseload in British Columbia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Specific aims: <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Quantify efficiency penalty, parasitic load, and CO\u2082 reduction from 90% capture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Estimate CAPEX, OPEX, LCOE, and cost of CO\u2082 avoided for both plant sizes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Assess how BC\u2019s carbon price path affects the competitiveness of NGCC+CCS vs. unabated NGCC.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n We model two natural-gas combined-cycle plants (100 MW and 1,000 MW, 58% net HHV efficiency) and integrate a 30 wt% MEA post-combustion capture system designed for 90% CO\u2082 removal with compression to pipeline pressure. Steady-state mass and energy balances quantify flue-gas flow, a reboiler duty of 3.5 GJ\/tCO\u2082, steam extraction impacts, and electrical loads for compression and auxiliaries, yielding net power and efficiency with CCS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A discounted cash-flow model with a 20-year life, 8% discount rate, 2.5 CAD\/GJ fuel price, and representative CAPEX\/OPEX converts these technical results into levelized cost of electricity and cost of CO\u2082 avoided, which are then evaluated across a range of carbon prices up to 170 CAD\/tCO\u2082.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Integrating post-combustion CCS into NGCC plants lowers net efficiency but delivers deep emissions cuts. In both 100 MW and 1,000 MW cases, adding Carbon Capture reduces output due to steam extraction and extra electrical loads (Table 1<\/strong>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Capital cost results show CCS is strongly CAPEX-intensive, especially at small scale. For a 1,000 MW unit, total overnight cost rises into the multi-billion-dollar range, with the capture island and compression accounting for more than half of total CAPEX. The 100 MW plant looks even less favourable per kilowatt, highlighting that CCS is best suited to large units or shared hub developments rather than small stand-alone projects (Chart 1<\/strong>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Chart 1.<\/strong> Capital cost breakdown for a standalone 1,000\u202fMW NGCC and Carbon Capture System addition (90% capture).<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n In LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy) terms, CCS clearly raises generation costs when there is no carbon price. As carbon prices increase, however, unabated NGCC becomes progressively more expensive as its full emissions are taxed, while CCS plants pay only on residual CO\u2082 (Chart 2<\/strong>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Chart 2. <\/strong>LCOE vs. Carbon Price for a 1,000\u202fMW class NGCC with and without CCS (90% capture).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In BC, NGCC with post-combustion CCS can provide firm low-carbon generation to help meet growing electricity demand from electrification and LNG development. CCS reduces efficiency and requires substantially higher capital investment, but under BC\u2019s legislated carbon price trajectory, large NGCC+CCS units become cost-competitive with unabated gas on an LCOE basis. With suitable Montney storage and strong policy support, NGCC with CCS emerges as a credible option for delivering reliable, low-carbon power within BC\u2019s decarbonizing grid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Olzhas Assanbayev<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Email: o.assanbayev@gmail.com <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Olzhas Assanbayev | MEL Candidate, UBC | December 3, 2025 Industry Partner: Eric Mazzi, Mazzi Consulting Services Abstract This project examines the feasibility of natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants equipped with post-combustion carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a source of firm low-carbon electricity. Representative NGCC plant scales are evaluated, and an MEA-based […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":107008,"featured_media":3094,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[810,1235,808],"tags":[1012,215,1209],"class_list":["post-2969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-carbon-projects","category-ceen-2025-capstone-projects","category-economic-feasibility","tag-carbon-capture-and-storage-ccs","tag-feasibility-studies","tag-gas-turbines"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2969","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/107008"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2969"}],"version-history":[{"count":26,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2969\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3156,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2969\/revisions\/3156"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3094"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Introduction<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Objective<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Methods and Materials<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Results and Discussion<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Plant size<\/strong><\/td> Net power output (MW)<\/strong><\/td> CO\u2082 captured (tCO\u2082\/year)<\/strong><\/td> CO\u2082 emitted (tCO\u2082\/year)<\/strong><\/td> Energy penalty (% of gross)<\/strong><\/td> Total parasitic load (MW)<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> 100 MW<\/td> 100<\/td> 0.27 million<\/td> 0.03 million<\/td> 14%<\/td> 14<\/td><\/tr> 1,000 MW<\/td> 864<\/td> 2.7 million<\/td> 0.3 million<\/td> 13.6%<\/td> 136<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table> ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/files\/2025\/12\/Capital-Cost-Breakdown-1024x482.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/melceencapstoneprojects\/files\/2025\/12\/LCOE-vs-Carbon-Price.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nConclusions<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Contact<\/h2>\n\n\n\n