Evaluating Coal, RDF, and Ammonia Blends in Power Plants: Techno-Economic Insights and Coal Phase-Out Implications

This comprehensive techno-economic analysis focuses on a proposed power plant that uses cleaner alternatives to traditional combustion methods. The study meticulously examines ternary blends of ammonia, refuse-derived fuels (RDFs), and coal. Utilizing an Aspen Plus simulation equilibrium model, a thorough review of the relevant literature, and evaluation reports on biomass-to-energy power plants and ammonia combustion, the analysis spans 20 years. It considers vital financial metrics such as the net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and payback period (PBP). The findings indicate that the combustion of pure coal is the most energy-efficient but has the highest global warming potential (GWP). In contrast, ammonia and RDF blends significantly reduce GWP, with ammonia showing a 3215% lower GWP than coal. Economically, pure coal remains the most attractive option. However, blends of 80% coal, 10% ammonia, and 10% RDF also show promise with a PBP of 11.20 years at a 15% discount rate. These results highlight the potential of ammonia and RDF blends to balance environmental and economic considerations in power generation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Energies
Published
2025-03-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/en18061524
Primary Topic
Coal and Its By-products
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating Coal, RDF, and Ammonia Blends in Power Plants: Techno-Economic Insights and Coal Phase-Out Implications

João Sousa Cardoso, Valter Silva, Antonio Chavando, Daniela Eusébio
Energies
Coal and Its By-products
article

Evaluating Coal, RDF, and Ammonia Blends in Power Plants: Techno-Economic Insights and Coal Phase-Out Implications

João Sousa Cardoso, Valter Silva, Antonio Chavando, Daniela Eusébio
article en

Abstract

This comprehensive techno-economic analysis focuses on a proposed power plant that uses cleaner alternatives to traditional combustion methods. The study meticulously examines ternary blends of ammonia, refuse-derived fuels (RDFs), and coal. Utilizing an Aspen Plus simulation equilibrium model, a thorough review of the relevant literature, and evaluation reports on biomass-to-energy power plants and ammonia combustion, the analysis spans 20 years. It considers vital financial metrics such as the net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and payback period (PBP). The findings indicate that the combustion of pure coal is the most energy-efficient but has the highest global warming potential (GWP). In contrast, ammonia and RDF blends significantly reduce GWP, with ammonia showing a 3215% lower GWP than coal. Economically, pure coal remains the most attractive option. However, blends of 80% coal, 10% ammonia, and 10% RDF also show promise with a PBP of 11.20 years at a 15% discount rate. These results highlight the potential of ammonia and RDF blends to balance environmental and economic considerations in power generation.

EnergiesVol. 18(6)
University of Lisbon (PT), Universidade Politécnica de Lisboa (PT), Universidade Politécnica de Portalegre (PT), University of Aveiro (PT)
Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Coal and Its By-products
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Evaluating Coal, RDF, and Ammonia Blends in Power Plants: Techno-Economic Insights and Coal Phase-Out Implications — João Sousa Cardoso, Valter Silva, et al. · Energies (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS