Methodology for the evaluation of low-carbon fuels in power generation gas turbine applications

Le résumé fourni par la source

This paper introduces a novel methodology based on the Theory of Constraints (TOC) to evaluate the adoption potential of alternative fuels in gas turbine power plants. Unlike conventional multi-criteria decision-making approaches, this method identifies the single most critical constraint limiting the competitiveness of a low-carbon fuel in a specific context. By consolidating qualitative and quantitative factors into a single performance indicator, the methodology supports consistent and meaningful comparisons even when uncertainty is high. This capability is especially useful in early-stage assessments, where data gaps and evolving assumptions require adaptable decision tools. For end-users who must navigate operational, financial, and regulatory pressures while selecting viable low-carbon fuels, the framework provides a clear and structured way to evaluate options without oversimplifying the complexities of real-world gas turbine operation.To demonstrate its application, the methodology was applied to a single 150 MWe unit in a 600 MWe open-cycle gas turbine (OCGT) peaking plant in Killingholme, UK, equipped with four Siemens V94.2 (SGT5-2000E) turbines. The evaluation considered six key parameters: ease of adoption, fuel availability, combustion technology readiness, levelized cost of fuel, safety, and greenhouse gas emissions.Results show that HVO, FAME, and biomethane scored highest, indicating strong short-term viability due to favorable emissions profiles, compatibility with existing infrastructure, and established safety standards. Hydrogen and ammonia scored lower due to unresolved challenges in combustion, infrastructure, and cost, while methanol and ethanol showed moderate, context-dependent performance. The findings support a dual-track strategy: deploying drop-in biofuels for immediate decarbonization, while advancing hydrogen and ammonia for long-term transformation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.