<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<eprints xmlns='http://eprints.org/ep2/data/2.0'>
  <eprint id='https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/21437'>
    <eprintid>21437</eprintid>
    <rev_number>4</rev_number>
    <eprint_status>archive</eprint_status>
    <userid>353</userid>
    <dir>disk0/00/02/14/37</dir>
    <datestamp>2026-04-07 11:14:56</datestamp>
    <lastmod>2026-04-07 11:14:56</lastmod>
    <status_changed>2026-04-07 11:14:56</status_changed>
    <type>article</type>
    <metadata_visibility>show</metadata_visibility>
    <item_issues_count>1</item_issues_count>
    <creators>
      <item>
        <name>
          <family>Tao</family>
          <given>S.</given>
        </name>
      </item>
      <item>
        <name>
          <family>Ma</family>
          <given>T.</given>
        </name>
        <id>1804</id>
      </item>
      <item>
        <name>
          <family>Yu</family>
          <given>Y.</given>
        </name>
        <id>8710</id>
      </item>
    </creators>
    <title>An economic comparison of green ammonia co-firing and green hydrogen gas turbines in China</title>
    <ispublished>pub</ispublished>
    <divisions>
      <item>ASA</item>
      <item>SYRR</item>
      <item>ECE</item>
      <item>S3</item>
      <item>TISS</item>
    </divisions>
    <keywords>Coal-fired power plant, Ammonia, Hydrogen, Renewable energy, Levelized cost of electricity</keywords>
    <abstract>Low-carbon retrofitting of coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) is essential for meeting China&apos;s carbon neutrality goals and reducing stranded asset risks, as the nation&apos;s energy structure remains heavily reliant on coal and the CFPP fleet is relatively young. Two promising retrofit options are coal-ammonia co-firing power plants (CAPPs) and CFPP integrated with hydrogen gas turbines (CFPP&amp;H2GTs). This study shows that both options face cost challenges compared to conventional CFPP. However, once carbon prices surpass a certain level, they could become economically feasible. Notably, changes in carbon allowance rate do not affect this threshold. CFPP&amp;H2GT may have advantages over CAPP in terms of levelized costs of electricity (LCOE), energy efficiency, and carbon reduction impact. However, CAPP appears to be a more practical near-term solution due to considerations of safety and technological maturity, especially since a 600 MW CFPP&amp;H2GT would consume about 34 tons of hydrogen daily at a 10% co-firing ratio, which poses a high explosion risk. Retrofitting CFPPs with either option would support increased use of wind and solar energy in China.</abstract>
    <date>2026-04</date>
    <date_type>published</date_type>
    <publisher>Elsevier</publisher>
    <id_number>doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2026.154676</id_number>
    <creators_browse_id>
      <item>191</item>
      <item>3662</item>
    </creators_browse_id>
    <full_text_status>none</full_text_status>
    <publication>International Journal of Hydrogen Energy</publication>
    <volume>228</volume>
    <pagerange>e154676</pagerange>
    <pages>1</pages>
    <refereed>TRUE</refereed>
    <issn>03603199</issn>
    <fp7_type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</fp7_type>
  </eprint>
</eprints>
