You'd think efficiency is what most readers would want to hear about at this point because everything else sounds pretty great.
It's necessarily less efficient than coal power without CO2 capture. From these slides [1] they estimate 35%, vs. 39% for a conventional coal plant, and 29% for a different type of CO2 capture (post-combustion CO2 scrubbing with monoethanolamine [MEA]).
...but it is unclear if this is mostly due to the price of extra coal or the equipment itself.
It's necessarily less efficient than coal power without CO2 capture. From these slides [1] they estimate 35%, vs. 39% for a conventional coal plant, and 29% for a different type of CO2 capture (post-combustion CO2 scrubbing with monoethanolamine [MEA]).
...but it is unclear if this is mostly due to the price of extra coal or the equipment itself.
Mostly equipment/capital [1].
[1] http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/12/co2captu...