Presentation on theme: "Ways of reducing accounted CO2"— Presentation transcript:
1Ways of reducing accounted CO2 emissions in coal-fired power plant to precede and facilitate adoption of CCSDr John Topper, Managing DirectorIEA Clean Coal Centre, LondonSTEP-TREC Programme,Trichy,November, 2012
2ContentsPlant up-gradesAdvanced ultra-supercritical programmes in Europe, USA, Japan, ChinaBiomass co-firing with coalAdvanced ultrasupercritical programmes in Europe, USA, Japan, China
3CO2 emission reduction by key technologies >2030but deep cutsonly by CCSAverage worldwidehard coal30.0%1116 gCO2/kWh38%881 gCO2/kWhEU av hard coal45%743 gCO2/kWhState-of-the artPC/IGCC hard coal50%669 gCO2/kWhAdvanced R&DHard coalgCO2/kWhLatrobe Valley lignite (Australia)%1400 gCO2/kWhEU state-of-the-art lignite43-44%930 gCO2/kWhAdvanced lignite55%740 gCO2/kWhData for hard coal-fired power plants from VGB 2007; data for lignite plants from C Henderson, IEA Clean Coal Centre; efficiencies are LHV,netEnergy Efficiency makes big change but deep cuts of CO2 emission can be done only by Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)3
4Improve efficiency, then deploy CCS Decrease generation from subcriticalInstall CCS* on plants over supercriticalIncrease generation from high-efficiency technology (SC or better)*CCS (Post-combustion, Oxyfuel, Pre-combustion CO2 capture)SubcriticalGlobal coal-fired electricity generation (TWh)HELE Plants with CCS*USCIGCCSupercritical* CCS fitted to SC (or better) units.Source: Burnard IEA 2012
5Potential for Up-Grading >2030but deep cutsonly by CCSAir preheaterFGDSealing technologyNOx controlBoiler heat upTurbine upgradeFeed water pumpAverage worldwidehard coal30%1116 gCO2/kWh38%881 gCO2/kWhEU av hard coal45%743 gCO2/kWhState-of-the artPC/IGCC hard coal50%669 gCO2/kWhAdvanced R&DHard coalgCO2/kWhLatrobe Valley lignite28-29%1450 gCO2/kWhEU state-of-the-art lignite43-44%950 gCO2/kWhAdvanced lignite51-53%750 gCO2/kWhData for hard coal-fired power plants from VGB 2007, for lignite plants from RWE and C Henderson, IEA Clean Coal Centre; efficiencies are LHV,net5
6To be held at E.ON’s Technology Centre at Ratcliffe-on-Soar, UK on 19-20 March 2013 Call for papers now open
7Some presentations from 1st Workshop 1st workshop was held in Melbourne, Australia in April Presentations are atRecommended“Challenging the Efficiency Limitation of the Existing Coal Fired Power Technology” Session 1; Weizhong Feng“Performance Monitoring & Improvements through Deployment of Cost-Effective Technologies” session 2; Scott Smouse“Increase in Efficiency of Coal Dust-Fired Steam Generators using the Latest Low NOx Firing System” session 3; Karl Heinz Failing“Coal-Fired Power Plant Upgrade and Capacity Increase Solutions” session 6; Ragi Panesar“Modernisation solutions for steam turbine power plants in a carbon price environment” session 6; Michael Bielinski
8Shanghai Waigaoqiao No 3 2 x 1000 MW tower type, ultra-supercritical, single reheat, tangential firing, spiral tube water wall, pulverized coal fired boiler. Commissioned in 2008 by Shanghai Boiler Works through technology transfer from Alstom in Germany.Steam Parameters: 28MPa, 605C/603C.
9Shanghai Waigaoqiao No.3 Energy Saving EffectsShanghai Waigaoqiao No.39
10Niederaussem K, Germany USC, tower boiler, tangential wall firing, lignite of 50-60% moisture, inlandMost efficient lignite-fired plantOperating net efficiency 43.2% LHV/37% HHVHigh steam conditions 27.5 MPa/580C/600C at turbine; initial difficulties solved using 27% Cr materials in critical areasUnique heat recovery arrangements with heat extraction to low temperatures – complex feedwater circuitLow backpressure: 200 m cooling tower, 14.7C condenser inletLignite drying demonstration plant being installed to process 25% of fuel feed to enable even higher efficiencyNOx abatement Combustion measuresParticulates removal ESPDesulphurisation Wet FGD
11RWE’s WTA lignite drying process Vattenfall’s PFBD process In addition to using some of the evolved steam as the fluidising medium, there are additional uses for the evaporated moisture. This shows use in feedwater heating. Another possibility is compressing the steam further then feeding to the heating tubes in the drier to form a system acting as a heat pump.Vattenfall’s PFBD processThere should be cost savings in a new boiler that will largely offset the cost of the drier (including elimination of beater mills and hot furnace gas recycle systems, smaller flue gas volume). It will also allow plants to have greater turndown
12Potential for Advanced Ultra-Supercritical >2030but deep cutsonly by CCSAverage worldwidehard coal30%1116 gCO2/kWh38%881 gCO2/kWhEU av hard coal45%743 gCO2/kWhState-of-the artPC/IGCC hard coal50%669 gCO2/kWhAdvanced R&DHard coalgCO2/kWhLatrobe Valley lignite28-29%1450 gCO2/kWhEU state-of-the-art lignite43-44%950 gCO2/kWhAdvanced lignite51-53%750 gCO2/kWh>700C, materialsData for hard coal-fired power plants from VGB 2007, for lignite plants from RWE and C Henderson, IEA Clean Coal Centre; efficiencies are LHV,netAround another 5% efficiency is possible in moving from today’s best steam temperatures of around 610C to 700+C12
13A-USC technologyWork is being undertaken in EU, Japan, USA, India and China to develop these high temperature (700˚C plus) systems to increase the efficiency of generation to around 50%, LHV basis, and so reduce CO2 emissionsAnyone can access the papers given at the recent workshop indicated below. IEA CCC will also publish a review report on the topic in 2013Indian 800 MW demonstration: first operation is scheduled to be 2017
16Material development for future 700°C technology European funded R&D with participation of HPE AD 700/ (basics, materials)AD 700/ (first component tests, weld tests)COMTES 700 (AD 700/3) (component test facility for 700°C)ENCIO welding and repair concept Behaviour of different Ni based alloys HPE: coordinator engineering and manufacturing700°C SHheating surfaces214ENCIO Test Facility316Dipl.-Ing. Marc D. Jedamzik, 700°C steam generator technology – HPE activities and scope of work in R&D projectsHitachi Power Europe GmbH
17Ongoing developments Europe: AD700 / Thermie700 (material development and plant design for 700 °C)Comtes (testing of components at 700 °C)EON 50+ Kraftwerk (building of power plant operating at 700 °C) – postponed >5 yrsSimilar projects in US, Japan and ChinaNext logical step would be to make real size componentsAt the same time looking at even higher steam temperatures (up to 750 C)
18A-USC technology in Japan This shows the types of materials assigned by the Japanese workers to the different areas of a (double reheat) A-USC cycle. NB: A-USC does not necessitate double reheatMaterials in Japanese double-reheat A-USC design (Fukuda M, 9th Liege Conference: Materials for Advanced Power Engineering, 2010)
21A-USC Development Programs USA (760C) Last edit: 00/00/200925/03/2017Last edit: 00/00/2009A-USC Development Programs USA (760C)DOE, the State of Ohio Office of Coal Development and Industry have teamed to develop next generation technology which will provide efficiency and environmental gainsA uniquely qualified industry team - Energy Industry of Ohio, all the major US boiler manufacturers, US steam turbine manufacturers, Oak Ridge National lab, Ohio organizations, and EPRIAn aggressive goal – 760C (1400F) steam temperatureAlstom A-USC Development – IEA Workshop-Vienna, AU – Sept P 2121
22U.S. DOE/OCDO: A-USC Steam Boiler Consortium 1: Conceptual Design2: Material Properties4: Fireside Corrosion8: Design Data & Rules(including Code interface)4: Fireside Corrosion5: Welding6: Fabricability7: CoatingsDevelop the materials technology to fabricate and operate a A-USC Steam Boiler with Steam Parameter up to 1400°F (760°C)
23Nickel alloys can permit steam temperatures to reach 760oC. 25/03/2017Last edit: 00/00/2009Last edit: 00/00/2009760oC vs 700oC – USA RationaleContinuous evolution of steam conditions (historical trend) exploits materials to their maximum capacity.Nickel alloys can permit steam temperatures to reach 760oC.Cost of (precipitation strengthened) nickel-based alloys for 760oC applications is predicted to be similar to their weaker (solution strengthened) counterparts for 700oC applications.More nickel alloy for 760oC, but not more expensive.Conventional steam generator designs (tower and two pass) and steam turbine design can be configured for 760oC steam temperatures.Familiar technology but extensive Ni alloy heat exchange surfaceAlstom A-USC Development – IEA Workshop-Vienna, AU – Sept P 23
27Steam Turbine Phase II Work Using Selected Materials from Phase ITasksRotor/Disc Testing (near full-size forgings)Blade/Airfoil Alloy TestingValve Internals Alloy TestingRotor Alloy Welding and CharacterizationCast Casing Alloy TestingCasing Welding and Repair
28China -R&D Plan of the National 700℃ USC Technology Ⅱ. R&D ProposalNo.content11121314151617181920211overall program design proposal2Filtering, developing, optimizing and assessing of heat resistant materials3key components of main equipments and high temperature pipes1)Boiler’s tubes2)Boiler’s key components3)Turbine’s Large Forgings4)Turbine’s key Components5)High temperature pipes and fittings6)High temperature and high pressure valves4Test platform construction and test1)Design and construction of test platform2)Test of boiler’s key components and valves5Demonstration projects1)Preparation2)Construction of the project3)Operation and summary
32IEA CCC reports on co-firing Support mechanisms for co-firing secondary fuels with coal Nigel Dong – in progress Cofiring high ratios of biomass with coal Rohan Fernando, CCC/194, Jan 2012 Co-gasification and indirect cofiring of coal and biomass Rohan Fernando, CCC/158, Nov 2009 Cofiring of coal with waste fuels Rohan Fernando, CCC/126, Sept 2007 Fuels for biomass cofiring Rohan Fernando, CCC/102, Oct 2005 Co-utilisation of coal and other fuels in cement kilns Irene Smith, CCC/71, Aug 2003 Experience of indirect cofiring of biomass and coal Rohan Fernando, CCC/64, Oct 2002 Prospects for co-utilisation of coal with other fuels - GHG emissions reduction Irene Smith, Katerina Rousaki, CCC/60, May 2002 Experience of cofiring waste with coal Robert Davidson, CCC/15, 2002 Cofiring of coal and waste James Ekmann and others, IEACR/90, 1996
35European Union incentives 9 Member Countries: Austria Belgium Denmark Finland Germany Italy Netherlands Sweden United KingdomCategories of mechanisms:Disincentives for fossil fuelsTaxation on GHGs emissionsMarket viability measuresFeed-in tariffRenewable obligationInvestment/production supportFeed-in tariff dominates in EU: Pass on the cost to end users
36Biomass demand - Europe 2009 Renewable Energy Directive commits EU members to increase the share of renewable energy to 20% by 2020Each EU country has a national Renewable Energy Action Plan (nREAP)2020 EU targets require additional 40 million odt of solid biomass for electricity and 50 M odt for heating and coolingIn UK, projected demand for woodchips will exceed by 5 times local available supplyThe EU to face a deficit of Mt of wood across all sectors by 2020.It is important to understand the sustainability issues of biomass as there is an increasing demand for biomass, as illustrated by the EU example.
38Denmark plant name size/type biomass cofiring ratio operational issues Amager 180 MWe dh/PCCwood pelletsstraw pellets35-100%35-90%Studstrup 1152 MWe/PCCstraw20%some slaggingStudstrup 3350 MWe/PCCstraw handlingStudstrup 4scr pluggingGrena17 MWe/CFB50%Severe corrosion and bed agglomerationAvedore 2800 MWth/USC70-80%Coal ash added to prevent corrosion
39United States plant name size/type biomass cofiring ratio operational issuesAllen273 MWe/cyclonesawdust20% (mass)small red. in boiler efficiencySeward32 MWe/PCC18% (mass)-Plant Gadsden70 MWe/PCCswitchgrass7% (th)Small red. in boiler efficiency‘’wood chips15% (mass)mill issues
40Drax Power in UK - 500MW Co-firing Facility Drax is a pioneer in biomass direct injection technologyNew 500MW co-firing facility is largest in the worldCapacity to co-fire >1.5m tonnes pellets per year40
41Breaking down the Supply Chain TransportationPort LoadingPelletisingImportedBiomassUK BiomassPlanting and HarvestingOcean FreightRenewable PowerStorage/ Site ProcessingTransportationPort Discharge4141
43Biomass processing Processing tower – biomass pellets are processed into ‘dust’ before injectioninto boilers for combustion
44UK Supply Chain Investment – Drax Woodyard On site facility to process UK grown energy crops44
45Fuel delivery , storage and handling Biomass has much lower bulk densities and heating values than coal → delivery and storage issuesHandling and flow properties more problematical due to fibrous nature of fuelBiomass biologically active → fuel deterioration → health and safety issues
46Milling inject into burner itself (Studstrup) Standard coal mills are not ideal for biomass due to fibrous nature of fuelCo-milling possible up to 5% cofiring ratiosHigher ratios require separate millinginject into burner itself (Studstrup)inject into pipework upstream of the burner (Drax)inject into dedicated biomass burners (Plant Gadsden)
47Slagging, fouling and corrosion Coal ash contains alumino-silicates, biomass ash contains alkaline species → lower fusion temperatures → increased slagging and foulingBiomass contains lower ash content than coalWood ash contains magnesium → higher fusion temperatures
48TorrefactionThermochemical process which improves the properties of biomass regarding handling and utilisationHeating the biomass at 200 – 300 C for 1 hr under reducing conditionsFriable, less fibrous, heating value (19-22 MJ/kg), homogeneous, less prone to degradationSuperior handling, storage and milling properties
49“Sustainability issues and public attitudes to biomass co-firing” An IEA Clean Coal Centre ReportBy Deborah Adams and Rohan FernandoDraft due soonFinal report January 2013I am writing this report with Rohan Fernando. I am concentrating on the sustainability issues, while his focus is on public attitudes. Draft will be with you in October.
50Life Cycle Assessment (1) Energy balance – energy inputs:bioenergy outputGHG balance – 5-10% that of fossil fuelsOther environmental impacts – N-based emissions from agricultureCarbon pools – above ground, below ground, dead wood, litter and soil, especially soil organic carbon and land use changesTimescale of biomass growth – emissions immediate, but can take many years to reabsorb CO2 by tree growthLife Cycle Assessment (LCA) is considered to be the appropriate method to evaluate the GHG performance of bio-energy compared to that of fossil alternatives. LCA can consider the following factors:Energy balance: where all the energy inputs along the full chain are evaluated, including from agriculture, transport, processing and final distribution. The resulting primary energy demand can be used to calculate the ratio between energy out (that is the energy content of the biofuel) and the non-renewable energy that is required along the full life cycle.GHG balance: Bioenergy systems generally produce less GHG emission than conventional fossil fuel reference systems. For example, net GHG emissions from generating of a unit of electricity from biomass are usually 5–10% of those from fossil fuel-based electricity generation. The ratio will be more favourable (lower), if biomass is produced with low energy input (or derived from residue streams), converted efficiently and if the fossil fuel reference use is inefficient and based on a carbon-intensive fuel. However, the inclusion in the GHG balance of indirect effects is of major importance, given their potential large influence on final results.Other envtl impacts: Particularly bioenergy crops, where intensive agriculture can cause environmental concerns in soils, water and atmosphere. Especially related to N-based emissions like acidification, eutrophication and photo-smog formation.C pools : Generally, organic carbon is stored in five different pools: above ground vegetation, below ground vegetation, dead wood, litter and soil. Changing land use can change these carbon storage pools. This is important because of the large sizes of these storage pools, especially soil organic carbon (SOC): this is so large. Even small changes in the C pools can make a difference to the GHG balance.
51Life cycle assessment (2) Land use changes – such as forest to plantationIndirect land use changes – land changes from food production to bioenergy, and food production goes elsewhere, such as on forestry landNon-CO2 emissions from soils – N2O from agricultureAgricultural residue removal – can impact soil organic C turnoverEfficient biomass useEfficient land use – should a piece of land be used for energy crops or C storage?Land-use changes (LUC) are therefore especially important, and their effects can consistently reduce GHG savings of bioenergy systems. A distinction is generally made between direct and indirect LUC.Direct LUC occurs when new agricultural land is taken into production and feedstock for biofuel purposes displaces a prior land use (for example conversion of forest land to sugarcane plantations), thereby changing the carbon pool of that land.ILUC (or leakage) occurs when land currently used for food crops is changed into biomass production and the demand for the previous land use (that is food) remains, so the agriculture moves to other places (for instance, expansion of agricultural land after deforestation). ILUC does not have to be unfavourable. GHG emissions from indirect LUC are considered more important than emissions from direct LUC.Non CO2 from soils: N2O can make a real contribution to net GHG emissions. It evolves from the use of nitrogen fertilisers application and decomposition of organic matter in soil. Emissions vary depending on soil type, climate, crop, tillage method, and fertiliser and manure application rates. Important because of the high global warming potential of N2O, which is 298 times greater than CO2 over a 100y.Agric residue removal : can have an impact on processes like soil organic turnover, soil erosion or crop yields but local conditions (climate, soil type and crop management) have a strong influenceEffict biomass use : Since competition for biomass resources will be inevitable, it is important to make a selection of the best applications able to ensure the greatest GHG emission savingsEffict land use: The key question is the following: should a piece of land be used to grow energycrops for bioenergy generation or be used to store atmospheric CO2 in biomass carbon pools (such as forest)?
52CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY THAT WORKS The End – Thank you for your attention