carbon capture and storage (CCS)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mathieu Lucquiaud, Hannah Chalmers, Jon Gibbins
Advertisements

Nuon Future plan: Magnum Project
CO2 Capture Status & Issues
A novel IGCC system with steam injected H2/O2 cycle and CO2 recovery P M V Subbarao Professor Mechanical Engineering Department Low Quality Fuel but High.
1 Energy consumption of alternative process technologies for CO 2 capture Magnus Glosli Jacobsen Trial Lecture November 18th, 2011.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) IGCC is basically the combination of the gasification unit and the combined cycle. It has high efficiency.
Carpet Waste Gasification: Technical, Economic, Environmental Assessment for Carpet Mills An Interim Presentation ENCH 4300—Capstone UT Chattanooga Jordan.
B9 Coal Deploying Fuel Cells to Generate Cheap, Clean Electricity from Fossil Fuels.
SINTEF Energy Research Power cycles with CO 2 capture – combining solide oxide fuel cells and gas turbines Dr. ing. Ola Maurstad.
Boiler FGT HRSG Coal Air To CO 2 - extraction Ash Power.
Pressurized Oxy-Combustion An Advancement in in Thermal and Operating Efficiency for Clean Coal Power Plants June 20, 2012.
Coal Gasification : A PRB Overview Mark Davies – Kennecott Energy Outline Background – Our Interest History – Development of IGCC Current status – Commercial.
SUPPLIES OF COAL UNITED STATES - 3 TRILLION TONS (50% IN WYOMING, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA) WESTERN COAL - 60% LOW SULFUR (0.7%S) - AT STRIP MINING DEPTH.
Cogeneration.
INTERGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC) ANH PHUONG NGUYEN APN Nov 2008 CHE 384 ENERGY TECHNOLOGY & POLICY.
CO 2 Flue Gas Scrubber Technology Michael Ng University of Texas Department of Chemical Engineering.
Institute of Chemical Engineering page 1 Achema 2012 Chemical Process Engineering Research Group Zero Emission Technologies Contact: Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Tobias.
SynGas Gasifier ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Technology Presentation.
Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants National Energy Technology Laboratory May 15, 2007 Revised August 2007 Final Results.
Presentation to APPA Climate Change Task Force Oct. 17, 2006 FutureGen and Technology Challenges for Climate Change Michael J. Mudd Chief Executive Officer.
Overview of CO 2 Capture Processes John Davison IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Workshop on CCS, KEPRI, 19 th October 2007.
Institute of Energy Systems Prof. Dr.-Ing. A. Kather Dipl.-Ing. Sören Ehlers Jan Mletzko, M.Sc. Comparison of natural gas combined cycle power plants with.
Carbon Neutral Energy from Waste Gasification Presented by Allen Medearis and Trip Dacus April 14, 2010 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
Co-Production of Hydrogen and Electricity (GHG/07/42) Hydrogen may be used in future as an energy carrier In the long term it is expected.
Ansaldo Ricerche S.p.A. Carbon Dioxide capture Berlin, March 2008.
Plot Summary Petroleum coke is a major byproduct that historically has been used as a substitute for coal in power production or as a fuel in cement manufacture.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
Prof. Krzysztof Warmuzinski Polish Academy of Sciences Institute of Chemical Engineering Gliwice, Poland The Capture of Carbon Dioxide: R&D Status and.
Post combustion capture of CO 2 Nick Otter International Workshop on “Power Generation with CCS in India” Ashok Hotel, New Delhi, India 22 nd January 2008.
Workshop of St Petersburg - 27 th October 2009 Expert sub-group on Emerging Technologies/Techniques EGTEI - Emerging technologies/ techniques for LCPs.
 Moving to Advanced Supercritical Plant & Capture-Ready Measures Dr P. Mahi; P. Napier-Moore Mott MacDonald.
A Govt of India Undertaking Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Program on 3CC27 th Aug 2012.
Plot Summary Petroleum coke is a major byproduct that historically has been used as a substitute for coal in power production or as a fuel in cement manufacture.
Can Coal be used for Power Generation by an Environmentally Responsible Society? An Overview of “Clean Coal” Technologies Ben Bayer November 20, 2006 ChE.
Advancements in Coal Technology 2006 Mid-America Regulatory Conference Columbus Ohio Tom Hewson Energy Ventures Analysis Inc Arlington Virginia June 20.
Khalid Aldhahri Omar Alrajeh Daniel Marken Thomas White CLEAN AIR POWER ASU with Oxy-fuel Combustion for Zero Emission Energy University of Wyoming College.
Overview of Oxycombustion Technology ASME PTC 4.5 Kick-off Meeting Orlando, Florida December 16, D.K. McDonald, Technical Fellow, Babcock & Wilcox.
Optimization of IGCC power plant Samantha Chase David Granum Ming Chen Tang Irena Vankova Sung Yoon Five Gasifiers.
NF-CZ08-OV project Study of CCS pilot technologies for coal fired power plants in the Czech Republic VII. Bilateral Workshop/Meeting 11. – 13.
Date of download: 9/17/2016 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: The Efficiencies of Internal Reforming Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Fueled by Natural.
04/16/ Planning New Generation APPA Operations & Engineering Conference April 10, 2006 Jay Hudson, PE Manager, Environmental Management.
1 Engineering Capability Opportunities for Negative Emission Technologies London, Wednesday 13 th March 2013 Professor Richard Darton FREng Co-Director,
Gas Turbine Power Plant
RECYCLED CARBON DIOXIDE TO CLEAN ENERGY
ADVANCED COAL-BURNING POWER PLANT TECHNOLOGY
John Edwards, P&I Design Ltd
Turbomachinery in Biofuel Production
P. M. Follmann, C. Bayer, B. Fischer, M. Wessling, T. Melin
Riding the Innovation Wave - The Hunter’s opportunity to provide sustainable energy solutions to the global economy James McGregor Energy Systems Manager.
PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCES
Turbomachinery in Biofuel Production TURBO POWER – project PROCESS4
Solid Waste ? The amount of solid waste generated in parallel with increasing population, urbanization and industrialization is increasing rapidly and.
Power Plant Technology Combined Cycle and Renewable Energy Power Systems (Assignment 1) by Mohamad Firdaus Basrawi, Dr. (Eng) Mechanical Engineering Faculty.
Power Plant Technology Combined Cycle and Renewable Energy Power Systems (Lecture 1) by Mohamad Firdaus Basrawi, Dr. (Eng) Mechanical Engineering Faculty.
Dr. Xijia Lu 8 Rivers Capital (Durham, NC, USA)
Syngas Production From Petroleum Coke Gasification
Turbomachinery in Biofuel Production
A biomass based 5 MW power plant operates on fuel wood
NET Power Truly Clean, Cheaper Energy Engage Energy Conference
Biomass-fired combined heat and power for district heating
IEA Workshop Edinburgh, 12th November 2001 Kenneth Möllersten
Miroslav Variny, Otto Mierka
M. Spinelli, E. De Lena, M. Gatti, R. Scaccabarozzi, S. Campanari, S
Introduction to Biomass Gasification and Overview of it through Paper Review Special Topics in Fuel Cell Hong-Min Cho Prof. Yong-Tae Kim.
Miroslav Variny, Michal Hruška, Otto Mierka
Closing the Biomass Power Cost-Price Gap
Michigan Air Quality Division
Large-scale laboratory study on the CO2 removal from flue gas in a hybrid adsorptive-membrane installation Krzysztof Warmuzinski, Marek Tanczyk, Manfred.
Coal gasification role on Hydrogen Production
Combined Cycle Power Plants
Presentation transcript:

carbon capture and storage (CCS) Evaluation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants Calin-Cristian Cormos “Babeş – Bolyai” University, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering 11 Arany Janos, RO400028, Cluj – Napoca, Romania

Content 1. Introduction 2. Plant configurations & major design assumptions 3. Modeling and simulation of IGCC-based power generation with and without CCS 4. Mass and energy integration aspects 5. Techno-economic and environmental evaluations 6. Conclusions

Introduction The following work was performed within the project: “Innovative systems for carbon dioxide capture applied to energy conversion processes”, PNII-CT-ERC-2012-1; 2ERC Specific project objectives: - Investigation of combustion & gasification processes - Energy vector poly-generation (e.g. power, hydrogen) - Evaluation of carbon capture & storage technologies (gas-liquid absorption, chemical looping) - Techno-economical and environmental evaluations of power plants with CCS

II. Plant configurations IGCC power plant without CCS Gasification O2 Coal + Transport gas (N2) Air Syngas Boiler and Cooling Steam Slag Acid Gas Removal (AGR) Claus Plant and Tail gas Treatment Sulphur Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power N2 Flue gas to stack Air Separation Unit (ASU) and O2 / N2 Compression

IGCC power plant with CCS (pre-combustion capture based on gas-liquid absorption) Water – Gas Shift CO2 to storage CO2 Drying and Compression Gasification Air Separation Unit (ASU) and O2 / N2 Compression O2 Coal + Transport gas (N2) Air Syngas Boiler and Cooling Steam Slag Acid Gas Removal (AGR) Claus Plant and Tail gas Treatment Sulphur Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power N2 Flue gas to stack

IGCC power plant with CCS (post-combustion capture based on gas-liquid absorption) CO2 Capture (post-combustion) CO2 to storage CO2 Drying and Compression Gasification Air Separation Unit (ASU) and O2 / N2 Compression O2 Coal + Transport gas (N2) Air Syngas Quench and Cooling Steam Slag Acid Gas Removal (AGR) Claus Plant and Tail gas Treatment Sulphur Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power N2

IGCC power plant with CCS (pre-combustion capture based on chemical looping) Fuel (syngas) reactor CO2 to storage CO2 Drying and Compression Gasification Air Separation Unit (ASU) and O2 / N2 Compression O2 Coal + Transport gas (N2) Air Syngas Quench and Cooling Steam Slag Acid Gas Removal (AGR) Claus Plant and Tail gas Treatment Sulphur Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power N2 Condensate Fe/FeO Fe3O4

Major design assumptions Plant size: ~400 MW net power, 0 – 150 MWth H2 (LHV) Shell gasifier (entrained-flow type) Gas turbine: M701G2 gas turbine (MHI) 4. Carbon capture rate: >90 % 5. H2 purity & pressure: >99.95 % (vol.) / 70 bar 6. CO2 capture: Selexol & MDEA (G-L) / Iron cycle (CL) 7. CO2 purity & pressure: >95 % (vol.) / 120 bar 8. Fuel type: Bituminous coal

III. Modeling and simulation of IGCC-based power generation with/without CCS Investigated power plant concepts: Case 1: IGCC without CO2 capture Case 2: IGCC with pre-combustion CO2 capture using physical gas-liquid absorption (Selexol®) Case 3: IGCC with post-combustion CO2 capture using chemical gas-liquid absorption (Methyl- Diethanol-Amine - MDEA) Case 4: IGCC with pre-combustion CO2 capture using iron-based chemical looping system

Simulation tools for evaluations of IGCC-based power generation with/without CCS Investigated case studies were simulated using process flow modelling (ChemCAD and Thermoflex) Power island Case 2: IGCC with CCS (pre-combustion capture – Selexol®) Gasification island Syngas Conditioning & Water Gas Shift Acid Gas Removal & CO2 Drying and Compression

IV. Mass and energy integration aspects Investigated mass and energy integration aspects: - Steam integration between fuel processing units (gasification), syngas conditioning line, carbon capture unit and power block (combined cycle) - Heat and power integration for Acid Gas Removal unit (solvent pumping & regeneration, chemical looping cycle, captured CO2 stream drying and compression) - Integration of combustible gas flows between syngas conditioning line, power block and hydrogen purification unit (for H2 and power co-production cases)

Steam integration Case 1 (no CCS) Case 2 (CCS) HP steam from process t/h 224.3 @ 573oC / 118 bar 425.0 @ 338oC / 120 bar HP steam to HP Steam Turbine 543.3 @ 576oC / 118 bar 689.8 @ 576oC / 118 bar MP steam after MP reheat 575.7 @ 465oC / 34 bar 454.3 @ 446oC / 34 bar MP steam to process units 38.0 @ 418oC / 41 bar 305.5 @ 415oC / 41 bar MP steam AGR (solvent reg.) 23.0 @ 265oC / 6.5 bar 29.0 @ 251oC / 6.5 bar LP steam from process units 17.0 @ 206oC / 3 bar 89.5 @ 202oC / 3 bar LP steam to LP Steam Turbine 654.3 @ 196oC / 3 bar 596.8 @ 180oC / 3 bar Cooling water 34000 @ 15oC / 2 bar 30500 @ 15oC / 2 bar Hot condensate to HRSG 733.3 @ 115oC / 2.8 bar 931.7 @ 115oC / 2.8 bar Flue gas at stack 3063.1 @ 105oC / 1.1 bar 2813.6 @ 101oC / 1.1 bar Steam turbine generated power MWe 224.01 210.84

heat and power integration (Selexol® solvent) Acid Gas Removal heat and power integration (Selexol® solvent) Case 1 Case 2 Air Separation Unit (ASU) MWe 27.81 31.33 Oxygen compression 12.10 13.40 Gasification island consumption 8.38 9.12 Acid Gas Removal (AGR) - Selexol® 6.12 13.12 CO2 drying and compression 0.00 26.69 Power island consumption 19.09 18.78 Ancillary power consumption 73.50 112.44 Heat consumption (carbon capture) MJ/kg CO2 0.22

heat and power integration Acid Gas Removal heat and power integration Evaluated AGR solvents (pre-combustion capture): - Selexol® (dimethyl ethers of polyethylene glycol) - Rectisol® (refrigerated methanol) - Methyl-diethanol-amine (MDEA) Ancillary duty Units Selexol® Rectisol® MDEA Power duty kWh/kg captured CO2 0.1080 0.1186 0.0950 Heating duty MJ/kg captured CO2 0.2238 0.3740 0.7015 Cooling duty 0.5590 0.6156 3.3141

Evaluation of heat integration for IGCC power plant with CCS – Case 2 Composite curves for gasifier & syngas treatment line

Evaluation of heat integration for IGCC power plant with CCS – Case 2 Composite curves for hydrogen-fuelled CCGT

environmental evaluations V. Techno-economic and environmental evaluations Key plant performance indicators: - Technical indicators (fuel consumption, net and gross power output, ancillary consumptions, plant efficiency, CO2 capture energy penalty) - Economic indicators (capital costs, specific capital investment, fixed and variable O&M costs, levelised cost of electricity, CO2 capture cost penalty, cash flow) - Environmental indicators (carbon capture rate, specific CO2 emissions, CO2 removal and avoided costs)

IGCC power plants with and without CCS Plant indicator Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Coal flowrate [t/h] 147.80 165.70 148.18 162.34 Coal energy [MWth] 1040.88 1166.98 1043.56 1143.28 Gas turbine [MWe] 334.00 Steam turbine [MWe] 224.01 210.84 135.67 199.45 Expander power [MWe] 0.68 0.78 1.45 1.50 Gross power output [MWe] 558.69 545.62 471.12 534.95 Air separation unit [MWe] 39.91 44.73 39.98 43.82 Gasifier island [MWe] 8.38 9.12 8.21 15.06 Acid gas removal [MWe] 6.12 39.81 27.76 15.18 Power island [MWe] 19.09 18.78 19.12 22.00 Total consumption [MWe] 73.50 112.44 95.07 96.06 Net power output [MWe] 485.19 433.18 376.05 438.89 Net power efficiency [%] 46.61 37.11 36.03 38.38 Carbon capture rate [%] 0.00 90.79 90.36 99.55 CO2 emissions [kg/MWh] 741.50 86.92 90.11 3.08

IGCC power plants with and without CCS Plant indicator Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Net power output [MWe] 485.19 433.18 376.05 Gross efficiency [%] 53.67 46.75 45.14 Net efficiency [%] 46.61 37.11 36.03 Capital costs [M€] 909.63 1153.47 1235.69 Capital investment [€/kWe gross] 1628.15 2114.05 2622.87 Capital investment [€/kWe net] 1874.80 2662.79 3285.96 Fixed O&M costs [€/kWe net] 0.00945 0.01001 0.01418 Variable O&M costs [€/kWe net] 0.01839 0.02090 0.02464 LCOE [¢/kWe] 5.413 7.328 8.642 CO2 removal cost [€/t] - 22.68 37.41 CO2 avoided cost [€/t] 29.28 49.61

IGCC power plants with and without CCS Cumulative cash flow analysis (Cases 1 to 3) Sensitivity analysis (Case 2)

Hydrogen and power co-generation Plant flexibility: Hydrogen and power co-generation Gasification Air Separation Unit (ASU) O2 Coal + Transport gas (N2 ) Air Syngas Quench and Cooling Steam Slag Acid Gas Removal (AGR) Claus Plant and Tail gas Treatment Sulphur Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Purified hydrogen CO2 to storage Power H2 compression N2 CO2 Drying and Compression Fuel (syngas) reactor Desulphurised syngas reactor H2 Condensate Fe3O4 Fe/FeO

Co-generation plants with CCS Hydrogen and power co-generation Plant indicator Power only Hydrogen and power co-generation Coal flowrate [t/h] 162.34 Coal energy [MWth] 1143.28 Gross power [MWe] 534.95 504.01 474.22 444.43 Hydrogen output [MWth] 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 Air separation unit [MWe] 43.82 Gasifier island [MWe] 15.06 Acid gas removal [MWe] 15.18 H2 compression [MWe] 0.56 1.13 1.70 Power island [MWe] 22.00 20.67 19.33 17.99 Total consumption [MWe] 96.06 95.29 94.52 93.75 Net power output [MWe] 438.89 408.72 379.70 350.68 Net power efficiency [%] 38.38 35.75 33.21 30.67 Hydrogen efficiency [%] 4.37 8.74 13.12 Cumulative efficiency [%] 40.12 41.95 43.79 Carbon capture rate [%] 99.55 CO2 emissions [kg/MWh] 3.08 2.92 2.79 2.68

Co-generation plants with CCS Efficiency (%) Hydrogen output (MW) Variation of plant energy efficiencies vs. hydrogen output (Case 4)

VI. Conclusions  Introduction of CCS technologies imply significant energy, capital and O&M costs penalties  Pre-combustion capture slightly more efficient than post-combustion capture (both based on G-L absorption)  Specific capital and O&M costs for pre-combustion capture lower than post-combustion capture  Chemical looping capture looks very promising but further developments and scale-ups are needed  IGCC technology more flexible than other conversion processes in term of fuel used and energy vector poly- generation capability (power, hydrogen, SNG, liquid fuels)

Thank you for your attention! Calin-Cristian Cormos Contact: Calin-Cristian Cormos cormos@chem.ubbcluj.ro http://www.chem.ubbcluj.ro/ This work has been supported by Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PNII-CT-ERC-2012-1; 2ERC