Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Ways of reducing accounted CO2

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Ways of reducing accounted CO2"— Presentation transcript:

1 Ways of reducing accounted CO2
emissions in coal-fired power plant to precede and facilitate adoption of CCS Dr John Topper, Managing Director IEA Clean Coal Centre, London STEP-TREC Programme,Trichy, November, 2012

2 Contents Plant up-grades Advanced ultra-supercritical programmes in Europe, USA, Japan, China Biomass co-firing with coal Advanced ultrasupercritical programmes in Europe, USA, Japan, China

3 CO2 emission reduction by key technologies
>2030 but deep cuts only by CCS Average worldwide hard coal 30.0% 1116 gCO2/kWh 38% 881 gCO2/kWh EU av hard coal 45% 743 gCO2/kWh State-of-the art PC/IGCC hard coal 50% 669 gCO2/kWh Advanced R&D Hard coal gCO2/kWh Latrobe Valley lignite (Australia) % 1400 gCO2/kWh EU state-of- the-art lignite 43-44% 930 gCO2/kWh Advanced lignite 55% 740 gCO2/kWh Data for hard coal-fired power plants from VGB 2007; data for lignite plants from C Henderson, IEA Clean Coal Centre; efficiencies are LHV,net Energy Efficiency makes big change but deep cuts of CO2 emission can be done only by Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) 3

4 Improve efficiency, then deploy CCS
Decrease generation from subcritical Install CCS* on plants over supercritical Increase generation from high-efficiency technology (SC or better) *CCS (Post-combustion, Oxyfuel, Pre-combustion CO2 capture) Subcritical Global coal-fired electricity generation (TWh) HELE Plants with CCS* USC IGCC Supercritical * CCS fitted to SC (or better) units. Source: Burnard IEA 2012

5 Potential for Up-Grading
>2030 but deep cuts only by CCS Air preheater FGD Sealing technology NOx control Boiler heat up Turbine upgrade Feed water pump Average worldwide hard coal 30% 1116 gCO2/kWh 38% 881 gCO2/kWh EU av hard coal 45% 743 gCO2/kWh State-of-the art PC/IGCC hard coal 50% 669 gCO2/kWh Advanced R&D Hard coal gCO2/kWh Latrobe Valley lignite 28-29% 1450 gCO2/kWh EU state-of- the-art lignite 43-44% 950 gCO2/kWh Advanced lignite 51-53% 750 gCO2/kWh Data for hard coal-fired power plants from VGB 2007, for lignite plants from RWE and C Henderson, IEA Clean Coal Centre; efficiencies are LHV,net 5

6 To be held at E.ON’s Technology Centre at Ratcliffe-on-Soar, UK on 19-20 March 2013
Call for papers now open

7 Some presentations from 1st Workshop
1st workshop was held in Melbourne, Australia in April Presentations are at Recommended “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

8 Shanghai 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.

9 Shanghai Waigaoqiao No.3
Energy Saving Effects Shanghai Waigaoqiao No.3 9

10 Niederaussem K, Germany
USC, tower boiler, tangential wall firing, lignite of 50-60% moisture, inland Most efficient lignite-fired plant Operating net efficiency 43.2% LHV/37% HHV High steam conditions 27.5 MPa/580C/600C at turbine; initial difficulties solved using 27% Cr materials in critical areas Unique heat recovery arrangements with heat extraction to low temperatures – complex feedwater circuit Low backpressure: 200 m cooling tower, 14.7C condenser inlet Lignite drying demonstration plant being installed to process 25% of fuel feed to enable even higher efficiency NOx abatement Combustion measures Particulates removal ESP Desulphurisation Wet FGD

11 RWE’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 process There 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

12 Potential for Advanced Ultra-Supercritical
>2030 but deep cuts only by CCS Average worldwide hard coal 30% 1116 gCO2/kWh 38% 881 gCO2/kWh EU av hard coal 45% 743 gCO2/kWh State-of-the art PC/IGCC hard coal 50% 669 gCO2/kWh Advanced R&D Hard coal gCO2/kWh Latrobe Valley lignite 28-29% 1450 gCO2/kWh EU state-of- the-art lignite 43-44% 950 gCO2/kWh Advanced lignite 51-53% 750 gCO2/kWh >700C, materials Data for hard coal-fired power plants from VGB 2007, for lignite plants from RWE and C Henderson, IEA Clean Coal Centre; efficiencies are LHV,net Around another 5% efficiency is possible in moving from today’s best steam temperatures of around 610C to 700+C 12

13 A-USC technology Work 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 emissions Anyone can access the papers given at the recent workshop indicated below. IEA CCC will also publish a review report on the topic in 2013 Indian 800 MW demonstration: first operation is scheduled to be 2017

14 25/03/2017Last edit: 00/00/2009 Last edit: 00/00/2009


16 Material 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 manufacturing 700°C SH heating surfaces 2 1 4 ENCIO Test Facility 3 16 Dipl.-Ing. Marc D. Jedamzik, 700°C steam generator technology – HPE activities and scope of work in R&D projects Hitachi Power Europe GmbH

17 Ongoing 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 yrs Similar projects in US, Japan and China Next logical step would be to make real size components At the same time looking at even higher steam temperatures (up to 750 C)

18 A-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 reheat Materials in Japanese double-reheat A-USC design (Fukuda M, 9th Liege Conference: Materials for Advanced Power Engineering, 2010)



21 A-USC Development Programs USA (760C)
Last edit: 00/00/2009 25/03/2017Last edit: 00/00/2009 A-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 gains A 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 EPRI An aggressive goal – 760C (1400F) steam temperature Alstom A-USC Development – IEA Workshop-Vienna, AU – Sept P 21 21

22 U.S. DOE/OCDO: A-USC Steam Boiler Consortium
1: Conceptual Design 2: Material Properties 4: Fireside Corrosion 8: Design Data & Rules (including Code interface) 4: Fireside Corrosion 5: Welding 6: Fabricability 7: Coatings Develop the materials technology to fabricate and operate a A-USC Steam Boiler with Steam Parameter up to 1400°F (760°C)

23 Nickel alloys can permit steam temperatures to reach 760oC.
25/03/2017Last edit: 00/00/2009 Last edit: 00/00/2009 760oC vs 700oC – USA Rationale Continuous 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 surface Alstom A-USC Development – IEA Workshop-Vienna, AU – Sept P 23



26 A-USC Steam Turbine Program: Phase I (complete)
Scoping Studies – Downselect Materials Key Issues Welded rotors materials Non-welded rotor materials Air Casting Erosion resistance Oxidation resistance

27 Steam Turbine Phase II Work
Using Selected Materials from Phase I Tasks Rotor/Disc Testing (near full-size forgings) Blade/Airfoil Alloy Testing Valve Internals Alloy Testing Rotor Alloy Welding and Characterization Cast Casing Alloy Testing Casing Welding and Repair

28 China -R&D Plan of the National 700℃ USC Technology
Ⅱ. R&D Proposal No. content 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 overall program design proposal 2 Filtering, developing, optimizing and assessing of heat resistant materials 3 key components of main equipments and high temperature pipes 1)Boiler’s tubes 2)Boiler’s key components 3)Turbine’s Large Forgings 4)Turbine’s key Components 5)High temperature pipes and fittings 6)High temperature and high pressure valves 4 Test platform construction and test 1)Design and construction of test platform 2)Test of boiler’s key components and valves 5 Demonstration projects 1)Preparation 2)Construction of the project 3)Operation and summary



31 Biomass co-firing with coal

32 IEA 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

33 Current status of co-firing worldwide
Biomass cofiring has been successfully demonstrated in more than 228 installations worldwide, according to the Biomass Cofiring Database compiled by the IEA Bioenergy Task32. There has been remarkably rapid progress over the past 5-10 years with more than 70 new installations added. There are more than 169 installations in Europe, over 47 in North America, more than 8 in Australia and a small number in China and other asian countries. Typical power stations that undertake cofiring are in the range of app. 50 MWe to 700 MWe. The majority are Pulverised Fuel boilers, while fluidised-bed, cyclone-firing and stoke boilers are also used. The proportion of biomass has ranged from 1% to 20% on energy basis, although a small number of power plants in Austria, Denmark and Sweden cofire a much higher percentage of biomass (or known as reverse cofiring). Cofiring has been performed with every commerically significant fuel type (lignite, sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal, and opportunity fuels such as petcoke), and every major category of biomass (woody, herbaceous, residues organic wastes and energy crops). Globally, about 5000 PJ of biomass/waste could in theory be burned in coal-fired power plants every year, assuming that biomass could be cofired in all coal-fired power plants at a 10% fuel share (on the energy basis) (Hansson and others, 2009). N.B. Data from the Cofiring Database Version 2.0 compiled by © IEA Bioenergy Task32, last updated in 2009

34 European Union co-firing biomass and coal
Distribution of co-firing plants in Europe Total: 169 installations Europe is the world’s forerunner in cofiring implementation with experience gained from more than 169 installations through either pilot tests or commercial opration. These installations spread in 11 countries as shown in the pie chart N.B. Data from the Cofiring Database Version 2.0 compiled by © IEA Bioenergy Task32, last updated in 2009

35 European Union incentives
9 Member Countries: Austria Belgium Denmark Finland Germany Italy Netherlands Sweden United Kingdom Categories of mechanisms: Disincentives for fossil fuels Taxation on GHGs emissions Market viability measures Feed-in tariff Renewable obligation Investment/production support Feed-in tariff dominates in EU: Pass on the cost to end users

36 Biomass demand - Europe
2009 Renewable Energy Directive commits EU members to increase the share of renewable energy to 20% by 2020 Each 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 cooling In UK, projected demand for woodchips will exceed by 5 times local available supply The 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.

37 The Netherlands plant name size/type biomass cofiring ratio
operational issues Amercentrale 8 645 MWe/PCC wood pellets citrus pellets 20% (mass) mill capacity Amercentrale 9 600 MWe, 350 MWth/PCC ‘’ 30% (mass) + gasifier 26 MWe/15 MWth demolition wood 5% impurities in fuel Borselle 406 MWe/PCC cocoa residue palm kernel 30% fly ash quality fouling Gelderland 13 602 MWe/PCC milling issues

38 Denmark plant name size/type biomass cofiring ratio operational issues
Amager 1 80 MWe dh/PCC wood pellets straw pellets 35-100% 35-90% Studstrup 1 152 MWe/PCC straw 20% some slagging Studstrup 3 350 MWe/PCC straw handling Studstrup 4 scr plugging Grena 17 MWe/CFB 50% Severe corrosion and bed agglomeration Avedore 2 800 MWth/USC 70-80% Coal ash added to prevent corrosion

39 United States plant name size/type biomass cofiring ratio
operational issues Allen 273 MWe/cyclone sawdust 20% (mass) small red. in boiler efficiency Seward 32 MWe/PCC 18% (mass) - Plant Gadsden 70 MWe/PCC switchgrass 7% (th) Small red. in boiler efficiency ‘’ wood chips 15% (mass) mill issues

40 Drax Power in UK - 500MW Co-firing Facility
Drax is a pioneer in biomass direct injection technology New 500MW co-firing facility is largest in the world Capacity to co-fire >1.5m tonnes pellets per year 40

41 Breaking down the Supply Chain
Transportation Port Loading Pelletising Imported Biomass UK Biomass Planting and Harvesting Ocean Freight Renewable Power Storage/ Site Processing Transportation Port Discharge 41 41

42 Biomass Storage Rail storage Road storage 42

43 Biomass processing Processing tower – biomass pellets
are processed into ‘dust’ before injection into boilers for combustion

44 UK Supply Chain Investment – Drax Woodyard
On site facility to process UK grown energy crops 44

45 Fuel delivery , storage and handling
Biomass has much lower bulk densities and heating values than coal → delivery and storage issues Handling and flow properties more problematical due to fibrous nature of fuel Biomass biologically active → fuel deterioration → health and safety issues

46 Milling inject into burner itself (Studstrup)
Standard coal mills are not ideal for biomass due to fibrous nature of fuel Co-milling possible up to 5% cofiring ratios Higher ratios require separate milling inject into burner itself (Studstrup) inject into pipework upstream of the burner (Drax) inject into dedicated biomass burners (Plant Gadsden)

47 Slagging, fouling and corrosion
Coal ash contains alumino-silicates, biomass ash contains alkaline species → lower fusion temperatures → increased slagging and fouling Biomass contains lower ash content than coal Wood ash contains magnesium → higher fusion temperatures

48 Torrefaction Thermochemical process which improves the properties of biomass regarding handling and utilisation Heating the biomass at 200 – 300 C for 1 hr under reducing conditions Friable, less fibrous, heating value (19-22 MJ/kg), homogeneous, less prone to degradation Superior handling, storage and milling properties

49 “Sustainability issues and public attitudes to biomass co-firing”
An IEA Clean Coal Centre Report By Deborah Adams and Rohan Fernando Draft due soon Final report January 2013 I 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.

50 Life Cycle Assessment (1)
Energy balance – energy inputs:bioenergy output GHG balance – 5-10% that of fossil fuels Other environmental impacts – N-based emissions from agriculture Carbon pools – above ground, below ground, dead wood, litter and soil, especially soil organic carbon and land use changes Timescale of biomass growth – emissions immediate, but can take many years to reabsorb CO2 by tree growth Life 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.

51 Life cycle assessment (2)
Land use changes – such as forest to plantation Indirect land use changes – land changes from food production to bioenergy, and food production goes elsewhere, such as on forestry land Non-CO2 emissions from soils – N2O from agriculture Agricultural residue removal – can impact soil organic C turnover Efficient biomass use Efficient 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 influence Effict 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 savings Effict land use: The key question is the following: should a piece of land be used to grow energy crops for bioenergy generation or be used to store atmospheric CO2 in biomass carbon pools (such as forest)?

The End – Thank you for your attention

Download ppt "Ways of reducing accounted CO2"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google