bench scale development of a hybrid membrane … library/events/2017/co2 capture/4... · use test...
TRANSCRIPT
2017 NETL CO2 Capture Technology Project Review Meeting
August 24, 2017
Brice Freeman, Jay Kniep, Richard Baker, Tim Merkel, Pingjiao Hao
Gary Rochelle, Eric Chen, Yue Zhang, Junyuan Ding, Brent Sherman
Bench Scale Development of a Hybrid
Membrane-Absorption CO2 Capture Process
DE-FE0013118
1
• Award name: Bench-Scale Development of a Hybrid Membrane-Absorption CO2 Capture Process (DE-
FE0013118)
• Project period: 10/1/13 to 5/31/18
• Funding: $3.2 million DOE + $0.75 million cost share
• DOE-NETL Project Manager: Andy Aurelio
• Participants: MTR, University of Texas at Austin
• Overall goal: Evaluate a hybrid post-combustion CO2 capture process for coal-fired power plants that
combines membrane and amine absorption/stripping technology.
• Project plan: The key project work organized by budget period is as follows:
– BP1: Develop process simulations and initial cost assessments for the hybrid process, determine
preferred hybrid configuration. Fabricate membrane modules.
– BP2: Prepare the SRP pilot plant for hybrid testing. Test each capture system separately under hybrid
conditions.
– BP3: Conduct a parametric tests on the integrated hybrid capture system at UT-Austin’s SPR Pilot
Plant. Use test data to refine simulations and conduct TEA.
Project Overview
2
CO2 depleted
flue gas
U.S. Patents 7,964,020 and 8,025,715
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 40 60 80 100
CO2 capture rate (%)
Cost of
CO2 captured
($/tonne)
Single-step process, no recycle
Two-step process with CO2 recycle
DOE target
Motivation for the Hybrid Process
Two-step process with CO2 recycle
Hybrid Parallel Configuration
4
Benefits:
• Increases the concentration (driving force) of CO2 in flue gas.
• Reduce the volume of gas sent to the capture unit.
• Air sweep is a very efficient use of membranes.
• MTR’s membrane contactor is modular and compact.
• Hybrid concept can be used with different capture technologies.
Challenges:
• The sweep stream impacts boiler performance; ~0.75%
efficiency derating.
• Hybrid partner must be able to capitalize on higher CO2
concentrations.
• Overall, hybrid systems increase operational complexity.
Pilot plant
testing at UT
Austin
Integrated
Boiler Testing
at B&W(FE-0026414)
Hybrid Parallel Configuration
5
Benefits:
• Increases the concentration (driving force) of CO2 in flue gas.
• Reduce the volume of gas sent to the capture unit.
• Air sweep is a very efficient use of membranes.
• MTR’s membrane contactor is modular and compact.
• Hybrid concept can be used with different capture technologies.
Challenges:
• The sweep stream impacts boiler performance; ~0.75%
efficiency derating.
• Hybrid partner must be able to capitalize on higher CO2
concentrations.
• Overall, hybrid systems increase operational complexity.
Pilot plant
testing at UT
Austin
Integrated
Boiler Testing
at B&W(FE-0026414)
Hybrid Parallel Configuration
6
Benefits:
• Increases the concentration (driving force) of CO2 in flue gas.
• Reduce the volume of gas sent to the capture unit.
• Air sweep is a very efficient use of membranes.
• MTR’s membrane contactor is modular and compact.
• Hybrid concept can be used with different capture technologies.
Challenges:
• The sweep stream impacts boiler performance; ~0.75%
efficiency derating.
• Hybrid partner must be able to capitalize on higher CO2
concentrations.
• Overall, hybrid systems increase operational complexity.
Pilot plant
testing at UT
Austin
Integrated
Boiler Testing
at B&W(FE-0026414)
Sample Results from B&W Integrated Tests
(FE-0026414)
7
Membrane-Boiler Test Results
• 5 weeks of testing on natural gas, Powder River Basin (PRB), and Eastern Bituminous coal
• 90% capture and a variety of partial capture conditions were achieved
• Boiler flame was stable allowing a full battery of stream conditions and boiler
efficiency measurements to be conducted
Main skidSweep module
Boiler Impacts from B&W Tests(FE-0026414)
• Furnace heat absorption is lower (FEGT)
• Convection pass heat absorption is higher due
to improved heat transfer coefficients.
• Convection pass outlet heat flux is higher
• Air heater heat absorption is higher
• Air heater flue gas outlet heat flux is higher
• Total heat absorption is slightly reduced
• Validated earlier derating assumption; 0.75% at
18% O2 in inlet secondary air.
8
Coal 30P M1 & M2 Coal 27P M2 Only Bit 32P 07 Bit 30P 06
20-Oct-16 18-Oct-16 3-Nov-16 2-Nov-16
Test Duration (h:mm) 7:00 7:15 6:00 3:04
PRB PRB Bit. Bit.
Load (MW) 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5
FEGT (°C) 1,179 1,259 1,175 1,254
Convection Pass Exit Temperature (°C) 397 380 408 388
Air Heater Exit Temperature (Flue Gas) (°C) 217 210 222 212
53% 0% 75% 0%
Furnace Absorption (MW) 0.52 0.66 0.40 0.77
Convection Pass Absorption (MW) 0.96 0.91 1.11 0.90
Convection Pass Outlet Heat Flux (MW) 0.50 0.43 0.54 0.44
Total Heat Absorption (MW) 1.62 1.68 1.65 1.77
Air Heater Absorption (MW) 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.14
Air Heater Outlet Heat Flux (Flue Gas) (MW) 0.31 0.27 0.36 0.30
Date
Fuel
Membrane Secondary Air Ratio
Test Name
w/
recycle
w/out
recycle
Pilot Plant Modifications
10
MTR Skid (BP3)10-in AFS
Cold High
Pressure
Cross
Exchanger
HP Blower
(BP3)
Absorber
Column Ext &
Intercooling
skids
Structure
modification
11
Absorber
V-104
T-420
Tank
P-104-DI P-520
P-430
P-420
H-430
H-420
Knock-Out
Filter
H-112-DI
Gas Chiller
V-105-DI
Absorber
Feedtank
P-106-DI
H-113 H-520
H-525H-535
V-540AFS
P-550
H-545
Skid
Condenser
H-515
V-550
CO2/
Condensate
P-560
Air
H-107
V-103
CO2-Accum.
C-104-DI
HP Blower
CO2 Recycle
CO2 Make-upMTR Membrane
Skid
Vent to ATM
BP3
SRP Pilot Plant Hybrid Flowsheet
Simulated Hybrid Test Conditions
• 29 conditions with 5 m (30 wt%) piperazine (PZ)
• Inlet CO2: 12 & 20% (DOE/MTR), 4% (CCP4)
• Solvent rate: 3 – 24 gpm with 350 or 600 cfm air
• Lean loading: 0.18 – 0.27 mol CO2/equivalent PZ
• Rich loading: 0.30 – 0.38
• 84 to 99% CO2 removal
• Two absorber configurations
– 3 x 10-ft solvent
– 2 x 10-ft solvent, 1 x 10-ft water wash
• Stripper Temp: 135oC, 150oC12
Absorber Performance
1.25%
2.50%
5.00%
10.00%
20.00%
0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39
CO2
penetration (%)
Rich loading (mol CO2/equiv PZ)
350 cfm w 30 ft packing
600 cfm w 30 ft or 350 cfm w 20 ft
600 cfm with 20 ft
13
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Predicted NTU/
Measured NTU
L/G (lb/lb)
Failure at high L/G probably due to liquid distribution
20%
12%
3.5%
Gas inlet CO2
Aspen Plus® Model Predictions of CO2 Removal by
Independence
14
2
3
4
5
6
0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.29
Heat Duty (GJ/MT CO2)
Lean Loading (mol CO2/mol alk)
3.4 - 4.3% CO2
12 - 20% CO2
Q = Qsensible + Qlatent + Qcondenser
Heat Duty is Independent of CO2 Concentration
Minimum heat duty at 0.22-0.26 lean loading still includes some heat loss.
2
4
8
0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.29
Heat Duty (GJ/MT CO2)
Lean Loading (mol CO2/mol alk)
Test Plan Predictions
Pilot Plant Results
Q = Qsensible + Qlatent + Qcondenser
[includes some heat loss]
Initial Modeling Under Predicts Measured Heat Duty
16
3-12% CO2
Total Equivalent Work
(including some heat loss)
200
250
300
350
0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.27
WEQ
(kWh/MT CO2)
Lean Loading (mol CO2/mol alk)
Compression to 150 bar
WEQ = WSteam + WCompressor + WPump
20% CO2
17
30
32
34
36
38
40
0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42
Weq(kJ/mol CO2)
Rich Loading (mol CO2/mol alk)
90±3% Removal
98-99% Removal
"Other" Removal
Lean Loading = 0.24±0.02 mol CO2/mol alk
Weq Near Optimum Depends on Rich Loading
18
Initial Model Under Predicts Equivalent Work
200
400
0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.29
WEQ
(kWh/MT CO2)
Lean Loading (mol CO2/mol alk)
WEQ = WSteam + WCompressor + WPump
Test Plan Predictions
SRP Results
19
Performance of Cold Cross Exchanger
U = 1455L1.11
100
200
400
800
1600
3200
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6
U (W/m2-oF)
Average solvent rate, L (kg/s)
2017
2015
20
Pressure Drop Enhances Exchanger Performance
50
100
200
400
800
1 2 4 8 16
Heat transfer coefficient (W/K.m2)
Average pressure drop (psi)
Cold Exchanger
y = 181x0.69
Hot Flashing Exchanger
Hot Flashing P&F
Exchanger Performs Well
21
Cold Bypass Reduces Loss of Sensible Heat
22
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Middle approach T
(oF)
Cold bypass ratio
Piperazine Management Results and Observations
• Precipitation minimized by 5 m PZ (only one incident)
– Instrument air loss + chilled water to IC = precipitation
– Melted at 80oC with heat gun
• Foaming Unexpected
– Moderate unexpected absorber pressure drop at high gas flow rate
– Reduced with the addition of antifoam
• Oxidation is acceptable
– NH3 emissions of 3 to 10 ppm, could still be reduced
• Aerosol requires high SO3
– PZ emissions doubled with 10 -100 ppm SO3
• Corrosion of CS could be acceptable for stripper shell
– 175 (SS), 325 (CS) mm/yr in hot lean PZ23
Conclusions from Simulated Hybrid Test Campaign
• Absorber & stripper performed well with 20% CO2
• Absorber performance predicted acceptably by “Independence”
– Absorber model is most accurate for 4% and 12% CO2
– Liquid distribution is poor at high L/G
• Energy requirement independent of inlet CO2
– Heat loss needs more analysis
– Nominal smallest Weq = 215 kWh/t at 0.23 lean loading
• Exchangers provide 4-8 oF pinch with 5 to 10% cold bypass
• Hot flashing P&F exchanger provides reliable heat transfer
24
Next Steps
Budget Period 3
• Integrate MTR’s plate-and-frame skid with UT Austin’s SRP Pilot Plant
• Perform integrated testing campaign under hybrid-parallel conditions
• Develop TEA based on test results, final project report
25
Hybrid Project Team
• DOE-NETL:
– Andy Aurelio (Federal Project Manager)
• MTR:
– Brice Freeman (PI)
– Richard Baker (Technical Advisor)
– Pingjiao “Annie” Hao (Sr. Research Scientist)
– Jay Kniep (Research Manager)
– Tim Merkel (Dir. R&D)
• U. Texas - Austin:
– Gary Rochelle (co-PI)
– Eric Chen (Research Associate)
– Frank Seibert (Sr. Research Engineer)
– Darshan Sachde (Graduate Student)
– Brent Sherman (Graduate Student)
– Yue Zhang (Graduate Student)
– Junyuan Ding (Graduate Student)26