global ccs institute aep feed webinar presentation

American Electric Power: This presentation is provided “as-is” and with no warranties, express or implied, whatsoever for the use or the accuracy of the information contained therein. Use of the presentation and the information found therein is at the sole risk of the recipient. American Electric Power Company, its affiliates and subsidiaries, shall not be liable in any way for the accuracy of any information contained in the report, including but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any information content; or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as the result of the use of any of the information.

Mountaineer Commercial Scale CCS Project

Project Overview and Summary of FEED Activities

Global CCS Institute CO2 Capture Plant FEED Study Webinar

Presented By: Matt Usher, P.E. & Guy Cerimele, P.E., P.M.P.

American Electric PowerDecember 15, 2011

American Electric Power: This presentation is provided “as-is” and with no warranties, express or implied, whatsoever for the use or the accuracy of the information contained therein. Use of the report and the information found therein is at the sole risk of the recipient. American Electric Power Company, its affiliates and subsidiaries, shall not be liable in any way for the accuracy of any information contained in the report, including but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any information content; or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as the result of the use of any of the information.

2

Acknowledgement

US Department of Energy:National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) sponsored the project under Round Three of their Clean Coal Power Initiative.

This material is based upon work supported by the US Department of Energy Award Number DE-FE0002673. 50% cost share

Integrated Project Team:Alstom Power - Chilled Ammonia Process technology owner & conceptual design WorleyParsons Group – Architectural & Engineering services for the balance of plant and CO2pipeline engineering & designBattelle Memorial Institute - CO2 storage scope The Geologic Experts Team - Advisory body

Input to challenges, strategies, plans, designs, operations, results and recommendations of AEP and its project team for injection and storage of CO2.

Global CCS Institute - Funding for project support and facilitation of knowledge sharing


3

DisclaimerDisclaimerUS Department of Energy: This report was prepared as an account of worksponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes anywarranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for theaccuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or rocess disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately ownedrights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service bytrade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constituteor imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressedherein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government orany agency thereof.


4

AgendaAEP & Mountaineer Plant OverviewProject Information & ObjectivesChilled Ammonia Process OverviewFEED Technical ObjectivesSummary of FEED ActivitiesFEED DeliverablesKey FEED Studies & Investigations

Steam Supply and Condensate ReturnReagent / Refrigerant Byproduct Bleed Stream StudyCO2 Compression StudyCCS Control Systems

FEED Conclusions & Key Technical TakeawaysEstimate ApproachProject Cost EstimateMajor Risks and OpportunitiesRisk ModelingClosing Remarks


5

AEP Overview

5.2 million customers in 11 statesIndustry leading size and scale of assets:

#2 Domestic generation with 38,000 MW#1 Transmission with 39,000 miles#1 Distribution with 216,000 miles

Coal & transportation assetsOver 7,500 railcars involved in operationsOwn/lease and operate over 2,850 barges

& 75 towboatsCoal handling terminal with 20 million

tons of capacityConsume 76 million tons of coal per year

18,712 employees6%6%22%66%

Other –(hydro, wind,

etc.)

NuclearGas/Oil

Coal/ Lignite

AEP Generation Capacity Portfolio


6

Mountaineer Plant


7

Mountaineer Plant

Operated by Appalachian Power Company, a subsidiary of AEP.Located on State Route 62 near New Haven, West VirginiaA single 1300 MW net pulverized coal plantEmission Controls

ESP – Original EquipmentSCR – Installed 2001FGD and SO3 Mitigation installed 2007

Primary fuel is bituminous coal Host site for Alstom’s 20 MWeProduct Validation Facility (PVF) for Chilled Ammonia

Two (2) onsite CO2 injection wellsOperated 2009 – 2011Currently in post-injection monitoring


8

MT CCS II Project Overview

Purpose: Advance the development of the Alstom Chilled Ammonia Process (CAP) CO2 Capture technology and demonstrate CO2 storage and monitoring technology at commercial scaleProject Participants

AEP, USDOE, Alstom, Battelle, WorleyParsons, Potomac Hudson, Geologic Experts Advisory Team

Location: Mountaineer Power Plant and other AEP owned propertiesnear New Haven, WV

Preliminary cost estimate: $668 million50/50 DOE cost share up to $334M

Project Technical Objectives90% CO2 removal from the stack gasStore 1.5 million metric tons of CO2/yearDemonstrate commercial scale technology


9

Gas to StackChilled

Water

Chilled Ammonia Process Overview

Gas Cooling

and Cleaning

Flue Gas from FGD

CO2

Cooled Flue Gas

CO2

CO2Regenerator

CO2Absorber

CO2

Clean CO2 to Storage

Reagent Heat and Pressure

Reagent

CO2


10

FEED Technical Objectives

Conceptual Design Basis CompleteComplete technical studies and investigations related to

Establishing process design parametersBalance of Plant (BOP) systems integrationLocation/Arrangement of equipmentEnvironmental Impact Statement (to satisfy NEPA)

Engineering and design documents to support cost +/-25% cost estimate

Engineering in position to freeze design early in Detailed Engineering phase.


11

MT CCS II Summary of FEED Activities

Process Design w/ Alstom & WorleyParsonsSite Design Conditions and Criteria (AEP)

Weather Data (temps, rainfall, wind rose)Site Characteristics (location, elevation, seismic criteria, etc.)Available Water & Utilities Info AEP Design Criteria (by discipline)Applicable codes & standards

Periodic site walk-downsEquipment locationsSteam and other BOP tie-ins

Integrated E&D workshops (CAP and BOP)Wiesbaden, GermanyKnoxville, TNReading, PAColumbus, OH

CAP/BOP Design Basis, M&E Balances and Process Flow Diagrams


12

MT CCS II Summary of FEED Activities

Process Hazards AnalysisUtilized WorleyParsons’ HAZID Process

Team Meeting at WorleyParsons in Reading, PAIdentified potential process and logistical hazards & risksPrecursor to a formal HAZOP (Phase II)Used in Phase I to identify focal points for detailed engineering/design

Constructability ReviewsParticipation from AEP Construction, WorleyParsons and AlstomModularizationEquipment Delivery (i.e. Barge Unloading)Construction-related risks

WeatherLaborAssembly logistics and crane utilizationMaterials of construction (alloys, vessel packing etc.)

3D Model / Accessibility Reviews (Monthly)Used to determine maintenance access, egress, walk-ability.


13

Summary of FEED Deliverables (Capture)

Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs)Material and Energy Balances

Summer (full load)Average Ambient (full load)Low AmbientPart Load

General Arrangements (GAs)Process & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs)Electrical One-Line DrawingsSystem Descriptions (Control Philosophy)3D Model (included piping 2.5 inches and larger)


14

Key Studies & InvestigationsSteam Supply to CAP

Based on steam cycle evaluation and process optimization, the conceptual design basis would be to extract steam at two different pressure levels:

higher pressure steam for regeneration from the IP/LP crossover utilizing throttling valves (butterfly type)Lower pressure to supply steam for process stripping.

Condensate Return from CAPreturned to the Mountaineer feed water heating system to reclaim the condensate as well as offset a portion of the overall energy demand. To minimize contamination concerns, a condensate storage “buffer” tank is included in the design, which is continuously monitored for contamination.


15

Key Studies & InvestigationsCAP Reagent Study

Anhydrous ammonia selected:optimum reagent to maintain/control ammonia molarity in the CAP and to recover from molarity upsets during process upsets, load fluctuations and maintenance activities least risk of impurity addition, which can cause process upsets,and effluent for streams requiring additional treatment.lowest capital and operating cost of the reagents compared

CAP Refrigerant StudyAmmonia offers the lowest energy consumption (highest efficiency) and the lowest installed capital cost, with minimal environmental impact with respect to ozone depletion, greenhouse effect, or global warming.


16

Key Studies & InvestigationsChilled Ammonia Process Byproduct Handling

Focused on beneficial use and disposal optionsRecovery of Crystallized Ammonium Sulfate for Resale Recovery of 40 wt% Ammonium Sulfate for Resale Alternate process to react ammonium sulfate with lime to recoverammonia and produce gypsum that could be combined with Mountaineer’s gypsum waste product from the FGD.

40 wt% solution selected as design basisLower energy demandOptimal product for end-user


17

Key Studies & InvestigationsCO2 Compression

Maximum injection pressure into the geological formations targeted for the project is expected to be approximately 3000 psi (207 bar).Injection pressures in the 1200 psi – 1500 psi (83 –103 bar) range are expected early in the life of the target injection wells (from PVF operating experience). Compression to an intermediate pressure, followed by variable speed pumping to the final injection pressure offers greater flexibility and efficiency over the life of the system as compared to full compression to the maximum expected injection pressure.

Integrally geared technology is proven, cost effective, and offers, with the use of a variable-speed drive on the CO2pump, a wide range of outlet pressures.


18

Key Studies & InvestigationsCCS Control Systems

All control and monitoring associated with process systems and equipment will generally be from the Distributed Control System (DCS) terminal located in a dedicated CCS control room located near the CAP. CCS Control Room Features

Designed as a continuously occupied control center designed to accommodate two (2) operators and a shift supervisor. Included all the necessary displays for safe operation of both the capture and storage systems. Normal control and monitoring will be from the DCS Operator Interface Terminal (OIT)


19

FEED Conclusion

FEED conceptual design basis was sound and poised for kickoff of detailed engineering and design.

CAP design will meet stated objectivesScope of integration is practical and achievableParasitic load estimates are accurate and realisticDesign basis more than adequately supports a +/- 25% cost estimateOpportunities for improvement exist and could be realized in thedetailed design phase


20

Key Technical TakeawaysOverall the conceptual design and integration of the CAP and itsassociated BOP systems into the Mountaineer power generating station was a success.

Keep integration expectations practical.

Collaborative process was instrumental in identifying many of the technical risk factors up front.

Keep plant personnel involved and informed

Selection of process steam source that minimized extraction ties, eliminated significant turbine modifications, and kept the operation of the steam supply as simple as practical.

Based on experience with injection at Mountaineer, pressures below 3000 psig (207 bar) were likely to be sufficient to inject CO2 into the targeted underground reservoirs

Reduced overall energy demand due to lower pressureCompression to an intermediate pressure, followed by variable speed pumping offers greater flexibility and efficiency


21

Estimate Approach

Approach:Front end engineering & design supports a target +/- 25% cost estimateMajor equipment costs are based on budgetary quotes Estimated quantities for capture system are based on 3-D modelLabor costs for capture are based on quantities and Worley Parson’s data base Estimate aligns with contracting strategyEscalation is applied with respect to the project execution schedule

Process and Tools:Collaborative team effort involving Alstom, WorleyParsons, Battelle, and AEP engineering and construction inputs Utilized detailed work breakdown structure (WBS)Applied lessons learned from Product Validation FacilityAdvanced estimate risk modeling techniques per latest industry standardCollective project team review of estimate (i.e. Red Team Review)


22

Injection & Monitoring System

Characterization

Intermediate Monitoring

Deep Monitoring

Injection

Types of Wells

1

4

9

2

Number

• Yellow circle shows the extent of themodeled CO2 plume for 5 year injection.

• The green triangle represents injectionwell (1 at each site)

• The red triangle represents monitoringwell

• Yellow and black triangle represents intermediate monitoring well


23

Drilling of BA-02 Characterization Well


24

Logging and Coring: BA-02

Core sample showing connected vugs; refer to CCS Storage Report


25

Project Cost Estimate (USD)

Bottoms-up estimate based on approx. 10 - 15% engineering and use of 3D model.

System (Phases I, II & III) Estimate ($ x million)

Capture StorageSubtotal (Overnight Cost) $825

Escalation $71 Subtotal (As Spent) $896

Risk Based Contingency $103 Total Constructed Cost $999

Phase IV Operations $66 Total Project Cost $1,065


26

Major Risks & Opportunities

RisksEscalation

Wide ranging scenariosUnderground Injection Control Permit

Application first Scope of Storage Well System

Additional wells Craft Labor

Schedule built with 5 – 8s and 5% casual overtime

Scale-up Unknown but expected issues post design freeze

OpportunitiesInitial Overdesign

Address in detailed engineering

ModularizationApply AEP Experience

Installed sparesRAM study would confirm extent

Structural SteelMostly in absorber building area


24

Risk Modeling

Relative Ranking of Risks Probability of under run

Risk modeling provides a total cost estimate (Phases I – IV) ranging from $962-million to $1.065-billion


28

In Summary

The work completed in Phase I continues to support the commercial readiness of Alstom’s CAP technology at the intended scale and provides AEP and DOE with a good understanding of the project’s risks, capital cost, and expected operations and maintenance costs during planned Phase IV operations.

The completed front-end engineering and design package provides a sound basis for completion of the project when conditions warrant the continuation of this or a similar project elsewhere in the U.S.

More about AEP at <www.AEP.com>


29

Q & A

global ccs institute aep feed webinar presentation

Technology

information content

accuracy of theinformation

sole risk

storage of co2

clean coal power initiative

kind incurred asthe

global ccs institute

project support