hydrogen and power co-generation based on syngas and solid .../media/... · hydrogen and power...

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng

CCT 2013, Salonic, Greece 1 New Horizons in Gasification, Rotterdam New Horizons in Gasification, Rotterdam

Hydrogen and power co-generation based on syngas and solid fuel direct chemical looping systems

Calin-Cristian Cormos

Babeş – Bolyai University, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

11 Arany Janos, RO-400028, Cluj – Napoca, Romania

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Outline

1. Introduction

2. Plant configurations & major design assumptions

3. Plant modelling, simulation and thermal integration

4. Evaluation of hydrogen and power co-generation

5. Development issues

6. Conclusions

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


I. Introduction

The following work was performed within the project:

“Innovative methods for chemical looping carbon dioxide

capture applied to energy conversion processes

for decarbonised energy vectors poly-generation”

Specific project objectives:

- Investigation of coal and biomass / solid wastes

co-processing via gasification and combustion

- Energy vectors poly-generation (power, hydrogen,

SNG, heat, FT fuel)

- Evaluation of various carbon capture technologies

- Techno-economical and environmental evaluations

of energy vectors poly-generation with CCS

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Chemical looping conversion

Main advantages:

- Inherent CO2 capture

- High temp. heat recovery

- Fuel versatility

- Poly-generation capability

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng

CCT 2013, Salonic, Greece 5 New Horizons in Gasification, Rotterdam

II. Plant configurations of H2 and power co-generation with chemical looping systems

Syngas-based chemical looping

Purified hydrogen

CO2 to storage

Power

H2 compression

CO2 Drying

and Compression

Fuel (syngas) reactor

Syngas

Steam

reactor

Steam

Condensate

Fe/FeO

Condensate

Air

reactor

Fe2O3

Air

Exhaust air

Steam Fe3O4

Steam

turbine

Steam

Combined Cycle

Gas Turbine

Power

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Details of syngas-based chemical looping cycle

Fuel

reactor

Syngas

Steam

reactor

Steam

Fe/FeO

Air

reactor

Fe2O3

Air

Fe3O4

CO2, H2O

H2, H2O

N2, O2

Fe2O3 + CO + H2 →

Fe / FeO + H2O + CO2

750 – 900oC, 30 bar

Fe / FeO + H2O →

Fe3O4 + H2

500 – 750oC, 28 bar

Fe3O4 + O2 → Fe2O3

800 – 1000oC, 30 bar

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Solid fuel direct chemical looping conversion

Purified hydrogen

CO2 to storage

Power

H2 compression

CO2 Drying

and Compression

Fuel reactor

Solid fuels (coal, lignite, biomass)

Steam

reactor

Steam

Condensate

Fe/FeO

Condensate

Air

reactor

Fe2O3

Air

Exhaust air

Steam Fe3O4

Steam

turbine

Steam

Combined Cycle

Gas Turbine

Power

Drying &

Grounding

Enhancer gas

(e.g. steam, CO2)

Spent solid (incl. ash)

Fresh oxygen carrier

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Details of solid fuel direct chemical looping cycle

Fe2O3 + Solid fuel →

Fe / FeO + H2O + CO2

750 – 900oC, 30 bar

Fe / FeO + H2O →

Fe3O4 + H2

600 – 800oC, 28 bar

Fe3O4 + O2 → Fe2O3

800 – 1000oC, 30 bar

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Benchmark case:

IGCC with SelexolTM-based pre-combustion CO2 capture

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Major design assumptions

1. Plant size: ~ 450 MW net power; 0 – 200 MW H2 (LHV)

2. Entrained-flow gasifier: Dry fed gas quench type

3. Gas turbine: 1 x M701G2 (MHI)

4. Carbon capture rate: >90 %

5. Carbon capture: Ilmenite (oxygen carrier) / SelexolTM

6. CO2 purity & pressure: >95 % (vol.) / 120 bar

7. H2 purity & pressure: >99.95 % (vol.) / 70 bar

8. Fuel types: High grade coal, biomass (sawdust)

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Investigated case studies

Investigated coal-based power plant concepts for

hydrogen and power co-generation with carbon capture:

Case 1 – IGCC with syngas-based chemical looping

Case 2 – Coal direct chemical looping conversion

Case 3 – IGCC with SelexolTM-based pre-combustion

CO2 capture

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


III. Plant modeling, simulation and thermal integration

Investigated case studies were simulated using process

flow modelling software ChemCAD and Thermoflex

Chemical looping

& CO2 drying and compression

Power

island

Gasification island

& Syngas conditioning Case 1: Syngas-based

chemical looping

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Energy integration aspects

Investigated energy integration aspects:

- Steam integration from gasification island, syngas

conditioning line and chemical looping unit into CCGT

steam cycle (Rankine cycle)

- Heat and power integration for carbon capture unit

(oxygen carrier regeneration, captured CO2 stream

drying and compression)

- Air integration between Air Separation Unit (ASU) and

GT compressor (GT air bleed)

- Hydrogen-fuelled Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT)

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Optimization of plant energy efficiency by heat and power integration

Case 2: Composite curves for chemical looping unit

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Case 2: Composite curves for hydrogen-fuelled CCGT

Optimization of plant energy efficiency by heat and power integration

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Evaluation of ASU – GT air integration Cases 1 & 3

37

37.5

38

38.5

39

39.5

40

0 25 50 75 100

Net

ele

ctr

ical

eff

icie

ncy (

%)

Air integration degree (%)

Pros:

- Increased efficiency

- Increased power

output

- Reduced investment

costs (save ASU air

compressor)

Cons:

- Lengthy start-up

- Less operational

flexibility

- Lower availability Case 1: Syngas-based chemical looping

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


IV. Evaluation of hydrogen and power co-generation

Investigated power plant concepts:

Case 1 – IGCC with syngas-based chemical looping

Case 2 – Coal direct chemical looping conversion

Case 3 – IGCC with SelexolTM-based pre-combustion

CO2 capture

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Coal flowrate t/h 167.21 169.44 165.70

Coal thermal energy (LHV) MWth 1177.57 1193.28 1166.98

Gas turbine output (1 x M701G2) MWe 334.00 334.00 334.00

Steam turbine output MWe 205.43 172.29 210.84

Air expander output MWe 3.54 37.14 0.78

Ancillary power demand MWe 98.08 49.19 112.44

Net electric power MWe 444.89 494.24 433.18

Net electrical efficiency % 37.78 41.41 37.11

Carbon capture rate % 99.71 99.65 90.79

CO2 specific emissions Kg / MWh 3.88 3.61 86.92

Power generation only

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Power Power & Hydrogen

Coal flowrate t/h 169.44

Coal thermal energy (LHV) MWth 1193.28

Gas turbine output (1 x M701G2) MWe 334.00 290.85 253.02

Steam turbine output MWe 172.29 151.56 130.27

Air expander output MWe 37.14 37.14 37.14

Hydrogen output MWth 0.00 100.00 200.00

Ancillary power demand MWe 49.19 48.62 48.15

Net electric power MWe 494.24 430.93 372.28

Net electrical efficiency % 41.41 36.11 31.19

Hydrogen efficiency % 0.00 8.38 16.76

Cumulative efficiency % 41.41 44.49 47.95

Carbon capture rate % 99.65 99.65 99.65

CO2 specific emissions Kg / MWh 3.61 3.36 3.11

Hydrogen and power co-generation - Case 2 (coal direct chemical looping)

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Variation of electrical, hydrogen and cumulative energy

efficiencies vs. hydrogen output (Case 2)

Variation of plant performances vs. hydrogen and power co-production ratio

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 50 100 150 200

Eff

icie

nc

y [

%]

Hydrogen co-generation ratio [MW]

Electrical efficiency Hydrogen efficiency Cumulative efficiency

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Evaluation of captured CO2 composition

Evaluation of various transport gases for dry-fed

gasifier and coal direct chemical looping conversion

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Estimation of capital costs

Capital cost presented as a power law of capacity:

CE – equipment cost with capacity Q

CB – known base cost for equipment with capacity QB

M – constant depending on equipment type

M

B

BEQ

QCC )(*

Total investment cost per kW gross / net:

outputpowerGross

tinvestmentTotalgrosskWperTIC

cos)(

outputpowerNet

tinvestmentTotalnetkWperTIC

cos)(

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Estimation of operational & maintenance (O&M) costs

Operational & maintenance (O&M) costs include:

- Fuel used and fluxing materials

- Chemicals (for BFW, process & CW, solvents etc.)

- Catalysts (for WGS, Claus plant, COS hydrolysis etc.)

- Oxygen carrier (illmenite)

- Direct operating labor costs

- Maintenance, overhead charges etc.

O&M costs are allocated as fixed and variable costs

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Total investment cost MM € 1119.62 1191.26 1107.33

Total investment cost per kW gross € / kW 2062.03 2192.11 2029.48

Total investment cost per kW net € / kW 2516.62 2410.28 2556.27

Total fixed O&M costs (year) M€ / y 40.92 47.99 38.43

Total fixed O&M costs (MWh net) € / MWh 9.40 11.72 11.83

Total variable O&M costs (year) M€ / y 78.55 103.44 76.18

Total variable O&M costs (MWh net) € / MWh 18.05 25.26 23.45

Total fixed and variable costs (year) M€ / y 119.47 151.43 114.61

Total fixed and variable costs (MWh net) € / MWh 27.46 36.98 35.28

Economic performances - Power generation only

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Estimation of levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) and CO2 capture costs

CO2 capture costs presented as CO2 removal and avoided

costs:

removedCO

LCOELCOEtremovalCO

CCSwithoutCCSwith

2

2 cos

CCSwithCCSwithout

CCSwithoutCCSwith

emissionsCOemissionsCO

LCOELCOEtavoidedCO

22

2 cos

Costs Units No CCS Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Cost of electricity € / MWh 54.13 76.77 79.50 76.00

CO2 removal cost € / t - 24.88 28.93 25.95

CO2 avoided cost € / t - 30.71 34.40 33.43

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


V. Development issues

Chemical looping techniques show good potential for

high energy conversion efficiencies for both syngas

and direct solid fuel applications

However, significant developments are needed from

current state of the art (up to 1 - 10 MW), e.g. oxygen

carrier development & manufacture, fuel conversion,

spent oxygen carrier utilisation, design issues etc.

Direct solid fuel chemical looping plants would have

important similarities to circulated fluidised bed (CFB),

which is a commercial technology up to 500 MWe

Syngas-based chemical looping concept looks simpler in

term of gas-solid system (e.g. higher fuel conversion, no

ash removal required, lower oxygen carrier deactivation)

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Direct solid fuel chemical looping is a promising

solution for energy efficient full biomass conversion

Case 2

Biomass (sawdust) flowrate t/h 268.60

Biomass thermal energy (LHV) MWth 1198.03

Gas turbine output (1 x M701G2) MWe 334.00

Steam turbine output MWe 177.92

Air expander output MWe 41.27

Ancillary power demand MWe 50.37

Net electric power MWe 502.82

Net electrical efficiency % 41.97

Carbon capture rate % 99.60

CO2 specific emissions Kg / MWh 3.60

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Biomass Coal

Total investment cost MM € 1256.53 1191.26

Total investment cost per kW gross € / kW 2251.08 2192.11

Total investment cost per kW net € / kW 2464.66 2410.28

Total fixed O&M costs (year) M€ / y 48.28 47.99

Total fixed O&M costs (MWh net) € / MWh 12.62 11.72

Total variable O&M costs (year) M€ / y 100.26 103.44

Total variable O&M costs (MWh net) € / MWh 26.22 25.26

Total fixed and variable costs (year) M€ / y 148.54 151.43

Total fixed and variable costs (MWh net) € / MWh 38.84 36.98

Economic performances for

direct biomass chemical looping conversion

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


VI. Conclusions

Direct solid fuel and syngas chemical looping concepts

are promising solutions to deliver high energy efficiency

together with almost total fuel decarbonisation

Modelling, simulation and heat and power integration

were used to asses and optimize the techno-economic

and environmental performances

Hydrogen and power co-generation capability is a

promising solution to improve the techno-economic and

environmental power plant performances

Direct solid fuel chemical looping conversion can be

successfully applied for 100% biomass / solid waste

energy applications

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hem

ical

En

gin

eeri

ng


Thank you for your attention!

Contact:

Calin-Cristian Cormos

[email protected]

http://www.chem.ubbcluj.ro/

This work has been supported by Romanian National

Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI,

through grants no. PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0028 and

PNII-CT-ERC-2012-1; 2ERC

hydrogen and power co-generation based on syngas and solid .../media/... · hydrogen and power...

Documents