integrated modeling of carbon management technologies for
TRANSCRIPT
1
Integrated Modeling of Carbon Integrated Modeling of Carbon Management Technologies for Management Technologies for
Electric Power SystemsElectric Power Systems
Edward S. Rubin and Anand B. RaoDepartment of Engineering & Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
July 20, 2000
Some Questions to be AddressedSome Questions to be Addressed
What carbon management technologies may be used in a particular application (e.g., existing vs. new plants)?What are the key parameters that affect the performance, emissions, and cost of a given option? How do the alternative options compare in terms of performance, reliability, and cost?What are the uncertainties and technological risks of different carbon management options?What are the priorities and benefits of R&D to reduce key uncertainties in new process designs?
2
Combustion&
Power Gen. Air Flue Gas
Treatment
CO2
Combustion&
Power Gen.
Flue Gas Treatment
CO2 CaptureUnit
CO2Product Storage/Use
Coal or Gas
Coal or Gas
Conventional Power Plant
Conventional Power Plant with CO2 Capture
ASUAir O2Air
Current ApplicationsCurrent Applications
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR)Dow MEA (Some plants in TX and NM, now shut down) Common in 1970s and 1980s (100-1200 tons CO2/d)
Fertilizer industryH2 and CO2 separation ⇒ Urea production Dow MEA (Indo Gulf Fertilizer Co.) - 150 tons CO2/d
Carbonation of brine (soda ash)Kerr-McGee MEA (North American Chemical Co.,operational since 1978) - 800 tons CO2/d
Food-gradeFluor Daniel / Dow MEA (Northeast Energy Associates, MA) - 320 tons CO2/d
Commercial CO2 capture and sequestration facility
Injection into deep saline aquifer (Sleipner West gas field, Norway, installed in 1996) - ~3000 tons CO2/d
4
Power Generation Options Using Power Generation Options Using Fossil FuelsFossil Fuels
Combustion-basedGasification-based
Coal
Direct CombustionGas Reforming
Gas
Fuel
Air
Pure Oxygen
Oxidant
Pulverized CoalGas Turbines
Simple Cycle
Gas TurbinesCoal GasificationFuel CellsOther
Combined Cycle
Technology
Power Generation Technologies
COCO22 Capture TechnologiesCapture Technologies
MEACausticOther
Chemical
SelexolRectisolOther
Physical
Absorption
AluminaZeoliteActivated C
Adsorber Beds
Pressure SwingTemperature SwingWashing
Regeneration Method
Adsorption Cryogenics
PolyphenyleneoxidePolydimethylsiloxane
Gas Separation
Polypropelene
Gas Absorption
Ceramic BasedSystems
Membranes Microbial/AlgalSystems
CO2 Separation and Capture
5
COCO22 Sequestration OptionsSequestration Options
Deep SalineReservoirs
ExhaustedOil and Gas Wells
AbandonedCoal Seams
GeologicalSequestration
Very Deep OceanInjection
Unconfined Release(@ ~ 1000 m)
Dense Plume Formation(shallow)
Dry Ice Injection
OceanSequestration
Forests andTerrestrial Systems
Marine Alga
BiologicalSequestration
Storage as a solid in anInsulated Repository
Utilization Schemes(e.g. Polymerization)
OtherMethods
CO2 Disposal / Storage Options
Modeling Framework for Carbon Modeling Framework for Carbon Management OptionsManagement Options
Power Generation
CO2Capture
CO2 Storageor Disposal
CO2Transport
AbsorptionAdsorptionCryogenicsMembranes
PipelineOther
Deep Saline ReservoirsOil and Gas WellsDeep Coal Seams
OceansByproduct Utilization
Air orPure O2
Coal orNatural Gas
Simple CycleCombined Cycle
6
Energy ConsiderationsEnergy Considerations
ProcessHeat
Capture Process
Compression
Transport
Storage/Disposal
Electricity
Total Energy Requirement
Important Factors•Gas Stream Flow and Composition•Choice of CO2 Capture Technology•Desired CO2 Capture Efficiency•Process Parameters•Desired CO2 Product Specifications•Mode of Transport•Transportation Distance•Choice of Disposal Method
~ 60-80% cost ofseparation & capture
Current StatusCurrent Status
Developed preliminary models (performance, emissions, and cost) for several CO2 capture options, CO2 transport options, and CO2 storage optionsInitial focus on modeling of current commercial technologies (amine scrubbing systems) for combustion-based power systemsIntegrated the new CO2 module with the IECM combustion-based power plant model developed for the USDOE
7
Integrated EnvironmentalIntegrated EnvironmentalControl Model (IECM)Control Model (IECM)
CoalCleaning
CombustionControls
Flue Gas Cleanup & Waste Management
NOxRemoval
ParticulateRemoval
CombinedSOx/NOxRemoval
AdvancedParticulateRemoval
SO2Removal
ObjectivesObjectives
Develop a comprehensive modeling framework to estimate the performance, environmental emissions, and cost of coal-based power generation technologies
Develop a method for comparing alternative options on a systematic basis, including the effects of uncertainty
8
ApproachApproach
Process Technology ModelsEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software CapabilitiesSystems Analysis Framework
Probabilistic Software CapabilityProbabilistic Software Capability
Allows you to specify parameter values as distribution functions, as well as conventional deterministic (point) estimatesAllows you to explicitly quantify the effects of uncertainty in performance, emissions, and cost, yielding confidence intervals for uncertain results
9
SorbentSulfur
Loading
GasifierFines
Carryover
CarbonRetention inBottom Ash
353025201510500.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Sorbent Sulfur Loading, wt-%20151050
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Carbon Retention in Bottom Ash% of coal feed carbon
3025201510500.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Fines Carryover, % of coal feed
Expert Judgments on Expert Judgments on Key Model ParametersKey Model Parameters
Calculated Plant EfficiencyCalculated Plant Efficiency
444342414039380.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
ProbabilisticDeterministic
Net Plant Efficiency (%, HHV basis)
Cum
ulat
ive
Prob
abili
ty
10
Total Plant Capital CostTotal Plant Capital CostC
umul
ativ
e Pr
obab
ility
Total Capital Requirement ($1994/kW)1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
DOE (1989)Probabilistic
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
524 MW net
Value of Targeted ResearchValue of Targeted Research
1201101009080706050400.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Base Case UncertaintiesReduced Uncertainties inSelected Performanceand Cost Parameters
Levelized Cost of Electricity, Constant 1989 mills/kWh
Input Uncertainty Assumptions
Cum
ulat
ive
Prob
abili
ty
11
Probabilistic Comparison of Probabilistic Comparison of Competing TechnologiesCompeting Technologies
IECM Software PackageIECM Software Package
Fuel PropertiesFuel PropertiesHeating ValueHeating ValueCompositionCompositionDelivered CostDelivered Cost
Plant DesignPlant DesignFurnace TypeFurnace TypeEmission ControlsEmission ControlsSolid Waste MgmtSolid Waste MgmtChemical InputsChemical Inputs
Cost DataCost DataO&M CostsO&M CostsCapital CostsCapital CostsFinancial FactorsFinancial Factors
PowerPowerPlantPlantModelModel
GraphicalGraphicalUserUser
InterfaceInterface
SessionSession& Fuel& Fuel
DatabasesDatabases
Plant & ProcessPlant & ProcessPerformancePerformance
EnvironmentalEnvironmentalEmissionsEmissions
Plant & ProcessPlant & ProcessCostsCosts
12
The IECM is Available for The IECM is Available for DownloadingDownloading
Web Access:
ftp://ftp.netl.doe.gov/pub/IECM
Preliminary IECM User GroupPreliminary IECM User Group
ABB Power Plant ControlAmerican Electric Power Consol, Inc.Energy & Env. Research Corp.Exportech Company, Inc.FirstEnergy Corp.FLS Miljo A/SFoster Wheeler Development Corp.Lehigh UniversityLower Colorado River AuthorityMcDermott Technology, Inc.Mitsui Babcock Energy LTD.
National Power Plc.Niksa Energy AssociatesPacific Corp.Pennsylvania Electric AssociationPotomac Electric Power Co.Savvy EngineeringSierra Pacific Power Co.Southern Company Services, Inc.Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.Tampa Electric Co.University of California, BerkeleyUS Environmental Protection Agency
20
COCO22 Module ResultsModule Results
Flue gas (out) compositionCO2 emission level (kg CO2/hr)Amount of CO2 product (ton/hr)Purity of CO2 product (%)Solvent circulation rate (m3/hr)Make-up solvent rate (kg MEA/hr)Make-up rate relative to the circulation rate (%)
Waste generation rate (kg/hr) Energy penalty (% of MWg)Net power generationCost of CO2 captured ($/ tonCO2 captured)Cost increase in electricity (cents/kWh)Cost of CO2 avoided ($/ tonCO2 avoided)
21
Additional Technology OptionsAdditional Technology Options
Just CompletedCombustion NOx Controls
– Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)
– Low NOx Burners (LNB)– LNB + Overfire air– LNB + SNCR– Natural Gas Reburn– Tangential, Wall &
Cyclone Firing
Just StartedPost-Combustion Controls
– Air Toxics (mercury)
Other Fossil FuelsAlternative Power Generation SystemsCO2 Sequestration Options
Future Developments:Future Developments:A Menu of Technology OptionsA Menu of Technology Options
22
ASPEN Model of an ASPEN Model of an IGCC SystemIGCC System
CoalHandling
Gasification,Particulate &Ash Removal,Fines Recycle
GasTurbines
BoilerFeedwaterTreatment
SteamTurbine
SteamCycle
& SCR
SteamCycle
& SCR
ZincFerriteProcess
ZincFerriteProcess
SulfuricAcid PlantSulfuric
Acid Plant
SulfuricAcid
Rawwater
Coal Coal
CleanSyngas
Exhaust Gas
Gasifier Steam
Boiler Feedwater
Exhaust Gas
Shift & Regen.Steam
Cyclone
RawSyngas
Cyclone
Blowdown
Return Water
CoolingWater
Makeup
CoolingWaterBlowdown
Air
NetElectricityOutput
InternalElectricLoads
Ash Gasifier Air
AirTailgas
Off-GasCaptured Fines
Response Surface ModelResponse Surface Modelfor an IGCC Systemfor an IGCC System
0.39
0.4
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43
Actual Efficiency
Pred
icte
d Ef
ficie
ncy
23
Desktop Model of an IGCC SystemDesktop Model of an IGCC System
Model ApplicationsModel Applications
Process designTechnology evaluationCost estimationR&D management
Risk analysisEnvironmental complianceMarketing studiesStrategic planning
24
Com
mun
icat
ion
A Hierarchy of Process ModelsA Hierarchy of Process Models
EnterpriseEnterpriseEnterprise
System ModelsSystem ModelsSystem Models
Integrated ModelsIntegrated ModelsIntegrated Models
Component ModelsComponent ModelsComponent Models
Mechanistic/Empirical ModelsMechanistic/Empirical ModelsMechanistic/Empirical Models
Val
idat
ion
Scope and ObjectivesScope and ObjectivesIdentify potential options for power generation with carbon capture and sequestration, suitable for, (a) existing plants, and (b) new plantsDevelop a model to quantify performance, emissions, and cost of alternative options, and their dependency on key plant and technology design parameters, operating parameters, and carbon management methodsCharacterize uncertainty in key parameters of the carbon management system Integrate carbon management technologies with other plant environmental control systems Conduct case studies to illustrate model applications
25
Future WorkFuture Work
Refine the parameter defaultsDevelop more detailed relationships among key performance parametersCharacterize the uncertainties in key parameters of the carbon management system Conduct a preliminary case study to illustrate model application
MEAMEA--based CObased CO2 2 Process Module:Process Module:User Input Performance ParametersUser Input Performance Parameters
CO2 capture efficiencyMEA concentrationCO2 product temperatureCO2 product pressureCO2 transportation distance
26
Additional Performance ParametersAdditional Performance Parameters
CO2 solubility in MEASOx removal efficiencyParticulate removal efficiencyRegeneration energy requirementLoss of solventCO2 content of lean solventPump, fan, and compressor efficiencies
Base Plant Inputs ParametersBase Plant Inputs Parameters
Flue gas flow rateFlue gas molar compositionFlue gas particulate concentrationFlue gas temperatureFlue gas pressureGross power generationNet power generation (excluding CO2)Annual plant capacity factor