optimizing integrated reference cases in the octavius project

SINTEF Materials and Chemistry

Optimizing Integrated Reference Cases in the OCTAVIUS

Project

PCCC3 – Third Post Combustion Capture Conference

Regina, Canda, September 8-11, 2015

Hanne M. Kvamsdal

Senior Research Scientist SINTEF Materials and Chemistry

SP1 leader of OCTAVIUS


The Octavius project

Background for the reference cases

Optimization of the reference cases

Results of the optimization

Benchmarking in Octavius

Content


The Octavius Project (1)

OCTAVIUS: Optimisation of CO2 capture Technology Allowing Verification and Implementation at Utility Scale

Based on previous EU projects CASTOR and CESAR

4 year demonstration project (started March 2012 will end February 2016)

The main objective:

" Octavius aims to demonstrate integrated concepts for zero emission power plants covering all the components needed for power generation as well as CO2 capture"

Operability and flexibility of first generation post combustion processes have been demonstrated at 3 different pilot plants:

Maasvlakte (TNO),

Brindisi (ENEL)

Heilbronn (EnBW)

TNO: Maasvlakte

ENEL: Brindisi EnBW: Heilbronn


The Octavius Project (2)

Second generation process (DMX by IFPen)

Was extensively studied in the project

Planned to be demonstrated at the Brindisi pilot, but revamping of pilot plant too expensive within the existing budget

Benchmarking of

Some promising process configurations (based on literature and patent review)

DMX process

Reference capture plants based on results from the Cesar project

SINTEF Materials and Chemistry 5

Definition of reference cases for

benchmarking (1)

Source of CO2: Both NGCC and Coal

Two cases adopted from the European

Benchmarking Taskforce (EBTF)

Advanced supercritical coal (ASC) case

• Single unit coal fired power plant

• Re-simulated in Ebsilon®Professional

10.03:

Electric gross power output of 804.8

MWe, auxiliary power consumption of

61.3 MWe and then the net power

output equals 743.5 MWe.

Net cycle efficiency at full load

operation 45.4% related to LHV

The specific CO2 emission is 761.5

g/kWhnet without post-combustion CO2

capture


Definition of reference cases for

benchmarking (2) • Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) case

– Single gas turbine feeding its flue gas to a heat

recovery steam generator (HRSG) with three

pressure levels and reheat

• The gas turbine is not a specific existing turbine

• Data from two different suppliers (reported by

EBTF)

– The steam produced in the HRSG is expanded in a

steam turbine

– Re-simulated in Ebsilon®Professional 10.03:

• Gross power output 430.3 MWe, (281.7 MWe from

gas turbine generator 148.6 MWe from steam

turbine.

• The net efficiency without CO2 capture is 57.8 %

related to LHV

• The specific CO2 emission without CO2 capture is

364.2 g/kWhnet


Reference cases for OCTAVIUS based on

Esbjerg pilot plant and CESAR results

7

Lean vapour

recompression

Flue gas from

power plant

Mechanical filters

Lean MEA

Rich MEA

Steam

Treated

flue gas

CO2 Out

Cooling water circuit

Reboiler

MEA/MEA heat

exchanger ABSORBER STRIPPER

Condensate

Wash section

Courtesy: Dong

Energy


Reference cases for OCTAVIUS

• Based on the best performance demonstrated in CESAR

– CESAR1 (AMP+Piperazine) best performance of 3 solvent systems tested at Esbjerg

– 30 wt% MEA still a reference

• Two power plants and two solvent systems imply 4 reference cases in OCTAVIUS

• Published data by Knudsen et al. (2010)

– No significant benefit of inter-cooling for MEA, but for CESAR 1 solvent up to 7%

reduced reboiler steam demand

– LVC, best benefit for MEA (20% reduced reboiler steam demand), somewhat less with

CESAR 1 solvent

– LVC means increased auxiliary power consumption

• Basis for optimization of reference cases in Octavius

– MEA with and without LVC, but not inter-cooling

– CESAR 1 with and without both inter-cooling and LVC

– 90% capture for all cases

Knudsen, J., Andersen, J., Jensen, J.N., and Biede, O, (2010), Evaluation of process upgrades and novel solvents for the post

combustion CO2 capture process in pilot-scale, presented at the GHGT-10 conference in Amsterdam


Optimization of reference cases (1) Capture plant

Parameter and process variations for a given base case design

Variation in solvent flow rate

For LVC option: variation in flash pressure

For Inter-cooling option: variation in placement

Variation in packing height absorber column

KPIs used in optimization

Energy requirement (heat, electricity): heat related to energy loss in power plant through

simple correlation1,2

CO2 capture cost based on electricity price for calculating effect in loss of power output

from the power-plant and including CAPEX for the capture plant

Tools: In-house (SINTEF) CO2SIM and ECON2

System boundary:

– Water-wash in absorber /stripper not included in simulations

– CO2 compression not included in simulations as reboiler temperature is kept constant

1 Liebenthal and Kather (2011) for coal cases and 2 Bolland and Undrum (2002) for NG cases


Optimization of reference cases (2)

MEA as solvent system

1. Variation in solvent flow-rate for all cases with different flash pressure +the case without LVC to

obtain the flow, which minimizes the reboiler heat requirement

2. With the optimal solvent flow-rate the associated capture cost is determined.

3. Variation in absorber packing height for the "optimal" case identified in 2.

4. The loss in total plant efficiency is determined by simulation of the power plant for all the

variations to verify the conclusions related to energy requirement in the capture plant.

5. Conclusion: LVC lowest pressure most optimal

6. The cost of the total integrated plant is determined for the optimal cases only


Optimization of reference cases (3) CESAR 1 as solvent system (effect of LVC and Inter-cooling):

1. No intercooling and no LVC

2. Inter-cooling, but no LVC

3. No inter-cooling, but LVC

4. Both inter-cooling and LVC

Optimization procedure:

1. Flow variation for case 1 and 3 to obtain the flow, which minimize the reboiler heat

requirement

Coal case


Optimization of reference cases (4) Optimization procedure cont.:

2. Cost-calculation (ECON2) for all optimal flow cases determined in 1.

3. Both NGCC and Coal cases:

a) Limited improvement in the capture cost: No LVC



Optimization procedure cont.:

4. Sensitivity analysis for the height of packing for the optimal solvent flow

case with no LVC (case 1)

5. With the optimal height and flow: variations in placement of inter-cooling

(case 2) were simulated:

For NGCC: Reboiler requirement was slightly increased for all 4 different

locations (compared to no IC)

For Coal: Reboiler requirement was slightly improved for 3 of the

different locations (compared to no IC)

Inter-cooling also imply increased CAPEX (extra units and pipes) I

Conclusion: no inter-cooling



Optimization procedure cont.:

6. Case 4 (LVC+IC) checked for coal: Optimal flow and height, lowest flash

pressure (110kPa) and optimal placement for IC was once again simulated

and capture cost determined.

7. A check of the "optimal" flow was performed by some variations.

8. The power-plant was simulated and the loss in total plant efficiency is

determined for all the variations to verify the conclusions related to energy

requirement in the capture plant.

9. The cost of the total integrated plant is determined for the optimal cases

only.


Summary results

Case Inter-cooling/LVC Absorber packing

height (m)

SRD (MJ/kg

CO2)

Cost of CO2

avoided

(Euro/ton CO2)

COAL- MEA No Inter-cooling/LVC

flash pressure 110 kPa 18 2.93 35.3

COAL-C1 No Inter-cooling/ No LVC 20 2.70 28.9

NG-MEA No Inter-cooling/LVC

flash pressure 110 kPa 22 3.15 52.3

NG-C1 No Inter-cooling/ No LVC 26 3.01 55.3


Conclusion and further work with benchmarking

in Octavius

Conclusions:

4 reference cases have been established to be used for

benchmarking within OCTAVIUS

Further work

Journal publication

Benchmarking of one MEA based "improved" process and the

2nd generation DMX process against the four reference cases To be presented at the OCTAVIUS conference in Paris 17-19th November, 2015


• This work has been performed within the FP7 project OCTAVIUS (Grant

Agreement n° 295645).

• Partners involved in the work

– TNO: Purvil Khakharia and Michiel Nienoord

– TUHH: Sören Ehlers

– SINTEF: Geir Haugen, Actor Chikukwa, Hanne Kvamsdal

– DTU: Philip Loldrup Fosbøl

– E.ON: Laurence Robinson and Adam Al-Azki

– IFPEN: Patrick Briot and Paul Broutin

17

Acknowledgement

optimizing integrated reference cases in the octavius project

Documents