pilot test results from a polaristm - aiche | the global ... · testing successfully demonstrated...
TRANSCRIPT
Pilot Test Results from a PolarisTM
Membrane 1 MWe CO2 Capture System
Richard Baker, Carlos Casillas, Ken Chan, Brice Freeman,
Don Fulton, Pingjiao Hao, Jenny He, Jurgen Kaschemekat,
Jay Kniep, Jennifer Ly, Tim Merkel, Vincent Nguyen, Zhen Sun,
Xuezhen Wang, Xiaotong Wei, and Steve White
Carbon Management Technology Conference
Houston, TX
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
MTR Introduction
2
• Privately-held, 60 employees mostly located in
Newark, California
• Started in 1982 funded by U.S. SBIR grants
• Commercial products in petrochemical, natural gas
and refinery industries
• Provides complete turn-key solutions with over 200
membrane systems installed worldwide
• 15 person R&D group with expertise in membrane
materials/formation and process design
Background: MTR CO2 Capture Process
3
Benefits of selective recycle:
• Increases CO2 concentration going to the capture step, and
• Reduces the fractional CO2 removal required by the capture step
20% 10%
2%
8%
65%
U.S. Patents 7,964,020 and 8,025,715
(1) Membrane
performance
studied at NCCC
(2) Impact of
CO2 recycle
studied at B&W
MTR CO2 Capture Development Timeline
Feasibility study (DE-NT43085) • Sweep concept proposed
• Polaris membrane conceived
APS Red Hawk NGCC Demo • First Polaris flue gas test
• 250 lb/d CO2 used for algae farm
APS Cholla 0.05 MWe Demo (DE-NT5312) • First Polaris coal flue gas test
• 1 TPD CO2 captured (50 kWe)
NCCC 1 MWe Demo (DE-FE0005795) • 11,000 hours of 1 TPD system operation
• 1,500 hours of 1 MWe (20 TPD) system operation
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
TRL6 TRL7 TRL8 TRL5 TRL4
Hybrid Capture (DE-FE13118) • Membrane-solvent hybrids with UT-Austin
Low Pressure Mega Module (DE-FE0007553) • Design and build a 500 m2 optimized module
Future 10 MWe Large Pilot
TRL3
B&W Integrated Test
5
Pros and Cons of a Membrane
Post-Combustion Capture Process
Benefits:
• No hazardous chemical handling, emissions, or disposal issues
• Not affected by oxygen, SOx or NOx
• Water use lower than other technologies (recovers H2O from flue gas)
• No steam use → no modifications to existing boiler/turbines
• Near instantaneous response; high turndown possible
• Modular and compact; relatively simple installation/operation
• Particularly well-suited for partial capture (40-60%)
Challenges:
• Very low partial pressure driving force favors high permeance membranes
• Unknown impact of real flue gas on membrane-module lifetime
• Module pressure drop and flow distribution issues
6
PolarisTM Membranes Continue to Improve
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
CO2/N2
selectivity
CO2 permeance (gpu)
PolarisTM
1st generation
(commercial scale)
Commercial
CO2 membranes
Polaris
2nd generation
(pilot scale)
Polaris
advanced
(lab scale)
• In addition to lowering
costs, these
improvements are
important to shrink the
size of the capture
system
1 gpu = 10-6 cm3(STP)/(cm2 s cmHg)= 3.35 x 10-10 mol/(m2 s Pa)
7
0.05 MWe (1 TPD) Testing at NCCC
• Field laboratory that allows lifetime evaluation (>11,000 hours cumulative), and validation testing of new membranes
• Many lessons learned (i.e., ammonium sulfate deposition) applied to scale up
• System is testing vacuum and air sweep membrane steps
• Sized to capture 1 ton CO2/day using commercial sized module
• System was in operation from Spring 2012 through Summer 2015
8
MTR system
• System showed stable performance
over 1,500 hours of operation,
including demonstration of
prototype low-pressure drop plate-
and-frame sweep modules
1 MWe (20 TPD) System at NCCC
• System installation completed Aug 2014
• Operation during January – June 2015
• Decommissioned in July 2015
9
1 MWe System Shows
Stable Performance
• System operated in
slipstream mode
(no recycle to
boiler) with varying
ambient conditions
(sub-freezing in
January to >95°F in
June)
• Stable
performance,
reaching up to 90%
capture
• System goes from
cold start to steady
state in ~15
minutes Run time (hours)
CO2
capture
rate
(%)
Figure data from NCCC campaign PO3 (May to July 2015)
PO-3 run time (hours)
CO2
capture
rate
(%)
New Modules Demonstrate Improved
Pressure Drop Performance
10
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600
Sweep-sidepressure dop
(psi)
Sweep flowrate (lb/h)
Spiral with
flue gas
Plate-and-frame
with flue gas
Plate-and-frame
lab data
• Field data is consistent
with lab results, and
confirms much lower air
sweep pressure drop in
new modules
• At full scale, the
difference in pressure
drop amounts to
savings of about 10
MWe
B&W Studies of CO2 Recycle Impact
on Boiler Performance
Phase I – CFD modeling
• B&W modeled 2 boiler configurations (radiant boiler firing bituminous coal
and SWUP firing PRB coal) and 2 sweep recycle cases (constant
secondary air flow and constant stoichiometry)
• Main conclusion of modeling study: secondary air laden with CO2 appears
feasible as a retrofit in either of the boiler configurations examined if
oxygen mass flow to boiler is fixed
Phase II – Pilot testing
• B&W’s SBS-II 1.8 MWth pilot boiler operated with CO2-laden combustion air
• Two coals evaluated: a western sub-bituminous coal and a highly volatile
bituminous coal
• O2 content of windbox air varied from 21% to 16% through CO2 dilution
• Monitored flame stability, length, and shape; unburned combustibles in fly
ash, and furnace exit gas temperature
• Radiant furnace and convective pass heat absorptions were measured
• Boiler efficiencies for air and sweep firing were determined
11 11
B&W Boiler Study Highlights
12 12
• Stable and attached flames with air (21%
O2) and CO2-enriched air (16-18% O2)
• CO2-enriched flame was less luminous
than air-fired case
• Lower furnace heat absorption but higher
convection pass/air heater heat transfer for
CO2-enriched operation relative to air
• For bituminous coal, 30% lower NOx
emissions with CO2-enriched air
• No burner modifications necessary
• Net reduction in plant efficiency of ~0.75%
at 18% O2
Flame image from combustion
of PRB coal with air (21% O2)
Flame image from combustion of
PRB coal with CO2–enriched (18% O2)
13
B&W Pilot Boiler / Membrane Schematic
MTR Skid During Transport and
Installation at B&W – May 2016
14 14
Skid arriving at B&W
Installation of 2nd floor
MTR Skids at B&W’s
SBS-II Research Facility
15 15
Main skid and smaller low-pressure
drop sweep module anchored to
foundation
Main skid Sweep module
Sample Results from B&W
Integrated Tests
16
20% 10%
2%
8%
65%
2 – 6.7%
7.3 – 17.4%
14.3 – 20.6%
6.2 – 10.8%
Oxygen at
Boiler Windbox:
17.0 – 21%
Membrane-Boiler Integrated Test Plan
• 5 weeks of testing on natural gas, Powder River Basin
(PRB) Coal, and Eastern Bituminius Coal
• 90% capture achieved and a variety of partial capture
conditions
• CO2 content of flue gas increased as expected in
simulations
• Boiler flame was stable allowing a full battery of stream
conditions and boiler efficiency measurements to be
conducted (analysis is ongoing)
1 MWe System Sweep Flow Rate Parametric
Results from Integrated Tests
17
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
CO2
capture rate
(%)
Sweep flow rate (lb/h)
Feed = 30 psia
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Sweep-step
CO2 capture
rate
(%)
Sweep flow rate (lb/h)
Feed = 30 psia
Influence on the Overall CO2 Capture Rate Influence on Sweep Step CO2
Capture Rate Efficiency
Integrated Boiler/Membrane Systems
Transition Response
18
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8:10 8:20 8:30 8:40 8:50 9:00 9:10 9:20 9:30 9:40 9:50 10:00
Gas
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
Vo
l. %
, dry
)
Gas
Flo
w R
ates
(lb
/hr)
11/3/2016
Fresh Air Intake Flow
Sweep Gas Flow
Convection Pass Flow
Windbox O2
Convection Pass O2
Convection Pass CO2
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
12:00 12:07 12:14 12:21 12:28 12:36 12:43 12:50
Gas
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
Vo
l. %
, dry
)
Gas
Flo
w R
ates
(lb
/hr)
11/16/2016
Fresh Air Intake Flow
Sweep Gas Flow
Convection Pass Flow
Windbox O2
Convection Pass O2
Convection Pass CO2
Integrated Boiler/Membrane Systems
Transition Response to E-Stop
19
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
10:45 10:55 11:05 11:15
Gas
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
Vo
l. %
, dry
)
Gas
Flo
w R
ates
(lb
/hr)
9/28/2016
Fresh Air Intake Flow
Sweep Gas Flow
Convection Pass Flow
Windbox O2
Convection Pass O2
Convection Pass CO2
B&W’s Analysis of CO2 Recycle Impact
on Boiler Operation
• Furnace heat absorption is
lower resulting
• “Furnace” refers to the radiant
heat transfer section of the
boiler upstream of the tube
banks in the convection pass.
• Convection pass heat
absorption is higher
• 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
20
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
Summary
• CO2 capture membrane performance continues to improve and
has been validated on the 0.05 MWe slipstream system with over
11,000 hours of runtime at NCCC
• 1 MWe small pilot operation at NCCC was completed in 2015.
Testing successfully demonstrated optimized modules (low Dp,
low cost) with over 1,500 hours of runtime
• 1 MWe small pilot was successfully integrated with the B&W
research boiler for five weeks of integrated testing with CO2
recycle to the boiler in late 2016
• The integrated membrane-boiler field test experimentally
validated simulated system performance
• Boiler flame was stable throughout parametric testing allowing a
full battery of stream conditions and boiler efficiency
measurements 21
Acknowledgements
22 22
• U.S. Department of Energy,
National Energy Technology Laboratory
– José Figueroa
– Mike Mosser
• Southern Company Services (NCCC)
– Tony Wu
• Babcock & Wilcox
– Hamid Farzan
– Jennifer Sivy
– Andrew Mackrory