post combustion co2 capture scale up study pdfs... · capture process modeled using bryan research...
TRANSCRIPT
19 S
epte
mbe
r 201
3
PROJECT MANAGER POWER GENERATION SERVICES TOM GUENTHER
POST COMBUSTION CO2 CAPTURE SCALE UP STUDY
• Retained by IEA Environmental Projects Ltd.
• In order for CCS to impact climate change, full scale capture is necessary.
• Identify at a high level the technical risks, gaps, and challenges associated with full scale implementation of post-combustion CO2 capture
• Focus on currently available technologies demonstrated at a smaller scale
• Include both pulverized coal and natural gas fired combined cycle
• Study completed in 2012
PURPOSE OF STUDY
2
Principle Authors - Black & Veatch • Anthony Black – Process Engineer • Tom Guenther – Project Manager • Dan McCartney – Senior Process Engineer • Scott Olson – Senior Consultant • Brian Reinhart – Mechanical Engineer/Study Manager
Reviewers: • Mike Haines – IEAGHG • Prachi Singh – IEAGHG • Tore Amundsen – CO2 Technology Centre Mongstad • Max Ball – Saskpower • Nick Booth – EON • Rosa Domenicini – Foster Wheeler • Frank Geuzebroeck – Shell Amsterdam • Robin Irons – EON • Mohammad Adu Zahra - Institute of Masadar
AUTHORS
3
• Select two modern full-scale power plant designs: • Supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) • Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)
• Plant performance and equipment size without CO2 capture
• Plant performance and equipment size with improved amine-based post-combustion carbon capture
• Identify any risks, gaps, and challenges associated with the full scale designs (power and capture)
APPROACH
4
• Case 1 – 900 MW Gross SCPC without CO2 capture
• Case 2 – “TBD” MW SCPC with CO2 capture
• Case 3 – 810 MW Gross NGCC without CO2 capture
• Case 4 – “TBD” MW NGCC with CO2 capture
DESIGN CASES
5
Fuel quantity held constant from Case 1-2 and 3-4
DESIGN BASIS
6
DESIGN CASE 1 SCPC WITHOUT CAPTURE
DESIGN CASE 2 SCPC WITH CO2 CAPTURE
DESIGN CASE 3 NGCC WITHOUT CAPTURE
DESIGN CASE 4 NGCC WITH CO2 CAPTURE
CO2 Capture, % of Gross N/A 90 N/A 90
Technology Description Supercritical pulverized coal Rankine cycle
with 1 two-pass tangential or wall-fired boiler and 1 reheat condensing steam turbine.
Natural gas combined cycle with 2x G-Class gas turbines, 2x three-pressure heat recovery steam generators, and 1x reheat condensing
steam turbine.
Nominal Gross Output, MW 900 TBD(1) 810 TBD(1)
Unit Output Frequency, Hz 60 60 60 60
Fuel Australian Low-Sulfur Same as Case 1 Natural Gas Same as Case 3
Fuel Quantity Note 1 Same as Case 1 Note 1 Same as Case 3 Throttle Conditions (MS temperature, HRH temperature, MS pressure) ° C / ° C / bar(a) (° F / ° F / psia)
582 / 582 / 254.4 (1,080 / 1,080 / 3,690)
565.6 / 565.6 / 124.1 (1,050 / 1,050 / 1,800)
Supplemental Firing N/A N/A No No
Heat Rejection Wet mechanical draft cooling tower Auxiliary Boiler During Normal Operations No No No No
Air Quality Control Systems Selective Catalytic Reduction, PAC Injection, Fabric Filter, Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization
Dry Low NOx Combustion, Selective Catalytic Reduction, Oxidation
Catalyst CO2 Export Pressure, bar(a) (psia)
N/A 110 (1,600)
N/A 110 (1,600)
Notes: (1) Fuel quantity to be determined as part of the study. As a basis of the design, CO2 capture case will use the same amount of fuel as the non-capture case.
• Power processes modeled using Thermoflow, Inc. STEAMPRO, STEAM MASTER, GT PRO, GT MASTER, and Black & Veatch proprietary software
• Capture process modeled using Bryan Research & Engineering, Inc. ProMax 3.2 software
• Capture process simulation data based on MEA and adjusted to reflect typical enhanced amines, primarily solvent regeneration duty
PROCESS SIMULATION
7
8
CASE 2 – SCPC WITH CO2 CAPTURE
9
CASE 4 – NGCC WITH CO2 CAPTURE
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY - SCPC
10
UNIT CASE 1 CASE 2
Reference Case Description Supercritical Pulverized Coal Rankine Cycle
CO2 Capture % None 90
ELECTRICAL OUTPUT
Total Gross Output MW 900.1 756.6
Auxiliary Electric Load
Power Block MW 35.5 35.1
Flue Gas Fans MW 17.2 44.0
Air Quality Systems MW 5.8 8.5
CO2 Capture MW N/A 5.2
CO2 Compression MW N/A 75.0
Total Auxiliary Electric Load MW 58.5 167.8
Net Plant Output MW 841.6 588.8
Energy Penalty (Net output) % N/A -30.0
Energy Penalty (Net output reduction per tonne-CO2 to pipeline)
MW/(t-CO2 captured) N/A 0.40
ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY
Net Plant Heat Rate (NCV) kJ/kWh 8,912 12,738
Net Plant Thermal Efficiency (NCV) % 40.4 28.3
CO2 EMISSIONS
CO2 Captured t/h N/A 629
CO2 to Atmosphere t/h 702 73 CO2 to Atmosphere kg/MWh-net 834 124
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY - NGCC
11
UNIT CASE 3 CASE 4
Reference Case Description 2-on-1 G-Class Gas Turbine Combined Cycle
CO2 Capture % None 90
ELECTRICAL OUTPUT
Gross Output
STG MW 280.4 223.7
Gas Turbine Generators (total) MW 529.5 529.5
Total Gross Output MW 809.9 753.2
Auxiliary Electric Load
Power Block MW 19.6 22.1
Flue Gas Fans MW N/A 26.1
CO2 Capture MW N/A 3.6
CO2 Compression MW N/A 25.5
Total Auxiliary Electric Load MW 19.6 77.3
Net Plant Output MW 790.3 675.9
Energy Penalty (Net output) % N/A -14.5
Energy Penalty (Net output reduction per tonne-CO2 to pipeline)
MW/(t-CO2 captured) N/A 0.46
ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY
Net Plant Heat Rate (NCV) kJ/kWh 6,208 7,259
Net Plant Thermal Efficiency (NCV) % 58.0 49.6
CO2 EMISSIONS
CO2 Captured t/h N/A 250
CO2 to Atmosphere t/h 276 28
CO2 to Atmosphere kg/MWh-net 349 41
KEY CO2 CAPTURE EQUIPMENT OVERVIEW
12
FEATURE SCPC NGCC
Number of Absorbers 1 x 6 sections 1 x 6 sections
Absorber Cross-Sectional Area, m2 317 317
Absorber Height, m 28 28
Number of Strippers 2 1
Stripper Diameter, m 7.2 7.0
Stripper Height, m 23 23
Number of Stripper Reboilers 8 4
Number of Rich/Lean Exchangers 3 2
Number of Stripper Overhead Coolers 5 2
Number of Lean Amine Coolers 5 1
Number of CO2 Compressor Trains 2 2
13
CASE 2 – SCPC LAYOUT
14
CASE 4 – NGCC LAYOUT
1. Steam Generator • Stiffening of boiler/HRSG/ductwork may be
needed but not a significant challenge
2. Fans • 4 series/parallel axial fans for SCPC case (11,000
kW each) • 2 axial fans for NGCC case (1 per HRSG) (13,000
kW each) 3. Flue Gas Cleanup (SCPC)
• Wet FGD commonplace • Additional polishing in SCPC case to reduce amine
degradation by SO2
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES
15
4. Steam Extraction • Significant LP (4.5 bar[a]) Steam Required • >30% of steam flow for SCPC • LP turbine design • Steam turbine OEMs able to modify designs • Issues at reduced load (sliding pressure) • Opportunities for optimization
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES
16
5. Cooling • Cooling load increased 20
percent for SCPC • Cooling load increased 40
percent for NGCC • No technical risk but maybe
site specific
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES
17
6. Absorber • Largest technical challenge • Assumed single rectangular concrete structure
with multiple sections • 7-8 meter span limit for support of internals • Difficult, but similar construction methods to large
stack or cooling tower design • Constructed at site
7. Stripper • Large, but technology considered commonplace • Multiple strippers feasible • Transported vs. construction at site (site specific)
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES
18
8. Compression • Assumed 3 stages of compression, single shaft,
motor driven • Could use integrally geared or add pump • No significant risk at this scale • Potentially use waste heat for optimization, 5 MW
available in SCPC case 9. CO2 Drying
• Assumed/prefer solid bed adsorbent • Technology considered commonplace
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES
19
10. Environmental and Safety • Regulations still evolving
• CO2 handling and storage • Solvent emissions,
nitramines, nitrosamines • Solvent wastes
• Quantity of emissions increases with scale
• Hazards associated with concentrated CO2
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES
20
No technical deal breakers identified….full scale capture appears achievable
Recommended areas of development for full-scale capture: • Modified steam turbine designs • Optimize steam extraction • Absorber construction • Reuse of compression heat • Environmental impacts • Safety
CONCLUSION
21
www.bv.com