IEA GHG Workshop on Oxyfuel

Transcription

1 IEA GHG Workshop on Oxyfuel Technology choice - Benchmarking Cottbus th November 2005 Cottbus, Germany Lars Strömberg Vattenfall AB Corporate Strategies Berlin / Stockholm Vattenfall AB

2 Schwarze Pumpe power plant Vattenfall AB 2

3 Reduction of CO 2 Why oxyfuel technology???? Vattenfall AB 3

4 Why Oxy-fuel technology? Boxberg IV We work with all three (four) technologies, but: Oxyfuel technology is the technology giving lowest costs at present It is suitable for coal and have relatively little development work left We can build on our good experience with present PF technology Vattenfall AB 4

5 Power Plant Lippendorf Vattenfall AB 5

6 CO 2 free power plant Benchmarking Vattenfall AB 6

7 CO 2 free power plant - Why different costs? Numerous different views on costs for technologies exist. Recent IPCC report did not make it better The IPCC report is based on reviewed papers published in Journals, not conference papers or real figures from real cases The IPCC report is obviously wrong in the tables stating present generation cost of electricity Several of the IEA papers are of similar origin, or made on contract Vattenfall AB 7

8 CO 2 free power plant - Why different costs II Academic papers report as they should. What they find in litterature, or in the lab, even if it sometimes is meaningless, For example, giving an interval from 7 80 /ton. Correct probably, but misleading The costs are treated differently in different papers. For example, transport is considered costing up to 50 /ton CO 2. We know that it should cost about 3,7 /ton from Scwarze Pumpe to Schweinrich. We often talk about the level 5 /ton of CO 2 for transport and 2 ton for storage for a large case. Capital, O&M and Fuel costs differ largely The way calculations are made differ significantly Costs for a small unit is much higher than for a large There exist a considerable volume dependence. We often talk about a power unit of up to 750 MW. There is no sense to capture CO 2 from a small plant - It is too expensive. Transport costs for the pilot is 21 /ton CO 2 Cost are different for a Coal and a Gasfired unit, even with similar technology If costs are expressed as /ton CO 2, reduction from gas is more expensive due to the higher gas price and the lower amount of CO 2 produced A large part of the cost is due to that it costs energy to separate the CO 2. Energy is taken from the plant. This energy is more expensive when fuel costs are higher. 15 /ton for a coal plant is eqiuivalent to 50 /ton for a gas fired unit Vattenfall AB 8

9 CO 2 free power plant - Why different costs III Many data are biased. Almost all papers want to show something. Many Norwegian papers seems to push for gas American and French papers appears as they want to show that it is impossible due to economic reasons Results seems to be adjusted to a general political view in several countries. Many reports are based on marketing of products For example, a market leading gas turbine manufacturer comes to the conclusion that a plant including a gas turbine is the most beneficial. OK it s their job. A market leading Fluidized bed manufacturer comes to the conclusion that a CFB is more beneficial than any other boiler technology. Leading companies working with gasification not surprisingly comes to the conclusion that a gasifier is the best and least expensive.- Even at present, which we all know is not correct. This is also expressed by the IPCC report!! Some American papers have a different way of handling the loss of energy output. They consider it bought from the grid at some price. For a power plant this is not adequate. It is taken from the own plant and increase the cost of production for the actual delivered energy Many studies are considering a retrofit situation. Retrofitting an existing plant is more expensive than building a specially designed new plant Efficiency difference is 2 4 %-units. Vattenfall AB 9

10 CO 2 free power plant Benchmarking Vattenfall AB 10

11 Data for the 2004 study Data for the capture alternatives and reference plants from recent studies made by IEA GHG IGCC options from study 2003 Post-combustion options for bituminous coal and natural gas from study from 2004 Oxyfuel options for bituminous coal (without FGD) and natural gas from study 2004, costs updated 2005 Data for reference plants from ENCAP Oxyfuel lignite Oxyfuel options for lignite, with and without FGD, based on 1000 MWgross lignite fired ENCAP reference plant with atm. lignite drier and 1 st base oxyfuel concept by VF (within ENCAP SP3). Cost changes compared to reference plant based on IEAGHG oxyfuel study 2004 and other data presently available. The oxyfuel case will be further optimised work ongoing Interest rate 7% real, 25 years, 7500 hrs/year Bit. Coal 5.7 /MWh, Lignite 3.9 /MWh, Gas 13 EUR/MWh Vattenfall AB 11

12 Adjustments It was noted that the IEA commissioned studies generally presented very high fixed O&M costs (insurance and taxes specifically) on the coal fired plants compared to data from ENCAP partners and some of our own internal information IEA data adjusted to the same level as in the ENCAP guidelines (25.2 /kwe gross for all PF coal cases, 2.6% of total investment in the IGCC cases) Capture cases were adjusted so that the fixed O&M (% of investment) is kept constant between reference and capture cases After this adjustment, the coal fired reference cases present total COE at approximately the same level which indicates that the cases uses similar basic assumptions In addition, natural gas and coal reference cases show total COEs that are in the same range seems to agree with actual situation today considering the variations in fuel price Reference IGCC today is not competitive with PF also agrees with actual situation Vattenfall AB 12

13 Cost of electricity with and without CO 2 capture 60 Hard Coal Lignite Natural gas 50 PF post comb. PF oxyfuel IGCC pre comb. Oxyfuel NG post comb. NG oxyfuel ENCAP PF Bitum IEA GHG PF 2004 no capture IEA GHG PF 2004 no capture adjusted 0 IEA GHG PF 2004 postcomb. Adjusted IEA GHG PF 2020 no capture IEA GHG PF 2020 no capture adjusted IEA GHG PF 2020 postcomb. Adjusted Mitsui 2004 PF no capture Mitsui 2004 PF no capture adjusted Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 PF adjusted Mitsui 2020 PF no capture adjusted Mitsui 2020 O2/CO2 PF adjusted IEA GHG IGCC 2003 no capture IEA GHG IGCC 2003 no capture adjusted IEA GHG IGCC 2003 pre-comb. Adjusted IEA GHG IGCC 2020 no capture IEA GHG IGCC 2020 no capture adjusted IEA GHG IGCC 2020 pre-comb. Adjusted ENCAP PF Lignite Oxyfuel WFGD Oxyfuel without WFGD ENCAP CCGT IEA GHG 2004 NGCC no capture IEA GHG 2004 NGCC postcomb. IEA GHG 2020 NGCC no capture IEA GHG 2020 NGCC postcomb. Mitsui 2004 NGCC no capture Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 NGCC Fuel O&M varriable O&M fixed capital Vattenfall AB 13 COE [EUR/MWhe]

14 Total generation cost of electricity with CO 2 penalty Hard Coal Lignite Natural gas CO2 penalty 30EUR/T CO2 penalty 20EUR/T CO2 penalty 10EUR/T COE COE [EUR/MWhe] IEA GHG PF 2004 no capture IEA GHG PF 2004 postcomb. IEA GHG PF 2020 no capture IEA GHG PF 2020 postcomb. Mitsui 2004 PF no capture Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 PF Mitsui 2020 PF no capture Mitsui 2020 O2/CO2 PF IEA GHG IGCC 2003 no capture IEA GHG IGCC 2003 pre-comb. IEA GHG IGCC 2020 no capture IEA GHG IGCC 2020 pre-comb. ENCAP PF Lignite Oxyfuel WFGD Oxyfuel without WFGD IEA GHG 2004 NGCC no capture IEA GHG 2004 NGCC postcomb. IEA GHG 2020 NGCC no capture IEA GHG 2020 NGCC postcomb. Mitsui 2004 NGCC no capture Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 NGCC Vattenfall AB 14

15 Generation cost with and without CO 2 capture 60 Hard Coal Lignite Natural gas COE [EUR/MWh] 30 COE penalty COE origninal IEA GHG PF 2004 postcomb. IEA GHG PF 2020 postcomb. Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 PF Mitsui 2020 O2/CO2 PF IEA GHG IGCC 2003 pre-comb. IEA GHG IGCC 2020 pre-comb. Oxyfuel WFGD Oxyfuel without WFGD IEA GHG 2004 NGCC postcomb. IEA GHG 2020 NGCC postcomb. Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 NGCC Vattenfall AB 15

16 CO 2 free power plant Gasification????? Vattenfall AB 16

17 Techno-economical study IGCC The objective is to study and compare the physical washing step for capturing of CO 2 for IGCC. To formulate a preferred concept on IGCC with CO 2 capture. To follow up the ENCAP SP2 and COORETEC activities on IGCC and CO 2 capture. Vattenfall AB 17

18 IGCC technology and process choices Lignite Hard coal Air Gasifier Oxygen ASU Entrained flow HTW Extraction GT El.drive Wet feed Dryfeed Quench Gascooler Scrubber Filter Hydrolysis Venturi H 2 S-separation Two step Clean shift Sour shift One step CO 2 / CO 2 + H 2 S separation Rectisol amdea Selexol N 2 to GT Vattenfall AB 18 Gas turbine Steam turbine Humidifying Wet cykle

19 Air Dry IGCC-concept 50% ASU 50% Pressurized Nitrogen to Gas Turbine Pressurized Air from Gas Turbine Oxygen Ash Gasifier Prenflo Gas Cooler Hot Gas Filter Sour Shift Reactor 2 stage AGR amdea Two Gas Turbines One Steam Turbine Milled Coal Coal Preparation Hard Coal Ash Steam CO 2 +H 2 S Power Power Vattenfall AB 19

20 Choice of av Acid gas removal Acid gases can be washed out with alcohol, glycole, amine, etc. Rectisol, amdea and Selexol are possible processes. Physical solvents have lower regeneration need than chemical solvents. Rectisol and Selexol uses a physical solution of the acid gases amdea is a Physical.chemical solvent Rectisol was not chosen, due to that it was used in ENCAP SP2 and a too large electricty need for regeneration amdea was chosen because IEA PH4/19 rreported a lower loss of hydrogen, lower loss of solvents, lower energy need for regeneration and we might get a good set of data from BASF and for it is used in many reference plants H N N H Piperazin Vattenfall AB 20

21 IGCC technology and process choices Lignite Hardcoal Air Gasifier Oxygen ASU Entrained flow HTW Extraction GT El. drives Wet feed Dry feed Quench Gascooler Skrubber Filter Hydrolysis Venturi H 2 S-separation Two step Clean shift Sour shift One step CO 2 / CO 2 + H 2 S separation Rectisol amdea Selexol N 2 to GT Vattenfall AB 21 Gasturbin Steam turbine Humidifaction Wet cycle

22 Air Wet IGCC-concept 50% ASU 50% Pressurized Nitrogen to Gas Turbine Pressurized Air from Gas Turbine Oxygen Ash Gasifier Texaco Gas Quench Sour Shift Reactor 2 stage AGR amdea Two Gas Turbines One Steam Turbine Coal Preparation Coal Slurry Hard Coal Water Wet Ash Steam CO 2 +H 2 S Power Power Vattenfall AB 22

23 IGCC technology and process choices Lignite Hard coal Air Gasifier Oxygen ASU Entrained flow HTW Extraction GT El. drive Wet feed Dry feed Quench Gascooler Skrubber Filter Hydrolysis Venturi H 2 S-separation Two step Clean shift Sour shift One step CO 2 / CO 2 + H 2 S separation Rectisol amdea Selexol N 2 to GT Vattenfall AB 23 Gasturbine Steamturbine Humidification Wet cycle

24 Air Wet and Dry IGCC-concept 50% ASU 50% Pressurized Nitrogen to Gas Turbine Pressurized Air from Gas Turbine Oxygen Ash Gasifier Gas Cooler Hot Gas Filter Sour Shift Reactor 2 stage AGR amdea Two Gas Turbines One Steam Turbine Coal Slurry Coal Preparation Hard Coal Water Ash Steam CO 2 +H 2 S Power Power Vattenfall AB 24

25 Technical / economical evaluation Efficency with and without CO2 capture 50,0 45,0 Efficency [%] 40,0 35,0 Efficiency penalty Efficiency with capture 30,0 25,0 PF Coal Oxyfuel VUAB IGCC dry CO2 VUAB IGCC wet CO2 VUAB IGCC wet (no quench) CO2 IEA IGCC Shell CO2 IEA IGCC Texaco CO2 Vattenfall AB 25

26 Economic assumptions for the COE calculations Dollar/Euro conversion rate = 1 Fuel cost hard coal: 5,7 EUR/MWh fuel Operating hours: 7500 h Intrest rate calculus: 7% Depretiation time: 25 years Fixed O&M cost: 3,5% of the investment in all IGCC cases (25,2 EUR/kW el in the PF case) Variable O&M cost: different depending on if amdea or Selexol and with or without CO 2 -capture amdea w/o CO 2 separation = 0,7 EUR/MWh el gross amdea with CO 2 separation = 1,0 EUR/MWh el gross Selexol w/o CO 2 separation = 1,1 EUR/MWh el gross Selexol with CO 2 separation = 1,3 EUR/MWh el gross The cost calculations are preliminary Investments costs for VUAB s IGCC alternative are based on scaled values from IEA s IGCC report. Costs for the ASU and the Power Island should be revised, as also the values for the gasifier in the wet/dry case. Vattenfall AB 26

27 Technical / economical evaluation Cost of Electricity Preliminary investment figures for ASU and Power Island in VUAB IGCC cases COE [EUR/MWhel] 10 0 PF Coal today PF Coal Oxyfuel VUAB IGCC dry VUAB IGCC dry CO2 VUAB IGCC Wet VUAB IGCC Wet CO2 VUAB IGCC Wet (no quench) VUAB IGCC Wet CO2 (no quench) IEA IGCC Shell IEA IGCC Shell CO2 IEA IGCC Texaco IEA IGCC Texaco CO2 Vattenfall AB 27 Fuel O&M varriable O&M fixed capital

28 CO 2 free power plant Benchmarking Including recent results ENCAP Vattenfall AB 28

29 Calculation basis Fuel Prices: Bituminous Coal 5.7 /MWh, (1,6 /GJ) Lignite 3.9 /MWh, (1,1 /GJ) Natural Gas 13 /MWh (3,5 /GJ) Interest rate 7,5 % real Economic lifetime 25 years Annual operation 7500 hrs/year Vattenfall AB 29

30 Calculation basis The calculations use one number for operating hours: 7500 hours. The problem is that operation time per year will be depending on Variable cost dispatch order. Availability. Some units with high variable cost will not be operated during summer in northern Europe. (high gas prices?) Vattenfalls existing ultra supercritical coal fired plants have a very high availability > 95 % including planned overhaul The cost of fuels is very uncertain, but coal more stable than gas. Lignite is cost based Vattenfall AB 30

31 Pf / kwh (Fuel+Pers.+O&M) 19,00 18,00 17,00 16,00 15,00 14,00 13,00 12,00 11,00 10,00 9,00 8,00 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 SUPPLY CURVE 2005 AFTER DECOMMISSIONING Long-term variable Costs KWK-Anlagen <100MW (Stadtw) Supply Curve 2005 ohne Neubauten Öffentliche Versorgung + Industrie 52GW Baseload 60GW Average Load 78GW Peakload Verfügbare Netto-Engpassleistung in MW el. About MW transfer from abroad is possible 0, , , , , , , , , , , ,00 Vattenfall AB 31 L.S

32 Supply and Demand in Germany marginal cost /MWh 40 /ton 20 CO2 (0) CO2 (5) CO2 (10) CO2 (20) TWh/year Capacity Demand Lars Strömberg Vattenfall Vattenfall AB AB 32 Corporate Strategies

33 Benchmarking Oxyfuel alternatives Vattenfall AB 33

34 Net efficiencies (LHV) for PF and CFB cases Lignite Bituminous Bituminous Net el efficiency (%LHV) PF+drier no capture PF oxyfuel with FGD PF oxyfuel without FGD PF no capture PF oxyfuel with FGD PF oxyfuel without FGD CFB no capture CFB oxyfuel Vattenfall AB 34

35 Specific investments for PF and CFB alternatives Tot. specific investment (EUR/kWe net) Specific investment (EUR/kWe) Lignite 1959 Bituminous Bituminous PF+drier no capture PF oxyfuel with FGD PF oxyfuel without FGD PF no capture PF oxyfuel with FGD PF oxyfuel without FGD CFB no capture CFB oxyfuel Vattenfall AB 35

36 Cost of electricity incl. CO2 penalty COE at different levels of cost of CO2 emission certificate Lignite Bituminous coal Bituminous coal COE (EUR/MWh) EUR/ton 20 EUR/ton 10 EUR/ton 0 EUR/ton 10 0 PF+drier no capture PF oxyfuel with FGD PF oxyfuel without FGD PF no capture PF oxyfuel with FGD PF oxyfuel without FGD CFB no capture CFB oxyfuel Vattenfall AB 36

37 Avoidance costs for oxyfuel alternatives CO2 avoidance cost 25 CO2 avoidance cost (EUR/t CO2) Lignite Bituminous Bituminous 0 PF oxyfuel with FGD PF oxyfuel without FGD PF oxyfuel with FGD PF oxyfuel without FGD CFB oxyfuel Vattenfall AB 37

38 Benchmarking Oxyfuel PF alternative vs. Other generation technologies and fuels Vattenfall AB 38

39 Net efficiencies (LHV) with and without CO2 capture 60 Lignite Bituminous Coal Natural Gas Plant electrical efficiency (LHV) [%] PF+drier no capture PF oxyfuel with FGD IGCC capture PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" PF no capture PF Oxyfuel with FGD IGCC "Texaco" capture amdea IGCC "Shell" capture amdea PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" NGCC no capture NGCC postcombustion "Econamine SM+" Vattenfall AB 39

40 Specific investments with and without CO 2 capture 2500 Lignite Bituminous Coal Natural Gas Specific investment [EUR/kWe net] PF+drier no capture PF oxyfuel with FGD IGCC capture PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" PF no capture PF Oxyfuel with FGD IGCC "Texaco" capture amdea IGCC "Shell" capture amdea PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" NGCC no capture NGCC postcombustion "Econamine SM+" Vattenfall AB 40

41 Cost of electricity for different options PF+drier no capture PF oxyfuel with FGD IGCC capture PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" PF no capture PF Oxyfuel with FGD IGCC "Texaco" capture amdea 5 0 Lignite Bituminous coal Natural Gas Fuel cost EUR/MWhe O&M cost variable EUR/MWhe O&M cost fixed EUR/MWhe Capital cost EUR/MWhe COE ( /MWhe) IGCC "Shell" capture amdea PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" NGCC no capture NGCC postcombustion "Econamine SM+" Vattenfall AB 41

42 Total generation cost with CO 2 penalty COE CO2 penalty 10EUR/T CO2 penalty 20EUR/T CO2 penalty 30EUR/T Lignite Bituminous Coal Natural Gas COE [EUR/MWhe] 10 0 PF+drier no capture PF oxyfuel with FGD IGCC capture PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" PF no capture PF Oxyfuel with FGD IGCC "Texaco" capture amdea IGCC "Shell" capture amdea PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" NGCC no capture NGCC postcombustion "Econamine SM+" Vattenfall AB 42

43 NGCC postcombustion "Econamine SM+" CO 2 Avoidance cost Lignite Bituminous Coal CO2 avoidance cost [EUR/ton CO2] PF oxyfuel with FGD IGCC capture PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" PF Oxyfuel with FGD IGCC "Texaco" capture amdea IGCC "Shell" capture amdea PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" Vattenfall AB 43 Natural Gas

44 Variable cost of electricity Figure 9: Variable COE including CO2 emission penalty Lignite Bituminous Coal Variable COE [EUR/MWhe] 5 0 PF+drier no capture PF oxyfuel with FGD IGCC capture PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" PF no capture PF Oxyfuel with FGD IGCC "Texaco" capture amdea IGCC "Shell" capture amdea PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" NGCC no capture NGCC postcombustion "Econamine SM+" Vattenfall AB 44 Natural Gas CO2 penalty 30EUR/ CO2 penalty 20EUR/ CO2 penalty 10EUR/ Variable COE

45 NGCC postcombustion "Econamine SM+" CO2 capture rate Lignite Bituminous Coal CO2 Capture Rate [%] PF oxyfuel with FGD IGCC capture PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" PF Oxyfuel with FGD IGCC "Texaco" capture amdea IGCC "Shell" capture amdea PF Postcombustion "Econamine SM+" Vattenfall AB 45 Natural Gas

46 Exchange of plants reduction of CO 2 Conclusions Vattenfall AB 46

47 Capture technologies All capture alternatives based on coal show COEs differing a little (43-47 /MWhe) Oxyfuel is a promising alternative around 45 /MWhe for both bituminous coal and lignite Cost of electricity for capture alternatives with natural gas are at similar level as the the ones for coal, considering the uncertainties in the estimates CO 2 avoidance cost around 20 /ton CO 2 (16-24 /ton) for coal Note that the IGCC case uses IGCC as reference case, the CO 2 avoidance cost increases if PF is used as reference CO 2 avoidance cost around 40 /ton for natural gas cases With a CO 2 emission penalty of 20 /ton, the competition is between coal fired plants with capture and natural gas plants without capture. Vattenfall AB 47

48 Capture technologies year 2020 status All capture alternatives based on coal show similar COEs (34-38 /MWhe) For the oxyfuel case, only improvements in basic steam turbine technology has been accounted for, there is still a potential to improve process parts related to the oxyfuel conceptand air separation. Oxyfuel is still a promising alternative! Capture alternatives for natural gas are at similar level as the the ones for coal, considering the uncertainties in the estimates CO 2 avoidance cost around /ton CO 2 for PF coal, IGCC 2020 about 7 /ton OBS that IGCC case uses IGCC as reference case, the CO 2 avoidance cost increases if PF is used as a reference CO 2 avoidance cost around 27 /ton for natural gas cases Vattenfall AB 48

49 CO 2 free power plant - Why oxyfuel technology? 1. Numerous different views on costs for technologies exist. Our internal studies point at oxyfuel as the least expensive. 2. We have investigated the IGCC technology thoroughly. We do not see it competitive unless very specific conditions. It is calculated slightly more expensive at present. The availability and the reliability must be increased considerably and technical performance must be increased 3. Post combustion is commercially available at present up to the size 500 MW. It is calculated more expensive at present. The energy consumption for regenerating the absorbent must come down considerably to make it competitive. 4. We have good experience from PC technology. We operate 7 large supercritical units with hard coal and lignite. We build 3 new at present. Our German competitors also build several new units at present. Vattenfall AB 49

50 Computer simulation of the new units in Hamburg (Moorburg) 2 x 750 MW hard coal Vattenfall AB 50

51 Computer simulation of the new Boxberg R unit 660 MW- lignite Vattenfall AB 51

52 CO 2 free power plant Back up Vattenfall AB 52

53 Electric efficiency with and without CO 2 capture 70 Hard Coal Lignite Natural gas 60 Plant electrical efficiency (LHV) [%] efficiency penalty El-efficiency, CO2 sep 10 0 IEA GHG PF 2004 postcomb. IEA GHG PF 2020 postcomb. Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 PF Mitsui 2020 O2/CO2 PF IEA GHG IGCC 2003 pre-comb. IEA GHG IGCC 2020 pre-comb. Oxyfuel WFGD Oxyfuel without WFGD IEA GHG 2004 NGCC postcomb. IEA GHG 2020 NGCC postcomb. Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 NGCC Vattenfall AB 53

54 Specific investment cost with and without CO 2 capture 2500 Hard Coal Lignite Natural gas 2000 Spec. inv. penalty Spec. inv. Specific investment [EUR/kWe net] IEA GHG PF 2004 postcomb. IEA GHG PF 2020 postcomb. Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 PF Mitsui 2020 O2/CO2 PF IEA GHG IGCC 2003 pre-comb. IEA GHG IGCC 2020 pre-comb. Oxyfuel WFGD Oxyfuel without WFGD IEA GHG 2004 NGCC postcomb. IEA GHG 2020 NGCC postcomb. Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 NGCC Vattenfall AB 54

55 CO 2 avoidance cost 50 Hard Coal Lignite Natural gas CO2 avoidance cost [EUR/ton CO2] IEA GHG PF 2004 postcomb. IEA GHG PF 2020 postcomb. Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 PF Mitsui 2020 O2/CO2 PF IEA GHG IGCC 2003 pre-comb. IEA GHG IGCC 2020 pre-comb. Oxyfuel WFGD Oxyfuel without WFGD IEA GHG 2004 NGCC postcomb. IEA GHG 2020 NGCC postcomb. Mitsui 2004 O2/CO2 NGCC Vattenfall AB 55

56 Age of coal fired plants 25 Percentage of total capacity Number of units 125 Percentage of total capacity Number of units > 40 Age in years 0 Vattenfall AB 56

57 Bas för IGCC-arbete Work performance IGCC 6 cases studied 3 cases with and 3 cases without CO 2 - capture Data from IEA-reports as GHG PH4/19 ENCAP SP2 DOE - reports TU Dresden BASF GT World Handbook Calculations with Ebsilon Gate for the gasturbine Shift med Excel and Aspen Plus (verification) Vattenfall AB 57

58 Choice of av Acid gas removal amdea DEA NMP DGA DMPEG Purisol Rectisol Selexol Sulfinol Activivated Methyl-Di-Ethanol-Amine, technology offered by BASF. di-ethanol-amine n-methyl-2 pyrrolidon di-glycol-amine dimethyl-ether-polyethylene-glycol NMP (n-methyl-2 pyrrolidon) technology from Lurgi Cold (-60ºC) Methanol as solvent Physical solvent with dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol MDEA technology with license from Shell Vattenfall AB 58

59 Technical / economical evaluation VUAB IGCC Dry VUAB IGCC Dry CO 2 VUAB IGCC Wet VUAB IGCC Wet CO 2 VUAB Wet no quench VUAB Wet no quench CO 2 IGCC Shell IGCC Shell CO 2 IGCC Texaco In all cases sour shift is used In the total investment 5% addition for owners cost and 10% för contingencies are included IGCC Texaco CO 2 Gasification press. [bar] AGR amdea amdea amdea amdea amdea amdea amdea amdea Selexol Selexol GT press ,8 15,8 15,8 15,8 ratio GT firing 1401,5 1401,5 1401,5 1401,5 1401,5 1401, temp. [C] Coal LHV [kj/kg] Coal [MW] 1821,6 1976,5 1891,7 2033,3 1929,1 1983,5 1800,8 1950,3 2177,3 2322,5 El. Gross 939,7 885,8 906,6 876,3 976,5 876,3 909,8 883,3 988,7 979,9 [MW] Aux. Cons. 110, , ,4 184,1 132,9 199,2 160,2 237,1 [MW] El. Net [MW] 829,6 703,8 789,1 689,3 854,1 692,2 776,9 684,1 828,5 742,8 η e [%] 45,5 35,6 41,7 33,9 44,3 34,9 43,1 35,1 38,0 32,0 Tot. invest. 935,4 1044,9 769,4 856,3 943,8 982,6 936,8 1038, ,4 [MEUR] Spec. inv. [EUR/kWe] ,8 Vattenfall AB 59