1/10/2012. U.S. Electricity Generation Picture to 2030 Fossil Fuel Source Emissions and Controls NeuStream TM Technology

Transcription

1 NeuStream TM Ultra-compact, Advanced Gas-Liquid Contactors for Multi-Pollutant Control Systems January 7, 2012 Louise Knauf, Senior Engineer Neumann Systems Group, Inc. 890 Elkton Dr., Colorado Springs, CO U.S. Electricity Generation Picture to 2030 Fossil Fuel Source Emissions and Controls NeuStream TM Technology 2 1

2 U.S. Electric Power Generation Challenges Through 2030 Required generation needs increase by 30% Fuel choices/relative costs Emissions control requirements 3 US Energy Outlook* 3000 Coal Natural Gas Liquids Nuclear Renewables mm metric tons CO CO 2 2 Emissions from from Electricity Generation *Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy 2030 Fossil fuels dominate existing and future electricity markets (pie charts % electricity generation) Coal is abundant: 250+ years worth of reserves Coal is the cheapest ($1 -$2 per mm BTU vs. $4 -$8 per mm BTU) Coal is the dirtiest Emits highest amounts of regulated pollutants: oxides of sulfur, nitrogen and mercury Emits more carbon dioxide than any other fuel at a rate of 2 times greater than natural gas 4 2

3 World Net Electricity Generation By Fuel International Energy Outlook 2010 US Energy Information Administration 5 Fuel Options for Electricity Generation Fuel Source Percent Today CapEx 1 Fuel Cost 2 Fuel Source Potential 3 Coal 50% $1600 / kw $ / mm Btu Natural Gas 21% $750 / kw $6 -$8 / mm Btu Nuclear 19% $2,600 / kw $.5 / mm Btu Renewables 9% $3,900 - $5,900 / kw Technical Challenges Social Challenges 250+ yrs Emissions Control Overcoming fossil fuel perception 100 yrs Emissions Control Overcoming fossil fuel perception 80 yrs Remediation, disposal, security Free Infinite Storage, Transmission, Reliability, Efficiency Overcoming past reputation Aesthetics Economic Challenges Cost of controlling emissions Competing Uses & Reserves Capital cost, plant construction times Capital Cost, plant construction times 1. Capital Cost estimations retrieved from Energy Information Administration 2. Fuel Costs are historical averages as reported by the Department of Energy s 2008 Annual Energy Outlook 3. Coal and Natural Gas Source Potential Estimations are U.S. Reserves consumed at 2007 levels. Natural Gas includes proven and unproven but technically recoverable reserves (shale, coal bed methane fields, etc). Nuclear estimation is worldwide recoverable uranium Fossil-fuel plants have lowest capital expenditure requirement Coal is the cheapest fossil-fuel over long term (NG volatility up to 3x 4x more expensive) Capital cost and long construction times overshadow the attractive fuel costs of nuclear Renewable plants are 3x to 6x more expensive to build than fossil fuels and require significantly more time to construct (1 to 3 years). Additionally, the technological limitations preclude renewable sources from supplying 24/7, uninterrupted electricity 6 3

4 Clean Coal Power Today s State of the Art Emissions, lb per Billion BTU Natural Gas Oil Old Coal Clean Coal CO NOx SO22 PM Hg 0.02 Clean Coal Technology is Available Today EIA Natural Gas 1998: Issues and Trends 7 U.S. Electricity Generation Picture to 2030 Fossil Fuel Source Emissions and Controls NeuStream TM Commercialization Project 8 4

5 Advanced Emissions Control Options for a Coal Plant Plume Steam Cycle Generator Electricity Bottom Ash Raw Coal PC Burner Milling Flue Gas Air Heater Heated AIr External Air Flue Gas Baghouse Fly Ash Flue Gas ID Fan Flue Gas Stack Pre-combustion Coal processing Oxygenation Gasification Combustion Higher temperatures Ultra-, Supercritical Chemical Injection Post-Combustion Scrubbing (Capture) Catalytic Conversion Emissions to Control: SOx, NOx, Hg, CO 2 9 Emissions and Their Effects Sulfur & Nitrogen Oxides Produce Acid Rain Damages ecosystem Adverse impacts on forests, freshwaters and soils, Kills insect and aquatic life-forms Causes damage to buildings and cultural relics Impacts human health Respiratory and Cardiovascular Illness Nitrogen Oxides & VOCs Produce Ozone Impacts human health Causes respiratory: asthma, emphysema and bronchitis Aggravates existing heart disease Environmental Reduced crop production and forest growth Precursor to smog Nitrogen Oxides Over fertilization & eutrophication VOCs Impacts human health Cancer Poisoning Nausea or difficulty in breathing Skin irritation Particulate Matter Effects breathing and respiratory systems, damage to lung tissue, cancer, and premature death. Adversely effects visibility Carbon Dioxide, Methane Global warming Heavy Metals Carcinogen, nerve damage and headaches 10 5

6 U.S. Electricity Generation Picture to 2030 Fossil Fuel Source Emissions and Controls NeuStream TM Technology 11 NeuStream TM Capture and Processing Systems Conventional Absorbers 2 MW Scrubber 60 MW System *Sizing Based on CSU Test Data FRONT SORBENT FEED PLENUM SORBENT STORAGE TANK 15 in 56 in FLUE GAS FLOW SIDE 2 MW Scrubber x 10 x 3 FLUE GAS FLOW 20.7 FT SORBENT SPRAY NeuStream TM Absorber 6ft operator Up to 90% Smaller FLUE GAS FLOW DEMISTER Modular Design Up to 50% Lower CapEx Up to 40% Lower OpEx

7 Advanced Gas-Liquid Contactor Developed for chemical processes Dense pack, flat jets High removal/volume Energy efficient removal Modular Design 13 Operating Characteristics of Common Gas-Liquid Contactors Gas-Liquid Contactor Specific Surface Area, a s (cm -1 ) Overall Mass Transfer Coefficient, K c (cm/s) Max Volumetric Mass Transfer Coefficient, K c a s (s -1 ) Packed Column (Countercurrent) Bubble Column (Agitated) Spray Column VenturiEjector NSG G-L Contactor a s = Surface Area / Reactor Volume, (cm 2 /cm 3 ) Charpentier, J., Mass-Transfer Rates in Gas-Liquid Absorbers and Reactors, Advances in Chemical Engineering, Vol 11. New York, Academic Press, Inc. 11:

8 NeuStream TM Absorber Comparison Emissions control systems built around highly advanced gas liquid contactors Comparative features to Absorber Spray Towers: NeuStream TM Advanced Spray tower Low viscosity, low density liquid High viscosity, high density slurry Low pressure liquid High pressure liquid/solid slurry Low corrosion liquid High corrosion slurry Arrays of smaller nozzles Large spray shower heads Higher liquid flow rate (GPM/aCFM) Lower slurry flow rate (GPM/aCFM) ~1.3% parasitic power 3% - 4% parasitic power (est.) Lower flue gas pressure drop Higher flue gas pressure drop Higher reaction area/volume Lower reaction area/volume 1x Volume 15x Volume Modular design/off-site fabrication Large scale units/on-site fabrication Ease of servicing Difficult servicing 15 Public-Private Private Partnership Colorado Springs Utilities Situation EPA - State Implementation Plan 5 years and up to $160* million to comply Additional regulations anticipated could increase this figure to $350 million Concerns Limited space High cost of conventional equipment High cost of energy SIP specified dry scrubber Solution NSG NeuStream TM commercial 220 MW FGD system 16 8

9 SO2 Ouput 0 11:45:36 12:14:24 12:43:12 13:12:00 13:40:48 14:09:36 14:38:24 15:07:12 1/10/2012 NeuStream TM -S PilotProgram Program 0.13MW Reactor Unit 2MW Reactor Unit Catch Tank (4) Liquid Jets Off SO2 Concentration (ppm) Flue Gas On Liquid Jets On Liquid Jets Off Time Liquid Pumps (4) Flue Gas On Liquid Jets On Phase I: Drake 5, 3 mo, 2008 Capture Device: 3 serial 0.13MW; single fluid/pump Sorbents: NaOH, NH 3, H 2 O 2 Emissions Capture: SOx, NOx, CO 2 Phase IV: Drake 6/7, Capture Device: Multiple unit cells Processing: NaOH, Trona to Gypsum Emissions Capture: SOx, PM Phase II: Drake 7, 9mo, 2008/09 Capture Device: 2 serial 2 MW units Sorbents: NaOH, NH 3, AC, PZ/K 2 CO 3 Emissions Capture: SOx, NOx, CO 2 20MW Reactor Unit Sorbent Processing 220 MW Commercial System, January 2014 Phase III: Drake 7, 2009/10 Capture Device: Single 20 MW unit Processing: NaOH, Lime to Gypsum Emissions Capture: SOx(NOx, CO 2 ) MW NeuStream TM Dual Alkali FGD Pilot Plant -Martin Drake 7 20 MW NSG Scrubber 20 MW Sorbent Processing Independent cost evaluation URS Washington Group, funded by EPRI Independent extended test evaluation Harris Group, funded by EPRI High Quality Gypsum Product 18 9

10 Performance Comparison: Lime Spray Dryer vs. NeuStream TM TM -S Parameter Dry Scrubber* NeuStream TM -S Comparison %SO 2 removal design point 90% >97% Better Mercury removal Decreased baghouse removal >97% Removal of Hg 2+ Better Parasitic power 2x 1x Better Water usage 2x 1x Better Lime stoichiometry 1.37Ca:S 1.05 Ca:S+ 30% excess for softening = 1.37 Sodium requirement (Trona) 0:1 Na 2 :S 0.05:1Na 2 :S Additional Active heat management (i.e. HEX system) Same No Yes Better Saleable By-Products no Fly Ash, Gypsum, Calcium Carbonate, Fertilizer Better % increase in plume visibility 2% 1% Better % increase in ground level contaminants 37% 15% Better *Data obtained from Stanley Consultants dry scrubber reports for CSU and Stanley Consultants plume analysis report for NSG 19 NeuStream TM -S Size Advantage Drake 6 & 7 Dry Scrubber Layout* Drake 6 & 7 NeuStream TM -S Layout * Drake Unit 6 Dry Scrubber Feasibility Study: Economic and Technical Analysis Report (Stanley Consultants, Inc., 2/17/09 ) 20 10

11 Multi-Pollutant Capture/Processing NSG Approach Mechanical Advancement Not Chemical Highly Efficient Gas Liquid Contactor Small Footprint Retrofits Low CapExand OpEx Modular Easily scalable Ease of installation and maintenance Chemistry Neutral 21 NeuStream TM MP (Multi-Pollutant) NeuStream TM Roadmap CO 2 Goals Hg +2, Hg 0, NO x SO x,hf, HCl Present Near Term Longer term Pollutant Solution Removal HCl/ HF Currently removed with NeuStream TM -S 90% Hg Upgrade in process to NeuStream TM -S ~80% NO x Current NeuStream TM -S with upstream oxidizer 70-95% NO x & Hg Upgrade NeuStream TM -S to 97% SO x removal with upstream oxidizer >90% both CO 2 NeuStream TM -Cwith K + /PZ sorbent 70-90% 22 11

12 Innovation Key for Future - Economical CO 2 capture DOE goal: 90% capture, < 35% COE Technologies Oxy-Combustion Pre-combustion Post-combustion Sorbents Membranes Solvents eg. NeuStream TM -C NeuStream TM Absorber NeuStream TM -C 6ft operator Conventional Absorbers 23 NeuStream TM -C Pilot Program NSG s operational NeuStream TM C developed for EERC NSG s proposed NeuStream TM C to be developed in NETL Project CARE CO 2 Strippers Reclaimer Amine Wash CO 2 Absorbers Flue Gas/CO 2 Outlet Includes CO 2 capture and stripping. Process ~ 0.1 MW of flue gas NSG s NeuStream TM C scales favorably. Conceptual 550MW system ~1/10 th the size of other state-of-the-art systems! Flue Gas Inlet Steam Generator SOx Absorber Includes CO 2 capture and stripping. Process ~ 0.5 MW of flue gas Fan 24 12

13 CO 2 Capture System Size Comparison 800MW Hitachi CO 2 Capture System 550MW NeuStream TM -CCO 2 Capture System (Absorber, Stripper Reclaimer and HEX) ~50m 21.5m Parameter Hitachi NSG MW Rating Volume ~270,000m 3 ~20,000m 3 * Volume/MW 337.5m 3 /MW 39.4m 3 /MW Improvement - ~10x *NSG Volume assumes an additional 4x for residual equipment (rich and lean pumps, condenser, storage tank 25 Carbon Absorber Retrofit Equipment (CARE) Advantages Compact, Offering a reduced capture system footprint Ideal for existing PC plant retrofits. Aerodynamic shaped flat jets Allow high gas flow with low pressure-drop Modular, Scalable design approach uses mass-produced factory units Improves the scalability and economies of scale. Broadly applicable Variety of exiting commercial solvents, New solvents under development. Stripping 26 13

14 27 14