CO 2 Capture: Impacts on IGCC Plant Performance in a High Elevation Application using Western Sub-Bituminous Coal

Transcription

1 CO 2 Capture: Impacts on IGCC Plant Performance in a High Elevation Application using Western Sub-Bituminous Coal Satish Gadde, Jay White WorleyParsons Ron Herbanek, Jayesh Shah ConocoPhillips Gasification Technologies Conference, San Francisco Oct 15 17, 2007 WorleyParsons Group, Inc All Rights Reserved ConocoPhillips All Rights Reserved

2 Objectives of this Presentation Review differences in equipment for a range of CO 2 capture between 0% and 90% Look at the effects of altitude (> 4000 ft) on the major plant equipment performance (NO CO 2 Capture) Provide an overview of the Estimated critical plant parameters with different CO 2 capture levels at higher altitude Performance Emissions Capital Cost Page 2

3 Base Plant Configuration Gasifier : E-Gas TM PSQ Mode 600 MWe Nominal 2 x 2 x 1 with F-Class Gas Turbine Primary Feedstock Western Sub-Bituminous Coal HRSG: Two Pressure LP Induction No HRSG Supplemental Firing Steam Turbine: 1800 psig/ 1030 o F/1030 o F For CO 2 Capture Cases CO 2 Separation : Typical AGR CO Shift Reactor : Typical Catalyst Page 3

4 Plant Process without CO 2 Separation Cryogenic ASU E-Gas TBL O 2 Coal Handling Slurry Feed & Prep Gasification High Temperature Heat Recovery Particulate Removal Scrubber Gas Turbine Stack Hg Removal One Stage Acid Gas Removal N 2 from ASU HRSG Acid Gas Air To ASU Sulfur Recovery STG Page 4

5 Plant Process with CO 2 Separation Cryogenic ASU E-Gas TBL O 2 Coal Handling Slurry Feed & Prep Gasification High Temperature Heat Recovery Particulate Removal Scrubber N 2 from ASU Gas Turbine Stack Shift Reactor Hg Removal Two Stage Acid Gas Removal HRSG Acid Gas CO 2 Air To ASU Sulfur Recovery CO 2 Compressor STG CO 2 (2200 psig) Page 5

6 Depth of Analysis Experienced ConocoPhillips team from Wabash & LGTI Extensive WorleyParsons In-House expertise in Downstream processes and Power Island design and layouts Comprehensive and Systematic approach in Process and Steam Cycle optimization, Thermal and Air Integration of the Power Island Detailed & Methodical Process modelling in Aspen Plus TM and Steam Cycle modelling in GateCycle TM Page 6

7 Single Stage Acid Gas Removal Unit 0% CO 2 Capture (% of CO 2 emissions on a coal combustion basis) % CO 2 captured CO 2 emission intensity % H 2 in diluted syngas to GT AGR stages Shift stages 0% 2,000 lb CO2 / MWh Net 20% 1 0 Acid Gas to Sulfur Recovery Unit Solvent Stripper Acid Gas Knockout Drum H 2 S Absorber Makeup Water Rich Flash Drum Sour Syngas from Gasifier Treated Syngas to Combustion Turbine Page 7

8 Dual Stage Acid Gas Removal Unit 0% - 40% CO 2 Capture % CO 2 captured 0% - ~40% 0-2% more coal needed than uncontrolled % H 2 in diluted syngas to GT AGR stages Shift stages 20% 2 0 Acid Gas to Sulfur Recovery Unit Solvent Stripper Acid Gas Knockout Drum H 2 S Absorber CO 2 Absorber Export Water Makeup Water CO 2 Flash Drums Acid Gas Enrichment Treated Syngas to Combustion Turbine H 2 S Flash Drums Sour Syngas from Gasifier Compressed CO 2 Product CO 2 compression and drying Page 8

9 Slip Stream One Stage Shift, Two Stage Acid Gas Removal Unit 40% - 80% CO 2 Capture % CO 2 captured % H 2 in diluted syngas to GT AGR stages Shift stages ~40% - ~80% 22% - 37% % more coal needed than uncontrolled Acid Gas to Sulfur Recovery Unit Solvent Stripper Acid Gas Knockout Drum 1 Water-Gas Shift Reactor H 2 S Absorber CO 2 Absorber CO 2 Flash Drums Acid Gas Enrichment Export Water Makeup Water Steam Treated Syngas to Combustion Turbine H 2 S Flash Drums Sour Syngas from Gasifier Syngas Bypass Compressed CO 2 Product CO 2 compression and drying Page 9

10 Three Stage Shift, Two Stage Acid Gas Removal Unit 80% - 90% CO 2 Capture % CO 2 captured ~80% - ~90% 9-14% more coal needed than uncontrolled % H 2 in diluted syngas to GT AGR stages Shift stages 37% - 41% 2 3 Acid Gas to Sulfur Recovery Unit Solvent Stripper Acid Gas Knockout Drum 1 Water-Gas Shift Reactor 2 Water-Gas Shift Reactor 3 Water-Gas Shift Reactor H 2 S Absorber CO 2 Absorber CO 2 Flash Drums Acid Gas Enrichment Export Water Makeup Water Steam Treated Syngas to Combustion Turbine H 2 S Flash Drums Sour Syngas from Gasifier Compressed CO 2 Product CO 2 compression and drying Page 10

11 Estimated Plant Net Power Output Includes CO 2 Compression Loads Page 11

12 Estimated Plant Parasitic Loads Includes CO 2 Compression Loads Page 12

13 Estimated Plant Net Heat Rate Includes CO 2 Compression Loads Page 13

14 Elevation Impact Comparison against MSL 0% CO 2 Capture Level CO 2 Capture 0% Gross Plant Output, MWe Gas Turbine Steam Turbine -9% -16% Total Gross Output -12% Aux Loads and Losses, MWe Process Plant Power Plant (wet cooling tower) Total Aux Loads & Losses -9% -8% -8% Net Power Output, MWe Net Plant Performance Net Plant Output Net Plant Heat Rate (Btu/kWhr - HHV) -13% -0.5% Page 14

15 Estimated CO 2 Emissions % CO 2 Capture 0 ~ 90 CO 2 Intensity, lb/mw-hr Net 2, Page 15

16 Estimated Steady State Plant Emissions SOx emissions include GT/HRSGs and Vent Gas Burners PM emissions include GT/HRSGs, Vent Gas Burners and Cooling Towers Increase in Carbon Capture Page 16

17 Capital Cost Estimation WorleyParsons & ConocoPhillips In-house Models 2007 Mid-Year, Overnight, +/- 30% Estimate Capital Cost Estimate Includes Equipment Costs Material Costs Labor (Direct & Indirect Costs) Engineering Construction & Management Costs Project Contingencies Offsite Utility Connections Capital Cost does not include EPC Markups Owner s Costs Page 17

18 Total Installed Cost vs. Carbon Capture Page 18

19 General Synopsis Performance is marginally affected up to 50% with a steep decrease above 50% capture rates, primarily due to the chemical energy losses incurred during water-gas shift process + incremental aux. loads incurred due to CO 2 Compression & AGR Capital costs increase proportionally with CO 2 Capture Rates up to ~80% with a sharp increase above 80%. Comparison with 90% case, it appears to be past the point of diminishing returns Overall, plant emissions are lower as the CO 2 Capture increases Valuation of CO 2 credits will become increasingly important in planning CO 2 capture Technology for CO 2 Capture with IGCC is readily available today, the issues to be resolved are the CO 2 public policy and the costs associated with CCS Page 19

20 CO 2 Capture: Impacts on IGCC Plant Performance in a High Elevation Application using Western Sub-Bituminous Coal Thank you for your time and attention Gasification Technologies Conference, San Francisco Oct 15 17, 2007 WorleyParsons Group, Inc All Rights Reserved ConocoPhillips All Rights Reserved