Compact Gasification Integration Studies

Transcription

1 A GenCorp Company Compact Gasification Integration Studies Alan Darby Program Manager Gasification Technology Conference October 27, 2014

2 Aerojet Rocketdyne is Developing the Compact Gasification System Next generation Gasification System that is environmentally friendly and lower cost than existing systems Testing Initiated March 2012 EERC North Dakota Reduces customer capital and operating cost by 20% Successful Testing Completed April 2011 Gas Technology Institute - Illinois

3 AGENDA POx Compact Gasifier Commercialize Stranded Natural Gas Dry Solids Pump vs. Lock Hopper U.S. Based Hydrogen Plant Dry Solids Pump vs. Lock Hopper China Based Ammonia Plant 2

4 Partial Oxidation Compact Gasifier to Commercialize Stranded Natural Gas 3

5 Integration of AR POx with GTL Plant Targeted Market Distributed, small scale conversion of low value natural gas resources Capital efficiency (much more important than process efficiency) Suitability for modularized, transportable units Steam Steam Gaseous Byproduct Stream Recycle 11 MMSCFD Natural 600 F, 450 psia Partial Oxidation Unit Syngas H 2 :CO = 2:1 Fuels Synthesis 1,000 BPD Liquids Oxygen Water & Liquid Hydrocarbon Byproduct Recycle AR POx Unit Simplifies GTL Plant By Recycling Waste/Byproduct Streams, Minimizing Associated Plant Costs Page 4

6 ARPA-e Turbo-POx Program Testing of Compact Gasifier Technology 500 MSCFD pilot plant Natural Gas feed Tested at 25 unique operating points O 2 /NG from Steam/NG from Pilot Plant Burner Element 120 hours testing on POx hardware over range of operating conditions Validated design conditions Verified burner performance Pilot Plant Test Data Confirms ~.25 Increase in H 2 :CO Ratio Verified ability to achieve optimal H 2 :CO ratio through proprietary design feature Confirms Gasifier Performance and Design Feasibility 5

7 Partial Oxidation Unit Layout Envelope: ~25 long x 4 diameter Gas-Gas Injector (Oxygen + NG) with Recycle Stream Injection Water Cooled Liner (internal) Manhole Vessel Skin Temperature T/C Quench Lances (syngas cooling) Advanced Burner Design Rapid mix burner elements Scale up by adding elements Recycle Stream Injector Recycle by-product hydrocarbon or wastewater streams to POx unit Actively Cooled Liner Eliminates refractory for transportability, minimal field installation, operational flexibility (no pre-heat) Syngas Product Out 6

8 Lower GTL Plant CAPEX by ~15% Eliminate requirement for water gas shift and PSA through H 2 :CO ratio optimization in POx unit Reduce BOP CAPEX by recycling by-product/waste streams to POx unit Wax, light hydrocarbons, contaminated water, etc. Shortens Construction Schedule Advantages of AR POx Technology for Distributed NG Conversion Minimizes exposure of project economics to NG, oil price volatility Construction less than 12 months Operational Simplicity and Flexibility Eliminates pre-heat and start-up/shut-down requirements for refractory Active cooling/materials selection avoids metal dusting, achieve long life AR POx Technology Provides High Degree of Plant Integration Flexibility to Increase Capital Efficiency 7

9 Dry Solids Pump vs. Lock Hopper Study U.S. Hydrogen Production Plant 8

10 Dry Solids Pump Cost Benefits Analysis Objectives Compare CAPEX and OPEX costs of AR s Dry Solids Pump (DSP) to Lock Hopper (LH) Compare Plants with operating pressures of 500 psi and 1000 psi Understand impact of feedstocks: Illinois #6, PRB, and Petcoke Basis & Assumptions 208 MMSCFD H2 production plant in the U.S. Gulf Coast with CO2 capture Baseline AR Compact Gasifier technology DSP capacity is 1000 tpd One spare DSP and one spare LH for each configuration studied +50/-30% cost estimates for n th of a kind plant in April 2013 USD Dry Solids Pump Efficiency basis 25% External Resources Jacob s 2008 BOP estimate for a 3000 tpd Petcoke feed H2 plant Quality Guidelines for Energy Systems Studies, QGESS (DOE/NETL- 2010/1455, 341/011812) Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index, CEPCI, (Chemical Eng. 2013) 9

11 208 MMSCFD Hydrogen Plant Block Diagram Ill. #6 Petcoke PRB DSP vs. Lock Hopper Understand DSP Benefit to Feed System and Total Plant Cost 10

12 DSP and Lock Hopper Configuration Feed Rate Dependent on Feedstock for 208 MMSCFD H2 Production Feedstock Tons Per Day DSP Configuration Petcoke spare Illinois # spare PRB spare 11

13 Lock Hopper Solids Pump Feed System and Total Plant Capital Cost Impact Feed System Capital Cost Comparisons ($M) 1200 PSI 700 PSI Dry Solids Pump Percent Difference Lock Hopper Dry Solids Pump Percent Difference Illinois # % % PRB % % Petcoke % % Total Plant Capital Cost Comparisons 208 MMSCFD H2 ($M) Lock Hopper 1000 PSI 500 PSI Dry Solids Pump Percent Difference Lock Hopper Dry Solids Pump Percent Difference Illinois # % % PRB % % Petcoke % % Solids Pump Reduces Feed System Cost 12

14 Solids Pump Feed System and Total Plant Operations Cost Feed System Annual Operating Costs Comparisons Lock Hopper 1200 PSI 700 PSI Dry Solids Pump Lock Hopper Dry Solids Pump Illinois #6 $4.6M $2.4M $3.5M $1.4M PRB $6.4M $3.3M $4.9M $1.9M Petcoke $3.9M $2.0M $3.0M $1.2M Power Reduction 48% Power Reduction 60% At 1200 psi, Lock Hoppers consume 95% more power At 700 psi, Lock Hoppers consume 158% more power Dry Solids Pump Significantly Reduces CAPEX and OPEX 13

15 DSP vs Lock Hopper Summary U.S Based Hydrogen Plant Dry Solids Pump reduces capital and operating cost of solids feed system Less structure needed for DSP hardware Reduces N2 compression requirements Lower operating pressure increases total plant cost Lower pressure increases syngas volume handling requirements Lower quality coal increases size and total plant cost Use most efficient technologies to reduce costs 14

16 Dry Solids Pump Integration with Exiting Gasification Technology China Based Plant and Hardware 15

17 DSP Integration into Existing Dry Feed Lock Hopper Based Gasification Plant Evaluate DSP impact on CAPEX and OPEX Dry Solids Feed System Capacity: 2000 tpd Operating Pressure: ~ 700 psi DSP flow rate: 1000 TPD DSP configuration: spare Plant location East China, coastal area Plant hardware and DSP manufactured in China Adjusted cost based on structure and equipment changes DSP integrated into existing gasifier feed system Same overall layout of upstream and down stream units Major effects of DSP integration were reviewed Project/Owner/Date/Status 16

18 Impact on Structure and Utilities Structural Impact Remove Two (2) lock hoppers Add three 1000 tpd Dry Solids Pumps Structure height reduction from 82 m (257 ft) to 65 m (204 ft) Utility Impact Lock Hopper Baseline Coal Feeding 5 kw (coal screw and rotary feeder on Vent Filter only) N2 Supply Total 10,700 kw 10,705 kw (nitrogen compressor, 52,600 Nm³/h to 80 bar DSP Case Coal Feeding 5 kw (coal screw and rotary feeder on Vent Filter only) 640 kw (2 operating DSP pumps) Coal drying -5 kw (saving on coal lift over 17m) N2 Supply 8,850 kw (nitrogen compressor, 43,500 Nm³/h to 80 bar) Total 9,490 kw Net Change 1,215 kw (Net reduction in power requirements) 17

19 CAPEX (US $) Feed System Cost Savings for 2000 t/d Ammonia Plant Description Base Case DSP Remarks Coal Feeding 13,819,930 13,796,540 Milling & Drying N2 Supply Totals 13,819,930 12,286,210 Savings -565,930 Steel Structure and Labor -884,400 N2 Compressor and HP Buffer Vessel 1,533,720 11% Saving OPEX (US $) Description Base Case DSP Remarks Power Req t 10,705 kwe 9,490 kwe Power Cost $ $ USD/kWe Savings $972,000 Annual Savings 18

20 DSP vs. Lock Hopper Summary China Based Ammonia Plant Dry Solids Pump reduces Capital and Operations costs when installed into existing dry fed gasification technologies Plant configuration impacts potential benefit of DSP feed system Multiple feed tanks, larger equipment, and spare hardware Lower cost of China sourced equipment and labor reduces cost savings of DSP feed system U.S. based ~ 40% feed system cost reduction vs. China based 11 % cost reduction Lower China plant construction costs impacts DSP CAPEX advantage 19

21 Acknowledgement Acknowledgment: This material is based upon work supported by the National Engineering Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, under Award Number DE-FC26-04NT42237 and Award No. DE-FE , and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), U.S. Department of Energy, under Award Number DE-AR Aerojet Rocketdyne acknowledges Higman Consulting, GmbH for supporting the DSP economic evaluation Disclaimer: "This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. For questions, please call Alan Darby, (USA). Questions?