Advances in gasification plants for low carbon power and hydrogen co-production

Transcription

1 Advances in gasification plants for low carbon power and hydrogen co-production IChemE New Horizons in Gasification Rotterdam, The Netherlands, March, 2014 Luca Mancuso, Foster Wheeler Noemi Ferrari, Foster Wheeler John Davison, IEAGHG

2 Introduction IEAGHG undertook studies on performance and costs of coal-fired power and hydrogen plants with CO 2 capture, based on the three leading options: post combustion capture Background oxy-combustion for pulverised coal plants pre-combustion capture in gasification pants Following significant technological advances and substantial increase of plant costs, IEAGHG decided to undertake a completely new study to provide an up-to-date techno-economic assessment Final report issued January

3 Introduction Study objectives Study aims to provide baseline for subsequent studies on other capture processes and capture in industries other than power and hydrogen generation NOTE: comparison of different technology suppliers is beyond scope! It covers the following plant types: Supercritical pulverised coal (SC-PC) power plant without CO 2 capture (reference plant) Oxy-combustion SC-PC with cryogenic purification SC-PC with post combustion capture based on a high efficiency solvent IGCC plant with pre-combustion capture using solvent scrubbing Gasification for combined production of hydrogen (via PSA) and power (either via combined cycle or boiler-based plant), with pre-combustion capture using solvent scrubbing 2

4 Introduction List in alphabetical order: Air Products Alstom Cansolv Chiyoda Corporation Foster Wheeler General Electric Energy IHI Johnson Matthey Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Shell UOP Acknowledgement Fruitful cooperation with various technology suppliers and licensors, which provided an invaluable support for the success of the study 3

5 Agenda Study cases and main design bases Key design features Performance & TPC 4 5 Financial Analysis Summary considerations

6 Agenda Study cases and main design bases Key design features Performance & TPC 4 5 Financial Analysis Summary considerations

7 Power Study cases Type Case # Plant CO 2 capture Power & H 2 Key technological features A.1 IGCC 90% Shell coal gasification process, RC UOP Selexol TM solvent scrubbing A.2 IGCC 90% General Electric, RSC UOP Selexol solvent scrubbing A.3 IGCC 90% MHI, air-blown UOP Selexol solvent scrubbing B.1 IGCC+PSA 90% Two (2) E-class gas turbines (130 MWe) B.2 IGCC+PSA 90% Two (2) F-class (77 MWe) B.3 Boiler+PSA 90% PSA off-gas boiler-based Sensitivities for: near zero emissions of CO 2 and cooling system type 6

8 Main design bases Greenfield location in The Netherlands (EU): sea level and Tamb 9 C Eastern Australian bituminous coal: LHV is MJ/kg (AR) IGCC plants: two state-of-the-art F-class, 50 Hz gas turbines Reference for CAC: Pulverised coal plants: 27 MPa/600 C/620 C - Net power output of SC-PC w/o around 1,030 MWe (NEE 44.1% LHV basis) CO 2 : P 11 MPa, O ppm, H 2 S 20 ppm, H 2 O 50 ppm Natural draft sweet water cooling tower Overall gaseous emissions Item Figure (1) NOx (as NO 2 ) 50 mg/nm 3 SOx (as SO 2 ) 10 mg/nm 3 Notes: 15% O 2 volume dry 7

9 Agenda Study cases and main design bases Key design features Performance & TPC 4 5 Financial Analysis Summary considerations

10 IGCC with CO 2 capture: Shell gasification Entrained flow, oxygen blown Membrane wall, slagging gasifier + Syngas Cooler Dry feed of pulverized coal

11 IGCC with CO 2 capture: GE gasification Entrained flow, oxygen blown Radiant Syngas Cooler Slurry feed asification/gasifipedia/4-gasifiers/ _ge.html

12 IGCC with CO 2 capture: MHI gasification Syngas Cooler Raw syngas Dry feed of pulverized coal Entrained flow, air blown Slag Discharge

13 IGCC with CO 2 capture: UOP process (Selexol) Source:

14 Agenda Study cases and main design bases Key design features Performance & TPC 4 5 Financial Analysis Summary considerations

15 NEE (LHV), % Power production with and without CO 2 capture Net electrical efficiency loss is about 9% points compared to the SC-PC case without capture (power production only) Ref. case SCPC w/o CCS Case A.1 Shell IGCC Case A.2 GE IGCC Case A.3 MHI IGCC

16 NPO, MWe Hydrogen and Power co-production With same coal input, different designs produce different amounts of power and hydrogen H2, Nm3/h Case B.1 large CC Case B.2 small CC Case B.3 boilers 0

17 Total Plant Cost (2Q2013), M Total Plant Cost (TPC) Reference cost of SC-PC w/o CCS: 1,943 M 2,688 2,629 2,538 Utility Units Combined Cycle CO2 compression SRU & TGT AGR SG treat & condit. ASU Gasification Solid handling 0 Case A.1 Shell Case A.2 GE Case A.3 MHI TPC and TCR are estimated in general accordance with the White Paper Toward a common method of cost estimation for CO 2 capture and storage at fossil fuel power plants (March 2013)

18 Total Plant Cost (2Q2013), M Hydrogen and power co-production The higher the hydrogen production, the lower the TPC (and NPO) 3000 Lower capital weight of the Power Island Utility Units Power Island PSA CO2 compression SRU & TGT AGR SG treat & condit. ASU Gasification Solid handling 0 Case B.1 H2 + CC (E-class) Case B.2 H2 + CC (F6 equiv.) Case B.3 H2 + Boiler

19 Agenda Study cases and main design bases Key design features Performance & TPC 4 5 Financial Analysis Summary considerations

20 Financial analysis Main macroeconomic assumptions Item Unit Data Coal cost /GJ (LHV) 2.5 Discount Rate % 8 Plant life Years 25 Financial leverage % debt 100 Maintenance cost % of TCR 2.5% Load factor % 85% CO 2 transport & storage cost /t 10 CO 2 emission cost /t 0 Inflation Rate % constant

21 LCOE, /MWh Levelized Cost Of Electricity Average cost: ~ 115 /MWh CO2 transport & storage Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital - Case A.1 Case A.2 Case A.3 Bituminous Coal: 2,5 /GJ (LHV); Discount rate: 8% CO 2 transport & storage: 10 /t; 90% / 85% capacity factor (SC PC/gasif); Constant, Reference plant LCOE: 52 /MWh

22 CO 2 avoidance cost, /t CO 2 avoidance cost About 97 /t of CO Case A.1 Case A.2 Case A.3 Reference Plant: SC-PC without CO 2 capture Bituminous Coal: 2,5 /GJ (LHV); Discount rate: 8% CO 2 transport & storage: 10 /t; 90% / 85% capacity factor (SC PC/gasif); Constant, 2013.

23 LCOH (for price of electricity= ~ 115 /MWh) Lower for higher hydrogen production cases (higher capital of the Power Island not refunded by the higher power) LCOH, c /Nm CO2 transport & storage Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital 2 - Case B.1 Case B.2 Case B.3 Bituminous Coal: 2,5 /GJ (LHV); Discount rate: 8% CO 2 transport & storage: 10 /t; 90% capacity factor; Constant, 2013.

24 Levelized Cost of Hydrogen ( /Nm 3 ) LCOH (sensitivity to electricity selling price) Higher Power Island capital refunded for electricity selling price > 127 /MWh Case B.1 Case B.2 Case B Electricity selling price ( /MWh)

25 Near zero emission cases (98% carbon capture) Penalties due to the need of an additional solvent washing unit LCOE & LCOH: +4.5%; CAC: -3.5% N/A Delta TPC, M 30 Delta NEE, % pt Case A.2.1 vs Case A.2 IGCC Case B.3.1 vs Case B.3 H2+Power -3.0

26 NEE (LHV), % Sensitivity to cooling type NEE: Seawater: +0.5%; Air Cooling: -0.2%; TPC: -1% NEE, % TPC, M Case A.2 (Cooling Tower) Case A.2 (SeaWater) Case A.2 (Air Cooling) 2500

27 Agenda Study cases and main design bases Key design features Performance & TPC 4 5 Financial Analysis Summary considerations

28 Summary considerations CO 2 capture at coal-fired power and hydrogen plants Study has provided an up-to-date assessment of performance and costs of various power and hydrogen gasification plants, with and without capture of the generated CO 2 Net electrical efficiency loss for CO 2 capture is about 9% points and the Specific Total Plant Cost increase is more than twice, both referenced against the SC-PC boiler plant without capture Financial viability of gasification plants with CCS is ensured with a CAC of about 97 /t of CO 2. Current rules for funding these plants, like EU allowances in the EU ETS, should be revisited to enable the establishment of adequate funding packages

29