Why Oxy-combustion : Comparison With Other Low Carbon Technology APP Oxyfuel Capacity Building Course

Transcription

1 Why Oxy-combustion : Comparison With Other Low Carbon Technology APP Oxyfuel Capacity Building Course John Marion Yeppoon, Queensland, Australia 12 September 2011

2 The Alstom Group: a Worldwide Leader in Power Generation Chief Joseph Rocky Reach Chicoasen Neurath Lagisza Maritza Eastmain Flevo RDK8 Belchatow Grain La Sarcelle Aghada Moscow TPP 26 Langage Peribonka Gissi Flamanville Deriner Nant De Drance Modugno Birecik Vishnuprayag KW Emsland Karun Grand'maison Scandale Subansiri Soto de Ribera Combigole Fujairah Ghannouch Sohar Terga Guatami La Muela Relizane Dubai Alqueva Malaga GTX Merowe Afourer Utran Itaipu Bujagali Lower Jurala Hong Yan He Yangyang Fang Jiashan Fuqing, Ningde 3 Gorges Ling Ao 3+4 Son La Taishan Nhon Trach 1 Muara Tawar Estreito Tucurui Cahora Bassa CSA Santo Antonio Medupi Tallawara Colongra Kwinana Gariep Foz do Chapeco N 1 in hydro power N 1 in integrated power plants Manapouri Over 41 GW under execution Nuclear Hydro Steam Gas N 1 in conventional nuclear power island Recent acquisitions of solar & wind power Full Power Systems Portfolio N 1 in air quality control systems N 1 in services for electric utilities

3 The CO2 Challenge Two-Thirds of worldwide power capacity will be fossil power plants in 2030 mostly Coal and Gas In 2030 ~ 40 Gt CO2 produced globally if business as usual (Energy use of Coal, Oil, Gas) CCS is required to address fossil emissions at least until sustainable sources are widely in use Without CCS overall GHG mitigation costs nearly double Power Sector CO2 reductions scenarios of: Gt/yr from CCS by 2030 in order to meet 2 o C target (450 ppm) Gt/yr from CCS by 2030 in order to meet 3 o C target (550 ppm) World Energy Outlook 2010, International Energy Agency (IEA)

4 The CO2 Challenge IEA, 30 May 2011 Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 were the highest in history After a dip in 2009 caused by the global financial crisis, emissions are estimated to have climbed to a record 30.6 Gigatonnes (Gt), a 5% jump from the previous record year in 2008, when levels reached 29.3 Gt In terms of fuels, 44% of the estimated CO2 emissions in 2010 came from coal, 36% from oil, and 20% from natural gas 80% of projected emissions from the power sector in 2020 are already locked in, as they will come from power plants that are currently in place or under construction today This significant increase in CO2 emissions and the locking in of future emissions due to infrastructure investments represent a serious setback to our hopes of limiting the global rise in temperature to no more than 2ºC For [the 450 Scenario] pathway to be achieved, global energy-related emissions in 2020 must not be greater than 32 Gt.This means that over the next ten years, emissions must rise less in total than they did between 2009 and 2010 Action is critically required

5 Meeting the CO 2 Challenge Will Require A Portfolio of Technologies Emissions CO 2 (Gt/y) Nuclear* & biomass Technology Mix Efficiency Wind, solar & geothermal CCS Hydro Efficiency: Plant optimisation & retrofit 2005 Ref ppm +6 o C Stabilize emissions 550 ppm +3 0 C Needed path 450ppm +2 0 C max CO2 capture

6 Meeting the CO 2 Challenge Will Require A Portfolio of Technologies Alstom is the world leader in clean integrated solutions Emissions CO 2 (Gt/y) No. 1 Nuclear* & biomass Technology Mix Efficiency * Conventional islands Wind, solar & geothermal CCS No. 1 Hydro Efficiency: Plant optimisation & retrofit 2005 Ref ppm +6 o C Stabilize emissions 550 ppm +3 0 C Needed path 450ppm +2 0 C max First CO2 capture demo plant in the world

7 The Renewables Challenge Wind Greater penetration of renewables solutions is necessary Cost of Electricity still well above levels from coal & gas fired plants - On-shore wind % increase - Off-Shore wind higher - Solar >150% increase Solar R&D Challenges - Technology advancements to bring CoE down - Grid Stability with greater shift to intermittent sources Large energy storage Grid Management Renewables will increase

8 Alstom Clean Power strategy Alstom is the world leader in clean integrated solutions Emissions CO 2 (Gt/y) Nuclear* & biomass Technology Mix Efficiency * Conventional islands Wind, solar & geothermal CCS Hydro Efficiency: Plant optimisation & retrofit 2005 Ref ppm +6 o C Stabilize emissions 550 ppm +3 0 C Needed path 450ppm +2 0 C max First CO2 capture demo plant in the world

9 Production Efficiency New Plants Coal: Subcritical to SC and to AUSC efficiencies saves 10% and 25% CO 2 emissions Gas: +5 p.p in efficiency saves 10% CO 2 emissions 60% of the 2030 installed base still to be built Fleet automation Optimization to use most efficient units and CO2 free power Retrofit Plant Optimisation: Turbine retrofit: -5% CO 2-5% CO2 Boiler retrofit: -3% CO2 Automation Retrofit -6% CO2 60% of Carbon emitted in 2030 will come from today s installed base

10 Alstom Clean Power strategy Alstom is the world leader in clean integrated solutions Emissions CO 2 (Gt/y) N 1 nuclear* & biomass Technology Mix Efficiency * Conventional islands Wind, solar & geothermal CCS N 1 hydro Efficiency: Plant optimisation & retrofit 2005 Ref ppm +6 o C Stabilize emissions 550 ppm +3 0 C Needed path 450ppm +2 0 C max First CO2 capture demo plant in the world

11 At Alstom, we believe coal and gas can and must be clean CO 2 capture pursued by Alstom Post-combustion (New + retrofit) Oxy-combustion (New + retrofit) Chilled Ammonia Advanced Amines Oxy-combustion Chemical Looping Oxy is a robust and economically attractive solution

12 Oxy-Combustion Technology - Why Oxy? Cost Competitive (with other CCS, Wind, Solar, Biomass) Reliability / Low Risk: Evolutionary development Adapts Conventional Components New and Retrofit Applications High CO2 Capture Rates Applicable to All Boiler Types and SC/USC cycles Rapid Scale-up to Large Sizes (1000 MWe) Possible CO2 Ready Approach Large community involved in development, contributing to reaching solid consensus

13 Alstom Oxy-Combustion Technology Development Steps < 2020 Reference Design Studies Scale Up Full-Scale MWe 1998 Demonstration MWe Large Pilot Plants Lab Scale <3 MWth MWth Modeling & Tool Dev.

14 Assessments for Oxy and Post Combustion Capture Based On Reference Plant Studies Globally optimise cost of electricity Balance trade-offs between main subsystems (performance and costs) Determine specification for the new subsystems Power plant operation behaviour Optimise arrangement and minimise footprint Plant or Integrated Boiler island DCS Thermal Process Operation Layout Optimization of FG composition along the oxy-chain Reference Plant work is the basis of the CCS costs

15 Alstom Experience Completed CCS experience: 12 pilots + demos under development Operating 2 Gen Under Construction AEP Mountaineer USA - 58 MWth Chilled Ammonia, Coal Vattenfall Schwarze Pumpe Germany - 30 MWth Oxy - Lignite Total Lacq France - 30 MWth Oxy - Gas 2 Gen RFCS EU - Darmstadt Germany - 1 MWth Chemical looping, Coal NER300 TCM Mongstad Norway - 40 MWth Chilled Ammonia - Gas Pre-commercial Projects NER300 EDF Le Havre France 5 MWth Adv. Adv. Amines - Coal EoN Karlshamn Sweden - 5 MWth Chilled Ammonia -Fuel WE Energie USA WI - 5 MWth Chilled Ammonia, Coal Dow Chemical Co. USA, West Virginia Adv. Amines - Coal DOE/Alstom Windsor US 3 MWth Chemical looping, Coal Alstom BSF Windsor Alstom Labs Växjö US - 15 MWth Sweden 0.25 MWth Oxy - Coals Post C. multi purpose ON HOLD Alstom experience provides Drax - Selby Vattenfall Jänschwalde Transalta UK MWe Germany MWe Canada - >200 MWe Oxy Hard Coal Oxy - Lignite Post - Coal NER300 NER300 a sound basis for CCS economic evaluation PGE Belchatow Poland 260 MWe Adv. Amines - Lignite ON HOLD AEP Mountaineer USA 235MWe Chilled Ammonia - Coal Getica - CET Turceni Romania >250MWe Chilled Ammonia - Lignite Presentation Title - Presenters Initials - dd mmm yyyy - P 1 NER300: Applied for EU ETS New Entrant Reserve funding Selected for receiving EEPR funding Selected by Alberta and Federal Canadian funding Equipment manufacturer

16 CCS Cost of Electricity study Main assumptions Reference plants w/o CCS: hardcoal MWe net range EUR NAM SEA Fuel type Bituminous coal PRB coal Bituminous Fuel heating value KJ/Kg LHV Carbon content mass% 65% 51.7% 62.1% Fuel price 2010 Euro/t Euro/GJ Cycle argt 2020/30 bar/ C/ C 300b/600/620 C 300b/600/620 C 300b/600/620 C Cooling type C 13 C - Direct C 19 C - CT 28 C - Direct C Net Output MWe net Net eff. 15/20/30 % LHV 46.2/48/48.4 % 44/46.2/46.7 % 43/44.7/45 % EPC 2015/20/30 /KW net 1634/1745/ /1634/ /945/945 Baseload (7450 hrs per a.) Performance improvement considered (e.g. double reheat ST) Cycle arrangement in 2020/30: 300b-600 C-620 C Realistic set of assumptions by region

17 CCS competitiveness against other low carbon alternatives in Europe in 2015 / MWh CoE Low Carbon technologies over period (New PP) EUR Reference case Hard Coal with CCS 2015 Gas CC with CCS 2015 Nuclear Hydro Geoth erm al Wind Onshore Wind Offshore Solar Thermal Solar PV 0 Source : Alstom analysis CCS Post amine 2015 costs, including on shore T&S and CO 2 price (Flue Gas Recirculation case for CCS Gas CC) - Cost for firming intermittent Power Generation not accounted Under realistic assumptions and with a conservative variation range, CCS is already competitive on coal and gas from 2015

18 Hardcoal CCS (Oxy and Post) power plant Energy Penalty (EP) 26% 24% 22% EUR NAM EP % MWe net & EP % MWe net SEA Oxy NAM Post NAM Oxy EUR Post EUR 26% 24% 22% Oxy SEA Post SEA 20% 18% 16% 20% 18% 15% 16% 15% 14% % Energy penalty (EP) = (Ref PP net MWe CCS PP net MWe) (Ref PP net MWe) Note : 90% capture of CCS PP CO 2 emissions, CCS plant and Reference plant at same net Performance improvement and cooling temperature impacts

19 Cost of Electricity (CoE) without CO 2 Cost CoE /MWh net EUR CoE /MWh net NAM CoE /MWh net SEA Oxy Post Ref PP +45% (Oxy) Oxy Post Ref PP Oxy Post Ref PP All with T&S, on-shore saline aquifer: impact on CoE: 4,8 to 7,1 /MWh net EUR 2030: CCS => +45% increase in CoE; NAM/SEA: lower CoE

20 Hardcoal CCS power plant Sensitivity analysis - CoE 2030 CCS Opex Re-boiler duty (1,8 GJ/tCO 2 ) CO2 compression CCS Capex Capex Storage Ref plt net efficiency (48,4%) Energy penalty (15,4% of Ref net) Capex Transport (200 km) Capture rate (90%) WACC w/o inflation (6,2%) Economic life (25 yrs) Fuel cost (62,7 /t) 40 yrs -20% 5% 1,75 GJ 2,0 GJ -10% 10% -10% 10% -35% 50% Eff 49,4% Eff 47,4% EP 14,6% EP 16,7% -50% 50% Rate 80% Rate 92,7% EUR 2030 Base case: Post amine, onshore T&S, no CO2 price Wacc 5,7% Wacc 7,1% 20 yrs -25% +25% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 69,9 /MWh Base case 77,3 /MWh 73,6 /MWh Fuel cost, Economic life, WACC have a strong impact

21 Oxy-Combustion Roadmap (Innovative Future Paths) CO 2 N 2 To Steam Cycle Performance Coal Reducer Oxidizer Air Cost CaCO 3 Steam CaSO 4 CaS Ash, CaSO 4 to Disposal O 2 FDA Combustor FBHE W/ Bypass Separated Overfire Air 100% Oxy-Fired 100% Oxy-Fired Using FBHE Using FBHE Main Burner Zone Fuel Demo s & Pilots Air Oxy Commercial [ Retrofit, CO2 Ready, New ] Time Reduced FGR Oxy-Plants Commercial Advanced Oxygen Production Chemical Looping Commercial

22 Next Generation Oxy: Chemical Looping Combustion CLC Pilots Chemical looping DOE/Alstom Windsor US 3 MWth - Coal RFCS EU Darmstadt Germany 1 MWth - Coal A promising break-through technology avoiding ASU energy penalty & costs

23 Alstom - Chemical Looping Process Development Steps Reference Design Studies > Scale- Up 2011 Commercial Scale 1996 Prototype Demonstration MWe >100 MWe Bench Tests Pilot Plant kwth 1& 3MWth CFD Modeling, Controls and Tool Development Drop-Tube/TGA Small & Large Cold-Flow- Model

24 Chemical Looping Economics Cost of Electricity Cost of Electricity, cents/kw-hr normalized ) k W hr (C en ts/ Advanced MEA Chemical Looping cases CO 2 Allowance Price ($/Ton CO 2 Emitted) Basis: Plant size 400 MWe Steam conditions 3915 psia/1085 degf/1148 degf/2.5in Hga Cost basis 2006, $US Coal cost 1.5 $/MMBtu Levelized capital charge 13.8% Capacity factor 85% IGCC H Class (E-Gas) with Capture - Spare IGCC H Class (E-Gas) with Capture Comparable range 6-Regenerative Comparable Carbonate range of Cycle with Capture costs of costs for conventional for 10-Advanced O2 Fired CFB with Capture technologies conventional CCS Oxygen Transport Membrane CFB technologies 14-Ammonia Scrubbing 4-Chemical Looping Combustion with Capture (Metal Oxides) 3-Chemical Chemical Looping Combustion Looping with Capture (CaS) 1-Chemical Looping Gasification 7FA with Capture (CaS) Air-fired PC w/o Capture Air Fired PC w/o Capture (3915/1085/1148) Reference case Source: 2006 CO2 Product Gas Study Alstom s Chemical Looping processes provide the lowest potential COE measured against alternatives studied to date.

25 Chemical Looping Performance and cost-competitiveness Relative performance versus Oxy-PC PRELIMINARY EVALUATION Rationale for Case Low Case Base Case High Case V ariation in % O xy P C value ENERGY PENALTY -55% -45% -35% CAPEX incr. CCS -30% -20% -10% OPEX incr. CCS 0% 15% 30% IMPACT on COE Capt -19% -14% -8% IMPACT on CoCO2av Capt -85% -52% -30% CLC: Estimated 15% lower CoE with capture and 50% lower CoCO 2 against other CCS technologies

26 Chemical Looping Technology Why it is the lowest cost CCS option? Eliminates high-cost, high-power consumption ASU Lowest parasitic power consumption Fewer and smaller equipment than air-fired CFB - Smaller combustor cross-section and reduced height due to lower volumetric flow - Reduce footprint - High inherent emission control SO 2, NO x, pollution control equipment requirements Lowest GPU cost - Purest CO 2 leaving technology island - Lowest O 2, N 2 in flue gas Highest thermal efficiency 220 MWe Gross Units Air Fired CFB Unit Chemical Looping Unit Chemical Looping Lowest COE and CO 2 Avoidance Cost Option

27 Conclusion CCS a part of the portfolio of actions required to address global CO2 targets Detailed CoE assessment was performed for oxy and post-combustion showing that oxy-combustion is sound, competitive CCS technology - based on first pilots information & R&D development programs and, - considering experience on already-existing subsystems adapt for oxy-combustion technology Oxy-combustion capture technology costs comparable with other low carbon power technologies Optimization and cost reduce potential through integration Promising potential with Chemical Looping to improve performance and economics Plant or Integrated Boiler island DCS Optimization of FG composition along the oxy-chain Thermal Process Operation Layout

28

29