The Impact of Concept Simplification on Performance and. Economics of IGCC Power Plants with Carbon Capture

Transcription

1 Institut für Energieverfahrenstechnik und Chemieingenieurwesen The Impact of Concept Simplification on Performance and Economics of IGCC Power Plants with Carbon Capture 3 rd International Freiberg Conference on IGCC & XtL Technologies Dipl.-Ing. M. Rieger 1), Dr.-Ing. J. Eckstein 2), Dipl.-Ing. H. Rainer 2), Dr.-Ing. K. Riedl 3), Prof. Dr.-Ing. B. Meyer 4) 1) FEC Freiberg Energy Consultants GmbH, Fuchsmuehlenweg 9, D Freiberg, Germany 2) E.ON Energie AG, Brienner Straße 40, D München, Germany 3) E.ON Engineering GmbH, Alexander-von-Humboldt-Str. 1, D Gelsenkirchen, Germany 4) TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Institute of Energy Process Engineering and Chemical Engineering, Fuchsmuehlenweg 9, D Freiberg, Germany TU Bergakademie Freiberg I Institut für Energieverfahrenstechnik und Chemieingenieurwesen Reiche Zeche I Freiberg I Tel. +49(0)3731/ I Fax +49(0)3731/ evt@iec.tu-freiberg.de I Web

2 Configuration for an IGCC with carbon capture N 2 coal ASU O 2 Gasifier (H 2 O-quench) raw gas CO-shift shifted gas AGR & SRU CO 2 S air steam / condensate steam condensate / steam steam / condensate clean gas diluted clean gas Gas turbine exhaust gas HRSG & Steam turbine boiler feed water diluted, preheated fuel gas Highly integrated system (especially the water steam cycle) 2

3 Block flow diagram for an IGCC with carbon capture P-471 ASU 3

4 Block flow diagram for an IGCC with carbon capture P-471 Gasifier ASU 4

5 Block flow diagram for an IGCC with carbon capture P-471 Gasifier CO-shift 5

6 Block flow diagram for an IGCC with carbon capture P-471 CO-shift AGR 6

7 Block flow diagram for an IGCC with carbon capture P-471 AGR Gas turbine 7

8 Block flow diagram for an IGCC with carbon capture P-471 HRSG + steam turbine Gas turbine 8

9 Gas composition and cold gas efficiency 100 Typical gas composition at important process steps for an IGCC with carbon capture gas composition [% - mol] gasifier quench out shift 1 out shift 2 out AGR out gas saturator out N2-dilution out carbon monoxide hydrogen nitrogen carbon dioxide water steam residual Cold gas efficiency 74 % for the fuel gas generation process 9

10 Performance for an IGCC with and w/o carbon capture 48% Net efficiency Auxiliary load distribution 46% 10% 1.2% Other Consumers Combined Cycle Net efficiency (LHV) [%] 44% 42% Δη 7.2 % pts. 40% 38% 45.4% 36% Auxiliary load [% of LHV-input] Acid Gas Removal 1.1% 8% CO2-compression 1.4% Air Separation Unit 6% 2.5% 1.0% 1.1% 4% 34% 38.2% 2% 3.9% 3.6% 32% 30% IGCC with carbon capture IGCC w/o carbon capture 0% IGCC with carbon capture IGCC w/o carbon capture CO 2 -emissions: 100 g/kwh with carbon capture 700 g/kwh w/o carbon capture 10

11 Economical Analysis: Cost of Electricity 110 Cost of electricity for an IGCC with carbon capture 100 Cost of electricity [ / MWh] % of the cost of electricity CO2-penalties CO2 transport & storage OPEX Fuel Costs 10 0 First of its kind Proven technology Proven technology + enhanced availability CAPEX Boundary conditions for first of its kind application: C invest : 3,500 /kwh net C CO2-certificate : 30 /t CO2 C transport & storage : 8 /t CO2 C fuel : 3.15 /GJ C other operational : 5 % of C invest Availability : 85 % 11

12 Economical Analysis: Potential for cost reduction Cost of electricity [ / MWh] Cost of electricity for an IGCC with carbon capture Δ -15 % Δ - 25 % 45 % of the cost of electricity First of its kind Proven technology Proven technology + enhanced availability Proven technology: ΔC invest = - 20 % Enhanced availability: CCPP availability CO2-penalties CO2 transport & storage OPEX Fuel Costs CAPEX Boundary conditions for first of its kind application: C invest : 3,500 /kwh net C CO2-certificate : 30 /t CO2 C transport & storage : 8 /t CO2 C fuel : 3.15 /GJ C other operational : 5 % of C invest Availability : 85 % 12

13 Economical Analysis: CoE Sensitivity Cost of electricity sensitivity analysis for an IGCC with carbon capture 108% Cost of electricity [% of base case] 106% 104% 102% 100% 98% 96% 94% 92% Base case: C invest C CO2-certificate C transport & storage C fuel C other operational Availability : 85 % Δ -3% : 3,500 /kwh net : 30 /t CO2 Δ -6% : 8 /t CO2 : 3.15 /GJ : 5 % of C invest -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% Relative improvement Efficiency Availability Investment Investment costs and availability have a much stronger effect to the cost of electricity than the plant efficiency 13

14 Intermediate summary Interim results: - High Cost of Electricity for IGCC - Capital cost reduction and availability improvements are the key for CoE enhancement Possible solution? - Standardization - Decoupling the Combined Cycle part from the fuel gas generation island Development of an IGCC with minimal integration 14

15 Decoupling the Combined Cycle from gas generation N 2 coal ASU O 2 Gasifier (H 2 O-quench) raw gas CO-shift shifted gas AGR & SRU CO 2 S air steam / condensate steam condensate / steam steam / condensate clean gas diluted clean gas Gas turbine exhaust gas HRSG & Steam turbine boiler feed water diluted, preheated fuel gas 15

16 Decoupling the Combined Cycle from gas generation N 2 coal ASU O 2 Gasifier (H 2 O-quench) raw gas CO-shift shifted gas AGR & SRU CO 2 S air steam / condensate steam steam / condensate steam condensate / steam steam / cond. steam / condensate steam / condensate clean gas diluted clean gas Gas turbine exhaust gas HRSG & Steam turbine boiler feed water diluted, preheated fuel gas - Exothermic CO-shift serves all internal heat consumers - Fuel gas delivery is the only interface to gas island 16

17 Decoupling the Combined Cycle from gas generation P-471 B mill and feeding system feedstock G A clean gas saturator saturated clean gas to CC coal O2 clean dry gas CO2 excess N2 to environment pure GAN gasifier quench room raw gas scrubber CO-shift stage 1 CO-shift stage 2 H2S to Claus-plant Air Separation Unit slag water discharge acid gas removal water discharge make up water B condensate water discharge condensate N2 to preheating O2 to preheating ambient air to MAC make up water cooling water cooling water A condensate make up water Diluent N2 from ASU saturated, diluted, preheated fuel gas G Decoupled CCPP with one interface to fuel gas generation island G 17

18 Final conclusion for an IGCC with minimal integration Simulation results and comparison: Δ η -0.1%-pts. Δ C invest same level Δ Cost of electricity: -10 % Δ Availability %-pts. Key component: Dual fuel gas turbine w/o air extraction for H 2 -rich fuel Carbon capture IGCC with minimal integration: - are an interesting option for electric utilities which are not familiar with gasification and fuel gas conditioning processes - promise a significant initial cost reduction for add-on solutions to a consisting combined cycle power plant 18

19 Final conclusion for an IGCC with minimal integration Thank you for your attention! contact: 19