19 September 2013 POST COMBUSTION CO 2 CAPTURE SCALE UP STUDY TOM GUENTHER PROJECT MANAGER POWER GENERATION SERVICES
PURPOSE OF STUDY Retained by IEA Environmental Projects Ltd. In order for CCS to impact climate change, full scale capture is necessary. Identify at a high level the technical risks, gaps, and challenges associated with full scale implementation of post-combustion CO 2 capture Focus on currently available technologies demonstrated at a smaller scale Include both pulverized coal and natural gas fired combined cycle Study completed in 2012 2
AUTHORS Principle Authors - Black & Veatch Anthony Black Process Engineer Tom Guenther Project Manager Dan McCartney Senior Process Engineer Scott Olson Senior Consultant Brian Reinhart Mechanical Engineer/Study Manager Reviewers: Mike Haines IEAGHG Prachi Singh IEAGHG Tore Amundsen CO 2 Technology Centre Mongstad Max Ball Saskpower Nick Booth EON Rosa Domenicini Foster Wheeler Frank Geuzebroeck Shell Amsterdam Robin Irons EON Mohammad Adu Zahra - Institute of Masadar 3
APPROACH Select two modern full-scale power plant designs: Supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) Plant performance and equipment size without CO 2 capture Plant performance and equipment size with improved amine-based post-combustion carbon capture Identify any risks, gaps, and challenges associated with the full scale designs (power and capture) 4
DESIGN CASES Case 1 900 MW Gross SCPC without CO 2 capture Case 2 TBD MW SCPC with CO 2 capture Case 3 810 MW Gross NGCC without CO 2 capture Case 4 TBD MW NGCC with CO 2 capture Fuel quantity held constant from Case 1-2 and 3-4 5
DESIGN BASIS DESIGN CASE 1 SCPC WITHOUT CAPTURE DESIGN CASE 2 SCPC WITH CO 2 CAPTURE DESIGN CASE 3 NGCC WITHOUT CAPTURE CO 2 Capture, % of Gross N/A 90 N/A 90 Technology Description Supercritical pulverized coal Rankine cycle with 1 two-pass tangential or wall-fired boiler and 1 reheat condensing steam turbine. DESIGN CASE 4 NGCC WITH CO 2 CAPTURE Natural gas combined cycle with 2x G-Class gas turbines, 2x three-pressure heat recovery steam generators, and 1x reheat condensing steam turbine. Nominal Gross Output, MW 900 TBD (1) 810 TBD (1) Unit Output Frequency, Hz 60 60 60 60 Fuel Australian Low- Sulfur Same as Case 1 Natural Gas Same as Case 3 Fuel Quantity Note 1 Same as Case 1 Note 1 Same as Case 3 Throttle Conditions (MS temperature, HRH temperature, MS pressure) C / C / bar(a) ( F / F / psia) 582 / 582 / 254.4 (1,080 / 1,080 / 3,690) 565.6 / 565.6 / 124.1 (1,050 / 1,050 / 1,800) Supplemental Firing N/A N/A No No Heat Rejection Auxiliary Boiler During Normal Operations Air Quality Control Systems CO 2 Export Pressure, bar(a) (psia) Notes: Wet mechanical draft cooling tower No No No No Selective Catalytic Reduction, PAC Injection, Fabric Filter, Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization N/A 110 (1,600) Dry Low NO x Combustion, Selective Catalytic Reduction, Oxidation Catalyst 110 N/A (1,600) (1) Fuel quantity to be determined as part of the study. As a basis of the design, CO 2 capture case will use the same amount of fuel as the non-capture case. 6
PROCESS SIMULATION Power processes modeled using Thermoflow, Inc. STEAMPRO, STEAM MASTER, GT PRO, GT MASTER, and Black & Veatch proprietary software Capture process modeled using Bryan Research & Engineering, Inc. ProMax 3.2 software Capture process simulation data based on MEA and adjusted to reflect typical enhanced amines, primarily solvent regeneration duty 7
CASE 2 SCPC WITH CO 2 CAPTURE 8
CASE 4 NGCC WITH CO 2 CAPTURE 9
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY - SCPC Reference Case Description UNIT CASE 1 CASE 2 Supercritical Pulverized Coal Rankine Cycle CO 2 Capture % None 90 ELECTRICAL OUTPUT Total Gross Output MW 900.1 756.6 Auxiliary Electric Load Power Block MW 35.5 35.1 Flue Gas Fans MW 17.2 44.0 Air Quality Systems MW 5.8 8.5 CO 2 Capture MW N/A 5.2 CO 2 Compression MW N/A 75.0 Total Auxiliary Electric Load MW 58.5 167.8 Net Plant Output MW 841.6 588.8 Energy Penalty (Net output) % N/A -30.0 Energy Penalty (Net output reduction per tonne- CO 2 to pipeline) ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY MW/(t-CO 2 captured) N/A 0.40 Net Plant Heat Rate (NCV) kj/kwh 8,912 12,738 Net Plant Thermal Efficiency (NCV) % 40.4 28.3 CO 2 EMISSIONS CO 2 Captured t/h N/A 629 CO 2 to Atmosphere t/h 702 73 CO 2 to Atmosphere kg/mwh-net 834 124 10
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY - NGCC Reference Case Description UNIT CASE 3 CASE 4 2-on-1 G-Class Gas Turbine Combined Cycle CO 2 Capture % None 90 ELECTRICAL OUTPUT Gross Output STG MW 280.4 223.7 Gas Turbine Generators (total) MW 529.5 529.5 Total Gross Output MW 809.9 753.2 Auxiliary Electric Load Power Block MW 19.6 22.1 Flue Gas Fans MW N/A 26.1 CO 2 Capture MW N/A 3.6 CO 2 Compression MW N/A 25.5 Total Auxiliary Electric Load MW 19.6 77.3 Net Plant Output MW 790.3 675.9 Energy Penalty (Net output) % N/A -14.5 Energy Penalty (Net output reduction per tonne-co 2 to pipeline) ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY MW/(t-CO 2 captured) N/A 0.46 Net Plant Heat Rate (NCV) kj/kwh 6,208 7,259 Net Plant Thermal Efficiency (NCV) % 58.0 49.6 CO 2 EMISSIONS CO 2 Captured t/h N/A 250 CO 2 to Atmosphere t/h 276 28 CO 2 to Atmosphere kg/mwh-net 349 41 11
KEY CO 2 CAPTURE EQUIPMENT OVERVIEW FEATURE SCPC NGCC Number of Absorbers 1 x 6 sections 1 x 6 sections Absorber Cross-Sectional Area, m 2 317 317 Absorber Height, m 28 28 Number of Strippers 2 1 Stripper Diameter, m 7.2 7.0 Stripper Height, m 23 23 Number of Stripper Reboilers 8 4 Number of Rich/Lean Exchangers 3 2 Number of Stripper Overhead Coolers 5 2 Number of Lean Amine Coolers 5 1 Number of CO 2 Compressor Trains 2 2 12
CASE 2 SCPC LAYOUT 13
CASE 4 NGCC LAYOUT 14
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES 1. Steam Generator Stiffening of boiler/hrsg/ductwork may be needed but not a significant challenge 2. Fans 4 series/parallel axial fans for SCPC case (11,000 kw each) 2 axial fans for NGCC case (1 per HRSG) (13,000 kw each) 3. Flue Gas Cleanup (SCPC) Wet FGD commonplace Additional polishing in SCPC case to reduce amine degradation by SO 2 15
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES 4. Steam Extraction Significant LP (4.5 bar[a]) Steam Required >30% of steam flow for SCPC LP turbine design Steam turbine OEMs able to modify designs Issues at reduced load (sliding pressure) Opportunities for optimization 16
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES 5. Cooling Cooling load increased 20 percent for SCPC Cooling load increased 40 percent for NGCC No technical risk but maybe site specific 17
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES 6. Absorber Largest technical challenge Assumed single rectangular concrete structure with multiple sections 7-8 meter span limit for support of internals Difficult, but similar construction methods to large stack or cooling tower design Constructed at site 7. Stripper Large, but technology considered commonplace Multiple strippers feasible Transported vs. construction at site (site specific) 18
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES 8. Compression Assumed 3 stages of compression, single shaft, motor driven Could use integrally geared or add pump No significant risk at this scale Potentially use waste heat for optimization, 5 MW available in SCPC case 9. CO 2 Drying Assumed/prefer solid bed adsorbent Technology considered commonplace 19
TECHNICAL RISKS, GAPS, AND CHALLENGES 10. Environmental and Safety Regulations still evolving CO 2 handling and storage Solvent emissions, nitramines, nitrosamines Solvent wastes Quantity of emissions increases with scale Hazards associated with concentrated CO 2 20
CONCLUSION No technical deal breakers identified.full scale capture appears achievable Recommended areas of development for full-scale capture: Modified steam turbine designs Optimize steam extraction Absorber construction Reuse of compression heat Environmental impacts Safety 21
www.bv.com