Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Slipstream pilot plant demo of a amine-based post-combustion capture technology for CO2 capture from coal-fired power plant flue gas
DOE funding award DE-FE0007453
Project Kick-off MeetingDOE-NETL, Pittsburgh, PANovember 15, 2011
2
Project Fact Sheet
Scaled-up slipstream Pilot PCC Technology Demonstration — Selected by DOE for funding— Contract sign-off in Nov. 2011— Pilot plant incorporates BASF‘s novel
amine based solvent technology and BASF & Linde process enhancements
Project essentials— Location: 880 MWel Gaston Power plant (operated by Southern Co.) in Wilsonville, AL— Site of the National Carbon Capture Center— Capacity: Up to 6250 Nm3/h flue gas from coal fired power plant (30 t/d CO2)— CO2 purity 99+ vol % (Dry basis)— Project start: November 2011—Project Duration: 4 years— Partners: Linde LLC, Selas Fluid Processing Corp., Linde Engineering Dresden, BASF, DOE-NETL, EPRI, Southern Company (Host site)— Project Cost: $18.8 million— DOE funding: $15 million
Reco
vere
d CO
2
Deso
rber
Was
te W
ater
FLUE GAS FEED
Abso
rber
Pres
crub
ber
Condenser
Filter*
Reboiler STEAM
CO2-
Lean
Flu
egas
Make-up Water
Interstagecooler
NaOHTank
Solvent Tank
Make Up
Solvent*
NaO
H
Condensate
Provided by Southern/NCCC
(Existing unit)
FLUE GAS RETURN
Make-up
Water
Cooling Water In
CW
CW
CW
CW
CW
To C
W H
X
From
CW
HX
Cooling Water Out
Mak
e-up
Wat
er
Lind
e-BA
SF P
ILO
T PL
ANT
–N
CCC/
Sout
hern
PO
WER
PLA
NT
Inte
rfac
e w
ith T
ie In
Poi
nts
El. Power Supply
Drain*
Reco
vere
d CO
2
Deso
rber
Was
te W
ater
FLUE GAS FEED
Abso
rber
Pres
crub
ber
Condenser
Filter*
Reboiler STEAM
CO2-
Lean
Flu
egas
Make-up Water
Interstagecooler
NaOHTank
Solvent Tank
Make Up
Solvent*
NaO
H
Condensate
Provided by Southern/NCCC
(Existing unit)
FLUE GAS RETURN
Make-up
Water
Cooling Water In
CW
CW
CW
CW
CW
To C
W H
X
From
CW
HX
Cooling Water Out
Mak
e-up
Wat
er
Lind
e-BA
SF P
ILO
T PL
ANT
–N
CCC/
Sout
hern
PO
WER
PLA
NT
Inte
rfac
e w
ith T
ie In
Poi
nts
El. Power Supply
Drain*
3
Overall Objective
— Demonstrate Linde-BASF post combustion capture technology by incorporating BASF’s amine-based solvent process in a 1 MWel slipstream pilot plant and achieving at least 90% capture from a coal-derived flue gas while demonstrating significant progress toward achievement of DOE target of less than 35% increase in levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)
Specific Objectives
— Complete a techno-economic assessment of a 550 MWel power plant incorporating the Linde-BASF post-combustion CO2 capture technology to illustrate the benefits
— Design, build and operate the 1MWel pilot plant at a coal-fired power plant host site providing the flue gas as a slipstream
— Implement parametric tests to demonstrate the achievement of target performance using data analysis
— Implement long duration tests to demonstrate solvent stability and obtain critical data for scale-up and commercial application
Project Objectives
4
CO2 removal rate (90 %)low amine emissions
50 ppm – 2 % CO2
S < 4 – 10 ppm
Treated gas specification
of highest priorityη 7-10% points
not a key issueEnergy efficiency
N2, O2, H2O, CO2, (SOx) NOxCH4, C2H6, …, CO2, H2S, COS, CxHy,S, H2OGas composition
up to 120 mio scf/hrup to 60 mio scf/hrFlowrate
30 – 150 mbars1 – 40 barsCO2 partial pressure
1 bara50 – 100 barsPressure
Flue gasNG/LNG
large volume flows @ low pressuresolvent stability
overall power plant efficiency lossesemissions of solvent
BASF Gas Treatment GroupPost combustion CO2 capture: Challengescompared to CO2 removal in NG/LNG plants
5
Technology Development Path
proof of concept under„synthetic“ conditions
- comparision of solvents- validate simulation models
litmus test for new processunder real conditions
test of complete CCS-chaincapture, compression, transport, storage/EOR
Mini Plant0.015 MWel0.01 mt CO2 / hr
Pilot Plant (Niederaussem*)0.45 MWel0.3 mt CO2 / hr
Demo Plant50 - 250 MMWel34 - 170 mt CO2 / hr
Commercial Plant500 - 1100 MWel340 - 750 mt CO2 / hr
solvent screening- screening methods
Laboratory
Advanced design and new materialsaimed at emissions reductionand capex reduction in the large scale
Pilot Plant (Current) 1 - 1.5 MWel0.8 - 1.2 mt CO2 / hr
Safe, reliable, and economicaloperation in compliance withregional and national regulations
Dev
elop
men
tPat
h
Acknowledgement: * Partner and power plant owner/operator: RWE
6
0102030405060708090
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 25 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 30 3 1 3 2 3 3 34 35 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 40 4 1 4 2 4 3 44 45 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 50 5 1 5 2 5 3 54 55 5 6 5 7 5 8 59 60 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 65 6 6 6 7 6 8 69 70 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 75 7 6 7 7 7 8 79 80 8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 85 8 6 8 7 8 8 89 90 9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 95 9 6 9 7 9 8 99 1 0 0 10 1 10 2 1 03 1 0 4 1 0 5 10 6 1 07 1 08 1 0 9 1 1 0 11 1 11 2 1 13 1 1 4 1 1 5 11 6 11 7 1 18 1 19 1 2 0 12 1 12 2 1 23 1 2 4 1 2 5 12 6 12 7 1 28 1 29 1 3 0 13 1 13 2 1 33 1 3 4 1 3 5 13 6 13 7 1 38 1 39 1 4 0 14 1 1 42 1 43 1 4 4 1 4 5 14 6 14 7 1 48 1 4 9 1 5 0 15 1 1 52 1 53 1 5 4 1 5 5 15 6 15 7 1 58 1 5 9 1 6 0 16 1 1 62 1 63 1 6 4 1 6 5 16 6
screened solvents
cycl
ic c
apac
ity /
Nm
3 /t
MEA
Phase EquilibriaPhase Equilibria KineticsKinetics
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Loading
Abs
orpt
ion
rate
MEAtested solvent
Losses/StabilityLosses/Stability
60
70
80
90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600time [h]
cont
ent o
f am
ine
tested solvents
MEA
BASF Gas Treatment GroupBASF Gas Treatment Group
Wide range of solvents screened
7
4,0
4,5
5,0
5,5
6,0
6,5
7,0
7,5
8,0
8,5
9,0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200circulation rate
spec
. Ene
rgy
Dem
and
MEA optimum
constant feed gas conditions70 % CO2 removal rate
Verification of the screening results
Identification of options for an improved solvent
BASF Gas Treatment GroupBASF Gas Treatment Group
Mini plant – BASF site in Ludwigshafen
8
Niederaussem* pilot plant key results
>90% carbon capture rate achieved
>20% improvement in specific energy compared to MEA
New BASF solvent is very stable compared to MEAAcknowledgement: * Pilot project partner RWE
2,6
2,8
3,0
3,2
3,4
3,6
3,8
4,0
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000Solvent circulation rate
Spe
cific
ene
rgy
cons
umpt
ion
[GJ/
mtC
O2]
OASE blue
MEA
- 20 %
Optimum MEA
Optimum OASE blue
duration of operation
tota
l con
tent
of c
arbo
nic
acid
sMEA
New BASF Development
duration of operation
tota
l con
tent
of c
arbo
xilic
acid
s
~ 5,000 hrs
MEAOASE® blue
90 % capture rate
9
Solutions for Large Scale PCC Plant (1100 Mwel Power)Design challenges
Lower number of trains results in bigger size of components, e.g.
– Absorption column: diameter ca.18 m, height ca. 75 m on site fabrication required
– Pipes ducts and valves: diameters up to 7 meters
– Plot : ca. 100 m x 260 m
Compressor sectiontwo lines per train
flexible turn down operation
Optimizing CAPEX by reduced number of trains - 2 process trains selected
- reduced plot space
10Fußzeile 10
Concepts for a Large Scale PCC Plant Key elements of plant costs
Main challenges
— Large equipment size requires new concepts
— Required plot area is very significant
— Alternative materials needs to be assessed
— New equipment arrangements needed
— FIeld fabrication
— Large pipe and duct
Linde studies to address challenges
— Scaling to a very large single train
— Optimize equipment arrangement (flue gas blower, pre-cooler, absorption columns sump etc)
— Develop new column construction materials
— Optimize machinery options
Total plant cost distribution
Engineering and supervision
Equipment incl. columns(w/o blowers & compressors)
Blowers & compressors
Bulk Material
Civil
Construction
11
Project Budget
$3,802,860$766,259$2,464,707$571,894Cost Share
$18,802,860$3,619,856$12,323,536$2,859,468Total Project
$15,000,000$2,853,597$9,858,828$2,287,575DOE Funding
TotalBudget Period 3
Feb 2014 – Oct 2015
Budget Period 2
Feb 2013 – Jan 2014
Budget Period 1
Nov 2011 – Jan 2013Source
Cost share commitments:
Linde: $3,212,121
BASF: $493,360
EPRI: $97,379
12
Project Timeline
Task # TITLE
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1 Program Management
Budget Period 1
2 Techno-Economic Evaluation
3 Pilot plant optimization and basic design
4 Pilot plant system design and engineering
5 Pilot plant cost and safety analysis
Go - No GoDECISION
Budget Period 2
6 Supply of plant equipment and materials
7 Plant construction and commissioning
Mechanical completion of pilot plant
Budget Period 3
8 Start-up and initial operation
9 Parametric testing
10 Long duration continuous operation
11 Final economic analysis and commercialization plan
Project Closeout
2012 2013 2014 2015
13
Key Project Milestones
● Budget Period 1 (Nov. 1, 2011 – Jan. 31, 2013)
— Project kick-off meeting with DOE-NETL (11/15/2011)
— 550 MWel power plant with integrated carbon capture techno-economics report (Dec. 31, 2011)
— Optimal design parameters identified and pilot plant design completed (April 30, 2012)
— Host site agreement (Sep. 30, 2012)
— Pilot plant engineering and equipment sizing complete for cost assessment (Oct. 31, 2012)
— Development and submission of bid packages (Nov. 30, 2012)
— Completed pilot plant costs based on vendor quotes (Dec. 31, 2012)
● Budget Period 2 (Feb. 1, 2013 – Jan. 31, 2014)
— Pilot plant equipment and modules shop fabrication completed (June 30, 2013)
— Completed ES&H assessment (Dec. 31, 2013)
— Mechanical completion of pilot plant and start-up enabled (Jan. 31, 2014)
● Budget period 3 (Feb. 1, 2014 – Oct. 31, 2015)
— Pilot plant operations validated and ready for testing (April 30, 2014)
— Performance validated against targets (Oct. 31, 2014)
— Long term operability and solvent stability demonstrated (July 31, 2015)
— Technology advantages demonstrated/Ready for commercial (Oct. 31, 2015)
14
Project Team and Organization
Program Manager:K. Krishnamurthy, Linde LLC
Partner Lead Contacts:I. Clausen – BASFR. Rhudy – EPRIL. Kogan – SFPC
T. Stoffregen – Linde Eng.F. Morton – Host Site (NCCC)
Contract AdministratorC. Nussgruber - Linde LLC
Power PlantAdvisory Board
(TBC)
Santee CooperSouthern Co.
EPRI
US DOE NETLProgram ManagerAndrew P. Jones
Task 1 – Program ManagementLinde LLC Lead
Task 2 – Techno-Economic Evaluation
Linde LLC Lead
Task 3 – Pilot Plant Design Optimization
and Basic DesignBASF/Linde Eng. Lead
Task 4 –Pilot Plant System Design and
Engineering SFPC Lead
Task 5 – Pilot Plant Cost and Safety
AnalysisSFPC Lead
Task 6 – Supply of Plant Equipment
SFPC Lead
Task 7 – Plant construction
and commissioningSFPC Lead
Task 8 – Start-up and Initial operation
BASF/Linde Eng. Lead
Task 9 – ParametricTesting
Linde LLC Lead
Task 10 – Long Duration Continuous
OperationLinde LLC Lead
Task 11 – Final Economics and
Commercialization Linde LLC Lead
15
Success Criteria at Decision Points
1.Slipstream pilot plant testing and data analysis successfully completed. Results show the benefits of the PCC technology with the novel amine-solvent as predicted or better.
10/31/2015Project Closeout
1.Pilot plant construction has been completed.2.Process and safety checks have been performed successfully and plant ready to start up and operate.
1/31/2014Mechanical completion of pilot plant
1.Techno-economic evaluation completed and accepted by DOE-NETL. It demonstrates benefits of the proposed development.2.Cost estimates and schedule for the pilot plant meet targets.
12/31/2012Go – No Go decision to build pilot plant
Success CriteriaDateDecision Point
16
Risk Management (2)
• Control and simplify scope to focus on key technology validation needs• Go/No Go decision set to address significant cost escalation
MediumLow-MediumAdditional project complexity due to unforeseen requirements on safety, environment, etc. or significant cost escalation
• Have initiated discussion with various stakeholders • Follow up and find middle ground/options to resolve impact on overall project schedule
Medium-HighMediumSchedule impact due to conflict with other projects (e.g. MTR membranes) scheduled at the NCCC site
Management Risks:
Risk Management (Mitigation and
Response Strategies)
Impact (Low, Moderate,
High)
Probability (Low,
Moderate, High)
Description of Risk
17
Risk Management (1)
• Commitment from all participant to make project successful
MediumMediumAvailability of key individuals with past experience and know-how
Resource Risks:
• Joint meetings to understand issues and incorporate into design and control logic & operations
MediumLowIntegration with the other test units operating at NCCC
• Leverage overall team expertise • Leverage external partners know-how
MediumLow-MediumTesting of new materials and new process options
Technical Risks:
Risk Management (Mitigation and Response
Strategies)
Impact (Low, Moderate,
High)
Probability (Low, Moderate,
High)Description of Risk
18
Technical approach to optimize performance and reducecapex and opex for future commercial offering
● Select leading solvent (from development till date) for pilot plant design and plannedtesting. One potential additional solvent to be considered in 2014 when pilot plant in operation.
● Process testing and validation for lower capex & opex and for emission reduction:
— New absorber construction materials (e.g. Concrete columns with in-liner)
— Advanced absorber structured packing material
— Absorber intercooling without forced recirculation
— Optimized equipment arrangement (blower, sump, intercoolers)
— Advanced stripper design
— Optimized process parameters to reduce steam consumption (e.g. Regeneration pressure)
— Reduced emisson losses through optimized wash system
19Fußzeile 19
Task 3: Design SelectionSlipstream PCC Pilot Plant: Overall Process Schematic
PC Boiler I II III IV V
Coal AirWater
Steam Turbine
El. Power Generator CO2 Emission
~ 22 TPD / MWe
Ash Flyash
I - NOx Control; II - Air Heater; II - PM Control; IV - Hg Control; V - FGD; VI -
Stack
LINDE-BASF Pilot Plant
Host Site: 880MWel Gaston coal fired power plant, Wilsonville, AL (managed by Southern Co.). The facilities are part of the National Carbon Capture Center.
Power plant provides:steam for PCC regeneration,cooling water for all HX, and electrical power. Accepts flue gas return after
CO2 capture
Typical coal-fired power plant
Power Plant schematic Source: DOE-NETL FOA ‘403
Drain
Flue gas
DCC
Booster fan
20
Absorber
Treated flue gas
CO2
Reboiler
Desorber
Condenser
Make-up water
Solvent Tank
InterstageCooler
Steam
Task 3: Design SelectionNew components to be tested in the pilot plant
Fußzeile 20
Advanced emission
control system
Gravity Flow
Interstage Cooler
Advanced Column
Material
Optimized Blower
Concept
Optimized Energy
Consumption
High capacity
structured packing
test higher
desorber pressure
21
Task 3: Design SelectionPilot Plant Layout
Fußzeile 21
Optimized plant layout
to be investigated
22
Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentSpecifications & Computational platform
Computational Platform
UniSim Design Suite R390, integrated with
— Linde’s custom developed thermodynamic model for Illinois # 6 coal combustion
— BASF’s proprietary package for rigorous solvent performance predictions
Specifications and Design Basisidentical to DOE/NETL Report 2007/1281
— Coal Feed Characteristics
— Site Characteristics and Ambient Conditions
— Boiler Design and Steam Turbine Design
— Steam Cycle Conditions
— Environmental Controls and Performance
— Balance of Plant
— Economic Assumptions and Methodology
Absorber
Treated flue gas
CO2
Reboiler
Desorber
Condenser
Make-up water
Solvent Tank
InterstageCooler
Steam
23
Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentApproach
Model Calibration
— Match material and energy balances for DOE-NETL Cases # 9 & #10
— Determine adiabatic efficiencies of utilized steam turbines
— Develop reference scale factors for CAPEX assessment at the equipment level
— Verify entire methodology vs reported LCOE values for Cases 9 & 10
Model Application
— Modify model for BASF‘s novel amine based solvent technology and BASF & Linde process enhancements
— Include various process integration and heat recovery options
— Perform sensitivity analyses
— Goal: Minimize LCOE
24
Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentEnergy requirement for PCC
Normalized Utility Energy Requirements(wrt Net Power )
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
PP w/o PCC PP with PCC PP with Linde-BASFPCC
Power Plant PCC Plant CO2 Compression STEAM for PCC
Target range for Linde-BASF
PCC Technology
25
Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentLCOE Dependence on PCC Efficiency
ENERGY Requirement BreakdownPP w/o PCC
NET Power
Power Plant
ENERGY Requirement BreakdownPP with PCC
Power Plant
C O 2 C P
PC C Plant
N ET Power
STEA M f o r PC C
Incremental energy requirement (DOE Case# 10) for PCC:
~ 50 % of PP w/o PCC (DOE Case# 9)
26
Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentLCOE Dependence on PCC Efficiency
TPC Breakdown - PP w/o PCC
Coal etc
Boiler
FG CleanupPCC+CP
Other
ST + Cooling
TPC Breakdown - PP with PCC
Coal etc
Boiler
FG CleanupPCC+CP
Other
ST + Cooling
Total Plant Cost of PP with PCC(DOE Case# 10)
90+% above PP w/o PCC (DOE Case#9)
27
Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentLCOE Dependence on PCC Efficiency
LCOE Breakdown - PP w/o PCC
CAPEX - PP
FixedVariable
FUEL
LCOE Breakdown - PP with PCC
CAPEX - PP
CAPEX - PCCFixed
Variable
FUEL
TS&M
Major targets for LCOE reduction:
— Reduced energy for PCC
— Reduced CAPEX for PCC
— Reduced total energy by process integration and waste heat utilization
LCOE for PP with PCC (Case#10)
Currently: ~ 86 % above PP w/o PCC (Case#9)
Proposed: < 65 % above PP w/o PCC (Linde-BASF) with options for further reduction
28
Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentOptimization & Status
Techno-economics with Advanced PCC
— BASF‘s novel amine based solvent technology and BASF & Linde process enhancements
— Significantly reduced energy requirement
— Reduced PCC CAPEX and OPEX
— Integration options with Waste heat recovery
— Within PCC
— PCC & CO2 Compression
— PCC & Power Plant
— Optimization
— Minimization of LCOE
— Sensitivity analyses
— OPEX benefits versus CAPEX cost
Status
— Developed rigorous, integrated Unisimmodel for 550 MWe power plant with CO2
capture
— Model integrated with performance parameters of BASF‘s novel amine based solvent technology
— CAPEX and OPEX reduction options for PCC and CO2 plants being evaluated
— Rigorous process model being used for sensitivity analyses to highlight key areas for cost improvement
— Various process integration options being analyzed
29
Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
Acknowledgement: This presentation is based on work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FE0007453.
Disclaimer: “This presentation 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.”
30
Thank you for your attention!
DE-FE-0007453 Project Kick-off MeetingDOE-NETL, Pittsburgh, PANovember 15, 2011