1

A MultiA Multi--Pollutant Modeling Pollutant Modeling Framework for Carbon Framework for Carbon

Management TechnologiesManagement Technologies

Edward S. Rubin, Anand B. Rao and Michael B. Berkenpas Carnegie Mellon University

First National Conference on Carbon SequestrationWashington, DCMay 14-17, 2001

Outline of TalkOutline of Talk

MotivationObjectivesProject StatusIllustrative ResultsFuture Plans

2

COCO22 Capture TechnologiesCapture Technologies

MEACausticOther

Chemical

SelexolRectisolOther

Physical

Absorption

AluminaZeoliteActivated C

Adsorber Beds

Pressure SwingTemperature SwingWashing

Regeneration Method

Adsorption Cryogenics

PolyphenyleneoxidePolydimethylsiloxane

Gas Separation

Polypropelene

Gas Absorption

Ceramic BasedSystems

Membranes Microbial/AlgalSystems

CO2 Separation and Capture

3

Scale of COScale of CO22 Capture ApplicationsCapture Applications

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

50006000

7000

8000

9000

10000

ton

CO

2/day

tonCO2/day 1200 150 800 320 3000 9600Year '80s ? 1978 ? 1996 2010?Process Dow MEA Dow MEA Kerr-McGee Dow MEA MEA based MEA basedLocation TX & NM IGFC NACC NEEA, MA Norway ?Status shut down operational operational operational operational prospective

EOR Fertilizer Soda Ash Food-gradeSleipner West

Gasfield, Norway

500MW Coal-based

Powerplant

COCO22 Sequestration OptionsSequestration Options

Deep SalineReservoirs

DepletedOil and Gas Wells

AbandonedCoal Seams

GeologicalSequestration

Very Deep OceanInjection

Unconfined Release(@ ~ 1000 m)

Dense Plume Formation(shallow)

Dry Ice Injection

OceanSequestration

Forests andTerrestrial Systems

Marine Alga

BiologicalSequestration

Storage as a solid in anInsulated Repository

Utilization Schemes(e.g. Polymerization)

OtherMethods

CO2 Disposal / Storage Options

4

Some Questions to be AddressedSome Questions to be AddressedHow do alternative capture and sequestration options compare in terms of performance, emissions and cost for various industrial applications?What are the technological risks and uncertainties of different options?What are the key sources of performance and cost uncertainty?What are the payoffs and priorities of R&D to reduce key uncertainties?What are the most promising markets for advanced separation and capture technologies?

5

A Process Assessment FrameworkA Process Assessment FrameworkFocus on fossil fuel power systems

Develop a flexible, easy-to-use computer model to systematically evaluate CCS options at the level of an individual plant Incorporate both current and advanced technologiesCharacterize key uncertainties in performance and cost parametersIntegrate carbon management technologies with other environmental control systems

A Hierarchy of Models for A Hierarchy of Models for Technical and Policy AnalysisTechnical and Policy Analysis

Preliminary design options

for a single facility

(performance, emissions, cost)

Detailed models and data for

specific processes or components

Integrated assessment

models(including

measures of impacts)

Multi-facility(or multi-sector)optimization or

simulation (dynamic)

6

Modeling FrameworkModeling Framework

Build on the Integrated Environmental

Control Model (IECM) developed for

DOE/NETL in previous research

Integrated EnvironmentalIntegrated EnvironmentalControl Model (IECM)Control Model (IECM)

CoalCleaning

CombustionControls

Flue Gas Cleanup & Waste Management

NOxRemoval

Particulateand Hg

Removal

CombinedSOx/NOxRemoval

AdvancedParticulateRemoval

SO2RemovalNOx

Control

7

MultiMulti--Pollutant InteractionsPollutant Interactions

CriteriaAir

Pollutants

PMSO2

NOx

HazardousAir

Pollutants

HgHClH2SO4

CO2

CH4

GreenhouseGas

Emissions

Power Generation OptionsPower Generation Optionsto be Included in the Model to be Included in the Model

Combustion-basedGasification-based

Coal

Direct CombustionGas Reforming

Natural Gas

Fuel

Air

Oxygen

Oxidant

Pulverized CoalGas Turbines

Simple Cycle

Gas TurbinesCoal GasificationFuel CellsOther

Combined Cycle

Technology

Power Generation Technologies

8

Modeling ApproachModeling Approach

Systems Analysis FrameworkProcess Technology ModelsEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software Capabilities

Model OverviewModel Overview

Energy ConversionProcesses

CO2Capture Options

CO2TransportSystem

CO2 Storage & Sequestration

Options

Air orOxygen

Coal orNatural Gas

9

Model Software PackageModel Software Package

PowerPowerPlantPlant

ModelsModels

GraphicalGraphicalUserUser

InterfaceInterface

Plant andPlant andFuelFuel

DatabasesDatabases

Fuel PropertiesFuel PropertiesHeating ValueHeating ValueCompositionCompositionDelivered CostDelivered Cost

Plant DesignPlant DesignConversion ProcessConversion ProcessEmission ControlsEmission ControlsSolid Waste MgmtSolid Waste MgmtChemical InputsChemical Inputs

Cost DataCost DataO&M CostsO&M CostsCapital CostsCapital CostsFinancial FactorsFinancial Factors

Plant & ProcessPlant & ProcessPerformancePerformance

-- EfficiencyEfficiency-- Resource useResource use

EnvironmentalEnvironmentalEmissionsEmissions

-- Air, water, landAir, water, land

Plant & ProcessPlant & ProcessCosts Costs -- CapitalCapital

-- O&MO&M-- COECOE

The IECM is Publicly AvailableThe IECM is Publicly Available

Web Access:

ftp://ftp.netl.doe.gov/pub/IECM

10

Future options will include . . .Future options will include . . .

Coal Combustion w/ COCoal Combustion w/ CO2 2 CaptureCapture

11

IGCC Systems w/ COIGCC Systems w/ CO2 2 CaptureCapture

NGCC Plants w/ CONGCC Plants w/ CO2 2 CaptureCapture

12

Geologic Sequestration w/ EORGeologic Sequestration w/ EOR

Project StatusProject Status

Initial focus on modeling current commercial technologies for combustion-based systems

Amine-based CO2 capturePipeline transport Geologic sequestration

Integrated the new CO2 modules into the IECM frameworkConducted preliminary case studies of new and retrofit applications

13

Flas

h

MEAStorage

Flue Gas

CoolerCooler

Pump

Pump

ReboilerLean-hot

rich-hotrich-cool

lean-cool

MEAmakeup

CO2 productExhaust Gas

Blower

Waste

H-Ex*

COCO22 Capture Using AmineCapture Using Amine--Based SystemBased System

Absorber

Regenerator

Reclaimer

Process Performance Parameters Process Performance Parameters • Flue gas composition• CO2 removal efficiency• SO2 removal efficiency• NO2 removal efficiency• MEA concentration• Maximum CO2 loading• Lean solvent loading• Nominal MEA make-up• Acid gas sorbent loss• MEA oxidation loss• Ammonia generation

• Solvent pumping head• Pump efficiency• Gas-phase pressure drop• Fan efficiency • MEA regeneration heat• Equiv. elec. requirement• Reclaimer chemical reqm’t • CO2 product pressure• CO2 product purity• Compressor efficiency• Compression energy

14

Process Cost ParametersProcess Cost ParametersProcess Area Costs (9)Process Facilities CostEng’g & Home OfficeGeneral FacilitiesContingency CostsInterest d/ ConstructionRoyalty FeesPre-production CostsInventory (startup) CostTotal Plant CostTotal Capital Reqm’t

Operating LaborMaintenance LaborAdmin./Support LaborMaintenance MaterialsReagent (MEA) CostChemicals CostWaste Disposal CostWater CostPower Cost*CO2 Transport CostCO2 Storage Cost

Model ApplicationsModel Applications

Process designTechnology evaluationCost estimationR&D management

Risk analysisEnvironmental complianceMarketing studiesStrategic planning

15

Case Study of a New PC PlantCase Study of a New PC Plant

Parameter Value Parameter Value Gross plant size (MW) 500 Emission standards 2000 NSPS

Gross plant heat rate (kJ/kWh) 9032 NOx controls LNB +SCR

Annual avg. capacity factor (%) 75 Particulate control ESP

SO2 control Wet FGD

Coal characteristics CO2 control MEA

Rank Sub-bit. CO2 capture efficiency (%) 90 HHV (MJ/kg) 19.4 CO2 product pressure (atm) 137 % S 0.48 Distance to storage site (km) 160 % C 47.85 Financial Factors % Ash 6.4 Cost year basis (constant dollars) 1999 Delivered cost ($/ton) 23.19 Fixed charge factor 0.15

Case Study Plant ConfigurationCase Study Plant Configuration

16

Plant Performance ResultsPlant Performance Results

0

100

200

300

400

500

600Net Plant Capacity

(MW)

Ref. Ref. PlantPlant w/COw/CO22

CaptureCapture

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5Net Power Gen.

(BkWh/yr)

Ref. Ref. PlantPlant w/COw/CO22

CaptureCapture

Pollutant Emission ResultsPollutant Emission Results

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

CO2 Emission (g CO2 /kWhnet)

Ref. Ref. PlantPlant

0.00.30.60.91.21.51.82.12.42.7 SOx Emission

(g SOx /kWhnet)

Ref. Ref. PlantPlant

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7NOx Emission (g NOx /kWhnet)

Ref. Ref. PlantPlant

w/COw/CO22CaptureCapture

17

Capture Plant Cost ResultsCapture Plant Cost Results

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cost of Electricity($/MWhnet)

w/COw/CO22CaptureCaptureRef. Ref.

PlantPlant0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Capital Cost($/kWnet)

Ref. Ref. PlantPlant

w/COw/CO22CaptureCapture

10

20

30

40

50

60

CO2 Cost($/ton CO2)

CaptureCaptureCostCost

AvoidedAvoidedCostCost

Cost of COCost of CO22 AvoidedAvoided

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

CO

E ($

/MW

h)

ReferencePlant

CO2 CapturePlant

Slope = $53 / ton CO2 avoided

CO2 Emission Rate (g/kWh)

18

Avoided Cost Sensitivity to Avoided Cost Sensitivity to Power Plant ParametersPower Plant Parameters

50 5146

40

58 5462

69

01020304050607080

CapacityFactor

GrossEfficiency

Fixed ChargeFactor

All Combined

85% 65% 45% 38% 10% 20%

$/ton CO2 avoided

Focus on CSS TechnologiesFocus on CSS Technologies

How do uncertainties in carbon capture and sequestration systems contribute to uncertainty in the cost of CO2 mitigation?

19

Uncertainty in MEA Regeneration Uncertainty in MEA Regeneration Heat RequirementHeat Requirement

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1800 2200 2600 3000 3400 3800 4200 4600 5000 5400 5800 6200Regeneration heat (kJ/kg CO2)

Cum

. Fre

quen

cy o

r Pro

b.

Normalized CDFCDF used in the model

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1800

2200

2600

3000

3400

3800

4200

4600

5000

5400

Regeneration heat (kJ/kg CO2)Fr

eque

ncy

Amine System UncertaintiesAmine System Uncertainties(Based on current commercial systems)(Based on current commercial systems)

Performance Parameter Units Nominal Distribution FunctionCO2 Capture Efficiency % 90SOx Removal Efficiency % 99.5 Uniform( 99, 100 )NO2 Removal Efficiency % 25 Uniform( 20, 30 )HCl Removal Efficiency % 95MEA Concentration wt% 30 Triangular( 15, 30, 50 )Max. MEA Loading mol CO2/MEA 0.5 Uniform( 0.41, 0.63 )Lean MEA Loading mol CO2/MEA 0.15 Triangular( 0.10, 0.15, 0.24 )Nominal MEA Make-up kg MEA/ton CO2 1.5 Triangular( 0.9, 1.5, 3.1 )Acid gas-MEA Loss actual/stoichiometric 1.65Ammonia Generation mol NH3/MEA oxidized 1Gas Pressure Drop kPa 5 Triangular( 3, 5, 8 )Solvent Head kPa 30 Triangular( 25, 30, 50 )Pump Efficiency % 75 Uniform ( 70, 75 )Regeneration Heat kJ/kg CO2 recovered 4000 Fractiles( ( [1800, ... , 5800] ) )Heat -> Elec Conversion % 15 Triangular( 10, 15, 20.5 )Caustic Required kg soda ash/ton CO2 0.13Activated C Required kg C/ ton CO2 0.075CO2 Product Pressure psi 2000 Triangular( 1000, 2000, 2200 )Compressor Efficiency % 80 Uniform ( 75, 85 )Compression Energy Required kJ/kg CO2 pdt f(P2) Normal( f(P2), 17.8 )

20

COE Uncertainty Due to COE Uncertainty Due to Amine System DesignAmine System Design

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0COE ($/MWh)

Cum

ulat

ive

prob

abili

ty

Uncertainty in COUncertainty in CO22 Avoidance CostAvoidance Cost

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80CO2 Avoidance Cost ($/ton CO2 avoided)

Cum

ulat

ive

prob

abili

ty

EOR Revenue =$10/ ton CO2

Disposal Cost = $5/ ton CO2

21

Key Process Factors Key Process Factors Contributing to Cost UncertaintyContributing to Cost Uncertainty

MEA regeneration heat reqm’tEfficiency of regen heat supplyMEA makeup requirementProduct compression energyMEA concentration

Illustrative Benefits of R&DIllustrative Benefits of R&D

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Mitigation cost ($/ton CO2 avoided)

Cum

ulat

ive

prob

abili

ty

At present

Hypothetical R&D case

22

Future TasksFuture Tasks

Develop models for additional: Fossil fuel power systemsCO2 capture technologiesCO2 sequestration options

Characterize key uncertaintiesIllustrate model applicationsModel documentationUser training sessions

Comments and questions Comments and questions welcomed !welcomed !

23

Uncertainty in Reference Plant COEUncertainty in Reference Plant COE

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

COE ($/MWh)

Cum

ulat

ive

prob

abili

ty

Uncertainty in:Capital Cost

+ Gross Heat Rate+ Coal Cost+ Fixed Charge Factor

24

Case Studies of Retrofit PlantsCase Studies of Retrofit Plants

New FGDSystem

CO2 CaptureUnit

CO2 CaptureUnit

A

B

C

DHigh-S

Coal

Low-SCoal

Low-SCoal

Low-SCoal

Power plant

ParticulateControl

Power plant

ParticulateControl

FGDPower plant

ParticulateControl

Power plant

ParticulateControl

FGD CO2 CaptureUnit

CO2 CaptureUnitUpgrade

Upgrade

Retrofit Cost ResultsRetrofit Cost Results(Fully amortized plant with no retrofit difficulty)(Fully amortized plant with no retrofit difficulty)

5043

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Plant w/o FGD Plant w/ FGD

$/to

n C

O2

Avo

ided

BasePlant

BasePlant

4943

SO2Cred.

+ SO2Cred.

+

2923

EORCred.

+ EORCred.

+