Upload
vuonghanh
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jose Marasigan, EPRI
Prof. John Dooher, Adelphi University (Dooher Institute of Physics & Energy)
Harvey Goldstein, WorleyParsons Group, Inc.
2013 Gasification Technologies Conference
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Investigation of Liquid CO2 (LCO2) / Coal Slurry
for Feeding Low Rank Coal to Gasifiers
2 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Presentation Outline
• Background
• Project scope
– Objectives
– Tasks
• Evaluation results summary
• Comparison with previous published analyses
• Technology development roadmap
3 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Background Liquid CO2 and H2O (Theoretical)
Liquid CO2 Compared to
H2O
Expected Performance
Impact
Viscosity Lower Higher solids loading at
same slurry viscosity
Heat of Vaporization 75-80% Lower Less oxygen needed to
achieve given gasifier
temperature
Atomization Finer Better carbon conversion at
same gasifier temperature
Previous studies have shown significant IGCC performance improvement with liquid CO2 slurry.
4 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Project Scope Objectives
Overall objective
• Reduce cost, improve
efficiency of IGCC with
CCS by utilization of
captured CO2
Specific objective
• Gain greater understanding
and confirm potential
advantages of using
LCO2/Low rank coal
slurries
Liquid CO2 Slurry for Feeding Low Rank Coal to Gasifiers U.S. DOE Award DE-FE0007977
5 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Project Scope Tasks
• Task 1 - Conduct laboratory tests and evaluations
• Task 2 - Develop LCO2 slurry preparation system design
• Task 3 - Perform plant-wide techno-economic analyses
• Task 4 - Draft technology development roadmap
Leverage findings of initial tasks to support subsequent tasks.
6 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Project Summary Teaming structure
DOE/NETL
Jenny Tennant Dr. Arun Bose
EPRI Jose Marasigan
WorleyParsons Group, Inc.
Harvey Goldstein
Dooher Institute of Physics and
Energy Prof. John Dooher
Columbia University
Prof. Marco Castaldi
ATS Rheosystems Steven Colo
Phillips 66
Tom Reynolds
7 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Task 1: Conduct Lab Tests & Evaluations Summary
Task scope
• Coal characterization and preparation
– Montana Rosebud Powder River Basin (PRB)
– North Dakota Freedom Lignite
• Rheology tests
– All coals
– LCO2 and water slurries
• Slurry data analyses
8 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Task 1: Conduct Lab Tests & Evaluations Conclusions
• Higher coal concentrations verified in LCO2
– PRB test, 68 wt% (LCO2) vs. 55 wt% (water)
– Estimate 75 wt% (LCO2) in commercial application
• Lower viscosities verified in LCO2 at same solids loading
– ~factor of 10 lower than comparable water slurry
– Estimate:
• <100 centipoise in commercial application
• LCO2/coal slurry atomizes to finer spray drop sizes
• “Slurryability” of coal in LCO2 relatively insensitive to coal
properties
9 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Task 2: Develop LCO2 Slurry Prep System Summary
Task scope
• Design slurry preparation system that will function for all
design coals
– Batch system
– Continuous flow system
– Estimate capital and O&M cost of each system
• Conduct industry search and survey
– Related concepts/technologies applicable to LCO2 slurry
applications
10 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
IGCC Plant Configuration with Full CO2 Capture
Gasifier
Liquid CO2 /
Coal Feed
System
Air
Separation
Unit
CO2
Removal
Shift
Reactors
Gas
Cooling
and
Cleanup
Gas
Turbine
Class 7F
Pressure
Ratio 18:1
CO2 To Sequestration
or Beneficial Use
~2200 psig
Syngas
HRSG
Stack
Steam
Turbine
Heat Sink
Electric
Power
To Grid
~520 MWe
Transformer
Transformer
450 psig
Compress Intercool Compress
450 psig
Coal
Pile
11 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Batch Process System Design Basis
• Slurry is 75% coal and
25% LCO2 by weight
• Minimize flashing of
LCO2 during mixing
• Use pressure vessel
to mix LCO2 and coal
• 250 psig (17 bar)
• -10°F (-23°C)
• Maximize use of
commercially
available equipment
CO2 SlurryCO2 Available
12 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Coal
Preparation
(Grind/Dry)
Pressure
Boost/Feed
Heat Sink
Commercial
Refrigeration
Heat
Exchanger Heat
Exchanger
Coal/CO2
Mixing
Vessel
LCO2 / Coal Slurry Batch Prep/Feed System
From CO2
Compressor
To Gasifier
Coal
Pile
850 psig (59 bar)
Ethylene Glycol Loop
~250 psig
(17 bar)
13 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Task 3: Plant-wide Techno-Economic Analysis Summary
• Evaluate 4 cases:
–Montana Rosebud PRB, water slurry feed
–Montana Rosebud PRB, LCO2 slurry feed
–ND Freedom Lignite, water slurry feed
–ND Freedom Lignite, LCO2 slurry feed
• Performance models based on ASPEN Plus
–E-Gas™ performance provided by Phillips 66 (now
CB&I)
• Economic analyses conform to design basis
14 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Performance, Cost and LCOE Results 90% CO2 Capture
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Coal PRB Lignite
Slurry H2O CO2 H2O CO2
Coal In (lb/hr) 679,576 672,160 976,416 912,612
Gross MW 741 718 822 762
ST Output (MW) 277 254 358 298
GT Output @ ISO (MW) 232 232 232 232
Aux. Load (MW) 204 213 246 245
Net Plant Power 537 504 577 517
Net Plant Heat Rate
(Btu/kWh, HHV) 10,836 11,420 11,210 11,680
Total Plant Cost (TPC)* $1,876 $1,890 $2,177 $2,107
COE, $/MWh 125.26 133.92 138.90 149.09
* Cost in million 2012 US dollars
15 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
LCO2 vs. Water Slurry for Low Rank Coals Evaluation Results Summary
• Reduced plant output and higher heat rate for PRB and for
ND lignite at 90% CO2 capture
– Shift steam requirement
– Parasitic load
– Reduced feedstock enthalpy
• Nominal change in capital cost of complete IGCC plant
• Increased COE for PRB and ND lignite
• No benefit for E-Gas™-based IGCC with 90% CO2 capture
– Incidental benefits in improved CGE are more than offset
by higher overall costs, increased complexity and
reduced output and efficiency
16 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Comparison of Results with Previous Analyses
* Includes specific power consumption of ASU, Selexol and CO2 compression train only
ASPEN Analysis EPRI1
(2010)
MIT2
(2012)
DOE
S4B3 EPRI/WP
Gasifier GE GE-Radiant Quench E-Gas™ E-Gas™
Coal PRB PRB Lignite PRB PRB Lignite
Slurry H2O CO2 H2O CO2 H2O CO2 H2O H2O CO2 H2O CO2
Slurry bone dry
solids wt% 48.3 55 51 58 48 54 48.7 53 55.7 47 48
CGE (%HHV) +7 63 75 60 72 70 74.4 76 67.8 71.4
Aux. Power as % of
gross power 31 28.9 28* 26* 31* 27* 29.2 27.5 29.7 28 30.4
% Reduction of O2
with CO2
13 13 17 2.4 6.2
Net efficiency (%) 29.8 32.6 26.5 29 24.2 28.4 30.4 31.5 29.9 30.4 29.2
1 EPRI Technical Update 1021333, Program on Technology Innovation: Liquid CO2 Coal Slurry for
Feeding Coal to Gasifiers, June 2010. 2 Botero, C., Field, R., Brasington, R., Herzog, H., Ghoniem, A., “Performance of an IGCC Plant with
Carbon Capture and Coal-CO2-Slurry Feed: Impact of Coal Rank, Slurry Loading, and Syngas Cooling
Technology”, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, ie3018093, 2012. 3 National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy
Plants Volume 3a: Low Rank Coal to Electricity: IGCC Cases”, DOE/NETL-2010/1399, May 2011.
17 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Technology Development Roadmap Identify Pathway to Resolve Fundamental Issues
Source: John Dooher, Adelphi University
18 © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Acknowledgment and Disclaimer
Acknowledgment This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy National Energy
Technology Laboratory under Award Number DE-FE0007977.
Disclaimer This report 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.