Upload
lammien
View
218
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© Imperial College LondonPage 1
BCURA PROJECT B70AUGUST 2003 - JANUARY 2005
OPTIMISATION OF COAL FIRED POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE WHEN USING FLUE
GAS SCRUBBERS FOR CO2 CAPTURE
The Coal Research Forum Autumn Meeting 2005The presentation of current projects funded through the BCURA/DTI programme
Wednesday 14th September 2005British Sugar plc. Conference Centre, Holmewood Hall, Peterborough
Jon Gibbins, Bob CraneImperial College London
Des DillonMitsui Babcock Energy Ltd
STEAM FORCO2
RELEASE
GASTO
STACK LEAN/RICHHEAT
EXCHANGER
SCR
UB
BER
STR
IPPE
R
FLUEGAS
COOLER
BLOWER REBOILER
REFLUX CONDENSERS
POWER FORCO2 COMPRESSOR
FWH INTERCOOLER
COOLING WATERINTERCOOLER
BOILERFEED WATER
TO FWH5
COMPRESSEDCO2 FOREXPORT
BOILER FEED WATERFROM CONDENSER
FLUE GAS
FLUE GASFROM
FGD PLANT
CONDENSATE FROM CO2
SOLVENT SOLUTION
CO2
BOILER FEED WATER
COOLING WATER
AMINE CO2 CAPTURE SYSTEM PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
© Imperial College LondonPage 2
POST COMBUSTION CAPTURE STATE OF THE ART BEFORE PROJECTLeading options for the capture of CO2 at power stations,
IEA GHG 3/14, February 2000
© Imperial College LondonPage 3
STEAM EXTRACTION FROM POWER PLANT TURBINEwith poor solvent and no integration can reduce efficiency by >12 percentage points
HPcylinder
IPcylinder LP
cylinderLP
cylinder
Desuperheat with reboiler condensate
Steam offtake valveBack pressure valve to maintain IP exit pressure
Steam toreboiler
Alstom Large Steam Turbines brochure
© Imperial College LondonPage 4
SIX RULES FORMULATED TO FILTER OUT INAPPROPRIATE POST COMBUSTION LITERATURE AND GUIDE IMPROVED PLANT DESIGN
STUDIES
1. Add heat to the steam cycle at as high a temperature as possible (i.e. be prepared to use best available steam conditions if commercially justified).
2. Reject heat from the steam cycle, in the steam extracted for solvent regeneration, at as low a temperature as possible.
3. Produce as much electricity as possible from any additional fuel used, consistent with rejecting heat at the required temperature for solvent regeneration.
4. Make use of waste heat from CO2 capture and compression in the steam cycle.
5. Use the latest solvent developments.
6. Exploit the inherent flexibility of post-combustion capture.
© Imperial College LondonPage 5
G
HEAT FORCO2
RELEASE HEAT FROMCOMPRESSOR
INTERCOOLERS
HEAT FROMCO2 REFLUX
CONDENSERS
HEAT INPUT FROM BOILER
HEAT TOCONDENSER
COOLINGWATER
HP IP LP
FWH1FWH5 FWH2FWH3FWH4FWH7 FWH6 DEAERATOR
REBOILER
LPFWH HEAT RECOVERY
LIQUID
VAPOUR
SPRAYDESUPERHEATER
IMPROVED OPTIONS FOR REMOVING STEAM AND RECOVERING ‘WASTE’ ENERGY
© Imperial College LondonPage 6
BENEFIT OF APPLYING THE RULES TO IEA GHG PH3/14 RESULTSPlant configurationNo capture MEA no
integrationMEA+
HPFWHMEA+
LPFWHMEA+
HPFWH+ LPFWH
KS2 no integration
KS2+ HPFWH
KS2+ LPFWH
KS2+ HPFWH+ LPFWH
LHV efficiency penalty (percentage points)
0.0 12.6 11.9 12.0 11.3 10.3 9.7 9.7 9.1
Extra MW 0.0 0.0 8.2 6.5 6.4 26.0 6.0 6.6 6.5CO2 emitted (tonne/hr) 361.8 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.6Generation efficiency (%LHV) 45.6 33.0 33.7 33.6 34.3 35.3 35.9 35.9 36.5
Capital cost ($/kW) 1022 1856 1815 1823 1784 1732 1705 1703 1678Capital charges (c/kWh) 1.9 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1Cost of fuel (c/kWh) 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5Other costs (c/kWh) 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1
Cost of electricity (c/kWh) 3.7 6.4 6.2 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.7
Rule 2Rule 4
Gibbins, Crane, JPE, 2004© Imperial College LondonPage 7 Rule 5
2005
2010
2015
2020
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
TWh
renewablenuclearhydropowernatural cogenerationnatural gas generationoil
clean coalnew prior coal fired cogenerationnew prior coal generation existing coal fired cogenerationexisting coal generation
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
2005
2010
2015
2020
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Mt C
O 2
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
MARKETFORCES
DOMINANT
TECHNICALLYFEASIBLE
DEVELOPMENT
Total UK CO2emissions
Estimates for future Chinese electricity generation and associated CO2 emissions
based on Guo Yuan and Zhou Dadi, Low emission options in China's electric power generation sector,ZETS Conference, Brisbane, Feb 2004.
© Imperial College LondonPage 10
GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR CAPTURE READY POWER PLANTFundamental requirementsa) Sufficient space on site and in critical access locations to add CO2 capture plant
and necessary internal interconnections.b) Design study for adding CO2 capture, to assess technical feasibility and cost-
effectiveness.c) CO2 storage option(s)
Plus optional pre-investments, depending on economic justification.
Possible pre-investment options for pulverised coal steam plant are:• Build capture ready IGCC (i.e. not just ordinary IGCC) instead of capture ready
pulverised coal steam plant
• For post combustion capture:a) High efficiency (or upgradeable) FGD (if FGD is required)b) Turbine modifications to facilitate steam extraction
• For oxyfuel capture: a) If an FGD is fitted, verify operation under oxyfuel conditionsb) Support tie-ins for heaters and recycle ductsc) Provision for fans to operate under changed flows
© Imperial College LondonPage 12
PRELIMINARY BREAKDOWN FOR ADDITIONAL COE WITH CAPTURE
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
1 2
Add
ition
al C
OE
(CA
D/M
Wh)
Turbine mismatchO&M ConsumablesCapture capitalEfficiency penalty
~ Fluor ~ MHI
Max Ball, Bob Stobbs, Larry Ward, Jon Gibbins and Malcolm Wilson, A new 'capture ready' power plant project in Saskatchewan, 4th Ann. Conf. on Carbon Seq.,Alexandria VA, May 2-5, 2005.
© Imperial College LondonPage 13
POSSIBLE BENEFITS FOR MAKING PLANTS CAPTURE READY
Adding capture to: Capture ready Capture un-readyIGCC PC IGCC PC
Original efficiency %LHV 40.0% 42.0% 40.0% 42.0%Efficiency penalty %LHV 6.5% 8.5% 7.5% 9.5%
Additional electricity cost for reduced output 19.4% 25.4% 23.1% 29.2%
Capture plant capital cost ($/kW, % above original) 30.0% 50.0% 45.0% 75.0%Capture plant capital cost as % of original capital cost 10.6% 24.6% 21.9% 45.8%Capture plant capital cost contribution to electricity cost for original fuel cost fraction shown 30% 7.4% 17.2% 15.3% 32.0%
Loss of 1 year production added to next 20 years at 10% discount rate, % of cost/yr 11.7% 8.2% 8.2%Fuel cost fraction (avoided costs) 30%
Total additional electricity cost, based on ORIGINAL cost for THAT technology 26.8% 42.6% 46.6% 69.5%
• Bigger increase in electricity cost to add capture to PC, but initial electricity cost for IGCC probably higher• But this is for current post-combustion capture and IGCC technology –changes possible
© Imperial College LondonPage 14
© Imperial College LondonPage 15
Refereed Journal PapersGibbins, J. and Crane, R., "Scope for reductions in the cost of CO2 capture using flue gas scrubbing with amine solvents", Proc. I.Mech.E, Vol. 218, Part A, J. Power and Energy (2004), 231-239. Gibbins, J. and Crane, R., A preliminary assessment of electricity costs for existing PF plant retrofitted with an advanced supercritical boiler and turbine and solvent CO2 capture, Proc. I.Mech.E, Vol. 218, Part A, J. Power and Energy (2004).Refereed Conference PapersGibbins, J.R., Crane, R.I, Lambropoulos, D., Booth, C., Roberts, C.A. and Lord, M., "Maximising the effectiveness of post combustion CO2 capture systems", Proc. GHGT7, Vancouver, Sep. 2004Roberts, C.A., Gibbins, J.R., Panesar, R. and Kelsall, G., "Potential for improvement in power generation with post-combustion capture of CO2", Proc. GHGT7, Vancouver, Sep. 2004.Other conference papers etc.Gibbins, J. and Crane, R., "Reducing the cost of CO2 removal using solvent scrubbing", CRF Autumn Meeting 2003, The presentation of current projects funded through the BCURA/DTI programme, Tuesday 2nd December 2003, Alstom Power Ltd., Whetstone.Gibbins, J. and Crane, R., "Principles and performance limits for integrating amine scrubbing with coal and gas fired power plants", in Report on 6th Workshop, International Test Network for CO2 Capture (8-9 March 2004, Trondheim, Norway), IEA GHG Report Number PH4/28, May 2004.Gibbins, J. and Crane, R., "Criteria for economically-competitive post-combustion CO2 capture from pulverized coal power plants", Proc. 3rd Ann. Conf. on Carbon Sequestration, Alexandria VA, May 3-6 2004.Gibbins, J.R., Crane, R.I., Lambropoulos, D., Man, C. and Zhang, J. , "Making pulverised coal plant 'capture ready': methods and benefits", Proc. 7th International IEA GHG CO2 Capture Network Workshop, Vancouver, 10 September 2004, IEA GHG Report Number PH4/34, Oct. 2004.Ball, M., Stobbs, R., Ward, L., Gibbins, J. and Wilson, M., "A new 'capture ready' power plant project in Saskatchewan", Proc. 4th Ann. Conf. on Carbon Sequestration, Alexandria VA, May 2-5 2005.Gibbins, J.R, "Opportunities for research into near-term capture options for pulverised coal plant in China", Stanford GCEP project workshop on technical issues and challenges associated with advanced coal use integrated with CO2 capture and storage in China, Tsinghua University, Aug. 22 and 23, 2005.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
• Viable pulverised coal capture option demonstrated, confirmed in studies with BCURA industrial sponsors
• Helped established UK lead in pulverised coal with CCS– new studies for UK and North American markets, possibly China
• ‘Capture ready’ and retrofit options for the large number of pulverised coal plants contributing to UK policy objectives on climate change mitigation
• Potential for further studies on post combustion capture fundamentals with Canada and other overseas collaborators
• Need to improve UK capabilities if any of the existing UK coal power plant fleet is to be converted to CO2 capture
- people (including PhD students)- independent expertise on existing and future commercial CO2 capture systems- how to design and exploit flexible CCS systems to make money
© Imperial College LondonPage 16
© Imperial College LondonPage 19
Pre-combustion capture ready
• Problem for IGCC, if gas turbine is matched to gasifierand oxygen plant before capture is added
• Easier for chemical plants, especially if making hydrogen
Possible alternative for IGCC –have shift from the start and recover the losses
GASIFIER