1

 

  Sequestering CO2 into Coal Bed – Methane Production on Based Turkish Coal Mines

  Devlet Ciragoglu 1*, Yıldırım İ. Tosun 2

  1,2 Faculty of Engineering, University Sırnak, Sırnak

* Corresponding Author. Tel: +90(538) 3642045, Fax: (486) 2164844, E-mail: dciragoglu@sirnak.edu.tr

2

Aim

Deposition of gasified products plays an important role in providing the power generation fuels and chemicals.

Subsoil deposition of waste gas of power plant for Sırnak asphaltite

Under ground deposition of natural gas or waste gas CO2 into the coal mine rooms regarded in energy aspect

3

Scope

The underground deposition process for waste gas of Sırnak asphaltite ,

The subground space use, Civil construction of gas reservoir for

waste gas and flue gas. The process can accept methane coal gas

drainage. Deposition methane coal gas into sub

soil caves.

4

Our main contribution is in analyzing the economic issues related with methane drainage enhancement, which can be seen as a follow-up to the technical issues. CCS technology may become available in the Turkish market and that current cost projections and expected efficiencies may be rational values. We may see profit-maximizing conditions in the methane drainage and gas market. Methane production may retrofit to install CCS in power plants under plausible values of an environment tax.

5

The absorption technology for capturing carbon dioxide from natural gas streams was developed more than 60 years ago to produce a more pure natural gas stream. The technology of sequestering carbon dioxide from a power plant’s flue gas was first implemented more than 20 years ago. city from coal and 48 percent from natural gas. Globally, coal and natural gas will continue to meet growing energy demand, particularly in emerging market counties, such as China and India [2, 4]. From 2007 to 2011, China’s total coal consumption increased by nearly 50 percent, while India’s increased by nearly 33 percent. During that same time period, China’s total natural gas consumption increased by more than 85 percent, while India’s increased by approximately 48 percent. CCS technology has the potential to yield dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions from the power and industrial sectors by capturing and storing anthropogenic CO2 in underground geological formations. Given the magnitude of CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas fired electricity generation, the greatest potential for CCS is in the power sector.

6

CO2 separation options using membrane separation, cryogenic fractionation, absorption and adsorption

7

CO2 capturing process with amine solutions

8

1/10000 Satelite image Coal Bed Methane Drainage Site in  circle  of Coal Mine Site, Sırnak, Turkey.

9

Industrial cost of CO2 Capture and Transport.

Industrial CO2 Source Cost of CO2 Capture and Transport ($/ ton CO2)

Coal and biomass-to-liquids

36.10

Natural gas processing

36.29

Hydrogen plants 36.67 to 46.12Refineries (Hydrogen) 36.67 to 46.12Ammonia plants 39.69Ethanol plants 42.15Cement plants 81.08

10

Effect of injection distance over CH4 Desorption  from Coal Bed  at 20 bar in 28 day.

11

Effect of time over CO2 Saturation and CO2 Sorption To Coal Bed  at 20 bar.

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45 Distance to Injection Well Point,m

Vert

ical

Dis

tan

ce t

o

Bott

om

Cla

y L

aye

r,m

1 gün 7 gün 14gün 28 gün

12

Effect of injection distance over CH4 Desorption  from Coal Bed  at 20 bar in 28 day.

0 5 10 15 20 25 300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 Distance to Injection Well Point,m

Meth

an

e S

orp

tion

,%

13

Parametrical cost of PLant

Parameter Units SırnakPlant

w/CO2 Control

Net plant capacity MW (net) 135 75

CO2 emission rate g CO2/kWh (net) 750 83

SO2 emission rate g SO2/kWh (net) 15 0.003

NOx emission rate g NOx/kWh (net) 0.4 0.5

CO2 sequestered 60   tonne CO2/yr - 5

Cost of electricity $/MWh (net) 39.2 57.0

CO2 mitigation cost

$/tonne CO2 avoided

- 39.1

Effect of Methane drainage on CO2 capturing transporting and sequestering costs with transporting and sequestering costs.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1010

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

Methane Fuel Drainage Cost, $/1000m3

CO

2 c

ap

ture

Cost

, $

/ton

15

CONCLUSIONS•At projected capacity at near 200.000 m3/yr of coal seam gas per year we can manage proposed 40% gas yield and the cost of methane drainage mainly was changed on drainage performances in coal production method in-situ excavation site .•CO2 capturing and transporting and sequestering costs are decreased with flue gas desulfurization cost and even legal environmental taxes. Methane drainage will be enhanced with CO2 capturing and transporting and sequestering in the old excavated coal seams. As given in Figure 4, it could be revealed that CO2

capturing, transporting and sequestering costs with methane drainage decreased to near 11$/ton of CO2.

16

CONCLUSIONS•The present study has established a framework for quantifying amine (MEA) based absorption systems applied to coal fired power plants.•The present study has confirmed that fuel methane cost especially depended on coal seam parameters such as methane drainage depth and local coal seam methane content and also applied to coal fired power plants.

17

Thank you for your great attention

Şırnak University