Biomass CCS - IEAGHG · 2013. 8. 28. · •Dual fluidised bed •Entrained flow Biomass firing...
Transcript of Biomass CCS - IEAGHG · 2013. 8. 28. · •Dual fluidised bed •Entrained flow Biomass firing...
-
Biomass CCS
Dr Amit Bhave
CEO, cmcl innovations
7th IEAGHG International CCS Summer School21st -26th July, University of Nottingham, UK
-
TESBiC: Techno-economic analysis and road-mapping of biomass to power with
CO2 capture
C-FAST: Carbon-negative hydrocarbon fuels from algal biomass
K2: Coupling of real world data and fast response algorithms
Modelling low carbon technologies
cmcl innovations
Engineering software, technical consulting & training
- automotive, truck & non-road
- clean energy and process engineering
innovation awards
kinetics & srm engine suite: advanced IC engine fuels, combustion and emissions simulator
mod suite: model development suite, data standardisation, uncertainty
propagation, parameter estimation, optimisation
-
Contents
• Biomass CCS: scope and context
• Impetus for biomass CCS
• Bioenergy strategy and biomass supply chain
• Biomass CCS technology combinations
• A case study
• Summary
-
biomass CCS: scope
Source: EBTP and ZEP joint report on BioCCS, 2012
Biomass fuelled power generation with CCS for heat and/or power
-
Impetus for biomass CCS
• ETI’s ESME toolkit’s least-cost options for meeting the UK’s energy demand and emissions reduction targets to 2050, identify biomass CCS as vital with large, negativeemissions, a high option value and high persistence
• IEAGHG, 2011: Despite its strong GHG reduction potential, there is a considerable dearth of information for biomass CCS as compared to that for fossil based CCS
• APGTF, 2011/2012: RD&D strategic themes and priorities - whole system : focus on virtual system simulation and optimisation- capture technologies: focus on economics, efficiency penalty, emissions,
co-fired biomass, 2nd and 3rd generation technologies
• EBTP/Zep 2012: Accelerate deployment of advanced biomass conversion processes and establish an EU biomass CCS roadmap towards 2050.
• TESBiC 2011/2012: Significant gaps that exist in the understanding of biomass CCS -key technical and economic barriers, and UK deployment potential to 2050
-
Bioenergy strategy
• Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) 15% renewable energy by 2020
• Sustainable biomass could contribute 8%-11% of the total UK energy demand by 2020
• International supplies (USA/Canada for example) will be the key contributors
• Current use of biomass in EU27 and projections for 2020, 2030 up to 2050 reveal a four-fold increase to ~370 Mtoe.
-
Biomass CCS: a system-level approach
Biomass supply chain
Biomass pre-processing Biomass thermo-chemical conversion to power
and CO2 capture
CO2 transport and storage
-
Biomass supply chain
Important characteristics of the biomass supply chain :
• Cost/availability of local vs. imported biomass
• Location of local biomass sources w.r.t. CO2 network
• Quality of biomass: low sulfur content, but chloride and potassium salts and ash chemistry (rather than the ash content)
Types of biomass:
• Forestry biomass
• Agricultural residues
• Energy crops
• Municipal solid waste
• Industrial waste
Biomass supply chain structure:
• In-field/in-forest collection/harvesting
• In-field/in-forest handling and transport
• Loading to/unloading from transportation
• Transportation
• Storage
• Pre-processing
-
Biomass sustainability criteria
• UK government’s Sustainability Criteria require an independently verified minimum 60% GHG savings (vs. EU fossil grid average) across the whole biomass supply chain
• If criteria not met, biomass generators will not receive government support necessary to make businesses economically viable
• Sustainability challenges:
– Ensuring significant reductions (vs. fossils) in CO2 emissions
– No negative impact on forest productivity, biodiversity and cover, indigenous populations, etc.
– Avoiding illegal logging
-
Biomass sustainability measures
For example, Drax, UK’s largest coal power station (4000 MW capacity) in its transformation to a predominantly biomass-fuelled power generator has incorporated a comprehensive “sustainable biomass procurement programme”
• Rejection of all non-sustainable biomass
• All supply chain stages are investigated - cultivation and harvesting, transforming, processing and transportation.
• Minimum standards on life cycle GHG savings
• Compliance with policy written in to contracts
• Extensive data gathering and assessment through a programme of information exchange and an improvement programme
• Independent 3rd party audit
-
Biomass feedstock pre-processing
• Coal vs. biomass at plant-site: – Dust management: risk of fire, explosion, etc.– Volume: Lower energy density, distribution– Storage: dry storage and self-heating minimisation
• Wood chips (1-5 cm long), moisture content high, stored for a limited time, less energy to produce
• Pellets made from chips, particle size < 2mm, more energy to produce than chips
• But higher energy density with pellets, do not degrade (rot) so easily, preferred for transport over large distances
• Torrefaction: – Biomass: Moulds/rot during storage, heterogeneity/particle size reduction– Mild pyrolysis. Range: 230-290oC. Mass loss up to 30%. Retained energy
content 90%. – Behaves more like coal good feedstock for transition from fossils to biomass– Exothermic nature requires good temperature control– Powdered torrified biomass – high reactivity– Torrefied pelletization requires additive binder– Unknowns: Scale-up and CAPEX, OPEX implications (LCA)
Biomass feedstock: pellets[50 pence coin added for scale]
-
Biomass conversion to power
Coal technologies
• Pulverised coal combustion:
• Direct co-firing of biomass
• Conversion to 100% biomass
• Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal gasification:
• Direct co-firing of biomass
• Conversion to 100% biomass
Biomass technologies
• Dedicated biomass combustion:
• Bubbling fluidised bed
• Circulating fluidised bed
• Fixed grate
• Dedicated biomass gasification:
• Bubbling fluidised bed
• Circulating fluidised bed
• Dual fluidised bed
• Entrained flow
Biomass firing capacity pathways:• Co-firing: cheapest way to get new biomass firing capacity, • Other options such less cost-effective options involve converting existing coal fired plants to operate dedicated biomass, or a new build plant
-
CO2 capture techniques
Post-combustion
• Solvent scrubbing, e.g. amines, chilled ammonia
• Low-temperature solid sorbents, e.g. supported amines
• Ionic liquids
• Enzymes
• Membrane separation of CO2 from flue gas
• High-temperature solid sorbents, e.g. carbonate looping
Pre-combustion
• IGCC with physical solvent absorption
• Membrane syngas generation, with physical solvent absorption
• Membrane separation of H2 from syngas
• Sorbent enhanced reforming using carbonate looping
• ZECA concept
Oxy-combustion
• Oxy-fuel boiler with cryogenic O2separation from air
• Oxy-fuel boiler with membrane O2separation from air
• Chemical-looping-combustion using solid oxygen carriers
-
TRLs: CCS technologies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Solvent scrubbing
Low-temp solid sorbents
Ionic liquids
Enzymes
CO2 membrane separation
Carbonate looping
Oxy-fuel with cryogenic O2
Oxy-fuel with membrane O2
Chemical-looping-combustion
IGCC with solvent absorption
H2 membrane separation
Syngas membrane
Sorbent enhanced reforming
ZECA concept
TRL
Co-firing
Dedicated
TRL = Technology Readiness LevelTRL 1 = Basic researchTRL 2 = Theoretical researchTRL 3 = Applied researchTRL 4 = Bench-scale test rigTRL 5 = Pilot plantTRL 6 = Small-scale demonstration plantTRL 7 = Full-scale demonstration plantTRL 8 = First commercial plants TRL 9 = Mass deployment of fully commercial plants
-
Biomass CCS roadmap: assessment criteria
Development aspects and prospects
• Key drivers for development
• Key development issues, potential show-stoppers
• Main players internationally
• Pilot/demonstration /commercial plants and R&D activities
• Current TRL
• Likely TRL in 2020
• Environmental issues
Feedstocks and feasibility
• Contaminants of risk, required specifications
• Pre-processing needs, benefits
• Appropriate feedstocks, robustness to variability
• Maximum % co-firing feasible
• Technical feasibility of component combination
• Ease of changing to high co-firing / 100% dedicated conversion
Techno-economics
• Equipment scales (MW min, MW max), suitability for small-scale
• Plant LHV efficiency with capture
• Flexibility, ability to load follow
• Capital cost with capture
-
Technology combinations
Solvent
scrubbing,
e.g. MEA,
chilled
ammonia
Low-temp
solid
sorbents,
e.g.
supported
amines
Ionic
liquidsEnzymes
Membrane
separation
of CO2 from
flue gas
High-temp
solid
sorbents,
e.g.
carbonate
looping
Oxy-fuel
boiler with
cryogenic O2
separation
Oxy-fuel
boiler with
membrane
O2
separation
Chemical-
looping-
combustion
using solid
oxygen
carriers
IGCC with
physical
absorption
e.g.
Rectisol,
Selexol
Membrane
separation
of H2 from
synthesis
gases
Membrane
production
of syngas
Sorbent
enhanced
reforming
using
carbonate
looping
ZECA
concept
Direct cofiring
Conversion to 100% biomass
Direct cofiring
Conversion to 100% biomass
Fixed grate
Bubbling fluidised bed
Circulating fluidised bed
Bubbling fluidised bed
Circulating fluidised bed
Dual fluidised bed
Entrained flow
22 24
12
14
9 11 13
Not feasible
18 20
11a
12a
Not feasible
Dedicated
biomass
gasification
Not feasible 16
Dedicated
biomass
combustion
2 4 6 8 106a
Post-combustion Oxy-combustion Pre-combustion
Coal IGCC
gasificationNot feasible Not feasible 15 17 19 21 23
Pulverised coal
combustion1 3 5 75a
-
Short-listed biomass CCS technologies
Criteria
Co-firing amine
scrubbing
Dedicated biomass with
amine scrubbing
Co-firing oxy-fuel
Dedicated biomass oxy-fuel
Co-firing carbonate looping
Dedicated biomass chemical looping
Co-firing IGCC
Dedicated biomass BIGCC
Likely TRL in
2020
7 to 8 6 to 7 7 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 7 5 to 6
Key technical
issues
Scale-up, amine
degradation,
Scale-up, amine
degradation,
O2 energy costs, slow response
O2 energy costs, slow
response
Calciner firing, solid degradation, large purge of CaO
Loss in activity, reaction
rates, dual bed
operation
Complex operation,
slow response, tar
cleaning, retrofit
impractical
Complex operation,
slow response, tar
cleaning, retrofit
impractical
Suitability for
small scale
Low High Low High Low High Low High
Plant
efficiency
with capture
OK Low OK Low Good Good High, Good
Capital costs
with capture
OK Expensive OK High ASU costs
OK OK OK Expensive,
UK
deployment
potential
Immediate capture retrofit
opportunities,
retrofit opportunities
high long-term
potential
retrofit opportunities
, long-term doubtful
retrofit opportunities
, high long-term
potential
capture retrofit opportunities,
cement integration
Likely first demos in
Europe, UK in ~2020. High long term potential
No current UK plants,
several demos by
2020Long-term
doubt
No current UK plants,
demo unlikely by
2020.High long-
term potential
-
Techno-economics: a case study
Biomass chemical looping
-
Biomass chemical looping: costing
Variable Costs Usage £M/yr
1. Wood fuel 8.29 108 kg/yr 116.0
2. Oxygen carrier (new) 1.19 106 kg/yr 4.74
3. Spent carrier (credit) -4.22
4. Fly ash disposal 1.78 106 kg/yr 0.00356
5. Cooling water make-up 9588 kg/s 51.4
Variable costs 167.9
Maintenance and Labour 20.37
Insurance 5.09
Fixed costs 25.46
Total O&M costs 193.36
Capacities investigated: 40 to 300 MWe
Item £M, 2011
Storage and handling of solid materials 41.1
Boiler island 220.5
CO2 compression and drying plant 31.4
Power island 76.5
Air reactor (458 m3) 64.8
Fuel reactor (581 m3) 74.9
Total installed CAPEX 509.2
Operation and utilities (% of TIC) 25.5
Civils and land costs (% of TIC) 50.9
Project Development Costs (% of TIC) 25.5
Contingency (% of TIC) 50.9
Total investment cost 661.9
Specific investment cost (£M/MWe) 2.21
268 MWe, net LHV efficiency ~ 38.7%
Model formulation: CAPEX, OPEX, generation efficiency, and emissions as a function of the nameplate capacities and extent of CO2 capture.
-
Biomass CCS: techno-economic comparison
TRL
-
Summary - 1
• To date, little activity at industrial scale on the application of CO2 capture technologies to co-fired or dedicated biomass power plants. This dearth of practical data increases the complexity and uncertainties associated with the estimation and roadmapping of biomass CCS technologies.
• The industry’s progression to the large fossil-based CCS demonstration projects is slow due to high costs and requirement of significant government subsidies.
• Dependency on fossil based CCS: Recent setbacks and cancellations of the coal-based CCS projects will further delay the development of biomass CCS. This, however, also presents an opportunity for lower TRL biomass CCS technologies.
• Incentivising negative CO2 emissions via the capture and storage of biogenic CO2 under the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) is highly important.
-
Summary - 2
• Biomass CCS attractive for small (50 MWe), intermediate (250 MWe) and large (~600 MWe) scales. At large scales, the issue of “sustainable biomass procurement” also needs careful consideration.
• For the eight biomass-based power generation combined with carbon capture technologies varying over a wide range of TRLs, from TRL 3 to TRL 8, the range of techno-economic parameters are the following:
• ~ 5% to 15% : Range of the efficiency drop
• ~ 45% to 130%: Range of the increase in specific CAPEX (£/MWe) with CO2 capture
• ~ 4% to 36%: Range of increase in OPEX (£/yr) with carbon capture
• CAPEX, LCOE: Generation scales and fuel costs the main drivers