Cryogenic Carbon Capture Development

NETL FE-0028697August 24, 2017

Larry Baxter1,2, Kyler Stitt1

1Sustainable Energy Solutions2Brigham Young University

CCC Value Proposition• Energy efficient CO2 capture (about ½ amine)• Cost effective CO2 capture (about ½ amine)• Grid-scale, efficient, rapid, inexpensive energy storage • Bolt-on technology (retrofit or greenfield)• Widely deployable (NG, biomass, coal, waste)• Multipollutant process (Hg, SOx, HC, NO2, PM2.5, ...)• Water conservation

Cryogenic Carbon Capture• General separation technology applicable to

– Post-combustion systems (this presentation)– Pre-combustion systems (active development)– Natural gas processing (active development)– LNG production

• Retrofit or greenfield process• Described in over 80 patent applications

4

Simplified Flow Diagram (ECL)

Heat ExchangerAnd Dryer

Flue Gas

Water

SO2, NO2, Hg, HCl

HeatRecovery Solid

Separation

Solid Compression

Pump

Pressurized, Liquid CO2

Heat Recovery

Expansion Refrigeration Loop

N2-rich Light Gas

CompressionAmbient Heat Exchange

Solids Auger

5

Melter

6

Energy Penalty

7

CCC nearly eliminates emissions while consuming half the energy of alternatives

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Amine (NETL case 12) CCC-ECL CCC CFG CCC-CFG Integrated

Para

sitic

Loa

d

Energy Consumption by Technology

Integrated

CCC Greenfield Incremental Cost

8CCC nearly eliminates emissions while increasing the cost of electricity by 2-3 ¢/kWh

9

Completed Skid-scale Demonstrations• Fuels

– Coals (subbituminous and bituminous)

– Natural gas– Biomass– Municipal waste, tires

• Technologies– Utility power plants– Industrial heat plants– Cement plant kilns– Large pilot-scale reactor

• Pre-combustion/NG Processing (lab scale)

Utility Power Plant

10

4-unit, 817 MWe power plant in Wyoming

Slip stream on unit 4, which has a baghouse and a wet scrubber (on subbituminous coal).

Utility Power Plant Skid Test

11

12

ECL Skid Photos

1 tonne/day CO2 capture

Utility Power plant

13

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23

CO2

Capt

ure

%

Hours

Steady-state, continuous CO2 removal

Cement Kiln

14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

CO2

Capt

ure

%

Minutes

Objective• Improve reliability and efficiency of unit operations

based on field test experience.• Implement improvements in skid system.• Retest skid system (budget period 2) in field on

power plant flue gas over 3-month period with minimum continuous operation of 500 hours.

• Project Partners: SES, Tri-state, Pacificorp, EPRI

Tasks1. Management2. Flue gas drying3. CO2 in contact liquid4. Solid-liquid separations5. Desublimating heat exchanger6. Instrumentation and controls7. Light gas dispersal8. Multipollutant capture9. Techno-economic analysis

17

Task 2. Drying

Moist Flue Gas Input

Cold liquid

Warm Liquid

FG From Treatment

Exhaust Flue Gas

PumpWater Out

To Flue Gas CO2 Removal

Direct Contact Heat Exchanger

Heat Recovery Heat Exchanger

1.E-11

1.E-10

1.E-09

1.E-08

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

Wat

er M

ole

Frac

tion

Temperature (°C)Ice Barrier System 3 System 4

Task 5. Heat Exchanger TestingMajor ActivitiesSpray Tower• Initial droplet size testing done for spray nozzles

and parallel spray device• Designed new skid-scale hybrid spray tower HX • Design incorporates the latest knowledge of slurry

handling, desublimating heat exchangers, and maximizing heat exchange, from thousands of hours of experimental work

• Spray tower constructed in Q3 and testing began

Task 6. Instrumentation and ControlsMajor Activities• New instrumentation includes thermocouples, pressure transducers, level

transmitters, flowmeters, and control valves• I/O channels will increase by 23% (i.e., 104 to 128)

• Of the existing channels, 63% (i.e., 66) will be modified in some way, such as by repurposing for a different instrument, re-routing to a new process location, or rebranding tag

• All changes require some programming time

Channel Existing New or modified PlannedAnalog outputs 12 14 16Analog inputs 33 32 40Discrete outputs 19 9 22Discrete inputs 4 9 11Thermocouples 36 26 39Total 104 90 128

Task 8. Pollutant Removal• NO - Captured at very high rates, likely reacted to NO2

20

20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23

NO

Cap

ture

Hours

Task 8. Pollutant Capture Data

21

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105

120

SO2

Capt

ure

Perc

ent

Minutes

% CO2 Removed % SO2 Removed

Task 8. Particulate Capture

22

Rela

tive

part

icle

conc

entr

atio

n

PM2.5 PM4 PM7 PM10

23

Task 8. Mercury Testing• Field test at utility power plant• Inlet 735 ppt, or 5.77 µg/m3

(after wet scrubber) • Outlet below detection limit,

which is 1 ppt, or 0.01 µg/m3

for 99.9%+ capture. • Actual concentrations

predicted to be far below atmospheric levels (1-2 ng/m3).

Acknowledgements• DOE Project Manager: David Lang• Collaborators: Pacificorp, Tristate, EPRI, (Air Liquide, GE,

Holcim, Dong, Chart)• Funding: Dong Energy, DoI, Wyoming Clean Coal Task

Force, DOE-Arpa-E, CCEMC, DOE-NETL• Contributors: Andrew Baxter, Stephanie Burt, Kyler

Stitt, Dave Frankman, Chris Hoeger, Eric Mansfield, Skyler Chamberlain, Aaron Sayre, Jacom Chamberlain