Optimizing Integrated Reference Cases in the OCTAVIUS Project
Transcript of Optimizing Integrated Reference Cases in the OCTAVIUS Project
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry
Optimizing Integrated Reference Cases in the OCTAVIUS
Project
PCCC3 – Third Post Combustion Capture Conference
Regina, Canda, September 8-11, 2015
Hanne M. Kvamsdal
Senior Research Scientist SINTEF Materials and Chemistry
SP1 leader of OCTAVIUS
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry
The Octavius project
Background for the reference cases
Optimization of the reference cases
Results of the optimization
Benchmarking in Octavius
Content
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry
The Octavius Project (1)
OCTAVIUS: Optimisation of CO2 capture Technology Allowing Verification and Implementation at Utility Scale
Based on previous EU projects CASTOR and CESAR
4 year demonstration project (started March 2012 will end February 2016)
The main objective:
" Octavius aims to demonstrate integrated concepts for zero emission power plants covering all the components needed for power generation as well as CO2 capture"
Operability and flexibility of first generation post combustion processes have been demonstrated at 3 different pilot plants:
Maasvlakte (TNO),
Brindisi (ENEL)
Heilbronn (EnBW)
TNO: Maasvlakte
ENEL: Brindisi EnBW: Heilbronn
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry
The Octavius Project (2)
Second generation process (DMX by IFPen)
Was extensively studied in the project
Planned to be demonstrated at the Brindisi pilot, but revamping of pilot plant too expensive within the existing budget
Benchmarking of
Some promising process configurations (based on literature and patent review)
DMX process
Reference capture plants based on results from the Cesar project
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry 5
Definition of reference cases for
benchmarking (1)
Source of CO2: Both NGCC and Coal
Two cases adopted from the European
Benchmarking Taskforce (EBTF)
Advanced supercritical coal (ASC) case
• Single unit coal fired power plant
• Re-simulated in Ebsilon®Professional
10.03:
Electric gross power output of 804.8
MWe, auxiliary power consumption of
61.3 MWe and then the net power
output equals 743.5 MWe.
Net cycle efficiency at full load
operation 45.4% related to LHV
The specific CO2 emission is 761.5
g/kWhnet without post-combustion CO2
capture
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry 6
Definition of reference cases for
benchmarking (2) • Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) case
– Single gas turbine feeding its flue gas to a heat
recovery steam generator (HRSG) with three
pressure levels and reheat
• The gas turbine is not a specific existing turbine
• Data from two different suppliers (reported by
EBTF)
– The steam produced in the HRSG is expanded in a
steam turbine
– Re-simulated in Ebsilon®Professional 10.03:
• Gross power output 430.3 MWe, (281.7 MWe from
gas turbine generator 148.6 MWe from steam
turbine.
• The net efficiency without CO2 capture is 57.8 %
related to LHV
• The specific CO2 emission without CO2 capture is
364.2 g/kWhnet
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry
Reference cases for OCTAVIUS based on
Esbjerg pilot plant and CESAR results
7
Lean vapour
recompression
Flue gas from
power plant
Mechanical filters
Lean MEA
Rich MEA
Steam
Treated
flue gas
CO2 Out
Cooling water circuit
Reboiler
MEA/MEA heat
exchanger ABSORBER STRIPPER
Condensate
Wash section
Courtesy: Dong
Energy
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry 8
Reference cases for OCTAVIUS
• Based on the best performance demonstrated in CESAR
– CESAR1 (AMP+Piperazine) best performance of 3 solvent systems tested at Esbjerg
– 30 wt% MEA still a reference
• Two power plants and two solvent systems imply 4 reference cases in OCTAVIUS
• Published data by Knudsen et al. (2010)
– No significant benefit of inter-cooling for MEA, but for CESAR 1 solvent up to 7%
reduced reboiler steam demand
– LVC, best benefit for MEA (20% reduced reboiler steam demand), somewhat less with
CESAR 1 solvent
– LVC means increased auxiliary power consumption
• Basis for optimization of reference cases in Octavius
– MEA with and without LVC, but not inter-cooling
– CESAR 1 with and without both inter-cooling and LVC
– 90% capture for all cases
Knudsen, J., Andersen, J., Jensen, J.N., and Biede, O, (2010), Evaluation of process upgrades and novel solvents for the post
combustion CO2 capture process in pilot-scale, presented at the GHGT-10 conference in Amsterdam
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry 9
Optimization of reference cases (1) Capture plant
Parameter and process variations for a given base case design
Variation in solvent flow rate
For LVC option: variation in flash pressure
For Inter-cooling option: variation in placement
Variation in packing height absorber column
KPIs used in optimization
Energy requirement (heat, electricity): heat related to energy loss in power plant through
simple correlation1,2
CO2 capture cost based on electricity price for calculating effect in loss of power output
from the power-plant and including CAPEX for the capture plant
Tools: In-house (SINTEF) CO2SIM and ECON2
System boundary:
– Water-wash in absorber /stripper not included in simulations
– CO2 compression not included in simulations as reboiler temperature is kept constant
1 Liebenthal and Kather (2011) for coal cases and 2 Bolland and Undrum (2002) for NG cases
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry 10
Optimization of reference cases (2)
MEA as solvent system
1. Variation in solvent flow-rate for all cases with different flash pressure +the case without LVC to
obtain the flow, which minimizes the reboiler heat requirement
2. With the optimal solvent flow-rate the associated capture cost is determined.
3. Variation in absorber packing height for the "optimal" case identified in 2.
4. The loss in total plant efficiency is determined by simulation of the power plant for all the
variations to verify the conclusions related to energy requirement in the capture plant.
5. Conclusion: LVC lowest pressure most optimal
6. The cost of the total integrated plant is determined for the optimal cases only
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry 11
Optimization of reference cases (3) CESAR 1 as solvent system (effect of LVC and Inter-cooling):
1. No intercooling and no LVC
2. Inter-cooling, but no LVC
3. No inter-cooling, but LVC
4. Both inter-cooling and LVC
Optimization procedure:
1. Flow variation for case 1 and 3 to obtain the flow, which minimize the reboiler heat
requirement
Coal case
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry 12
Optimization of reference cases (4) Optimization procedure cont.:
2. Cost-calculation (ECON2) for all optimal flow cases determined in 1.
3. Both NGCC and Coal cases:
a) Limited improvement in the capture cost: No LVC
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry 13
Optimization of reference cases (5)
Optimization procedure cont.:
4. Sensitivity analysis for the height of packing for the optimal solvent flow
case with no LVC (case 1)
5. With the optimal height and flow: variations in placement of inter-cooling
(case 2) were simulated:
For NGCC: Reboiler requirement was slightly increased for all 4 different
locations (compared to no IC)
For Coal: Reboiler requirement was slightly improved for 3 of the
different locations (compared to no IC)
Inter-cooling also imply increased CAPEX (extra units and pipes) I
Conclusion: no inter-cooling
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry 14
Optimization of reference cases (6)
Optimization procedure cont.:
6. Case 4 (LVC+IC) checked for coal: Optimal flow and height, lowest flash
pressure (110kPa) and optimal placement for IC was once again simulated
and capture cost determined.
7. A check of the "optimal" flow was performed by some variations.
8. The power-plant was simulated and the loss in total plant efficiency is
determined for all the variations to verify the conclusions related to energy
requirement in the capture plant.
9. The cost of the total integrated plant is determined for the optimal cases
only.
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry 15
Summary results
Case Inter-cooling/LVC Absorber packing
height (m)
SRD (MJ/kg
CO2)
Cost of CO2
avoided
(Euro/ton CO2)
COAL- MEA No Inter-cooling/LVC
flash pressure 110 kPa 18 2.93 35.3
COAL-C1 No Inter-cooling/ No LVC 20 2.70 28.9
NG-MEA No Inter-cooling/LVC
flash pressure 110 kPa 22 3.15 52.3
NG-C1 No Inter-cooling/ No LVC 26 3.01 55.3
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry
Conclusion and further work with benchmarking
in Octavius
Conclusions:
4 reference cases have been established to be used for
benchmarking within OCTAVIUS
Further work
Journal publication
Benchmarking of one MEA based "improved" process and the
2nd generation DMX process against the four reference cases To be presented at the OCTAVIUS conference in Paris 17-19th November, 2015
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry
• This work has been performed within the FP7 project OCTAVIUS (Grant
Agreement n° 295645).
• Partners involved in the work
– TNO: Purvil Khakharia and Michiel Nienoord
– TUHH: Sören Ehlers
– SINTEF: Geir Haugen, Actor Chikukwa, Hanne Kvamsdal
– DTU: Philip Loldrup Fosbøl
– E.ON: Laurence Robinson and Adam Al-Azki
– IFPEN: Patrick Briot and Paul Broutin
17
Acknowledgement