PhD Letiţia Petrescu - IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme · Coal involves handling of solids, ash,...

PhD Letiţia PetrescuFaculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

Babes-Bolyai University

Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Cambridge, Thursday, 31 October 2013 - slide 2

Goal and importance of the environmental evaluation

Tools used for sustainability and environmental evaluation

IGCC and CCS-CL

Case studies

Conclusions


Much progress has been registered in industrial activities and human behavior with regard to environmental issues.

Technological and economical, but not environmental factors, considered for the optimization of a chemical plant.


Methods and tools to evaluate environmental consequences of chemical and energy conversion processes and products are needed

- guide process and product design activities

- improve environmental performance ofchemical processes and products

- provide indicators of environmentalperformance for decision-making

(David R. Shonnard, 2006)


Coal involves handling of solids, ash, pollutant emissions etc.

Coal usage in the energy sector

dirty energy source (Goyal at al., 2010)

CO2 emissions

The use of fossil fuels contributes:

- to the greenhouse effect

- other environmental impacts

(acidification, eutrophication and the depletion of natural resources)

(Koornneef at al., 2008)




IGCC and CCS-CL

Case studies

Conclusions


“Sustainability in Chemical Engineering means continuous effort to protect and improve ecosystems, social balance and economic prosperity by a systematic and integral improvement of

Environmental protection

Raw material exploitation

Energy efficiency

Safety and health protection

in all kinds of material conversion processes and material production”

(EFCE definition)


Energy is directly linked to the concept of sustainability

Energy resources drive much of the world’s economic activity

Energy resources are obtained from the environment, and wastes from energy processes are typically released to the environment

Energy and society


Economy

Environment

Society

3D

2D

2D

2D

1D 1D

1D

3D indicators

2D indicators

1D indicators

(Martins et al., 2006)


3D

Process SimulatorsSoftware

CAPE OPEN(CO) Toxicological DB

Chemical Processes

Molecular Modeling

1D

EnvironmentalIndicators

PSP Framework


Process Simulator Data Base

CAPE OPEN

Unit Operation

Modules

Data

Data regarding the

streams

Data regarding the

substances involved in

the process

Types of

streams Mass flow rateName of the

substances

CAS numbers

of the

substances

Risk Phrases

for each

substance

Input stream of

the process

Output stream

containing the

main product of the

process

Output stream

containing the

salable co-products

Waste stream

of the process

PSP

3D Indicators 2D Indicators 1D Indicators

Material

Intensity

Energy

Intensity

Potential

Chemical Risk

Evaluation

Potential

Environmental

Impact EvaluationEco-efficiency

Waste

Reduction

Algorithm

(WAR)

Sustainability Evaluation


Goal of CO: to support the interaction of process modeling software components from heterogeneous sources

This methodology has been chosen because we wanted to create a standard module able to be used in every process simulator software available on the market

Reaction

Environment

Thermo

Unit Op Unit Op

PPDB

Graph Analysis Thermo

Solveur


Material Intensity

MI

Energy Intensity

EI

Potential Chemical

RiskPCR

Potential Environmental

ImpactPEI

3D Indicators

This indicator measures the amount of non-renewable resources required to obtain a unit mass of products.

This indicator measures the energydemands of the process per unit mass ofproducts.

This indicator connotes process safety and potential risk to human health associated with the manipulation, storage and use of hazardous chemical compounds in the process.

This indicator measures the potentialimpact to the environment due to theemissions and the discharge of thehazardous chemicals to the environment. (Martins et al., 2006)


- Is a tool used to evaluate the environmental friendliness of a chemical process

-The evaluation of environmental impact is made through environmental impact indexes

syst

gen

ep

we

cp

we

ep

out

cp

out

ep

in

cp

in

systIIIIIII

t

I

)()()()()()(

cp

i

we

cp

jcp

we

k

kkj

cp

j

cp

j

out

jout

j

cp

out

k

kkj

cp

j

cp

j

in

jin

j

cp

in

EI

xMII

xMII

0

...

...

)(

)(

)(

)()(

)(

)()(

ep

i

we

ep

jep

we

k

kkj

gep

j

out

j

sep

j k

kkj

out

j

k

kkj

cp

j

gep

j

out

jout

j

ep

out

k

kkj

ep

j

ep

j

in

jin

j

ep

in

EI

xM

xMxMII

xMII

0

...

...

0...

)(

)(

)(

)()(

)()(

)(

)()(

(Young et al., 2000)


Total rate of impact output

Iout

Total impact output per mass of products

Iout_mp

Total rate ofimpact generation

Igen

Total impact generated per mass of products

Igen_mp

1D Indicators





IGCC and CCS-CL

Case studies

Conclusions


one of the most promising energy conversion methods

combines two leading technologies:

1) coal gasification which transforms coal to syngas2) combined cycle is one of the most efficient means in

generating electricity

clean and efficient coal power, and the low cost path to combat CO2

co-production improve the load-following, economics and efficiency of IGCC

flexible feedstock and products

(Liu et al., 2008)


GHG emissions Fossil Fuel usage

CCS

(Juergen Karg, 2009)

IGCC with CCS

IGCC with CCS one of the promising options which needs to be considered in the near future

it satisfies the market needs in a carbon-constrained environment




IGCC and CCS-CL

Case studies

Conclusions


Goals:

IGCC with CCS

to create the model of the processes

to reduce the energy consumption

to identify the most environmental friendly

design from four different process alternatives


Case 1: IGCC without CCS

Case 2: IGCC with calcium-based chemical looping cycle for pre-combustion CCS

Case 3: IGCC with calcium-based chemical looping cycle for post-combustion CCS

Case 4: IGCC with iron-based chemical looping cycle for pre-combustion CCS

Case Studies


Case 1: IGCC without CCS


Case 2 : IGCC with calcium-based chemical looping cycle for pre-combustion CCS


Case 3 : IGCC with calcium-based chemical looping cycle for post-combustion CCS


Case 4 : IGCC with iron-based chemical looping cycle for pre-combustion CCS


Model Assumptions

Ca-based CL

Carbonation Reactor Temperature (°C): 650-750Calcination Reactor Temperature (°C): 850-1000Oxygen-carrier removed (%): 1

Fe-based CL

Fuel Reactor Temperature (°C): 650Air Reactor Temperature (°C): 850-950Oxygen-carrier removed (%): 0.5

Gasifier

Gasification pressure (bar): 40Gasification temperature (

oC) >1450

Carbon conversion (%) 99.9%

Fuel usedbituminous coal

GT

Type: M701G2Net Power output (MW): 334

CO2 compression

Delivery pressure(bar)> 110

Carbon capture rate

>90%


Tools used for process simulation and environmantal evaluation

Process Simulator Softwares:

ChemCAD

Aspen Plus

Sustainability & Environmantal Evaluation:

PSP Framework

CAPE OPEN Unit Wizard

Microsoft Visual Basic

Process Simulator software

(PROII, Aspen Plus, COCO/COFEE)

Microsoft Office Access


Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Coal flowratet/h 155.30 236.82 251.90 162.33

Coal LHV MJ/kg 25.35 25.35 25.35 25.35

Feedstock thermal energy (A) MWth 1093.7 1667.80 1774.01 1143.2

Thermal energy of the syngas(B) MWth 877.01 934.47 891.19 912.42

Cold gas efficiency (B/A * 100) % 80.19 80.14 80.14 79.81

Thermal energy of gas exit AGR (C) MWth 872.47 929.78 876.47 912.09

Syngas treatment efficiency (C/B *100) % 99.48 99.5 98.35 99.96

Gas turbine output MWe 334.00 334.00 334.00 334.00

Steam turbine output MWe 235.89 429.11 446.76 201.33

Expander power output MWe 0.72 1.43 1.50 0.29

Coal flowrate MWe 570.61 764.54 782.26 535.62

Gasification island power consumption MWe 7.91 9.69 9.14 8.55

Power island power Consumption MWe 21.11 20.52 20.63 23.28

Total ancillary power consumption (E) MWe 77.47 156.72 176.66 92.55

Net electric power output (F=D-E) MWe 493.13 607.82 605.60 443.07

Gross electrical efficiency (D/A * 100) % 52.17 45.84 44.10 46.85

Net electrical efficiency (F/A * 100) % 45.09 36.44 34.14 38.76

Carbon capture rate % 0.00 91.56 90.01 99.45

CO2 specific emissions kg/MW 766.74 58.87 77.46 3.01


Results reported toone MW net energy produced


MIkg/MWe 7047.81 4067.12 4773.43 5222.55

EIkJ/MWe no value no value no value no value

PCRE-

233 233 233 233

PEI-

2199.97 2199.97 2199.97 2199.97


Results reported toone MW net energy produced


Iout

PEI/MWh63.46 35.26 36.64 41.41

Iout_mp

PEI/(tCO2 captured * MWe) no value 40.43 39.11 48.11

Igen

PEI/MWh63.35 31.53 31.84 39.97

Igen_mp

PEI/(tCO2 captured * MWe) no value 36.15 33.98 46.43




IGCC and CCS-CL

Case studies

Conclusions


It is possible to reduce the generation of wastes and their environmental impact modifying the design of the process

PSP- tool used for environmental and sustainability evaluation

PSP is made up of 4 sw interfaced to process simulators, a relational database containing toxicological and risk and safety information and a set of software modules

PSP has been developed using the standard CO Methodology

PSP application in different case studies for choosing the most environmental friendly design

IGCC with CCS-CL promising option which needs to be considered for future power generation


Thank you!

[email protected]

PhD Letiţia Petrescu - IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme · Coal involves handling of solids, ash,...

Documents

Transcript of PhD Letiţia Petrescu - IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme · Coal involves handling of solids, ash,...