Evaluation of flexible CCS integrated gasification polygeneration facilities

1
Evaluation of flexible CCS integrated
gasification polygeneration facilities
Buggenum power plant

• Hans Meerman

2
Contents

• Research programme
• Background information
• Research goal
• Methodology
• Results
• Conclusion

3
CapTech

• 4 years research programme led by ECN
• Goal reduction of CC cost, increase efficiency
• Cost 20 30 /tonne
• Efficiency loss lt 5 point
• Budget ? 2,5M/year
• Supported by Ministry of Economical Affairs
  Coordinated with the national programme on CCS
  (CATO)

Research programme
4
IGCC Process flowsheet
Power Production
Pre- Treatment
Gasifier
Gas Cleaning
Background
Acid Gas Removal / CO2 Capture
O2
CO2
ASU
S
Sulphur Processing
5
Willem-Alexander Power Plant
253 MWe output
Courtesy of NUON
6
Willem-Alexander Power Plant
Biomass
Coal
Courtesy of NUON
7
Willem-Alexander Power Plant
Mixing
Courtesy of NUON
8
Willem-Alexander Power Plant
ASU
Courtesy of NUON
9
Willem-Alexander Power Plant
Gasifier
Courtesy of NUON
10
Willem-Alexander Power Plant
Gas cleaning Claus plant
Courtesy of NUON
11
Willem-Alexander Power Plant
Gas/Steam turbines
12
Background

• Gasification technology not making market
  breakthrough
• IGCC more CO2 capture ready than PC
• Less modification needed for CCS
• Improved efficiency after CCS (IGCC 42 vs PC
  32)
• Higher capital costs gasification installations
• Uncertainty market behaviour
• Feedstock prices, Product prices, Legislation

Background
13
Background
Background

• Uncertainty market behaviour
• Feedstock prices, Product prices, Legislation

14
Conversion Processes

• Feedstocks
• Biomass ? Coal
• Eucalyptus ? Oil
• End products (Optimal)
• FT-fuels H2CO 2.3
• Methanol H2CO 3.7
• Electricity H2CO N.A.
• Urea H2CO
• H2 H2CO

Background
15
Carbon Capture and Storage

• Pre-combustion CO2 capture
• Physical solvent Rectisol

Background
Source Gasification, Higman
16
Carbon Capture and Storage

• Pre-combustion CO2 capture
• Physical solvent Rectisol
• Underground storage
• Depleted oil or gas fields
• Aquifers
• ECBM/EOR/EGR

Background
17
Impact of CCS

• Conventional power plants
• Capture and compression penalty
• Polygeneration facilities
• Capture is integrated part of process
• Only compression penalty

Background
18
Pros and Cons flexibility

• Advantages
• Less dependent on market
• Can buy cheapest and sell most expensive
• Disadvantages
• Complexity
• Less system/energy integration
• Higher capital investment
• Load factor
• Possible catalyst degradation

Background
19
Flexibility

• What are the technical and economic possibilities
  concerning plant flexibility
• What is the status of advanced refinery
  technology?
• What are the pros and cons of flexibility?
• What are the optimal technical and economical
  plant configurations?
• How will CCS affect plant performance?

Research goal
20
Methodology

• Techno-Economic modelling
• At the moment focussing on current available
  technology
• Next step 2020 technology
• Construction AspenPlus process model
• Determine technical limitations
• Temperature, pressure, concentrations
• Process efficiencies

Methodology
21
Process Database

• 40 different processes reviewed
• Function
• Behaviour
• Operating conditions
• Technical limitations

Methodology
22
Process Database

• 40 different processes reviewed
• Function
• Behaviour
• Operating conditions
• Technical limitations
• Feedstock drying and feeding
• Air separation - membrane, PSA, cryogenic
• Gasifier - Shell, Texaco, Lurgi, ConocoPhillips
• FT-/MeOH/Urea reactors

Methodology
23
Process Database

• 40 different processes reviewed
• Function
• Behaviour
• Operating conditions
• Technical limitations
• Feedstock drying and feeding
• Air separation - membrane, PSA, cryogenic
• Gasifier - Shell, Texaco, Lurgi, ConocoPhillips
• FT-/MeOH/Urea reactors
• Missing data estimated using similar processes

Methodology
24
Gasifier

• Entrained Flow
• Slagging
• O2-blown

• All energy in H2 CO
• No Tar
• Pressurised

Methodology
25
Gasifier

• Entrained Flow
• Pressurised
• O2-blown

• Slagging
• No Tar
• All energy in H2 CO

Methodology

• Experience with extensive biomass co-feeding
• Dry feed - easier feeding
• Operated in NL

26
IGCC
Power Production
Pre- Treatment
Gasifier
Gas Cleaning
Methodology
Acid Gas Removal / CO2 Capture
O2
CO2
ASU
S
Sulphur Processing
27
Advanced Refinery
Power Production
Pre- Treatment
MeOH Synthesis
Three nodes H2 rich CO rich Syngas
Gasifier
Gas Cleaning
Methodology
FT- Synthesis
Acid Gas Removal / CO2 Capture
O2
CO2
N2
Urea Synthesis
ASU
S
Sulphur Processing
28
AspenPlus Model
29
Main obstacles to flexibility (I)

• Design limitations
• More extensive drying
• Bigger feeding systems
• Separating biomass/coal trains
• Gasification feeding systems
• Blocking problems due to fibres
• Pressurisation problems due to low density
• Heat exchangers
• Reducing load can increase size

Results
30
Main obstacles to flexibility (II)

• Technical limitations
• Syngas cooler deposition
• Mechanism unknown
• More problematic with biomass
• More problematic with high temperature syngas
• Separators and reactors
• Need minimal 30 load
• Clean fuel
• Slag recycle required to protect gasifier
• Sulphur recycle or NG addition required for Claus
• Low heating value syngas in gas turbine

Results
31
Results (I)
Results
1000 MWth input 9.3 moisture content
32
Results (II)
Results
1000 MWth input 9 moisture
33
Conclusions

• Multi-input, multi-output PF is technical
  feasible with current technology
• Main limitation is design
• Hard constrains on certain processes limit
  flexibility
• Mixture of biomass and coal can increase overall
  efficiency

Conclusion
34
Questions?
Thank you for your attention J.C.Meerman_at_uu.n
l Tel [phone]
35
Heat Exchanger
For similar exit temperature
Required Surface Area
Laminar
Turbulent
Load factor
36
Fuel Composition