chemical looping coal gasification library/research/coal/energy systems...chemical looping coal...
TRANSCRIPT
CHEMICALLOOPINGCOALGASIFICATIONSUB-PILOTUNITDEMONSTRATIONANDECONOMIC
ASSESSMENTFORIGCCAPPLICATIONS
Award#:DE-FE0026185
ProjectKickoffMeeting | December7th,2015
Liang-Shih FanDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
Outline
• Background• ProjectTeam• TechnicalApproach• ProjectManagement
Metal Oxide as Oxygen Carrier:
Oxidizerreduced
metal oxideoxidation
CH4
Reducermetal oxidereduction
Air
FeO/Fe
Fe2O3
CO2 + H2O Depleted AirCombustion: Complete Fuel Oxidation
FeO/Fe + Air (O2) à Fe2O3
Fe2O3 + CH4 à FeO/Fe + CO2 + H2O(oxidized) (reduced)
Chung, E.Y., Wang, W.K., Alkhatib, H., Nadgouda, S., Jindra, M.A., Sofranko, J.A., Fan, L.-S. 2015 AIChE Spring Meeting. April 2015.Chueh, W. C., Falter, C., Abbott, M., Scipio, D., Furler, P., Haile, S.M., Steinfeld, A. Science. 2010.
Reducer:
Oxidizer:
CO + H2Gasification: Partial Fuel Oxidation
FeO/Fe + Air (O2) à Fe2O3
Fe2O3 + CH4à FeO/Fe + CO + H2(oxidized) (reduced)
Reducer:
Oxidizer:
Oxidizerreduced
metal oxideoxidation
CH4
Reducermetal oxidereduction
Air
FeO/Fe
Fe2O3
Depleted Air
Solar/Nuclear Chemical Looping: Water SplittingChemicals Production: Selective OxidationHydrocarbons
Chemicals(Olefins)
Solar Energyor
Nuclear Energy
O2
Oxidized Metal Oxide
Reduced Metal Oxide Oxidizer
reduced metal oxideoxidation
Reducermetal oxidereductionOxidized
Metal Oxide
Reduced Metal Oxide Oxidizer
reduced catalytic metal oxideoxidation
Reducercatalytic
metal oxidereduction
Air
Depleted Air
H2O
H2
Chemical Looping Redox Applications
Luo, S., Zeng, L., Fan, L.-S., Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. July 2015.
Fixed Bed Tests
1998
Bench Scale Tests
2001
Pilot Scale Demonstration
2010 to date
Sub-Pilot CDCL Process Tests
2007
CCR Process
SCL ProcessSTS
Process
ParticleSynthesis
1993
TGA Tests
Evolution of OSU Chemical Looping Technology
Fan, L.-S., Zeng, L., Luo, S. AIChE Journal. 2015.
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
200 400 600 800 1000
Temperature (C)
PCO
2/PC
O
Fe2O3
Fe3O4
FeO
Fe1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
200 400 600 800 1000
Temperature (C)
PCO
2/PC
O
Fe2O3
Fe3O4
FeO
Fe
Fluidized Bed Moving Bed
Chemical Looping Reactor Design
Large Small
Feed
stock Coal
NaturalGasOilPetcokeBiomassWasteSyngasF-Tlighthydrocarbon
Driver Chemical Looping
Combustion (CLC)Chemical LoopingGasification (CLG)Carbonation-Calcination Reaction(CCR)CalciumLoopingProcess(CLP)DirectChemicalSynthesis (withEcoCatalytic)
Applica
tionsand
Produ
cts CO2 Capture/Emission
ControlElectricity/heat• RetrofittoPC• NewPlant• CombinedCycle• SOFCHydrogenCLGSyngasLiquidfuel• F-TSynthesis• CO2 Hydrogenation• OlefinstoLiquidFuelChemicals• Olefins• Ammonia
Metal Oxide Development
Thomas, T. J., Fan, L.-S., Gupta, P., Velazquez-Vargas, L.G. U.S. Patent 7,767,191.
OSU Chemical Looping Platform Technology
OSU Chemical Looping Platform Processes
Counter-current: Full Combustion Co-current: Full Gasification
Fan, L.-S., Zeng, L., Luo, S. AIChE Journal. 2015.
Simplicity: One Loop
Unique Reducer Configuration:
Moving Bed
Unique Flow Controller:
Non-Mechanical L-Valve
Two Basic Modes
CO2 out
MOVING BEDREDUCER
Fuel in
MOVING BEDREDUCER
Fuel in
Syngas out
FLUIDIZED BEDCOMBUSTOR
FLUIDIZED BEDCOMBUSTOR
Fe2O3
Fe/FeO Fe/FeO
Fe2O3
Air in
Depleted Air Depleted Air
Air in
• Ease insyngasproductionandqualitycontrol– Mildoperationcondition (850-1,000℃)– Advancedoxygencarrierparticlecanhelpachievehighsyngas yieldand
selectivity (>90%,lowinCH4,H2O,CO2)• Standaloneandflexibleenergymanagement
– Noneedforgasifierandairseparation unit– Effective integration withIGCCprocess
• Efficiency improvement andcostreduction
CLG Process Advantages
GEE OSU CLG
Gasifier/ReducerInput
H2O (mol H2O/mol C) 0.426 0.01 - 0.4
Gasifier/ReducerOutput
H2 (mol H2/mol C) 0.678 0.48-0.70
CO(mol CO/mol C) 0.707 0.91-0.93
CO2 (mol CO2/mol C) 0.270 0.09-0.06*Carbon value based on as-received coal (Illinois #6)
Stan
dard
Gib
bs F
ree
Ener
gy o
f Rea
ctio
ns (k
J/m
olO
2)
Temperature (oC)
Modified Ellingham Diagram
OxygenCarrierSelection
Reactivityandrecyclabilityofselectedparticleconfirmed
ClassicalThermodynamics:CH4 andFe2O3
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
%CH4 conversion– 99.80%Co
nver
sion
, Yie
ld (%
)
(1.38)(0.38)
H2/CO = 1.97
92.14 %
Fe2O3/CH4 molar ratio
IncreasingFe2O3/CH4 ratiodecreasessyngasyield,whichqualitativelyagreeswithabinitio thermodynamiccalculation
%SolidConversion– 33.33%
Oxygen Vacancy Rich Oxygen Vacancy Lean
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
%Con
version
Fe2O3/Cinput (molarratio)
%Syngas%Solids%Cconv.
92.8%
Fuel input100 % Illinois #6 Coal
Carbonconversion– 100.0%
0.35
0.90
ClassicalThermodynamics:100%Coal
• CoalmixedwithOxygenCarrierparticles• Tests performed:
• Methanetosyngas• Sub-bituminous andbituminous coaltosyngas• Co-injectionofmethane• Co-injectionofmethaneandsteam
CLGBenchScaleStudies
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 20 40 60 80
Concentra
tion(%,D
ry)
Time(min)
H2
CO
CO2
CH40%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Con
cent
ratio
n / P
urity
Time (min)
SyngasPurity
H2
CO
CO2
CH4
• Coalvolatiletests:CH4 tosyngas• CH4 conversion:>95%• Syngaspurity:>88%• H2:CORatio:2:1
• CoalTests:PRB• Coalconversion:>93%• Syngaspurity:>88%• H2:CORatio:0.64:1
• H2 richsyngasproducedco-injectingCH4 andH2Oco-injectionwithPRBcoal
• H2:CORatio:~1.8• Syngaspurity:>85%
Coal Volatile Tests
Temp.: 1000oCOC Flow: 20g/minCH4 Flow: 1.8 SLPMN2 Flow: 0.2 SLPM
Temp.:1000oCOC:20g/minCoal:4g/minN2:1 SLPM
Temp.:1000oCOC:20g/minCoal: 0.9g/minCH4:1.2SLPMH2O: 0.8g/minN2:1SLPM
PRB Coal TestsCo-Injection Test with PRB Coal
Coal:CH4:H2O:Fe2O3≈4:6:5:7 (mole ratio)
CLGBenchScaleStudies
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 11 22 33 44 55 66
Concentration(%,D
ry)
Time(min)
H2
CO
CO2CH4
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
0 50 100 150 200
Gas
conc
entra
tion,
dry
bas
e, N
2 fr
ee
Time (min)
Illinois #6 Coal TestHigh CO2 Syngas Generation
CO2
CO
H2
CH4
Temp.: 1000oCOC Flow: 23g/minCoal:3g/minCH4 Flow: 0.87 SLPM
Temp.: 1000oCOC Flow: 20g/minCoal:2.8g/minCH4 Flow: 0.75 SLPM
• Sub-bituminouscoal(PRB)andbituminouscoal(Illinois#6)testedwithCH4 co-injection
• Highpuritysyngasgenerationachieved• H2:COratioof1:1achievedbyadjustingCH4
flowrateforbothcoalstested• SyngaswithvariableCO:CO2 ratiocanbe
generated• ExtremecaseofCO:CO2=0.1shownbelow
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Coc
nent
ratio
n / P
urity
Time (min)
PRB Coal Test
SyngasPurity
H2
CO
CO2CH4
CLGBenchScaleStudies
Temp.: 950oCOC Flow: 20g/minCoal:0.75 g/minH4O Flow: 0.56 g/min
Ø 100%MethaneConversion
Ø 90%SyngasPurity
Ø 2:1Ratio– Suitablefor
LiquidFuelSynthesis
ExperimentalStudies– CoalVolatileTests
Ambient Air
ShellQuenchGasifier
WaterGas Shift
Coal
CoalPreparation
Low Temp Cooling&
Mercury Removal
Acid GasRemoval
(Rectisol)Sour
Syngas Bypass
SweetSyngas
CO2Compressor
CO2Product
MethanolSynthesis
CrudeMethanolProduct
Flash Gas &Tail Gas fromMethanolSynthesis toSteam Production
Sour WaterSystem
SourWater
ClausPlant
AcidGas
Sour Gas SulfurProduct
StrippedWaterFlash Gas
ElevatedPressure
ASU
WetScrubbin
g
Solid Waste
Coal Gasification for Methanol Production: DOE Baseline (Traditional) Process
N2
O2
National Energy Technology Lab. U.S. DOE/NETL Report 341-101514, 2014.
Steam
Ambient Air
OSUReducer
Coal
Low Temp Cooling&
Mercury Removal
Acid GasRemoval
(Rectisol)SweetSyngas
CO2Compressor
CO2Product
MethanolSynthesis
CrudeMethanolProduct
Tail Gas fromMethanolSynthesis toSteam ProductionSour Water
System
SourWater
ClausPlant
AcidGas
Sour Gas SulfurProduct
StrippedWaterFlash Gas
OSU Oxidizer
Coal Gasification for Methanol Production: OSU Process
N2
Sour Syngas
Fe2O3
2FeO
Kathe, M., Xu, D., Hsieh, T. L., Simpson, J., Statnick, R., Tong, A., Fan, L.-S. 2014. OSTI: 1185194.
Steam
18
• AlowermethanolRequiredSellingPriceby$0.37/gal,a21%decrease• Lowertotalplantcapitalcostsby28%• Lowerthecapitalcostforsyngasgenerationequipmentbyover50%• Higherefficiencybased14% incoalconsumption• AmethanolRequiredSellingPricelowerthanthereference non-
capturecase,whichresults inCO2 capturecostlessthan0.
OverallTechno-EconomicAnalysisSummary
Stream MassFlowlb/hr
Case DOE/NETLMBL-1,MBL-2 OSU-1 OSU-2
AsReceivedCoal 1,618,190 1,395,457 718,631
NaturalGastoOSUCLG NA NA 272,290
Oxygen fromAirSeparationUnit 10,10,968(95%O2) NA NASteamtogasifier,reformer,quench,
OSUCLG 1,533,584 1,624,318 693,587
Cleansyngasformethanolproduction 1,183,080 1,025,106 1,039,864
CapturedCO2 1,569,410(MLB-2) 1,302,138 663,393
Kathe, M., Xu, D., Hsieh, T. L., Simpson, J., Statnick, R., Tong, A., & Fan, L.-S. Chemical Looping Gasification for Hydrogen Enhanced Syngas Production with In-Situ CO2 Capture. 2014. OSTI: 1185194.
Performance modelling Results: 10,000 mtpd crude methanol system
DOE baseline OSU CTS
Methanol Required Sale Price ($/gal):
DOE baseline: 1.78OSU CTS: 1.41
Gas
ifica
tion
equi
pmen
t cap
ital c
ost
( $M
M/1
0,00
0 tp
dcr
ude
met
hano
l)
∆
$1,888 MM
$913 MM
$1,145 MM
$363 MM
$743 MM
$549 MM
Cost Analysis: Total Plant Capital Cost for 10,000 ton/day Methanol Production from Coal
Equipment Cost
Equipment Cost
BEC, Contingency
BEC, Contingency
Kathe, M., Xu, D., Hsieh, T. L., Simpson, J., Statnick, R., Tong, A., Fan, L.-S. 2014. OSTI: 1185194.
Outline
• Background• ProjectTeam• TechnicalApproach• ProjectManagement
Government Agencies• DOE/NETL: Darryl Shockley• Ohio Development Service Agency: Gregory PayneProject Partners• Ohio State University: Liang-Shih Fan (PI), Andrew Tong
(Co-PI)• WorleyParsons: James Simpson• Clear Skies: Robert Statnick
ProjectTeam
Outline
• Background• ProjectTeam• TechnicalApproach• ProjectManagement
• PrepareChemicalLoopingGasification(CLG)technologyforacommerciallyrelevantdemonstrationby2020
• DesignandconstructanintegratedCLGsystematsub-pilotscalewithcoalasitsfeedstock– Continuouslyoperate thesystemanddemonstrate syngasandH2
production– Investigate thefatesofsomeimportant impurities, suchassulfurand
nitrogen
• Conducttechno-economicanalysisandoptimizetheCLGprocessforefficientelectricitygenerationwithreducedcarbonemission
TechnicalApproach- ProjectObjectives
TechnicalApproach– TasksandSchedule
TechnicalApproach– TasksandSchedule
15kWth Sub-PilotReactorDesign• Integrated3-reactorsystem
– Non-mechanicaldevices– Computerizeddataacquisitionandprocesscontrol
• Design,Construction,andCommissioning– Detaileddesignandsafetyreview– Reactorfabrication– Installationonexistingstructure– Leakcheck,instrumentcalibration,functionalchecks,andfinalsafetyreview
Existing Structure
3”
Gas inlet
Gas outlet
Solids inlet
Solids outlet
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PressureDropThroughFuelReactor(in.H2
O)
GasFlowRate,SLPM
Fuel Reactor Design
• Co-Current Move Bed Arrangement
• Top Gas/Solids In• Bottom Gas/Solids Out
• Dipleg for solids/gas inlet
• Pressure Drop• Gas-Solids Relative
Velocity• Ergun Equation• Pressure Drop v.s.
Velocity
ColdFlowModelStudies
15kWth Sub-PilotReactorOperation• Parametricstudies
– Coal:Fe2O3 ratio– Coal:H2Oratio– Temperature– Residence time– Verifyperformance model
• PerformanceParameters– Coalconversion
𝑋"#$% =𝑛(,*+,-"+* + 𝑛(,"#/0-12#* + 𝑛(,#34,45+*
𝑛(,"#$%– Carboncaptureefficiency
𝜂( =𝑛(,*+,-"+* + 𝑛(,#34,45+*
𝑛(,"#$%– Syngaspurity
𝑆 = 𝑥(9,*+,-"+* + 𝑥:;,*+,-"+*– Gasification thermalefficiency
𝜂2 =𝐻𝐻𝑉*+,-"+* + 𝐻𝐻𝑉#34,45+*
𝐻𝐻𝑉"#$%
TechnicalApproach– TasksandSchedule
u Leading professional services provider to the energy, resource, and complex process industries
u Organized into Customer Sector Groups:
30
Company Overview
UpstreamHydrocarbonsFixed Offshore FacilitiesFloating Production SystemsDeepwater Solutions Subsea SystemsOffshore PipelinesOnshore PipelinesOnshore Oil & Gas Production FacilitiesHeavy Oil and Oil SandsLNGTerminals
DownstreamHydrocarbonsRefining PetrochemicalsChemicalsPolymersGasificationSulphur Management
PowerCoal-Fired PlantsAdvanced CoalNuclearGas Turbine/Combined CycleAir Quality ControlIntegrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)Transmission NetworksOperations & MaintenanceRenewable Energy
Minerals, Metals & ChemicalsBase MetalsCoalChemicalsFerrous MetalsAluminaAluminumIron OreGas Cleaning
Infrastructure &EnvironmentResource InfrastructureUrban InfrastructureCoastal and MarineWater and WastewaterTransportEnvironment
Techno-Economic Assessment
u Objectives: 1. Develop process models and configurations for and IGCC power
generation facilities incorporating OSU CLG technology.2. Develop economic comparison of facility designs incorporating
OSU CLG technology to IGCC reference cases.u Activities:
• Develop process models of OSU CLG technology in Aspen• Incorporate OSU CLG technology modules in Aspen IGCC process
models.• Estimate capital and operating costs based on Aspen modeling of
processes• Perform financial analysis to determine power production costs and
cost of CO2 captured.• Compare costs to DOE/NETL reference cases
u Reference IGCC Power Production: • IGCC cases from Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil
Energy Plants Volume 1b: Bituminous Coal (IGCC) to Electricity Revision 2b.
u OSU CLG Cases• No capture with 2 reactor CLG configuration• CO2 capture with 2 reactor CLG configuration
Options Considered
CTS SYSTEM #1 (No CCS)
ReducerCoal
Preparation
Acid Gas
Removal
( H2S)
Sour Water
System
Sour
Water
Claus
Plant
Acid
Gas
Sour Gas
Sulfur
Product
Stripped Water
Air Nitrogen Diluent
Compressor
As Received
Coal
Ash Removal
Steam Gas Cooling
BFW Heating
& Knockout
Mercury
Removal
Spent-Air
to Stack
Gas
Turbine
Combustor
Air
2Χ Advanced
F CLASS
GAS TURBINE
Turbine Cooling AirElectricity
Production
HRSG
Steam
Turbine
HRSG
Combustor
Fe
O /
Fe F
e2 O
3
Syngas
Syngas
Reheat
&
Humidification
CTS SYSTEM #2 (90% CCS)
2 Reactor Design:
Acid GasRemoval(Selexol) CO2 free
syngas
CO2 CompressorCO2
Product
Sour WaterSystem
SourWater
ClausPlant
AcidGas
Sour Gas SulfurProduct
Stripped Water
Nitrogen Diluent
Gas CoolingBFW Heating& Knockout
MercuryRemoval
Spent-Airto Stack
Gas Turbine
Combustor
Ambient Air
2Χ AdvancedF CLASS
GAS TURBINE
Turbine Cooling AirElectricity Production
HRSG
SteamTurbine
HRSG
ReducerCoalPreparation
Air
Compressor
Ash Removal
Steam
Combustor
FeO
/ Fe Fe2 O
3
Syngas
ShiftReactors
Quench,Scrubbing
As Received Coal
Syngas Reheat
& Humidification
Evaluation Basis
u Fuel: Bituminous Coalu CO2 Removal: >90% based on raw syngas carbon contentu CO2 Product
• CO2 Purity: Enhanced Oil Recovery as listed in Exhibit 2-1 of the NETL QGESS titled “CO2 Impurity Design Parameters”. *
• CO2 Delivery Pressure: 2,215 psia• Transport and Storage (T&S): $10/tonne
u Plant Size: Sufficient syngas to fill two advanced F class gas turbines, 500-550 MW.
u Power Block: 2x1 Configuration, advanced F class gas turbinesu Ambient Conditions: Greenfield, Midwestern USAu Capacity Factor: 80%u Financial Structure: High risk IOU, capital charge factor = 0.124
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/refshelf/PubDetails.aspx?Action=View&PubId=420
Capital and Operating Costs
u Reference Case• Capital and O&M cost will be determined from costs presented
DOE/NETL Cost and Performance Baseline Studies for coal-fired power.
u OSU CLG System• Sizing information of reactors and consumption rates for
consumables will be developed from Aspen modeling and guidance from OSU.
• ICARUS, from Aspen Tech., and in house parametric models will be used for developing costs for reactor vessels, absorbers, and other specialized process equipment based on the equipment size, basic design, and materials of construction information.
• Factored estimates for equipment such as pumps
Capital Cost Breakdown
u Costs will be presented in 2011 dollarsu Factored estimates for equipment such as pumpsu Capital costs breakdown will be provided to illustrate the
contribution of various accounts (such as Coal & Sorbent Handling and Instrumentation & Control) to the total plant costs.
u Breakdown of accounts will include:• Equipment• Material• Labor
• Engineering, Construction• Management, Home Office and Fees• Process and Project Contingencies
Operating and Maintenance Costs Breakdownu Operation and maintenance cost breakdown will
include:Fixed Variable
• Operating Labor• Maintenance Labor• Administrative & Support
Labor• Property Taxes and
Insurance• Maintenance Material
• Consumables• Water• Oxygen carrier• Solvents
• Waste Disposal• Fuel
Economic Analysis
u Purpose:• Compare Cost of Electricity (COE) for systems including OSU CLC
technology to reference case developed by DOE/NETL.• Provide understanding of factors that impact COE
u Activities:• Determine COE and LCOE and cost of CO2 captured using DOE/NETL
Power Systems Financial Model or similar in house models.• Explore sensitivity of metrics on input parameters to economic model
including:− process efficiency− capital costs− operating costs
u Deliverables• Design basis report• Quarterly updates• Final techno-economic report
Outline
• Background• ProjectTeam• TechnicalApproach• ProjectManagement
NETL/DOE(
Prof.(Tong(Co1PI(
WorleyParsons( Postdoctoral(Research(Associate(
Techno'Economic+Analysis+Task%5%
2(Graduate(Research(Associates(
Prof.(Fan(PI(
4(Graduate(Research(Associates(
2(Postdoctoral(Research(Associates(
Detailed(Design(Task%2%
ConstrucEon(and(Commissioning(
Task%3%
Integrated(Unit(OperaEons(Task%4%
Clear(Skies(ConsulEng(
Project(Management(and(Planning(
Task%1%
ProjectManagement
FederalFunding CostShareTheOhioStateUniversity $1,274,516 $157,186WorleyParsons $195,484 -ClearSkiesConsulting $30,000 $34,133OhioDevelopmentServicesAgency $500,000Total $1,500,000 $686,000
Category BudgetPersonnel $649,976FringeBenefits $152,252Travel $45,000Equipment $125,000Supplies $80,813Contractual $354,762Other $202,805TotalDirectCharges $1,610,608IndirectCharges $575,392Totals $2,186,000
ProjectBudget
Budget Period Task Number Milestone Title/Description Planned
Completion DateVerification
Method
1 2Sub-pilot test unit design and quotes finalized and within budget 3/31/2016
Quarterly Report
1 3Sub-pilot system installation and commissioning completed 9/30/2016
Quarterly Report
1 4100 hours of cumulative sub-pilot unit operation achieved 2/28/2017 Final Report
1 5 Design basis for CLG-IGCC defined 12/31/2015Quarterly
Report
1 5Techno-Economic assessment of CLG for IGCC Application Completed
3/31/2017 Final Report
MilestoneLog
Thanks