Fast-tracking CCS Commercialisation through Modelling and Simulation

Eni Oko and Meihong Wang Process and Energy Systems Research Group, School of Engineering University of Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom

IChemE Hull and Humber Event: Summer Social and CCS Technical TalkJuly 29, 2015, Minerva Hotel Hull

Process and Energy Systems Research

Prof Meihong WangGroup Leader

3 Research staff, 9 PhDs and academic visitors

Research area: Power plant, CO2 capture and transport processes, Bio-energy, Energy storage

Collaborators: Industry >> COSTAIN, Alstom, CCS Ltd etc. Academia >> Imperial College, Newcastle, Sheffield, Tsinghua (China), Valenciennes (France) etc.

Funding: EPSRC, DECC, EU Marie Curie etc

Outline

Background

Status of commercial CCS projects

Challenges facing CCS commercialization

Solvent screening

Process configuration for PCC

Retrofitting PCC to power plant

Steady state/Dynamic simulations

Conclusion

1. Background

1.1 Climate change

Greenhouse gases (76% CO2)

Average temperature rise more than 2oC = disaster!

800 ppm by 2100 >>>>> Average global temperature rise of 4oC

Global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980-1999)1

Concentration of atmospheric CO2 (ppm)2

1.2 Consequences

1.3 Mind-boggling CO2 stat

CO2 is mostly from power generation sector

500 MWe Coal-fired subcritical power plant emits about 10000 tons of CO2/day

Similar size CCGT power plant emits about 4000 tons of CO2/day

Thousands of coal-fired and gas-fired power plants in operation globally

Concentration of atmospheric CO2 (ppm)3

UK Grid watch4

1.4 Cap CO2 emission: Options

CO2 emission to be halved by 2050

CCS offers economic and realistic option for CERT by 2050

CO2 emission reduction will cost more without CCS (up to 70%)

IEA BLUE Map Scenario5

1.2 Options for CCS

Post-combustion CO2 (PCC) is the most matured CCS technology route

Retrofit capability

Relies on established technologies

High technology readiness level (TRL)

Most first generation CCS projects based on PCC

2. Status of commercial CCS projects

2.1 Existing/Planned CCS ProjectsBoundary Dam CCS, Canada, (2014)

Kemper County CCS, Mississippi (2015)

ROAD CCS, Netherland (2017)

Petra Nova CCS, Texas (2016)

Peterhead CCS, Scotland (2017)

White Rose CCS, (2017)

For more on CCS projects, refer to MIT CCS Database5

3. Challenges facing CCS commercial projects

Kemper County

Petra Nova

HECA TCEP Boundary Dam

Bow City ROAD0

1

2

3

4

5

6 5.6

1.0

4.0

1.71.4

2.9

1.6

Total Cost ($ Billion)

Kemper County

Petra Nova HECA TCEP Boundary Dam

Bow City ROAD0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Power Output (MWe)

3.1 Challenges Ridiculous cost/MWe generated

SaskPower (Boundary Dam) convinced to cut cost by 20-30% in future projects

Boundary Dam competitive with CCGT with revenues from sales of CO2,

sulphuric acid and fly ash Energy penalty >>> Build more plants!

3.1 Challenges Pipeline route corridor

Nearness of sites to densely populated area

Storage site In Salah, Algeria project (2004-11) Onshore storage ban (Netherland, 2010)

3.1 Challenges

Government policies

Carbon price under the EU ETS (€/tCO2)

Technological uncertainty

Many stakeholders with varying interests

European Emission Allowance (EUA) – EEX6

Nuon Magnum CCS, NetherlandSuspended due to new law on onshore storage

Longannet CCS, ScotlandCancelled due to lack of commercial viability

Tenaska (Trailblazer) CCS, Texas Cancelled due to lack of commercial viability

AEP Mountaineer CCS Phase II, Texas Cancelled due to unknown climate policy

3.2 Cancelled/Suspended CCS projects

GETICA Demo CCS, Romania Suspended due to lack of funding

Porto Telle CCS, Italy Suspended due to legislative and permitting issues

4. Solvent screening

4.1 Solvents for PCC

Aqueous Monoethanolamine (MEA) Equipment corrosion

High solvent degradation

High regeneration energy requirement

Environmental problems due to fugitive

emissions

Large equipment sizes due to high

circulation rates

Efficiency penalty of 10-12%

Low cost

Process comparison7

4.1 Solvents for PCC

Amine-based solvents Methyl-Diethanolamine (MDEA)

Piperazine (PZ)

Piperidine (PIP)

Diethanolamine (DEA)

Methyl-monoethanolamine (MMEA)

Diglycolamine (DGA)

Diisopropylamine (DIPA)

Piperazinyl-1,2-ethylamine (PZEA)

2-Amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP)

Amine solvent blends

Absorption efficency8

Regeneration efficency8

4.1 Solvents for PCC

Non amine-based solvents Aqueous ammonia

Chilled ammonia

High energy demand

Ionic liquid

Low environmental impact

Great thermal stability

High boiling point

Flue gas cooler unnecessary

High viscosity >> bad news!

Very expensive

Proprietary solvents KS-1 (KM-CDR)

Petra-Nova CCS

CanSolv (Shell)

Boundary Dam CCS

ABB Lummus/Kerr McGee

Siemens PostCap

Flour Econamine FGSM and FG PlusSM

Chilled Ammonia Process (Alstom)

Mountaineer CCS Phase 1

5. Process configurations for PCC

Conventional PCC9 + Absorber intercooler case9

+ Condensate heating case9 + Condensate evacuation and evaporation case9

+ Stripper overhead compression case9+ Lean amine flash case9

+ Heat integration case9+ Multi-pressure stripping case9

+ Split-amine flow case9

+ Multiple modifications (absorber intercooling, condensate evaporation and lean amine flash) case 9

6. Retrofitting PCC to power plant

6.1 Retrofit requirements

Flue gas connection to absorber >> Cooler, desulphurization, blower etc

Reboiler steam

Upstream power plant cycle >> Condensate return to power cycle

Auxiliary boiler power externally by solar, natural gas etc suggested

Stripper pressure of about 1.90 bar (Reboiler temperature of about 120oC, Reboiler steam

needed at 3-4 bar , Energy of 1-6 MW/kg CO2 is needed)

+ Ancillary boiler and optional BP turbine case10

6.2 Steam cycle options

+ New LP cylinder and let-down turbine case10 + Pass-out backpressure turbine case10

(from hot RH or IP exit depending on access and pressures available and required)

+ Two backpressure turbine case10

(from hot RH or IP exit depending on access and pressures available and required)

+ Two throttle valves case10

6.2 Steam cycle options

Integrated CCGT and coal-fired power plant case11

7. Steady state/Dynamic simulations

7.2 Steady state simulation

What should be the capacity of downstream CCS systems?

Operating boundaries for CCS at different power plant load?

How different variables respond as load changes? Etc

E.g. 500 MWe coal-fired subcritical power plant

Absorber sizes

7.2 Dynamic simulation

Can CCS units cope with the inevitable and persistent changes in load

without limiting the desired flexible capability of the power plant?

Small changes in load will not cause significant fluctuations along transport

pipeline for PCC. This is not the case for Oxyfuel!

PCC is considerably slower > special control design!

8. Modelling and simulation tools

gPROMS ModelBuilder/gCCS Mobatec Modeller

Aspen Plus OLGA

9. Conclusion

CCS is a bridging technology for reaching low carbon energy future

First commercial CCS project has taken off regardless of cancellations of many

Many projects will become operational soon

Regardless, commercialisation plans beset by lots of difficulties

Process modelling and simulation is an economic, sustainable and safe option for

improving CCS design and operation and thereby hasten its commercialization

References1. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html [Accessed July, 2015]

2. http://co2now.org/ [Accessed July, 2015]

3. IEA, 2011. CO2 emission from fuel combustion highlights

4. IEA, 2010. Energy technology perspectives: Scenarios and strategy to 2050. Available at:

http://www.iea.org/techno/etp/etp10/English.pdf [Accessed Sept., 2014]

5. MIT CCS Database. http://sequestration.mit.edu/index.htmlA

6. EEA – EEX. https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/emission-allowances/spot-market/european-emission-allowances#!/

2015/07/29

7. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Flue gas CO2 capture. Available at:

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/energy_workshops_04_04/carbon_iijima.pdf [Accessed July, 2015]

8. Dubois, L and Thomas, D. Screening aqueous amine-based solvents for post-combustion CO 2 capture by chemical absorption.

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2012, 35, No. 3, 513–524

9. Ahn, H., Luberti, M., Liu, Z. and Brandani, S. Process configuration studies of the amine capture process for coal-fired power

plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 16 (2013) 29–40

10. Lucquiaud, M. and Gibbins, J. Steam cycle options for the retrofit of coal and gas power plants with post-combustion capture.

Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 1812-1819

11. Rio, M.S., Lucquiaud, M. and Gibbins, J. Maintaining the power output of an existing coal plant with the addition of CO 2:

Retrofits options with gas turbine combined cycle plants. Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 2530-2541

Thank you for your Attention!

Contact:Prof Meihong Wang Tel.: +44 1482 466688 E-mail address: Meihong.Wang@hull.ac.uk

Dr Eni OkoTel.: +44 (0) 7447947024 E-mail address: e.oko@hull.ac.uk