final fossil energy r&d for clean power production 1c...advanced steam cycles in coal-based...

Robert Romanosky Crosscu'ng Research Technology Manager

10 April 2013

Fossil Energy Research and Development for Clean Power Produc>on

Spring 2013 Clean Energy Seminars Penn State, EMS Energy Ins>tute

Na;onal Energy Technology Laboratory

Development Data Group, The World Bank. 2008; Popula<on Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Na<ons Secretariat: IEA Sta<s<cs Division

Energy Contributes to Quality of Life

Eritrea

Congo Peru

Bulgaria

Mexico

UK

Bahrain

U.S. Qatar

GDP

per Cap

ita

(US$ / person / yr)

Annual Energy Consump>on per Capita (kgoe / person / yr)

China

India

South Africa

GDP vs. Energy Consumption

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Gas 23%

Nuclear 6%

Renewables 14%

Oil 27%

Coal 30%

Gas 25%

Nuclear 9%

Renewables 14%

Oil 32%

Coal 20%

Gas 21% Nuclear

6%

Renewables 13%

Oil 33%

Coal 27%

Gas 25%

Nuclear 9%

Renewables 8%

Oil 37%

Coal 21%

Sources: U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2012: World data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011

726 QBtu / Year 80% Fossil Energy


+ 14%

Energy Demand 2009 95 QBtu / Year

83% Fossil Energy


28,844 mmt CO2 43,320 mmt CO2

5,425 mmt CO2 8,806 mmt CO2

Energy Demand 2035

United States

World

+ 51%

•  Only government owned & operated DOE na;onal lab •  Dedicated to energy RD&D, domes;c energy resources •  Fundamental science through technology demonstra;on

•  Unique industry–academia–government collabora;ons

Na>onal Energy Technology Laboratory Where Energy Challenges Converge and Energy Solu3ons Emerge

West Virginia Pennsylvania Oregon

Core Program Components Office of Coal and Power R&D

Total FY 2012 Funding ~ $333 Million

•  Carbon Capture -‐ $68.9 Million

•  Carbon Storage -‐ $115.4 Million

•  Advanced Energy Systems-‐ $99.9 Million

–  Advanced Combus;on -‐ $15.9 Million

–  Gasifica;on -‐ $39 Million

–  Turbines -‐ $15 Million

–  Fuel Cells -‐ $25 Million

–  Fuels -‐ $5 Million

•  Crosscucng Research -‐ $49.1 Million

Working in synergy, these programs are developing technologies to increase power plant efficiency, lower electricity costs and mi>gate GHG emissions in both exis>ng and advanced power facili>es

-‐  Strong likelihood of cap-‐and-‐trade legisla>on.

-‐  EOR applica>ons seen as niche opportunity to offset some cost;

-‐  Oil $50 -‐ $60/barrel; -‐  CCS storage focus with CO2 tax support.

-‐  Natural gas -‐ $11.25/MMBTU

Goal by 2020: + 35% LCOE

LCOE: Levelized Cost of Electricity

Times Have Changed Then

-‐  Cap-‐and-‐trade legisla>on unlikely in the near term.

-‐  No deadlines for u>li>es, no reason to invest in carbon capture and storage.

-‐  Oil more expensive = >$90/barrel; global compe>>on stronger.

-‐  CCUS has been successfully developed in FE demos.

-‐  Natural gas -‐ $3.52/MMBTU

Current Capture Cost: $70-‐90/Ton Goal R&D Complete by 2020: $40/Ton

Carbon Capture Cost can support a long-‐term business case to invest.

Now

Gasifica>on with Cleanup

Separa>on

Crosscucng Technologies

for Design, Construc;on, & Opera;on

Carbon Capture,

U>liza>on, & Sequestra>on

Op>mized Turbines

Overview Areas of Research and Development and Key Technologies for Advanced Power Genera>on and Carbon Management

Oxy Combus>on

Computa>onal Modeling

Crosscucng Research Program "   Improving Plant Maintainability & Availability "   Advanced Technology Modeling & Prototyping "   Increasing Power Systems Efficiency

Reflec>ve of industry needs and drives new technology

Bridge the gap between fundamental & applied technology

q Advanced Materials •  Ultrasupercri;cal Boilers & Turbines •  High-‐strength metallic & intermetallic alloys •  High Performance Materials

q Sensors and Controls •  High Temperature Material & Sensor Designs •  Sensors Networks and Advanced Control

q Modeling and Simula>ons •  High fidelity models of advanced power systems •  Advanced power system simula;ons •  Carbon Capture Simula;on Ini;a;ve •  Na;onal Risk Assessment Partnership

q University Training and Research (UTR) q Historically Black Colleges & Universi>es (HBCU) q Mercury and Water Control

Research Focus

Primary Driver for Advanced Sensing •  Harsh process condi>ons that need on-‐line & con>nuous monitoring to

achieve & maintain efficiency •  Monitoring to assess condi>on of unit or system so total cost of ownership is

low via predictable reliability & high plant availability. •  Improve process control by genera>ng “ac>onable informa>on”

Gasifiers •  Up to 1600 °C •  Up to 1000 PSI •  Erosive, corrosive, &

highly reducing

Combustion Turbines •  Up to 1300 °C •  Pressure ratios of 30:1 •  Thermal shock, highly oxidative

Contribu>on from Sensors and Controls Value Derived for an Exis<ng Coal Fired Power Plant

1% HEAT RATE improvement Ø  500 MW net capacity unit

•  $780,000/yr coal cost savings •  1% reduc;on in gaseous and solid

emissions Ø  En;re coal-‐fired fleet

•  $340 million/yr coal cost savings •  Reduc;on of 13.8 million

metric tons CO2 per year 1% increase in AVAILABILITY

Ø  500 MW net capacity unit 44 million kWh/yr added genera;on •  Approximately $2.6 million/yr in sales (@ 6 cents/kWh)

Ø  En;re coal-‐fired fleet •  More than 2 GW of addi;onal power from exis;ng fleet

Analysis based on 2011 coal costs and 2011 coal-‐fired power plant fleet (units greater than 300 MW)

1% Improvements/increases are easily achievable. Sensors and Controls can

enable improvements to be maintained for long term.

Coal 35,700 MMBTU/yr $70 Million/yr @ $2/MMBTU

Power 3.5 Billion kWh/yr

@ 80% capacity factor

Availability

Source: Outage Data -‐ NERC GADS Database 7/28/10 Accessed 4/18/11; Avg. Wholesale Price Data – EIA h_p://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/wholesale/wholesale.html Wholesale Market Data, PJM West, NEPOOL, ERCOT Wtg. Avg;

2005-‐2009 Average Annual Plant Revenue Loss Due to Equipment Forced Outages and Derates (2011 $)

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

0-‐100 MW 100-‐199 MW

200-‐299 MW

300-‐399 MW

400-‐599 MW

600-‐799 MW

800-‐999 MW

1000 MW Plus

Boiler Balance of Plant Steam Turbine Generator Pollu;on Control Regulatory/Safety/Enviro.

$-‐

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

0-‐100 MW

100-‐199 MW

200-‐299 MW

300-‐399 MW

400-‐599 MW

600-‐799 MW

800-‐999 MW

1000 MW Plus

Revenue Avoided Maint. Cost

Poten>al Revenue Increase and Avoided Maintenance Costs per based on 10% Decrease in Forced and Unplanned

Maintenance Outages

Distributed Intelligence Approach

Advanced Control

Novel Control Strategies

Sensor Placement

Smart Actua>on Smart Sensors

Safe Tes>ng Environment

•  What Types and How Many, and Loca;ons

•  Decrease Redundancies

•  Increase Sensor Life

•  Use Local Informa;on •  Reduce Response Time to

System Changes

•  More Efficient Data Use •  Data Management Algorithms •  Reduce or Eliminate Centralized

Control

•  Lower-‐Level Intelligence

•  Sensor Communica;on

•  Know When and What to Measure

•  Computa;onal Environments

•  Mimic Experimental Facili;es

•  Smooth Transi;on

•  Mi;gate Risk

Crosscucng Research Materials Program GOALS: New materials need to be developed to enable advanced fossil-‐fueled power genera>on technologies to achieve market-‐based efficiency and cost goals. Evalua>on and characteriza>on of materials will ensure ability to achieve and maintain required performance over the planned life>me of the equipment at extreme opera>ng condi>ons including high temperature, high pressure, corrosive and erosive environments.

OBJECTIVES: Develop materials that can maintain structural integrity in high temperature and pressure, and extreme corrosive and erosive environments thereby enabling improved efficiency , environmental performance and plant availability of coal fired power plant genera;on fleet. Shorten material development ;me through computa;onal methods

Materials Program Increasing Power Systems Efficiency

•  Evaluate and develop materials technologies that allow use of advanced steam cycles in coal-based power plants operating at steam conditions of up to 760 °C (1400 °F) and 5,000 psi.

•  New novel materials can allow for increased temperature and pressure, resulting in power plant efficiencies of 45-47%, and CO2 emissions reduction of 15 to 20%.

•  Developing materials to enable an oxygen fired A-USC plant would lower balance of plant cost due to less coal handling and smaller pollution control components for the same net plant output.

•  Computational methods applied to the design, development, and optimization of materials accelerate creation of cost-effective, functional materials deployable with less repetitive testing; advanced plants go operational more rapidly.

•  US/UK research collaboration on advanced materials

40

60

80

100

300

500

550 600 650 700 750 800

1100 1200 1300 1400

6

8

10

30

50

70

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Average Temperature for Rupture in 100,000 hours (oC)

9-12Cr Creep-Strength Enhanced Ferritic Steels (Gr. 91, 92, 122)

Nickel-BasedAlloys

Std. 617CCA617

Inconel 740

Haynes 230

Advanced Austenitic Alloys (Super 304H, 347HFG, NF709, etc.)

Haynes 282

Average Temperature for Rupture in 100,000 hours (oF)

Stre

ss (k

si)

Materials Limit the Current Technology

°

Steels = USC 620°C (1150°F) Solid Soln’ = A-‐USC

~700°C (1300°F)

Age Hardenable = A-‐USC 760°C (1400°F)

Minimum Desired

Strength at Applica>on Temperature

Computa>onal Materials : Approach

•  An integrated mul;-‐scale computa;onal approach, complimented with a focused experimental program, emphasizing the design & op;miza;on of materials for advanced combus;on systems.

–  Computa3onal material design & op3miza3on.

–  Lab-‐scale synthesis of materials. – Mechanical & chemical assessment of materials performance in real environments

–  Simula3on of component life in conven3onal & oxy-‐fuel combus3on environments.

Computa>onal Modeling

Time

fs ps ns µs ms s ks Ms Gs

nm

µm

mm

m

km

Mm

Space

Na>onal/Global

Plant Device

Par>cles

Atoms/molecules

Molecular Dynamical Simula>ons

Ab ini>o Calcula>ons

Power Plant Simula>on

Mul>phase Flow

Computa>onal Fluid Dynamics

Simula>on-‐Based Engineering to support Clean Coal Approach

•  Goal -‐ Develop and apply simula<on and visualiza<on tools for designing/analyzing zero-‐emission, fossil energy plants of the future.

•  Approach -‐ Integrate experimental and computa<onal sciences at mul<ple scales, to generate informa<on beyond the reach of experiments alone

•  Benefits –  Speeds design, reduces risk, and saves money –  Barrier issues to FE program can be addressed in a cost effec<ve manner

“If you cannot model the process, you don’t understand it. If don’t understand it, you cannot improve it. If you cannot improve it, you cannot be compe<<ve”

Jim Trainham, ex-‐VP, Global Technology, DuPont

Computa>onal Research

•  Mul>phase Flow Research and Model Valida>on –  Fundamental R&D in model development and

valida;on for dense, reac;ng mul;phase flow –  Apply Models to Simulate Gas-‐Solids Devices

•  Gasifica;on •  Syngas Clean-‐up •  Carbon capture •  Sequestra;on •  Chemical Looping

•  Experimental program for Model Valida>on

•  Development of novel measurement techniques •  Obtain accurate and detailed data

MFIX simula;on of pilot scale KBR/Southern transport gasifier

CCSI: Accelera>ng Technology Development

Na>onal Labs Academia Industry

Iden>fy promising concepts

Reduce the >me for design &

troubleshoo>ng

Quan>fy the technical risk, to enable reaching larger

scales, earlier

Stabilize the cost during commercial deployment

CCS Deployment Challenge

•  The pathway of taking energy technologies from lab to power plant is long, 20-‐30 years

•  President’s plan requires that barriers to the widespread deployment of CCS be overcome within 10 years

•  Therefore, new approaches are needed for taking CCS concepts from lab to power plant, quickly, and at low cost and risk

•  Recent advances in science-‐based simula>ons will be brought to bear on the problem by Carbon Capture Simula>on Ini>a>ve (CCSI)

Bench Research ~ 1 kWe

Small pilot < 1 MWe

Medium pilot 1 – 5 MWe

Semi-‐works pilot 20-‐35 MWe

First commercial plant, 100 MWe

Deployment, >500 MWe, >300 plants

CCSI Example of Projected Savings in the Cost & Time

•  Avoiding rework in pilot plants: ~$18 MM •  Increasing scale-‐up size: ~$100 MM + 5 years •  Accelerated learning during deployment: ~$3 B

2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039

1 MWe

1 kWe

300 MWe

Development Progression and

Schedule with the CCSI Program

50 GWe of commercial deployments over 20 years

Learn at 30% during the first 2 doublings of cumulative installed capacity and 10% during the next 6 doublings

Avoiding rework in three ~10

MWe scale pilot plant à

~ $18 MM savings

Increase step size for next

scale demonstration à

~ $100 MM savings

5 years earlier to

commercial deployment

Accelerated learning during first 50 GWe of

commercial deployment

~$3 B savingsCCSI Program

Impacts

Net Present Value of

savings, using 10% discount

rate$560 MM

10 MWe

100 MWe

CCSI Development CCSI Toolset deployment for second gen & transformational technologies

500 MWe

Na>onal Risk Assessment Program (NRAP)

Elucidate key fundamental physics/chemistry

Predict behavior of cri>cal components

Predict system behavior (reservoir to receptor) over

space and >me

Quan>fy risk and safety rela>onships

NRAP Stakeholder Group

Wade, LLC

NRAP Technical Team

Develop a defensible, science-‐based methodology and plaxorm for quan>fying risk profiles at most types of CO2 storage sites in order to guide decision making and risk management by reducing uncertainty in the business case for long-‐term storage.

Na>onal Risk Assessment Partnership: Leveraging DOE’s Science-‐Based Predic<on Capability to Build Confidence in Engineered–Natural Systems

•  How effec;ve is geologic storage of CO2 (e.g., will it leak)?

•  What is the value of poten;al long-‐term liabili;es?

•  What is the most effec;ve and efficient approach to environmental monitoring post injec;on?

•  What are the best protocols to mi;gate poten;al for induced seismicity?

Two Key Goals •  develop toolset and suppor;ng data for science-‐ based risk assessments •  already completed the first genera>on toolset to predict leakage impacts and poten>al for induced seismicity

•  build confidence in key storage-‐security rela;onships to support decisions •  ini>a>ng phase to apply first genera>on toolset to elucidate storage-‐security rela>onships

Early es>mates predicted monitoring would be a minor component of storage costs, but Class VI requirements drive monitoring costs up.

0

5

10

US$ / tC

O2

IPCC (2005) EPA (2010) Prelim. Forma>on-‐Specific Es>mates NETL (Morgan et al., in progress)

Opera>ons Costs

Monitoring/PISC Costs

Class V

I

• Primary drivers for costs to meet class VI include:

•  long ;me frame (50 yrs)

•  large area-‐of-‐review •  large bavery of techniques

• EPA is re-‐evalua>ng class VI requirements beginning 12/2013

pre-‐Class V

I

A reduc>on of 1-‐2 $/ton CO2 would mean a savings of $50-‐250 million per project.

R&D Areas Hydrogen Turbine Performance

Cost Power

Efficiency Emissions

Combus>on

Aerodynamics & Heat Transfer System Design

Materials

Targeted Areas for H2 Turbine Improvement Turbine Improved aerodynamics, longer airfoils for a larger annulus / higher mass flow and improved internal cooling designs to minimize cooling flows while at higher temperatures

Combustor Combus;on of hydrogen fuels with single digit NOx, no flashback and minimal combus;on instability Compressor

Improved compressor efficiency through three dimensional aero dynamics for higher pressure ra;o

Rotor Increase rotor torque for higher power output and the poten;al for lowering capital cost ($/kW)

Materials Improved TBC, bond coats and base alloys for higher heat flux, thermal cycling and aggressive condi;ons (erosion, corrosion and deposi;on) in IGCC applica;ons

Leakage Reduced leakage at ;p and wall interface and reduced recircula;on at nozzle/rota;ng airfoil interface for higher turbine efficiency and less purge

Photo courtesy of Siemens Energy

Exhaust Diffuser Improved diffuser designs for higher temperature exhaust, lower pressure drop with increased mass flow

Expected Results from Advanced H2 Turbine Provides the Largest Performance Benefit to IGCC w/CCS

•  4.3 % points improvement in IGCC efficiency from reference case (1.2, 1.6, 1.5) •  Higher power and efficiency results in lower capital costs ~ $645/kW •  Cost of electricity (COE) is reduced by $16 per MWh (~15%) • With a two-‐train plant (2 GT with one steam turbine) at a capacity of ~1 GW, results in $285/kW addi>onal decrease in TOC and 8% addi>onal reduc>on in COE

1600

2000

2400

2800

3200

3600

Refe

renc

e 225

0°F

Adv.

F 24

00°F

Co

al Pu

mp

85%

CF

WGC

U H2

Mem

bran

e H2

Turb

ine 2

550°

F IT

M H2

Turb

ine 2

650°

F 90

% C

F

25

30

35

40

45

Refe

renc

e 225

0°F

Adv.

F 24

00°F

Co

al Pu

mp

85%

CF

WGC

U H2

Mem

bran

e H2

Turb

ine 2

550°

F IT

M H2

Turb

ine 2

650°

F 90

% C

F

Refe

renc

e 22

50o F

Adv.

F 24

00o F

Coal

Pum

p 85

% C

F W

GCU+

Selex

ol

WGC

U+Me

than

e

ITM

H 2 Tur

bine

2550

o F

H 2 Tur

bine

2650

o F 90

% C

F

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Refe

renc

e 225

0°F

Adv.

F 24

00°F

Co

al Pu

mp

85%

CF

WGC

U H2

Mem

bran

e H2

Turb

ine 2

550°

F IT

M H2

Turb

ine 2

650°

F 90

% C

F

Efficiency (% HHV)

Total Overnight Capital (TOC) ($/kW)

Cost of Electricity (COE) ($/MWh)

Re

fere

nce

2250

o F

Adv.

F 24

00o F

Coal

Pum

p 85

% C

F W

GCU+

Selex

ol

WGC

U+Me

than

e

ITM

H 2 Tur

bine

2550

o F

H 2 Tur

bine

2650

o F 90

% C

F

Refe

renc

e 22

50o F

Adv.

F 24

00o F

Coal

Pum

p 85

% C

F W

GCU+

Selex

ol

WGC

U+Me

than

e

ITM

H 2 Tur

bine

2550

o F

H 2 Tur

bine

2650

o F 90

% C

F

Ref: Current and Future Technologies for Gasification-Based Power Generation Volume 2: A Pathway Study Focused on Carbon Capture Advanced Power Systems R&D Using Bituminous Coal, Revision 1, DOE/NETL-2009/1389

Transforma>onal Technology Advanced turbine technology provides significant efficiency

gains reducing COE and cost to capture

•  Advanced Gas Turbines (3,100 oF) for Fossil Fuels -‐ Supply the next genera;on of GT technology applicable to both coal and NG for higher efficiency and lower cost.

•  Supercri>cal CO2 Power Cycles -‐ Develop new turbo machinery for a low cost advanced coal op;on (combus;on and IGCC) with CCS, Advanced NGCC, and other fuels and heat sources.

•  Advanced Steam Turbines -‐ Develop next-‐genera;on steam turbine technology that will benefit the en;re u;lity industry with higher efficiency and lower carbon capture costs.

•  Oxy-‐fuel Turbine for EOR and Power -‐ Demonstrate the building blocks of an integrated and modular EOR power system providing CO2, power and water for remote / stranded EOR opportuni;es.

•  Applica>on poten>al: nuclear, heat recovery, concentrated solar, geothermal…and fossil with CO2 capture via oxy-‐fuel

•  N2 separa>on eliminates most thermal NOx •  Applicable to combus>on, gasifica>on, bozoming cycles

(NGCC), SCO2 boilers and other heat sources •  Provides efficiency gains over steam based cycles

–  High density working fluid –  Expansion done at high temperature –  Recuperated

•  Smaller turbo machinery •  Less water demand (~ 1/3) •  CO2 is a good working fluid

Supercri>cal CO2 Power Cycles An Emerging Technology for All Energy Sources

Sketch after Net Power From: “High Efficiency and Low Cost of Electricity Generation from Fossil Fuels while Eliminating Atmospheric Emissions, Including Carbon Dioxide, R.J. Allam et al, Energy Procedia, Elsevier, GHGT-11, 2012.

1.   Energy Penalty •  20% to 30% less power output

2.   Cost •  Increase Cost of Electricity by 80% •  Adds Capital Cost by $1,500 -‐ $2,000/K

3.   Scale-‐up •  Current Post Combus;on capture ~200 TPD

•  550 MWe power plant produces 13,000 TPD

4.   Regulatory framework •  Transport — pipeline network

•  Storage

5.   Economies of Scale •  Land, power, water use, transporta;on,

process components, …

Deployment Barriers for CO2 Capture On New and Exis>ng Coal Plants Today

Program Mission and Overview The Carbon Capture program is focused on the development of

cost-‐effec3ve CO2 capture technologies for new and exis3ng power plants.

Post–Combus>on Capture

(Conven;onal Combus;on-‐Based

Power Plants)

Solvents

Sorbents

Membranes

CO2 Compression

Pre–Combus>on Capture

(Gasifica;on-‐Based Systems)

Technology Areas Key Technologies

Fossil Energy CO2 Capture Solu>ons

Time to Commercializa>on

Advanced physical solvents Advanced chemical solvents Ammonia CO2 com-‐ pression

Amine solvents

Physical solvents

Cryogenic oxygen

Chemical looping OTM boiler Biological processes

Ionic liquids Metal organic frameworks Enzyma>c membranes

Cost Red

uc>o

n Be

nefit

PBI membranes Solid sorbents Membrane systems ITMs Biomass co-‐ firing

Post-‐combus>on (exis>ng, new PC) Pre-‐combus>on (IGCC) Oxycombus>on (new PC) CO2 compression (all)

2020 2015 2010

OTM – O2 Transport Membrane (PC) ITM – O2 Ion Transport Membrane (PC or IGCC)

Advanced CO2 Capture Technologies Leveraging an “integrated development” approach

MIXED-‐MATRIX COMPOSITES

CHEMICAL/PHASE CHANGE SOLVENTS

Novel solvent

H2O

ConventionalSolvent

(selexol)

Changes in processconditions results

in CO2-release

Similar CO2Capacity

AAIL nano-layers

CRYOGENIC/MEMBRANE

Breakthroughs Needed in Mul>ple Areas Technology Development

Employs Integra>on of Best-‐in-‐Class Chemistry, Components

and Processes Examples: •  State of the art absorp>on process coupled with unconven>onal stripping and advanced solvent

•  Pre-‐concentra>on of CO2 to improve driving force for low-‐cost separa>on

•  Coupling membrane and sorbent technologies to capitalize on advantages of each

•  Use of advanced simula>on to link engineered solvents or sorbents with unconven>onal processing techniques

Advanced Combus>on Power Genera>on Chemical Looping Advantages:

•  Oxy-‐combus;on without an O2 plant •  Poten;al lowest cost op;on for near-‐zero emission coal power plant <20% COE penalty

•  New and exis;ng PC power plant designs

Key Challenges: •  Solids transport •  Heat Integra;on

Oxy-‐Firing without Oxygen Plant •  Solid Oxygen Carrier circulates between Oxidizer and Reducer

•  Oxygen Carrier: Carries Oxygen, Heat and Fuel Energy •  Carrier picks up O2 in the Oxidizer, leaves N2 behind •  Carrier Burns the Fuel in the Reducer •  Heat produces Steam for Power

Key Challenges: •  Cryogenic ASUs are capital and energy intensive •  Excess O2 and inerts (N2, Ar) h CO2 purifica;on cost •  Exis;ng boiler air infiltra;on •  Corrosion and process control

Advanced Oxy-‐combus>on R&D Focus •  New oxyfuel boilers

–  Advanced materials and burners –  Corrosion resistant

•  Low-‐cost oxygen à O2 Membranes •  Retrofit exis;ng air boilers

–  Air leakage, heat transfer, corrosion –  Process control

•  Reduced emissions (CO2 + SOx, NOx, O2)

Oxy-‐Combus>on Advantages •  Poten;al for high CO2 recovery •  Applicable to new or exis;ng plants

–  New -‐ more compact design –  Exis;ng -‐ familiar design and opera;on –  Applicable to CFB as well as PC plants

•  Trace pollutant benefits –  Lower NOx, more oxidized Hg –  May not need to clean flue gas as thoroughly for

sequestra;on as for air-‐fired units

“Oxy-‐combus>on” Can Power America

•  An advanced coal combus>on technology –  Capable of retrofi'ng or repowering an

exis;ng plant , or –  As a base-‐load technology for new green

field applica;ons

•  The opportunity for Near-‐Zero Emissions from coal –  Poten;al for 99% CO2 capture without

economic penalty –  Cleaner than conven;onal natural gas with less CO2 emissions

–  Significantly lower water consump;on than conven;onal CO2 amine capture system

•  Mature commercial technology cost projected to be lower than conven>onal post-‐combus>on capture

Advanced Oxy-combustion R&D Focus •  New oxyfuel boilers

-  Advanced materials and burners -  Corrosion

95-99% O2

PC Boiler(No SCR)

Steam

Bag Filter

WetLimestone

FGDCO2

Ash

ID FansCoal

ASURecycle

Compressor

CO2Compression

(15 – 2,200Psia)

Power

Chemical Looping Combus>on

Key Challenges •  Solids transport •  Heat Integra>on

Key Partners (2 projects): Alstom Power (Limestone Based), Ohio State (Metal Oxide)

Status 2010 Alstom Pilot test (1 MWe) ü  1000 lb/hr coal flow ü  1st Integrated opera>on ü  1st Autothermal Opera>on

Red 1700F

Ox 2000F

CaS

Air

Fuel CO2 + H2O

CaSO4

MBHX N2 + O2

Steam

Fuel Reactor (Reducer) CaSO4 + 2C + Heat à 2CO2 + CaS CaSO4 + 4H2 + Heat à 4H2O + CaS

Air Reactor (Oxidizer) CaS + 2O2 à CaSO4 + Heat

Oxy-‐Firing without Oxygen Plant

l  Solid Oxygen Carrier circulates between Oxidizer and Reducer

l  Oxygen Carrier: Carries Oxygen, Heat and Fuel Energy

l  Carrier picks up O2 in the Oxidizer, leaves N2 behind

l  Carrier Burns the Fuel in the Reducer

l  Heat produces Steam for Power

Chemical Looping Advantages: •  Oxy-‐combus>on without an O2 plant •  Poten3al lowest cost op>on for near-‐zero emission coal power plant <20% COE penalty

•  New and exis>ng PC power plant designs

Gasifica>on

• Gasifica;on converts any carbon-‐containing material into synthesis gas, composed primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (referred to as syngas)

• Syngas can be used as a fuel to generate electricity or steam, as a basic chemical building block for a large number of uses in the petrochemical and refining industries, and for the produc;on of hydrogen

• Gasifica;on adds value to low-‐ or nega;ve-‐value feedstocks by conver;ng them to marketable fuels and products

Overview of Energy Systems Op>ons

So what can you do with CO and H2 ?

Clean Electricity

Transporta>on Fuels (Hydrogen)

Building Blocks for Chemical Industry

Ace>c Anhydride Ace>c Acid

•  Methanol

•  Ammonia

•  Fer>lizer (Urea) •  Liquid Fuels (Diesel)

•  Hydrogen

Syngas

Fuel Cell Program -‐ Atmospheric Pressure IGFC

CO2 to CUS

CO2 Compressor

Exhaust

N2

Coal

O2

Syngas

Expander/ Generator

Cathode

Air

O2

Air Blower

Steam

Cathode Off-‐Gas Anode Off-‐Gas

Desulfurizer

Air Separa>on

Unit

Steam

SOFC Module (Power Island)

Coal Gasifier

Gas Cleanup

Electric Power

Electric Power

Heat Recovery

Heat Recovery Steam Generator

To Gasifier

Electric Power

Steam Turbine

Oxy-‐ Combustor

Anode

•  Atmospheric SOFC with Conven>onal Coal Gasifica>on

•  Moderate -‐Methane (10vol%) Syngas; Moderate SOFC Cooling Benefit

•  Separated Anode & Cathode Off-‐Gas Streams; Oxy-‐Combus>on

•  Cycle Efficiency (Net AC/Coal HHV):

~47% with CO2 Compression

~50% w/out CO2 Compression

•  Atmospheric SOFC with Conven>onal Coal Gasifica>on

•  Moderate -‐Methane (10vol%) Syngas; Moderate SOFC Cooling Benefit

•  Separated Anode & Cathode Off-‐Gas Streams; Oxy-‐Combus>on

•  Cycle Efficiency (Net AC/Coal HHV): Ø  ~47% with CO2 Compression Ø  ~50% w/out CO2 Compression

Development of low-‐cost, high-‐efficiency Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) power systems that are capable of simultaneously producing electric power from coal and facilita>ng carbon capture when integrated with coal gasifica>on.

Carbon Storage Program

Program Goals Account for 99% CO2

Improve Storage Efficiency Estimate Capacity +/- 30%

Best Practices Manuals

Benefits Mitigate GHG Emissions Credits for CO2 Storage

Increased Oil/NG Recovery Reduce Capital and O&M Costs Reduce Environmental Footprint

MVAA Technology Area

•  Atmospheric Monitoring and remote sensing technologies

•  Near -‐Surface Monitoring of soils and vadose zone

•  Subsurface Monitoring in and near injec<on zone

•  Intelligent Monitoring Systems for field management

Carbon Storage Program Core R&D Key Technology Areas

Geologic Storage Technology Area (Storage Technologies and

Simula<on and Risk Assessment)

•  Wellbore construc<on and materials •  Mi>ga>on technologies for wells and natural pathways

•  Fluid flow, reservoir pressure, and water management

•  Geochemical effects on forma<on, brine, and microbial communi<es

•  Geomechanical impacts on reservoirs-‐ seals and basin-‐scale coupled models; microseismic monitoring

•  Risk Assessment databases and integra<on into opera<onal design and monitoring

CO2 Use/Reuse Technology Area

•  Chemicals •  Polycarbonate plas>cs •  Minerals and cements (building products) •  EOR, EGR, and ECBM

North American CO2 Storage Potential (Billion Metric Tons)

Sink Type Low High Saline Formations 1,653 20,213 Unmineable Coal Seams 60 117 Oil & Gas Fields 143 143

Available for download at hvp://www.netl.doe.gov/publica;ons/carbon_seq/refshelf.html

U.S. Emissions ~ 6 Billion Tons CO2/yr all sources ~ 2 Billion Tons CO2/yr coal-‐fired power plants

Hundreds of Years Storage Poten>al

Na>onal Atlas Highlights -‐ 2010

Saline Forma3ons Oil and Gas Fields Unmineable Coal Seams

Conserva>ve Resource

Assessment

•  The “Un-‐Mined Gold” Story for Energy and Jobs •  Benefits1 of CO2-‐EOR:

–  $10 trillion in economic ac;vity over 30 years;

–  2.5 million jobs –  30 – 40 percent reduc;on

in imported oil

CO2-‐Enhanced Oil Recovery

Domes>c Oil Supplies and CO2 Demand (Storage) Volumes from “Next Genera>on” CO2-‐EOR Technology**

1 Source: U.S. Carbon Sequestra<on Council

Today Future

Oxy-‐fuel (~3000˚C)

Combus<on Engines (~1700˚C)

Steam Turbines (~700˚C)

Specialized Cycles* (<700˚C)

Propulsion Electric Power and Transporta<on Geothermal power

Direct Power Extrac3on: Making oxy-‐fuel an advantage with CO2 capture

Pressure Gain Combus3on: Increased genera3ng efficiency offsets carbon capture penal3es

Electrochemical Heat Engines: A new approach to heat recovery and energy storage

Combined fossil and renewabale genera<on: Low-‐temperature geothermal with high performance Natural gas and concentrated solar

200 ˚C 3000 ˚C

Thermal Energy Transforma>on Technology to create power across the temperature spectrum.

•  Most electric power originates from the middle of the temperature “spectrum” (below).

•  This ini>a>ve: (1)  step-‐increase the efficiency mid-‐spectrum (2)  combine with new technology at the high and low-‐temperatures (3)  enable fossil and renewable genera;on at high efficiency

*Specialized cycles include organic rankine, s<rling engines, supercri<cal CO2 and others Figure permi_ed for use by h_p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S<rling_engine

Supercri<cal CO2 cycles Higher efficiency than steam. Very compact.

Making Oxy-‐fuel an Advantage Oxy-‐fuel combus3on produces CO2 concentrated flue gas – at a cost.

•  Producing pure oxygen requires a lot of energy! •  If one could find a way to make significant extra power because of the available

oxygen, oxy-‐fuel would be an advantage. •  Oxy-‐fuel already provides an advantage for process industries that benefit from high

temperatures (e.g., glass making, steel). •  Oxy-‐fuel already provides advantages in propulsion (rocket engines) •  How can you make oxy-‐fuel an advantage for power genera>on?

Steel produc;on

Space propulsion Power genera;on

Direct Power Extrac>on (via MHD) •  Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) Power Generator:

Use a strong magnet and convert kine;c energy of conduc;ve gases directly to electric power

•  Higher plant efficiency – works at higher temperature –  Need to use in combined cycle –  Synergy w/ oxy-‐fuel for CCUS

•  oxy-‐coal COE much higher than baseline COE primarily due to ASU •  Legacy: MHD-‐steam coal has ASU (to combust to higher T) but COE

lower than baseline COE

MHD cycle turns having an ASU from efficiency disadvantage to efficiency advantage!

Plot from Okuno et. al. 2007

USSR built MHD Generator From Petrick and Shumyatsky (1978)

MHD generator concept proven in 1980s w/ grid transferred power in both U.S. and USSR

Pressure Gain Combus>on Cycle

•  Conven>on gas turbines combus>on results in a pressure loss across the combustor (Brayton cycle)

•  Pressure gain with constant volume combus3on (Humphrey cycle) –  Deflagra<on or detona<on pressure wave

increases pressure and peak temperatures at turbine inlet -‐ reduced entropy produc;on during combus;on.

•  Advantage of pressure-‐gain combus>on –  up to 30 percent fuel-‐efficiency

improvement –  no other technology with theore>cal

poten>al –  first applica;on will definitely be natural-‐

gas, land-‐based power genera;on plant

ΔP < 0

C T ΔP > 0

C T

“If we can turn 5% pressure loss in a turbine into 5% pressure gain, it has the same impact as

doubling the compression ra>o” – Dr. Sam Mason, Rolls-‐Royce (2008)*

Rota>ng Detona>on Wave Combus>on

*see Kailasanath, K. (2011). The Rota<ng-‐Detona<on –Wave Engine Concept: A Brief Status Report ,AIAA 2011-‐580.

•  Objec>ve: detona>on pressure rise with ~ steady output. •  Rota>ng detona>on idea has been in the literature since 1950s.* •  Recent studies have demonstrated new poten>al for the concept.

Higher pressure, ~ steady flow

to turbine

Inlet from

compressor

Rota;ng Detona;on

Simula;on results courtesy K. Kailasanath, U. S.. Naval Research Laboratory

Experiment at AFRL Courtesy Fred Schauer

Technical Challenges & Approaches

Air

Fuel

Exhaust

- Fuel Injection- Fuel/Air Mixing- Backflow due to

detonation- DDT / Initiation

- Detonation wave directionality

- NOx Emissions- Maintain Pgain- Quasi-steady flow

- Unsteady heat transfer- Cooling flow NETL combustor rig

planned for component test

Simula;on of wave propaga;on (I. Celik, NETL-‐RUA, WVU)

Pressure gain combustor

Fundamentals of detona;on physics with natural gas (D. Santavicca, NETL-‐RUA, Penn State)

Detona;on front

Conclusions

•  The U.S. power genera>on industry is at a cri>cal juncture

–  Demand, resources, workforce, reliability, regula;on, grid integrity, transmission, etc.

•  Compe>ng demands for reliable, low-‐cost energy and climate change mi>ga>on appear incongruent

•  Uncertainty of regulatory outcomes and rising costs impact industry’s willingness to commit capital investment, endangering near-‐term produc>on capacity

•  The U.S. must foster new processes that address conflic>ng energy objec>ves simultaneously

NETL www.netl.doe.gov

Contact Informa>on

Office of Fossil Energy www.fe.doe.gov

Robert R. Romanosky 304-‐285-‐4721 [email protected]

final fossil energy r&d for clean power production 1c...advanced steam cycles in coal-based...

Documents