flue gas aerosol pretreatment technologies to capture (pcc ... · — complete a benchmarking study...
TRANSCRIPT
Making our world more productive
Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
Making our world more productive
Devin Bostick2019 NETL CO2 Capture Technology MeetingAugust 26 2019Pittsburgh PA
2
Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
Acknowledgement This presentation is based on work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FE0031592 We want to thank DOE-NETL for their sponsorship
Disclaimer ldquoThis presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof nor any of their employees makes any warranty express or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy completeness or usefulness of any information apparatus product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name trademark manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement recommendation or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereofrdquo
Making our world more productive
Objectives Participants Timeline amp Funding
ProjectOverview
4
Project Objectives
Overall Objective
Specific Objectives
mdash Complete an aerosol mechanism literature review and develop a mechanistic model characterizing aerosol formation and interaction with amine solvent in the absorber of a PCC plant
mdash Design build install commission and operate the three technologies for flue gas aerosol pretreatment at a coal-fired power plant host site providing the flue gas as a slipstream at a flow rate of 500-1000 scfm
mdash Complete parametric testing and analysis of each technology to demonstrate achievement of target performance
mdash Complete a benchmarking study to identify the optimal aerosol pretreatment system for commercial deployment and integration with solvent-based PCC technology
Demonstrate and evaluate two innovative flue gas aerosol pretreatment technologies identified to significantly reduce high aerosol particle concentrations (gt107 particlescm3) in the 70-200 nm particle size range
1) A high velocity water spray-based system with unique design features
2) A novel electrostatic precipitator (ESP) device with optimized design and operating conditions
In addition a non-regenerative sorbent technology for SOx and NOx removal developed by InnoSepra will be evaluated for its aerosol removal potential
5
Project Team
PRIME CONTRACTORLinde Gas North America LLC
PI Devin Bostickbull Prime contractbull Overall program managementbull High velocity water spray-based aerosol
pretreatment technology owner
Abbott Power Plant Host Sitebull 2 operating coal-fired boilersbull 15 MWe output
SUBAWARDEEUniversity of Illinois (UIUC)
Dr Kevin OrsquoBrienbull Aerosol mechanisms reviewbull Host site liaisonbull Flue gas amp liquid effluent analysis SUBAWARDEE
Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL)Dr Pratim Biswas
bull Aerosol mechanisms modeling leadbull ESP pretreatment technology ownerbull Aerosol particle characterization
SUBAWARDEEAffiliated Construction Services (ACS)
Greg Larsonbull Detailed engineering and procurement
management for high-velocity water spray-based system and sorbent filter vessel
bull Construction management for site modifications amp module installation
SUBAWARDEEInnoSepra
Dr Ravi Jainbull Sorbent material validation testsbull Sorbent material procurement
for pilot tests amp test result analysis
US Department of EnergySponsorship
Project Manager Andy Aurelio
6
Project Timeline amp Milestones
BP1 Design amp Engineering612018 - 2282019
BP2 Procurement Fabrication amp Installation312019 - 11292019
BP3 Testing amp Analysis1222019 - 11302020
Task ID Milestone Completion Date1 A Updated PMP 0629181 B Kick-Off Meeting 0727182 C Mechanisms review amp modeling complete 1031183 D Design amp engineering complete 0131193 E Test plan complete 0131194 F Fabrication amp procurement complete 0826195 G Installation amp commissioning complete 1129196 H Parametric testing complete 51207 I Benchmarking analysis complete 1130208 J Removal of equipment complete 113020
expected completion date
7
Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
SourceBudget Period 1
Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019
Budget Period 2
Mar 2019 ndashNov 2019
Budget Period 3
Dec 2019 ndash Nov 2020
Total
DOE Funding
$457822 $1290725 $1078826 $2827374
Cost Share
$176612 $260949 $269860 $707421
Total Project
$634435 $1551674 $1348686 $3534795
Making our world more productive
Rationale Background amp Previous Research
TechnologyDevelopment
9
Phase IAerosol growth and nucleation from water in absorber
Phase IIAerosol growth from amine in absorber
Phase IIIBuildup of captured CO2 and amine bound to CO2 in aerosols
Phase IVSalt accumulation inside particles causing further amine and CO2 diffusion into aerosols
02 microm particle
Water condensation
Nucleation from water supersaturation
1 microm particle
Amine absorption until complete saturation
2 microm particle
CO2 and CO2+amine absorption
2-5 microm particleSalt accumulationCO2 and amine diffusion Problem Amine compounds
contained in aerosol particles are then emitted from PCC absorber in treated gas stream
The Kelvin equation gives the minimum particle diameter d of a liquid supersaturation leads to nucleation of smaller particles
Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
10
Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
Benefits
Manageable solvent supply and transport
logistics
Optimum power plant efficiency
when integrated with PCC
Reduction of particulate that can unfavorably
react with amine solvent
Improved PCC plant specific
energy performance
Environmental sustainability
and performance
Improved PCC plant business
caselower cost
11
Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
ndash For power plants integrated with solvent-based PCC without an existing baghouse optimized flue gas aerosol pretreatment is the only viable option to reduce aerosol concentrations from gt109 particlescm3 to manageable levels near 104-106 particlescm3 for particles with diameters in the range of 70-200 nm
ndash Pretreatment has traditionally been performed using simple ESPs and Brownian filters
ndash Few systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate performance of different technologies over a full range of conditions
BH = baghouse
1 Based on single point experience some options eg dry bed conf may handle higher particle concentrations than others
2
Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
Acknowledgement This presentation is based on work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FE0031592 We want to thank DOE-NETL for their sponsorship
Disclaimer ldquoThis presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof nor any of their employees makes any warranty express or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy completeness or usefulness of any information apparatus product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name trademark manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement recommendation or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereofrdquo
Making our world more productive
Objectives Participants Timeline amp Funding
ProjectOverview
4
Project Objectives
Overall Objective
Specific Objectives
mdash Complete an aerosol mechanism literature review and develop a mechanistic model characterizing aerosol formation and interaction with amine solvent in the absorber of a PCC plant
mdash Design build install commission and operate the three technologies for flue gas aerosol pretreatment at a coal-fired power plant host site providing the flue gas as a slipstream at a flow rate of 500-1000 scfm
mdash Complete parametric testing and analysis of each technology to demonstrate achievement of target performance
mdash Complete a benchmarking study to identify the optimal aerosol pretreatment system for commercial deployment and integration with solvent-based PCC technology
Demonstrate and evaluate two innovative flue gas aerosol pretreatment technologies identified to significantly reduce high aerosol particle concentrations (gt107 particlescm3) in the 70-200 nm particle size range
1) A high velocity water spray-based system with unique design features
2) A novel electrostatic precipitator (ESP) device with optimized design and operating conditions
In addition a non-regenerative sorbent technology for SOx and NOx removal developed by InnoSepra will be evaluated for its aerosol removal potential
5
Project Team
PRIME CONTRACTORLinde Gas North America LLC
PI Devin Bostickbull Prime contractbull Overall program managementbull High velocity water spray-based aerosol
pretreatment technology owner
Abbott Power Plant Host Sitebull 2 operating coal-fired boilersbull 15 MWe output
SUBAWARDEEUniversity of Illinois (UIUC)
Dr Kevin OrsquoBrienbull Aerosol mechanisms reviewbull Host site liaisonbull Flue gas amp liquid effluent analysis SUBAWARDEE
Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL)Dr Pratim Biswas
bull Aerosol mechanisms modeling leadbull ESP pretreatment technology ownerbull Aerosol particle characterization
SUBAWARDEEAffiliated Construction Services (ACS)
Greg Larsonbull Detailed engineering and procurement
management for high-velocity water spray-based system and sorbent filter vessel
bull Construction management for site modifications amp module installation
SUBAWARDEEInnoSepra
Dr Ravi Jainbull Sorbent material validation testsbull Sorbent material procurement
for pilot tests amp test result analysis
US Department of EnergySponsorship
Project Manager Andy Aurelio
6
Project Timeline amp Milestones
BP1 Design amp Engineering612018 - 2282019
BP2 Procurement Fabrication amp Installation312019 - 11292019
BP3 Testing amp Analysis1222019 - 11302020
Task ID Milestone Completion Date1 A Updated PMP 0629181 B Kick-Off Meeting 0727182 C Mechanisms review amp modeling complete 1031183 D Design amp engineering complete 0131193 E Test plan complete 0131194 F Fabrication amp procurement complete 0826195 G Installation amp commissioning complete 1129196 H Parametric testing complete 51207 I Benchmarking analysis complete 1130208 J Removal of equipment complete 113020
expected completion date
7
Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
SourceBudget Period 1
Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019
Budget Period 2
Mar 2019 ndashNov 2019
Budget Period 3
Dec 2019 ndash Nov 2020
Total
DOE Funding
$457822 $1290725 $1078826 $2827374
Cost Share
$176612 $260949 $269860 $707421
Total Project
$634435 $1551674 $1348686 $3534795
Making our world more productive
Rationale Background amp Previous Research
TechnologyDevelopment
9
Phase IAerosol growth and nucleation from water in absorber
Phase IIAerosol growth from amine in absorber
Phase IIIBuildup of captured CO2 and amine bound to CO2 in aerosols
Phase IVSalt accumulation inside particles causing further amine and CO2 diffusion into aerosols
02 microm particle
Water condensation
Nucleation from water supersaturation
1 microm particle
Amine absorption until complete saturation
2 microm particle
CO2 and CO2+amine absorption
2-5 microm particleSalt accumulationCO2 and amine diffusion Problem Amine compounds
contained in aerosol particles are then emitted from PCC absorber in treated gas stream
The Kelvin equation gives the minimum particle diameter d of a liquid supersaturation leads to nucleation of smaller particles
Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
10
Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
Benefits
Manageable solvent supply and transport
logistics
Optimum power plant efficiency
when integrated with PCC
Reduction of particulate that can unfavorably
react with amine solvent
Improved PCC plant specific
energy performance
Environmental sustainability
and performance
Improved PCC plant business
caselower cost
11
Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
ndash For power plants integrated with solvent-based PCC without an existing baghouse optimized flue gas aerosol pretreatment is the only viable option to reduce aerosol concentrations from gt109 particlescm3 to manageable levels near 104-106 particlescm3 for particles with diameters in the range of 70-200 nm
ndash Pretreatment has traditionally been performed using simple ESPs and Brownian filters
ndash Few systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate performance of different technologies over a full range of conditions
BH = baghouse
1 Based on single point experience some options eg dry bed conf may handle higher particle concentrations than others
Making our world more productive
Objectives Participants Timeline amp Funding
ProjectOverview
4
Project Objectives
Overall Objective
Specific Objectives
mdash Complete an aerosol mechanism literature review and develop a mechanistic model characterizing aerosol formation and interaction with amine solvent in the absorber of a PCC plant
mdash Design build install commission and operate the three technologies for flue gas aerosol pretreatment at a coal-fired power plant host site providing the flue gas as a slipstream at a flow rate of 500-1000 scfm
mdash Complete parametric testing and analysis of each technology to demonstrate achievement of target performance
mdash Complete a benchmarking study to identify the optimal aerosol pretreatment system for commercial deployment and integration with solvent-based PCC technology
Demonstrate and evaluate two innovative flue gas aerosol pretreatment technologies identified to significantly reduce high aerosol particle concentrations (gt107 particlescm3) in the 70-200 nm particle size range
1) A high velocity water spray-based system with unique design features
2) A novel electrostatic precipitator (ESP) device with optimized design and operating conditions
In addition a non-regenerative sorbent technology for SOx and NOx removal developed by InnoSepra will be evaluated for its aerosol removal potential
5
Project Team
PRIME CONTRACTORLinde Gas North America LLC
PI Devin Bostickbull Prime contractbull Overall program managementbull High velocity water spray-based aerosol
pretreatment technology owner
Abbott Power Plant Host Sitebull 2 operating coal-fired boilersbull 15 MWe output
SUBAWARDEEUniversity of Illinois (UIUC)
Dr Kevin OrsquoBrienbull Aerosol mechanisms reviewbull Host site liaisonbull Flue gas amp liquid effluent analysis SUBAWARDEE
Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL)Dr Pratim Biswas
bull Aerosol mechanisms modeling leadbull ESP pretreatment technology ownerbull Aerosol particle characterization
SUBAWARDEEAffiliated Construction Services (ACS)
Greg Larsonbull Detailed engineering and procurement
management for high-velocity water spray-based system and sorbent filter vessel
bull Construction management for site modifications amp module installation
SUBAWARDEEInnoSepra
Dr Ravi Jainbull Sorbent material validation testsbull Sorbent material procurement
for pilot tests amp test result analysis
US Department of EnergySponsorship
Project Manager Andy Aurelio
6
Project Timeline amp Milestones
BP1 Design amp Engineering612018 - 2282019
BP2 Procurement Fabrication amp Installation312019 - 11292019
BP3 Testing amp Analysis1222019 - 11302020
Task ID Milestone Completion Date1 A Updated PMP 0629181 B Kick-Off Meeting 0727182 C Mechanisms review amp modeling complete 1031183 D Design amp engineering complete 0131193 E Test plan complete 0131194 F Fabrication amp procurement complete 0826195 G Installation amp commissioning complete 1129196 H Parametric testing complete 51207 I Benchmarking analysis complete 1130208 J Removal of equipment complete 113020
expected completion date
7
Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
SourceBudget Period 1
Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019
Budget Period 2
Mar 2019 ndashNov 2019
Budget Period 3
Dec 2019 ndash Nov 2020
Total
DOE Funding
$457822 $1290725 $1078826 $2827374
Cost Share
$176612 $260949 $269860 $707421
Total Project
$634435 $1551674 $1348686 $3534795
Making our world more productive
Rationale Background amp Previous Research
TechnologyDevelopment
9
Phase IAerosol growth and nucleation from water in absorber
Phase IIAerosol growth from amine in absorber
Phase IIIBuildup of captured CO2 and amine bound to CO2 in aerosols
Phase IVSalt accumulation inside particles causing further amine and CO2 diffusion into aerosols
02 microm particle
Water condensation
Nucleation from water supersaturation
1 microm particle
Amine absorption until complete saturation
2 microm particle
CO2 and CO2+amine absorption
2-5 microm particleSalt accumulationCO2 and amine diffusion Problem Amine compounds
contained in aerosol particles are then emitted from PCC absorber in treated gas stream
The Kelvin equation gives the minimum particle diameter d of a liquid supersaturation leads to nucleation of smaller particles
Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
10
Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
Benefits
Manageable solvent supply and transport
logistics
Optimum power plant efficiency
when integrated with PCC
Reduction of particulate that can unfavorably
react with amine solvent
Improved PCC plant specific
energy performance
Environmental sustainability
and performance
Improved PCC plant business
caselower cost
11
Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
ndash For power plants integrated with solvent-based PCC without an existing baghouse optimized flue gas aerosol pretreatment is the only viable option to reduce aerosol concentrations from gt109 particlescm3 to manageable levels near 104-106 particlescm3 for particles with diameters in the range of 70-200 nm
ndash Pretreatment has traditionally been performed using simple ESPs and Brownian filters
ndash Few systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate performance of different technologies over a full range of conditions
BH = baghouse
1 Based on single point experience some options eg dry bed conf may handle higher particle concentrations than others
4
Project Objectives
Overall Objective
Specific Objectives
mdash Complete an aerosol mechanism literature review and develop a mechanistic model characterizing aerosol formation and interaction with amine solvent in the absorber of a PCC plant
mdash Design build install commission and operate the three technologies for flue gas aerosol pretreatment at a coal-fired power plant host site providing the flue gas as a slipstream at a flow rate of 500-1000 scfm
mdash Complete parametric testing and analysis of each technology to demonstrate achievement of target performance
mdash Complete a benchmarking study to identify the optimal aerosol pretreatment system for commercial deployment and integration with solvent-based PCC technology
Demonstrate and evaluate two innovative flue gas aerosol pretreatment technologies identified to significantly reduce high aerosol particle concentrations (gt107 particlescm3) in the 70-200 nm particle size range
1) A high velocity water spray-based system with unique design features
2) A novel electrostatic precipitator (ESP) device with optimized design and operating conditions
In addition a non-regenerative sorbent technology for SOx and NOx removal developed by InnoSepra will be evaluated for its aerosol removal potential
5
Project Team
PRIME CONTRACTORLinde Gas North America LLC
PI Devin Bostickbull Prime contractbull Overall program managementbull High velocity water spray-based aerosol
pretreatment technology owner
Abbott Power Plant Host Sitebull 2 operating coal-fired boilersbull 15 MWe output
SUBAWARDEEUniversity of Illinois (UIUC)
Dr Kevin OrsquoBrienbull Aerosol mechanisms reviewbull Host site liaisonbull Flue gas amp liquid effluent analysis SUBAWARDEE
Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL)Dr Pratim Biswas
bull Aerosol mechanisms modeling leadbull ESP pretreatment technology ownerbull Aerosol particle characterization
SUBAWARDEEAffiliated Construction Services (ACS)
Greg Larsonbull Detailed engineering and procurement
management for high-velocity water spray-based system and sorbent filter vessel
bull Construction management for site modifications amp module installation
SUBAWARDEEInnoSepra
Dr Ravi Jainbull Sorbent material validation testsbull Sorbent material procurement
for pilot tests amp test result analysis
US Department of EnergySponsorship
Project Manager Andy Aurelio
6
Project Timeline amp Milestones
BP1 Design amp Engineering612018 - 2282019
BP2 Procurement Fabrication amp Installation312019 - 11292019
BP3 Testing amp Analysis1222019 - 11302020
Task ID Milestone Completion Date1 A Updated PMP 0629181 B Kick-Off Meeting 0727182 C Mechanisms review amp modeling complete 1031183 D Design amp engineering complete 0131193 E Test plan complete 0131194 F Fabrication amp procurement complete 0826195 G Installation amp commissioning complete 1129196 H Parametric testing complete 51207 I Benchmarking analysis complete 1130208 J Removal of equipment complete 113020
expected completion date
7
Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
SourceBudget Period 1
Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019
Budget Period 2
Mar 2019 ndashNov 2019
Budget Period 3
Dec 2019 ndash Nov 2020
Total
DOE Funding
$457822 $1290725 $1078826 $2827374
Cost Share
$176612 $260949 $269860 $707421
Total Project
$634435 $1551674 $1348686 $3534795
Making our world more productive
Rationale Background amp Previous Research
TechnologyDevelopment
9
Phase IAerosol growth and nucleation from water in absorber
Phase IIAerosol growth from amine in absorber
Phase IIIBuildup of captured CO2 and amine bound to CO2 in aerosols
Phase IVSalt accumulation inside particles causing further amine and CO2 diffusion into aerosols
02 microm particle
Water condensation
Nucleation from water supersaturation
1 microm particle
Amine absorption until complete saturation
2 microm particle
CO2 and CO2+amine absorption
2-5 microm particleSalt accumulationCO2 and amine diffusion Problem Amine compounds
contained in aerosol particles are then emitted from PCC absorber in treated gas stream
The Kelvin equation gives the minimum particle diameter d of a liquid supersaturation leads to nucleation of smaller particles
Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
10
Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
Benefits
Manageable solvent supply and transport
logistics
Optimum power plant efficiency
when integrated with PCC
Reduction of particulate that can unfavorably
react with amine solvent
Improved PCC plant specific
energy performance
Environmental sustainability
and performance
Improved PCC plant business
caselower cost
11
Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
ndash For power plants integrated with solvent-based PCC without an existing baghouse optimized flue gas aerosol pretreatment is the only viable option to reduce aerosol concentrations from gt109 particlescm3 to manageable levels near 104-106 particlescm3 for particles with diameters in the range of 70-200 nm
ndash Pretreatment has traditionally been performed using simple ESPs and Brownian filters
ndash Few systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate performance of different technologies over a full range of conditions
BH = baghouse
1 Based on single point experience some options eg dry bed conf may handle higher particle concentrations than others
5
Project Team
PRIME CONTRACTORLinde Gas North America LLC
PI Devin Bostickbull Prime contractbull Overall program managementbull High velocity water spray-based aerosol
pretreatment technology owner
Abbott Power Plant Host Sitebull 2 operating coal-fired boilersbull 15 MWe output
SUBAWARDEEUniversity of Illinois (UIUC)
Dr Kevin OrsquoBrienbull Aerosol mechanisms reviewbull Host site liaisonbull Flue gas amp liquid effluent analysis SUBAWARDEE
Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL)Dr Pratim Biswas
bull Aerosol mechanisms modeling leadbull ESP pretreatment technology ownerbull Aerosol particle characterization
SUBAWARDEEAffiliated Construction Services (ACS)
Greg Larsonbull Detailed engineering and procurement
management for high-velocity water spray-based system and sorbent filter vessel
bull Construction management for site modifications amp module installation
SUBAWARDEEInnoSepra
Dr Ravi Jainbull Sorbent material validation testsbull Sorbent material procurement
for pilot tests amp test result analysis
US Department of EnergySponsorship
Project Manager Andy Aurelio
6
Project Timeline amp Milestones
BP1 Design amp Engineering612018 - 2282019
BP2 Procurement Fabrication amp Installation312019 - 11292019
BP3 Testing amp Analysis1222019 - 11302020
Task ID Milestone Completion Date1 A Updated PMP 0629181 B Kick-Off Meeting 0727182 C Mechanisms review amp modeling complete 1031183 D Design amp engineering complete 0131193 E Test plan complete 0131194 F Fabrication amp procurement complete 0826195 G Installation amp commissioning complete 1129196 H Parametric testing complete 51207 I Benchmarking analysis complete 1130208 J Removal of equipment complete 113020
expected completion date
7
Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
SourceBudget Period 1
Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019
Budget Period 2
Mar 2019 ndashNov 2019
Budget Period 3
Dec 2019 ndash Nov 2020
Total
DOE Funding
$457822 $1290725 $1078826 $2827374
Cost Share
$176612 $260949 $269860 $707421
Total Project
$634435 $1551674 $1348686 $3534795
Making our world more productive
Rationale Background amp Previous Research
TechnologyDevelopment
9
Phase IAerosol growth and nucleation from water in absorber
Phase IIAerosol growth from amine in absorber
Phase IIIBuildup of captured CO2 and amine bound to CO2 in aerosols
Phase IVSalt accumulation inside particles causing further amine and CO2 diffusion into aerosols
02 microm particle
Water condensation
Nucleation from water supersaturation
1 microm particle
Amine absorption until complete saturation
2 microm particle
CO2 and CO2+amine absorption
2-5 microm particleSalt accumulationCO2 and amine diffusion Problem Amine compounds
contained in aerosol particles are then emitted from PCC absorber in treated gas stream
The Kelvin equation gives the minimum particle diameter d of a liquid supersaturation leads to nucleation of smaller particles
Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
10
Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
Benefits
Manageable solvent supply and transport
logistics
Optimum power plant efficiency
when integrated with PCC
Reduction of particulate that can unfavorably
react with amine solvent
Improved PCC plant specific
energy performance
Environmental sustainability
and performance
Improved PCC plant business
caselower cost
11
Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
ndash For power plants integrated with solvent-based PCC without an existing baghouse optimized flue gas aerosol pretreatment is the only viable option to reduce aerosol concentrations from gt109 particlescm3 to manageable levels near 104-106 particlescm3 for particles with diameters in the range of 70-200 nm
ndash Pretreatment has traditionally been performed using simple ESPs and Brownian filters
ndash Few systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate performance of different technologies over a full range of conditions
BH = baghouse
1 Based on single point experience some options eg dry bed conf may handle higher particle concentrations than others
6
Project Timeline amp Milestones
BP1 Design amp Engineering612018 - 2282019
BP2 Procurement Fabrication amp Installation312019 - 11292019
BP3 Testing amp Analysis1222019 - 11302020
Task ID Milestone Completion Date1 A Updated PMP 0629181 B Kick-Off Meeting 0727182 C Mechanisms review amp modeling complete 1031183 D Design amp engineering complete 0131193 E Test plan complete 0131194 F Fabrication amp procurement complete 0826195 G Installation amp commissioning complete 1129196 H Parametric testing complete 51207 I Benchmarking analysis complete 1130208 J Removal of equipment complete 113020
expected completion date
7
Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
SourceBudget Period 1
Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019
Budget Period 2
Mar 2019 ndashNov 2019
Budget Period 3
Dec 2019 ndash Nov 2020
Total
DOE Funding
$457822 $1290725 $1078826 $2827374
Cost Share
$176612 $260949 $269860 $707421
Total Project
$634435 $1551674 $1348686 $3534795
Making our world more productive
Rationale Background amp Previous Research
TechnologyDevelopment
9
Phase IAerosol growth and nucleation from water in absorber
Phase IIAerosol growth from amine in absorber
Phase IIIBuildup of captured CO2 and amine bound to CO2 in aerosols
Phase IVSalt accumulation inside particles causing further amine and CO2 diffusion into aerosols
02 microm particle
Water condensation
Nucleation from water supersaturation
1 microm particle
Amine absorption until complete saturation
2 microm particle
CO2 and CO2+amine absorption
2-5 microm particleSalt accumulationCO2 and amine diffusion Problem Amine compounds
contained in aerosol particles are then emitted from PCC absorber in treated gas stream
The Kelvin equation gives the minimum particle diameter d of a liquid supersaturation leads to nucleation of smaller particles
Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
10
Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
Benefits
Manageable solvent supply and transport
logistics
Optimum power plant efficiency
when integrated with PCC
Reduction of particulate that can unfavorably
react with amine solvent
Improved PCC plant specific
energy performance
Environmental sustainability
and performance
Improved PCC plant business
caselower cost
11
Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
ndash For power plants integrated with solvent-based PCC without an existing baghouse optimized flue gas aerosol pretreatment is the only viable option to reduce aerosol concentrations from gt109 particlescm3 to manageable levels near 104-106 particlescm3 for particles with diameters in the range of 70-200 nm
ndash Pretreatment has traditionally been performed using simple ESPs and Brownian filters
ndash Few systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate performance of different technologies over a full range of conditions
BH = baghouse
1 Based on single point experience some options eg dry bed conf may handle higher particle concentrations than others
7
Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
SourceBudget Period 1
Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019
Budget Period 2
Mar 2019 ndashNov 2019
Budget Period 3
Dec 2019 ndash Nov 2020
Total
DOE Funding
$457822 $1290725 $1078826 $2827374
Cost Share
$176612 $260949 $269860 $707421
Total Project
$634435 $1551674 $1348686 $3534795
Making our world more productive
Rationale Background amp Previous Research
TechnologyDevelopment
9
Phase IAerosol growth and nucleation from water in absorber
Phase IIAerosol growth from amine in absorber
Phase IIIBuildup of captured CO2 and amine bound to CO2 in aerosols
Phase IVSalt accumulation inside particles causing further amine and CO2 diffusion into aerosols
02 microm particle
Water condensation
Nucleation from water supersaturation
1 microm particle
Amine absorption until complete saturation
2 microm particle
CO2 and CO2+amine absorption
2-5 microm particleSalt accumulationCO2 and amine diffusion Problem Amine compounds
contained in aerosol particles are then emitted from PCC absorber in treated gas stream
The Kelvin equation gives the minimum particle diameter d of a liquid supersaturation leads to nucleation of smaller particles
Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
10
Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
Benefits
Manageable solvent supply and transport
logistics
Optimum power plant efficiency
when integrated with PCC
Reduction of particulate that can unfavorably
react with amine solvent
Improved PCC plant specific
energy performance
Environmental sustainability
and performance
Improved PCC plant business
caselower cost
11
Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
ndash For power plants integrated with solvent-based PCC without an existing baghouse optimized flue gas aerosol pretreatment is the only viable option to reduce aerosol concentrations from gt109 particlescm3 to manageable levels near 104-106 particlescm3 for particles with diameters in the range of 70-200 nm
ndash Pretreatment has traditionally been performed using simple ESPs and Brownian filters
ndash Few systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate performance of different technologies over a full range of conditions
BH = baghouse
1 Based on single point experience some options eg dry bed conf may handle higher particle concentrations than others
Making our world more productive
Rationale Background amp Previous Research
TechnologyDevelopment
9
Phase IAerosol growth and nucleation from water in absorber
Phase IIAerosol growth from amine in absorber
Phase IIIBuildup of captured CO2 and amine bound to CO2 in aerosols
Phase IVSalt accumulation inside particles causing further amine and CO2 diffusion into aerosols
02 microm particle
Water condensation
Nucleation from water supersaturation
1 microm particle
Amine absorption until complete saturation
2 microm particle
CO2 and CO2+amine absorption
2-5 microm particleSalt accumulationCO2 and amine diffusion Problem Amine compounds
contained in aerosol particles are then emitted from PCC absorber in treated gas stream
The Kelvin equation gives the minimum particle diameter d of a liquid supersaturation leads to nucleation of smaller particles
Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
10
Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
Benefits
Manageable solvent supply and transport
logistics
Optimum power plant efficiency
when integrated with PCC
Reduction of particulate that can unfavorably
react with amine solvent
Improved PCC plant specific
energy performance
Environmental sustainability
and performance
Improved PCC plant business
caselower cost
11
Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
ndash For power plants integrated with solvent-based PCC without an existing baghouse optimized flue gas aerosol pretreatment is the only viable option to reduce aerosol concentrations from gt109 particlescm3 to manageable levels near 104-106 particlescm3 for particles with diameters in the range of 70-200 nm
ndash Pretreatment has traditionally been performed using simple ESPs and Brownian filters
ndash Few systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate performance of different technologies over a full range of conditions
BH = baghouse
1 Based on single point experience some options eg dry bed conf may handle higher particle concentrations than others
9
Phase IAerosol growth and nucleation from water in absorber
Phase IIAerosol growth from amine in absorber
Phase IIIBuildup of captured CO2 and amine bound to CO2 in aerosols
Phase IVSalt accumulation inside particles causing further amine and CO2 diffusion into aerosols
02 microm particle
Water condensation
Nucleation from water supersaturation
1 microm particle
Amine absorption until complete saturation
2 microm particle
CO2 and CO2+amine absorption
2-5 microm particleSalt accumulationCO2 and amine diffusion Problem Amine compounds
contained in aerosol particles are then emitted from PCC absorber in treated gas stream
The Kelvin equation gives the minimum particle diameter d of a liquid supersaturation leads to nucleation of smaller particles
Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
10
Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
Benefits
Manageable solvent supply and transport
logistics
Optimum power plant efficiency
when integrated with PCC
Reduction of particulate that can unfavorably
react with amine solvent
Improved PCC plant specific
energy performance
Environmental sustainability
and performance
Improved PCC plant business
caselower cost
11
Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
ndash For power plants integrated with solvent-based PCC without an existing baghouse optimized flue gas aerosol pretreatment is the only viable option to reduce aerosol concentrations from gt109 particlescm3 to manageable levels near 104-106 particlescm3 for particles with diameters in the range of 70-200 nm
ndash Pretreatment has traditionally been performed using simple ESPs and Brownian filters
ndash Few systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate performance of different technologies over a full range of conditions
BH = baghouse
1 Based on single point experience some options eg dry bed conf may handle higher particle concentrations than others
10
Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
Benefits
Manageable solvent supply and transport
logistics
Optimum power plant efficiency
when integrated with PCC
Reduction of particulate that can unfavorably
react with amine solvent
Improved PCC plant specific
energy performance
Environmental sustainability
and performance
Improved PCC plant business
caselower cost
11
Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
ndash For power plants integrated with solvent-based PCC without an existing baghouse optimized flue gas aerosol pretreatment is the only viable option to reduce aerosol concentrations from gt109 particlescm3 to manageable levels near 104-106 particlescm3 for particles with diameters in the range of 70-200 nm
ndash Pretreatment has traditionally been performed using simple ESPs and Brownian filters
ndash Few systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate performance of different technologies over a full range of conditions
BH = baghouse
1 Based on single point experience some options eg dry bed conf may handle higher particle concentrations than others
11
Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
ndash For power plants integrated with solvent-based PCC without an existing baghouse optimized flue gas aerosol pretreatment is the only viable option to reduce aerosol concentrations from gt109 particlescm3 to manageable levels near 104-106 particlescm3 for particles with diameters in the range of 70-200 nm
ndash Pretreatment has traditionally been performed using simple ESPs and Brownian filters
ndash Few systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate performance of different technologies over a full range of conditions
BH = baghouse
1 Based on single point experience some options eg dry bed conf may handle higher particle concentrations than others
Chart1
Literature data
Literature data
Methods
Methods
TEA
Targets
Test Matrix
Sheet3
Figure 11
12
High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
Mechanism of actionWater circulates in loop at high velocity and contacts aerosol particles using a spray nozzle comprised of very small holes Contacting spray causes condensation and growth of particles that are then captured in loop and removed from vapor phase
PerformanceHigh velocity spray-based pretreatment reduced amine losses ~15-18 times during testing at 045 MWe PCC pilot in Niederaussum that began in 2009
Typical inlet flue gas conditions at Abbott Power Plant ~190 degF~1 bar~92 mol CO2 (dry) ~100-200 ppmv SO2
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate new nozzle amp perforated tray designs and the impact of several operating conditions (flows temperatures etc) on performance
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Item | Unit | Value | Results for 2 boilers at Abbott | ||||||
Temperature | deg F | 200 | |||||||
Pressure (gauge) | psig | 075 | |||||||
Gas composition | |||||||||
Moisture | vol | 192 | |||||||
CO2 | vol (dry) | 92 | |||||||
O2 | vol (dry) | 735 | |||||||
SO2 | ppmv (wet) | 177 | |||||||
NOx | ppmv (wet) | 211 |
Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | ||||||
wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | ||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | |||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4416576 | |||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1692236 | |||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 224508 | |||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 642000 | |||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6420 | |||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 913 | |||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 550 | 550 | 551 | |||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3310 | |||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | |||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | |||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | |||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | |||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 492 | 489 | 480 | |||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1057614 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4202441 | |||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | |||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | |||||
Variable Cost | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | |||||
Fixed Cost | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | |||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | |||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | |||||
Total Plant Cost | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | |||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | |||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | |||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | |||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $37822131 | |||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1807497942 | |||||
Consumables Cost | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3672920691 | |||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $548690427 | |||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $58985 | |||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 408451435817063 | |||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Land (x1000) | $877 | $892 | $889 | $878 | |||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $283666 | |||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51060 | |||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2326540582 | |||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52242 | |||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $24962 | |||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112056 | |||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $400456 | |||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148566 | |||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $535646 | |||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98298 | |||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $44989 | |||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178026 | |||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62202 | |||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19012 | |||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93505 | |||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31627 | |||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18048 | |||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71471 | |||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1257162 | |||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $633945 | |||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13686 | $13330 | $13279 | $11848 | |||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14646 | $14316 | $14256 | $12807 | |||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3048 | |||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $2023 | $1474 | $1474 | $1461 | |||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1372 | |||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7062 | $7159 | $7136 | $5967 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $7069 | $6450 | $6440 | $4804 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $6413 | $5851 | $5842 | $4358 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $7514 | $6952 | $6943 | $5458 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46254722 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $985 | $977 | $959 | |||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 492 | 488 | 479 | |||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3366 | |||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1069 | |||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 799 | 794 | 779 | |||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1668 | |||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2127 | |||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8340 | |||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | |||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | |||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | |||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3546 | |||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 16090 | |||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35645 | |||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | |||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | |||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 656 | 651 | 639 | |||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7740 | |||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | |||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | |||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2377 | |||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 91289 | |||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10485 | |||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1865 | |||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22185 | |||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | |||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | |||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1515 | |||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 200 | 198 | 195 | |||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 025 | -017 | -1031 | |||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 008 | -031 | -1105 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 088 | 073 | -2487 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 074 | 061 | -2090 | |||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -029 |
8 weeks of testing for each system 1 day testing per week at each condition 2nd part of 5th day includes data analysis and recap May vary cooling temperature depending on test results Flue gas flow and recirculation flow may vary depending on initial test results | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ACM 1 High-velocity water spray injection (1 or more different nozzle designs and 1 or more perforated tray designs will be tested depending on early results) | ACM 2 Novel ESP (voltage and current ranges chosen may vary depending on early test results) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flue gas flow (scfm) | Recirculation flow (gpm) | LG ratio | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | Cooling onoff | Water spray temperature (deg F) | Flue gas flow (scfm) | ESP Voltage (kV) | ESP Current (mA) | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Week 1nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 2nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 1No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 2No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 3nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 4nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 3No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filterWeek 4No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 750 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 5nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 6nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 5No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filterWeek 6No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 500 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 7nozzle 1 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 8nozzle 2 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 7ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 8ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off |
Concentration (cm3) | ||||||||||
Particle Size (nm) | Before | After | Removal eff () | Average removal eff () | ||||||
71 | 441263461538462 | 533704666666667 | 999879050791 | 997335936184 | ||||||
737 | 39593576923077 | 398905 | 999899250073 | |||||||
764 | 294517500 | 272716000 | 999907402446 | |||||||
791 | 235586538461539 | 224988666666667 | 999904498505 | |||||||
82 | 219594615384616 | 175139333333333 | 99992024425 | |||||||
851 | 183537307692308 | 137377666666667 | 999925150004 | |||||||
882 | 132950384615385 | 1185743 | 99991081312 | |||||||
914 | 991526923076924 | 90165700 | 999909063791 | |||||||
947 | 723884615384616 | 95869666666667 | 999867562227 | |||||||
982 | 49395000 | 866524 | 999824572528 | |||||||
1018 | 329623653846154 | 79995933333333 | 999757311308 | |||||||
1055 | 232231346153846 | 855652 | 999631551892 | |||||||
1094 | 170568076923077 | 82140833 | 999518427863 | |||||||
1134 | 114283076923077 | 81683533333333 | 999285252589 | |||||||
1176 | 851232692307693 | 71270166666667 | 999162741665 | |||||||
1219 | 558684615384616 | 67286033333333 | 998795634756 | |||||||
1263 | 425857115384616 | 75311933333333 | 998231521076 | |||||||
131 | 320039230769231 | 71270066666667 | 997773083428 | |||||||
1358 | 224643461538462 | 670295 | 997016182909 | |||||||
1407 | 204812115384616 | 612828 | 997007852788 | |||||||
1459 | 133968461538462 | 60685066666667 | 99547019754 | |||||||
1512 | 120355384615385 | 64353 | 994653085094 | |||||||
1568 | 1114950 | 575052 | 994842351675 | |||||||
1625 | 892715384615385 | 53995533333333 | 993951539957 | |||||||
1685 | 75693076923077 | 56581733333333 | 99252484697 | |||||||
1747 | 734100000000001 | 50526966666667 | 993117154793 | |||||||
1811 | 732648076923078 | 52087233333333 | 992890552098 | |||||||
1877 | 530092307692308 | 390656 | 992630415603 | |||||||
1946 | 609534615384616 | 40069366666667 | 993426236073 | |||||||
2017 | 491257692307693 | 42029366666667 | 991444537699 | |||||||
2091 | 391936346153846 | |||||||||
2167 | 427556153846154 | |||||||||
2247 | 528136538461539 | |||||||||
2329 | 538875 | |||||||||
2414 | 484882692307693 | |||||||||
2503 | 523173076923077 | |||||||||
2595 | 532400 | |||||||||
269 | 391983653846154 | |||||||||
2788 | 39818576923077 | |||||||||
289 | 390621538461539 | |||||||||
2996 | 282454038461539 | |||||||||
3106 | 301689807692308 | |||||||||
322 | 392116538461539 | |||||||||
3338 | 262214807692308 | |||||||||
346 | 300040192307693 | |||||||||
3587 | 327144807692308 | |||||||||
3718 | 291944038461539 | |||||||||
3854 | 410772307692308 | |||||||||
3995 | 438539038461539 | |||||||||
542 | 810536808 | 89545 | -104761672958 | |||||||
583 | 882899298 | 10021 | -135010529819 | |||||||
626 | 884130018 | 11057 | -25060791681 | |||||||
673 | 848442984 | 12158 | -432977846394 | |||||||
723 | 79158372 | 12433 | -570648774838 |
Base case | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | Case 5 | |||||||||||||||
DOE Case B12B Reference w baghouse | wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | wo baghouse (breakeven) | |||||||||||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | ||||||||||||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4432245 | 4516307 | 45154043379888 | |||||||||||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1698847 | 1732627 | ||||||||||||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 225385 | 229867 | 11478458479996 | |||||||||||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 644359 | 656869 | ||||||||||||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6444 | 6569 | 96690 | 9669 | 3 | |||||||||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 941 | 1072 | 9969 | |||||||||||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 551 | 550 | 550 | 550 | 550 | ||||||||||||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3323 | 3386 | ||||||||||||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | 248 | 4405686 | |||||||||||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | 450395408921933 | 982680892193308 | 445482004460967 | |||||||||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 440778425101536 | 440864946116186 | ||||||||||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | 31725 | ||||||||||||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 489 | 482 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1061745 | 1082857 | 4415000 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4218856 | 4302745 | 443224546416968 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | ||||||||||||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Cost | $60366961 | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | $60429346 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Cost | $63094548 | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | $62753124 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | $12931450746 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | $2364453241 | $2364444218 | |||||||||||||
Total Plant Cost | $1939142000 | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | $1922071279 | ||||||||||||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | ||||||||||||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | ||||||||||||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $38782850 | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $38061080 | $38441426 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1814558223 | $18145582 | ||||||||||||||
Consumables Cost | $36775427 | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3687267513 | $36775427 | ||||||||||||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $550833671 | $5508337 | ||||||||||||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $59957 | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $59257 | $59691 | ||||||||||||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | $41125 | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 410280350765301 | $4159189 | ||||||||||||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Land (x1000) | $900 | $877 | $892 | $889 | $883 | $892 | ||||||||||||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $290871 | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $285458 | $288311 | ||||||||||||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $52357 | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51382 | $51896 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2341063213 | $236445324106 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52378 | $53073 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $25027 | $25359 | ||||||||||||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112348 | $113838 | ||||||||||||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $401502 | $406825 | ||||||||||||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $197475 | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148954 | $150929 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $544054 | $545052 | 935327377984728 | |||||||||||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98555 | $99862 | ||||||||||||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $45107 | $45705 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178491 | $180858 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62364 | $63191 | ||||||||||||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19062 | $19314 | ||||||||||||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93749 | $94993 | ||||||||||||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31710 | $32130 | ||||||||||||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18095 | $18335 | ||||||||||||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71657 | $72608 | ||||||||||||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1307004 | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1260445 | $1277157 | ||||||||||||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $642609 | $644914 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13320 | $13686 | $13368 | $13305 | $13185 | $13279 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14280 | $14646 | $14353 | $14282 | $14149 | $14262 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3090 | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3095 | $3139 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $1470 | $2023 | $1511 | $1500 | $1478 | $1474 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1540 | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1523 | $1529 | ||||||||||||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7220 | $7062 | $7160 | $7137 | $7089 | $7136 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $5262 | $7069 | $6497 | $6472 | $6414 | $6440 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $5800 | $6413 | $5894 | $5872 | $5818 | $5842 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $6901 | $7514 | $6995 | $6972 | $6919 | $6943 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46435398 | $47358727 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $960 | $985 | $977 | $963 | $984 | ||||||||||||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 488 | 481 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3379 | 3446 | ||||||||||||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1073 | 1094 | ||||||||||||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 780 | 799 | 794 | 782 | 798 | ||||||||||||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1674 | 1708 | ||||||||||||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2136 | 2178 | ||||||||||||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8372 | 8539 | ||||||||||||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | 61 | ||||||||||||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 28 | ||||||||||||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | 110 | ||||||||||||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | 112 | ||||||||||||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3559 | 3630 | ||||||||||||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 18682 | 30361 | 14000 | 2640 | ||||||||||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35784 | 36496 | ||||||||||||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | ||||||||||||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 640 | 656 | 651 | 642 | 654 | ||||||||||||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7770 | 7925 | ||||||||||||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | ||||||||||||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2386 | 2434 | ||||||||||||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 94148 | 107186 | ||||||||||||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10535 | 10755 | ||||||||||||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1872 | 1909 | ||||||||||||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22272 | 22715 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 24 | ||||||||||||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1521 | 1551 | ||||||||||||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 195 | 200 | 198 | 196 | 199 | ||||||||||||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 051 | 002 | -092 | -012 | |||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 036 | -011 | -101 | -031 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 162 | 123 | 032 | 073 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 136 | 104 | 027 | 061 | |||||||||||||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -166 | -202 |
Method | Amine emissions (kg aminetonne CO2 | Aerosol particle concentration range where adequate (particlescm3) | ||||||||
Baghouse | 0009 | 0 to 1E+7 | 0 | 10000000 | ||||||
Dry bed operation (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+6 | 0 | 1000000 | ||||||
Absorber operating conditions (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+7 | 0 | 10000000 | ||||||
Pre-treatment solutions (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+9 | 0 | 1000000000 |
Abbott Power Plant (42 reheat burner w dryer) | Abbott Power Plant (0 reheat burner wo dryer) | Wilsonville (after baghouse) (WashU) | Wilsonville (before baghouse) (SR) | UT Austin (NCCC) (before baghouse) | TCM (no BH no BF) | Wilsonville (after baghouse) (SR) | Wilsonville Parametric Tests (Linde) | Wilsonville Long-term Tests (Linde) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anal Ins | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | kg amineMT CO2 | 04080107622 | 00095091096 | |||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 682819795644892 | 982 | 427900576923077 | 157 | 14468166666667 | 982 | 1000000 | 10 | 4000000 | 2400 | 100000 | 35 | 650000 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 735415966499163 | 102 | 532616923076924 | 163 | 160013 | 102 | 200000 | 20 | 3000000 | 2800 | 1150000 | 60 | 600000 | 20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 667026341708543 | 106 | 642390384615385 | 168 | 14813666666667 | 106 | 200000 | 40 | 2000000 | 2800 | 10000000 | 100 | 530000 | 40 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 566092556113903 | 109 | 764663461538462 | 175 | 91535 | 109 | 1000000 | 70 | 1000000 | 3000 | 10000000 | 160 | 400000 | 70 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 60451071356784 | 113 | 993782692307693 | 181 | 21280833333333 | 113 | 6300000 | 110 | 900000 | 3200 | 1400000 | 280 | 350000 | 120 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 640447634840872 | 118 | 103840961538462 | 188 | 277361 | 118 | 8000000 | 200 | 800000 | 3200 | 120000 | 480 | 50000 | 200 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 63931935678392 | 122 | 119893653846154 | 195 | 30501933333333 | 122 | 5000000 | 400 | 600000 | 3800 | 1400 | 640 | 20000 | 400 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 67781860636516 | 126 | 155467692307692 | 202 | 35493966666667 | 126 | 800000 | 700 | 500000 | 3800 | 1000 | 960 | 10000 | 600 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 678467648241207 | 131 | 173807500 | 209 | 25912033333333 | 131 | 1 | 800 | 400000 | 3800 | 1000 | 1920 | 5000 | 800 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 736663748743719 | 136 | 198103846153846 | 217 | 20493533333333 | 136 | 1 | 1000 | 318900 | 3800 | 900 | 2560 | 100 | 1000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
APS | 791600921273033 | 141 | 245189807692308 | 225 | 34751733333333 | 141 | 300000 | 3800 | 750 | 5120 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APS | 776599182579565 | 146 | 27240826923077 | 233 | 43427866666667 | 146 | 200000 | 3800 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APS | 748095604690118 | 151 | 301905384615385 | 241 | 592247 | 151 | 100000 | 4000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APS | 852265149078728 | 157 | 348734615384616 | 25 | 614018 | 157 | 90000 | 4100 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APS | 99985068676717 | 163 | 375607115384616 | 259 | 87004466666667 | 163 | 80000 | 4200 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11043162479062 | 168 | 442790384615385 | 269 | 137845333333333 | 168 | 70000 | 4200 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
119948670016751 | 175 | 523365384615385 | 279 | 183715 | 175 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
112247051926298 | 181 | 445000384615385 | 289 | 241348 | 181 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
126325376884422 | 188 | 591696153846154 | 30 | 299061666666667 | 188 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
130470221105528 | 195 | 660759615384616 | 311 | 380613666666667 | 195 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
140578994974874 | 202 | 706025000000001 | 322 | 419054666666667 | 202 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
158666502512563 | 209 | 794851923076924 | 334 | 64940 | 209 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15709983919598 | 217 | 860896153846155 | 346 | 883372 | 217 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
146305745393635 | 225 | 847675000000001 | 359 | 130709333333333 | 225 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
175050465661642 | 233 | 943019230769232 | 372 | 182267 | 233 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20586516917923 | 241 | 949319230769232 | 385 | 263912666666667 | 241 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21836616080402 | 25 | 96023076923077 | 40 | 355521333333333 | 25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
221599480737019 | 259 | 956119230769232 | 414 | 484109 | 259 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
231432663316583 | 269 | 1025750000 | 429 | 647791 | 269 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
228343541038526 | 279 | 964151923076924 | 445 | 830633 | 279 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
238293788944724 | 289 | 982432692307693 | 461 | 1054740 | 289 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24027170519263 | 30 | 103288461538462 | 478 | 125545333333333 | 30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
254431427135679 | 311 | 981471153846155 | 514 | 1435950 | 311 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
281640274706868 | 322 | 100416538461539 | 533 | 161942333333333 | 322 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
279502308207705 | 334 | 995501923076924 | 552 | 169811666666667 | 334 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
273149989949749 | 346 | 969944230769232 | 573 | 182475666666667 | 346 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
301086837520938 | 359 | 89473076923077 | 594 | 187437333333333 | 359 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
337571587939699 | 372 | 791292307692308 | 615 | 1885320 | 372 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
335709822445561 | 385 | 719676923076924 | 638 | 184891666666667 | 385 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
303290958123953 | 40 | 67950576923077 | 661 | 177122333333333 | 40 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
296100891122278 | 414 | 554032692307693 | 685 | 167757333333333 | 414 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
305137175879397 | 429 | 441263461538462 | 71 | 1563790 | 429 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
298671450586265 | 445 | 39593576923077 | 737 | 143831333333333 | 445 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
267825041876047 | 461 | 294517500 | 764 | 1276340 | 461 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
268898750418761 | 478 | 235586538461539 | 791 | 111617666666667 | 478 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
246584087102178 | 496 | 219594615384616 | 82 | 956378666666667 | 496 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22753597319933 | 514 | 183537307692308 | 851 | 786719333333333 | 514 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20805557118928 | 533 | 132950384615385 | 882 | 654658 | 533 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
193145899497488 | 552 | 991526923076924 | 914 | 524162333333333 | 552 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
180397058626466 | 573 | 723884615384616 | 947 | 398477 | 573 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
159287497487437 | 594 | 49395000 | 982 | 294095333333333 | 594 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
140093966499163 | 615 | 329623653846154 | 1018 | 216415 | 615 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
125712003350084 | 638 | 232231346153846 | 1055 | 155941333333333 | 638 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11582181239531 | 661 | 170568076923077 | 1094 | 109822 | 661 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
933554824120604 | 685 | 114283076923077 | 1134 | 811729333333333 | 685 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
766995862646567 | 71 | 851232692307693 | 1176 | 533704666666667 | 71 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
625145611390285 | 737 | 558684615384616 | 1219 | 398905 | 737 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
531419574539364 | 764 | 425857115384616 | 1263 | 272716 | 764 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
401304512562814 | 791 | 320039230769231 | 131 | 224988666666667 | 791 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
302290415410386 | 82 | 224643461538462 | 1358 | 175139333333333 | 82 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
234256559463987 | 851 | 204812115384616 | 1407 | 137377666666667 | 851 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
174277956448911 | 882 | 133968461538462 | 1459 | 1185743 | 882 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
119620948073702 | 914 | 120355384615385 | 1512 | 901657 | 914 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
860247541038527 | 947 | 1114950 | 1568 | 95869666666667 | 947 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
588795608040202 | 982 | 892715384615385 | 1625 | 866524 | 982 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
453500100502513 | 1018 | 75693076923077 | 1685 | 79995933333333 | 1018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
306104184254607 | 1055 | 734100000000001 | 1747 | 855652 | 1055 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
214392951423786 | 1094 | 732648076923078 | 1811 | 82140833333333 | 1094 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
171584234505863 | 1134 | 530092307692308 | 1877 | 81683533333333 | 1134 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
129452606365159 | 1176 | 609534615384616 | 1946 | 71270166666667 | 1176 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
109800234170854 | 1219 | 491257692307693 | 2017 | 67286033333333 | 1219 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
875061487437187 | 1263 | 391936346153846 | 2091 | 75311933333333 | 1263 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
755701192629817 | 131 | 427556153846154 | 2167 | 71270066666667 | 131 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76907041876047 | 1358 | 528136538461539 | 2247 | 670295 | 1358 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
816854716917924 | 1407 | 538875 | 2329 | 612828 | 1407 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
682292696817421 | 1459 | 484882692307693 | 2414 | 60685066666667 | 1459 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
484327912897823 | 1512 | 523173076923077 | 2503 | 64353 | 1512 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
601245688442212 | 1568 | 532400 | 2595 | 575052 | 1568 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
608947306532664 | 1625 | 391983653846154 | 269 | 53995533333333 | 1625 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57423530318258 | 1685 | 39818576923077 | 2788 | 56581733333333 | 1685 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
665198110552765 | 1747 | 390621538461539 | 289 | 50526966666667 | 1747 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
641284469011726 | 1811 | 282454038461539 | 2996 | 52087233333333 | 1811 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
551386834170855 | 1877 | 301689807692308 | 3106 | 390656 | 1877 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
515487715242882 | 1946 | 392116538461539 | 322 | 40069366666667 | 1946 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
557056576214406 | 2017 | 262214807692308 | 3338 | 42029366666667 | 2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
585014763819096 | 2091 | 300040192307693 | 346 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
563217748743719 | 2167 | 327144807692308 | 3587 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
516019996649917 | 2247 | 291944038461539 | 3718 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
635039155778895 | 2329 | 410772307692308 | 3854 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
678386860971525 | 2414 | 438539038461539 | 3995 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
540607373534339 | 2503 | 810536808 | 542 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
534717524288108 | 2595 | 882899298 | 583 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
624962696817421 | 269 | 884130018 | 626 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
507626351758795 | 2788 | 848442984 | 673 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
482487487437186 | 289 | 79158372 | 723 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
462233661641542 | 2996 | 628394094 | 777 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
614290241206031 | 3106 | 484154992 | 835 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
549685423785595 | 322 | 3250266138 | 898 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
485615936348409 | 3338 | 1930962502 | 965 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
446652388609716 | 346 | 97717245 | 1037 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
733651755443887 | 3587 | 451665266 | 1114 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73515500837521 | 3718 | 1710666186 | 1197 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
491714613065327 | 3854 | 750723816 | 1286 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
453128479061977 | 3995 | 3692090772 | 1382 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22625785 | 542 | 08614861802 | 1486 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23149945 | 583 | 11076250522 | 1596 | 89545 | 542 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2547951466667 | 626 | 1 | 1715 | 10021 | 583 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26411294 | 673 | 1 | 1843 | 11057 | 626 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2478060433333 | 723 | 1 | 1981 | 12158 | 673 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2428556433333 | 777 | 1 | 2129 | 12433 | 723 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1953912566667 | 835 | 1 | 2288 | 113975 | 777 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1421029306667 | 898 | 01230695642 | 2458 | 9234 | 835 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
797872833333 | 965 | 1 | 2642 | 70035 | 898 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
430967506667 | 1037 | 1 | 2839 | 49195 | 965 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21839545 | 1114 | 1 | 3051 | 3452 | 1037 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84446483333 | 1197 | 01230695642 | 3278 | 23495 | 1114 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
320313357 | 1286 | 1 | 3523 | 1597 | 1197 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34943302333 | 1382 | 1 | 3786 | 1089 | 1286 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17471639033 | 1486 | 1 | 4068 | 781 | 1382 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
116477634 | 1596 | 1 | 4371 | 5965 | 1486 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
08735821033 | 1715 | 1 | 4698 | 4325 | 1596 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
05823884733 | 1843 | 1 | 5048 | 3995 | 1715 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
05823884733 | 1981 | 1 | 5425 | 3185 | 1843 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02911942367 | 2129 | 1 | 5829 | 2325 | 1981 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 2288 | 1 | 6264 | 2185 | 2129 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02911942367 | 2458 | 1 | 6732 | 194 | 2288 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02911942367 | 2642 | 1 | 7234 | 1705 | 2458 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
08735821033 | 2839 | 1 | 7774 | 1395 | 2642 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02911942367 | 3051 | 1 | 8354 | 124 | 2839 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
08735821033 | 3278 | 1 | 8977 | 97 | 3051 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
05823884733 | 3523 | 1 | 9647 | 92 | 3278 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
08735818 | 3786 | 1 | 10370 | 71 | 3523 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23295514667 | 4068 | 1 | 11140 | 56 | 3786 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
05823884733 | 4371 | 1 | 11970 | 51 | 4068 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
05823884733 | 4698 | 1 | 12860 | 35 | 4371 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 5048 | 1 | 13820 | 31 | 4698 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 5425 | 1 | 14860 | 21 | 5048 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 5829 | 1 | 15960 | 16 | 5425 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 6264 | 1 | 17150 | 1 | 5829 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 6732 | 1 | 18430 | 055 | 6264 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 7234 | 1 | 19810 | 05 | 6732 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 7774 | 055 | 7234 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 8354 | 02 | 7774 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 8977 | 005 | 8354 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 9647 | 0 | 8977 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 10370 | 01 | 9647 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 11140 | 005 | 10370 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 11970 | 005 | 11140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 12860 | 01 | 11970 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 13820 | 0 | 12860 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 14860 | 0 | 13820 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 15960 | 0 | 14860 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 17150 | 0 | 15960 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 18430 | 0 | 17150 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 19810 | 0 | 18430 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0 | 19810 |
0009 | |
lt03 | |
lt03 | |
lt03 |
Literature data
Literature data
Methods
Methods
TEA
Targets
Test Matrix
Sheet3
Figure 11
12
High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
Mechanism of actionWater circulates in loop at high velocity and contacts aerosol particles using a spray nozzle comprised of very small holes Contacting spray causes condensation and growth of particles that are then captured in loop and removed from vapor phase
PerformanceHigh velocity spray-based pretreatment reduced amine losses ~15-18 times during testing at 045 MWe PCC pilot in Niederaussum that began in 2009
Typical inlet flue gas conditions at Abbott Power Plant ~190 degF~1 bar~92 mol CO2 (dry) ~100-200 ppmv SO2
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate new nozzle amp perforated tray designs and the impact of several operating conditions (flows temperatures etc) on performance
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Item | Unit | Value | Results for 2 boilers at Abbott | ||||||
Temperature | deg F | 200 | |||||||
Pressure (gauge) | psig | 075 | |||||||
Gas composition | |||||||||
Moisture | vol | 192 | |||||||
CO2 | vol (dry) | 92 | |||||||
O2 | vol (dry) | 735 | |||||||
SO2 | ppmv (wet) | 177 | |||||||
NOx | ppmv (wet) | 211 |
Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | ||||||
wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | ||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | |||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4416576 | |||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1692236 | |||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 224508 | |||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 642000 | |||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6420 | |||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 913 | |||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 550 | 550 | 551 | |||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3310 | |||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | |||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | |||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | |||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | |||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 492 | 489 | 480 | |||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1057614 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4202441 | |||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | |||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | |||||
Variable Cost | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | |||||
Fixed Cost | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | |||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | |||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | |||||
Total Plant Cost | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | |||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | |||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | |||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | |||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $37822131 | |||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1807497942 | |||||
Consumables Cost | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3672920691 | |||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $548690427 | |||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $58985 | |||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 408451435817063 | |||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Land (x1000) | $877 | $892 | $889 | $878 | |||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $283666 | |||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51060 | |||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2326540582 | |||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52242 | |||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $24962 | |||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112056 | |||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $400456 | |||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148566 | |||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $535646 | |||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98298 | |||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $44989 | |||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178026 | |||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62202 | |||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19012 | |||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93505 | |||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31627 | |||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18048 | |||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71471 | |||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1257162 | |||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $633945 | |||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13686 | $13330 | $13279 | $11848 | |||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14646 | $14316 | $14256 | $12807 | |||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3048 | |||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $2023 | $1474 | $1474 | $1461 | |||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1372 | |||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7062 | $7159 | $7136 | $5967 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $7069 | $6450 | $6440 | $4804 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $6413 | $5851 | $5842 | $4358 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $7514 | $6952 | $6943 | $5458 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46254722 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $985 | $977 | $959 | |||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 492 | 488 | 479 | |||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3366 | |||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1069 | |||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 799 | 794 | 779 | |||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1668 | |||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2127 | |||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8340 | |||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | |||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | |||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | |||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3546 | |||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 16090 | |||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35645 | |||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | |||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | |||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 656 | 651 | 639 | |||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7740 | |||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | |||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | |||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2377 | |||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 91289 | |||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10485 | |||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1865 | |||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22185 | |||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | |||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | |||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1515 | |||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 200 | 198 | 195 | |||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 025 | -017 | -1031 | |||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 008 | -031 | -1105 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 088 | 073 | -2487 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 074 | 061 | -2090 | |||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -029 |
8 weeks of testing for each system 1 day testing per week at each condition 2nd part of 5th day includes data analysis and recap May vary cooling temperature depending on test results Flue gas flow and recirculation flow may vary depending on initial test results | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ACM 1 High-velocity water spray injection (1 or more different nozzle designs and 1 or more perforated tray designs will be tested depending on early results) | ACM 2 Novel ESP (voltage and current ranges chosen may vary depending on early test results) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flue gas flow (scfm) | Recirculation flow (gpm) | LG ratio | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | Cooling onoff | Water spray temperature (deg F) | Flue gas flow (scfm) | ESP Voltage (kV) | ESP Current (mA) | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Week 1nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 2nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 1No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 2No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 3nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 4nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 3No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filterWeek 4No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 750 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 5nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 6nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 5No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filterWeek 6No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 500 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 7nozzle 1 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 8nozzle 2 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 7ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 8ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off |
Concentration (cm3) | ||||||||||
Particle Size (nm) | Before | After | Removal eff () | Average removal eff () | ||||||
71 | 441263461538462 | 533704666666667 | 999879050791 | 997335936184 | ||||||
737 | 39593576923077 | 398905 | 999899250073 | |||||||
764 | 294517500 | 272716000 | 999907402446 | |||||||
791 | 235586538461539 | 224988666666667 | 999904498505 | |||||||
82 | 219594615384616 | 175139333333333 | 99992024425 | |||||||
851 | 183537307692308 | 137377666666667 | 999925150004 | |||||||
882 | 132950384615385 | 1185743 | 99991081312 | |||||||
914 | 991526923076924 | 90165700 | 999909063791 | |||||||
947 | 723884615384616 | 95869666666667 | 999867562227 | |||||||
982 | 49395000 | 866524 | 999824572528 | |||||||
1018 | 329623653846154 | 79995933333333 | 999757311308 | |||||||
1055 | 232231346153846 | 855652 | 999631551892 | |||||||
1094 | 170568076923077 | 82140833 | 999518427863 | |||||||
1134 | 114283076923077 | 81683533333333 | 999285252589 | |||||||
1176 | 851232692307693 | 71270166666667 | 999162741665 | |||||||
1219 | 558684615384616 | 67286033333333 | 998795634756 | |||||||
1263 | 425857115384616 | 75311933333333 | 998231521076 | |||||||
131 | 320039230769231 | 71270066666667 | 997773083428 | |||||||
1358 | 224643461538462 | 670295 | 997016182909 | |||||||
1407 | 204812115384616 | 612828 | 997007852788 | |||||||
1459 | 133968461538462 | 60685066666667 | 99547019754 | |||||||
1512 | 120355384615385 | 64353 | 994653085094 | |||||||
1568 | 1114950 | 575052 | 994842351675 | |||||||
1625 | 892715384615385 | 53995533333333 | 993951539957 | |||||||
1685 | 75693076923077 | 56581733333333 | 99252484697 | |||||||
1747 | 734100000000001 | 50526966666667 | 993117154793 | |||||||
1811 | 732648076923078 | 52087233333333 | 992890552098 | |||||||
1877 | 530092307692308 | 390656 | 992630415603 | |||||||
1946 | 609534615384616 | 40069366666667 | 993426236073 | |||||||
2017 | 491257692307693 | 42029366666667 | 991444537699 | |||||||
2091 | 391936346153846 | |||||||||
2167 | 427556153846154 | |||||||||
2247 | 528136538461539 | |||||||||
2329 | 538875 | |||||||||
2414 | 484882692307693 | |||||||||
2503 | 523173076923077 | |||||||||
2595 | 532400 | |||||||||
269 | 391983653846154 | |||||||||
2788 | 39818576923077 | |||||||||
289 | 390621538461539 | |||||||||
2996 | 282454038461539 | |||||||||
3106 | 301689807692308 | |||||||||
322 | 392116538461539 | |||||||||
3338 | 262214807692308 | |||||||||
346 | 300040192307693 | |||||||||
3587 | 327144807692308 | |||||||||
3718 | 291944038461539 | |||||||||
3854 | 410772307692308 | |||||||||
3995 | 438539038461539 | |||||||||
542 | 810536808 | 89545 | -104761672958 | |||||||
583 | 882899298 | 10021 | -135010529819 | |||||||
626 | 884130018 | 11057 | -25060791681 | |||||||
673 | 848442984 | 12158 | -432977846394 | |||||||
723 | 79158372 | 12433 | -570648774838 |
Base case | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | Case 5 | |||||||||||||||
DOE Case B12B Reference w baghouse | wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | wo baghouse (breakeven) | |||||||||||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | ||||||||||||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4432245 | 4516307 | 45154043379888 | |||||||||||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1698847 | 1732627 | ||||||||||||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 225385 | 229867 | 11478458479996 | |||||||||||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 644359 | 656869 | ||||||||||||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6444 | 6569 | 96690 | 9669 | 3 | |||||||||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 941 | 1072 | 9969 | |||||||||||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 551 | 550 | 550 | 550 | 550 | ||||||||||||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3323 | 3386 | ||||||||||||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | 248 | 4405686 | |||||||||||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | 450395408921933 | 982680892193308 | 445482004460967 | |||||||||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 440778425101536 | 440864946116186 | ||||||||||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | 31725 | ||||||||||||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 489 | 482 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1061745 | 1082857 | 4415000 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4218856 | 4302745 | 443224546416968 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | ||||||||||||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Cost | $60366961 | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | $60429346 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Cost | $63094548 | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | $62753124 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | $12931450746 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | $2364453241 | $2364444218 | |||||||||||||
Total Plant Cost | $1939142000 | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | $1922071279 | ||||||||||||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | ||||||||||||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | ||||||||||||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $38782850 | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $38061080 | $38441426 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1814558223 | $18145582 | ||||||||||||||
Consumables Cost | $36775427 | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3687267513 | $36775427 | ||||||||||||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $550833671 | $5508337 | ||||||||||||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $59957 | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $59257 | $59691 | ||||||||||||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | $41125 | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 410280350765301 | $4159189 | ||||||||||||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Land (x1000) | $900 | $877 | $892 | $889 | $883 | $892 | ||||||||||||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $290871 | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $285458 | $288311 | ||||||||||||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $52357 | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51382 | $51896 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2341063213 | $236445324106 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52378 | $53073 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $25027 | $25359 | ||||||||||||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112348 | $113838 | ||||||||||||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $401502 | $406825 | ||||||||||||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $197475 | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148954 | $150929 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $544054 | $545052 | 935327377984728 | |||||||||||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98555 | $99862 | ||||||||||||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $45107 | $45705 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178491 | $180858 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62364 | $63191 | ||||||||||||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19062 | $19314 | ||||||||||||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93749 | $94993 | ||||||||||||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31710 | $32130 | ||||||||||||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18095 | $18335 | ||||||||||||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71657 | $72608 | ||||||||||||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1307004 | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1260445 | $1277157 | ||||||||||||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $642609 | $644914 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13320 | $13686 | $13368 | $13305 | $13185 | $13279 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14280 | $14646 | $14353 | $14282 | $14149 | $14262 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3090 | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3095 | $3139 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $1470 | $2023 | $1511 | $1500 | $1478 | $1474 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1540 | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1523 | $1529 | ||||||||||||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7220 | $7062 | $7160 | $7137 | $7089 | $7136 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $5262 | $7069 | $6497 | $6472 | $6414 | $6440 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $5800 | $6413 | $5894 | $5872 | $5818 | $5842 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $6901 | $7514 | $6995 | $6972 | $6919 | $6943 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46435398 | $47358727 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $960 | $985 | $977 | $963 | $984 | ||||||||||||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 488 | 481 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3379 | 3446 | ||||||||||||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1073 | 1094 | ||||||||||||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 780 | 799 | 794 | 782 | 798 | ||||||||||||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1674 | 1708 | ||||||||||||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2136 | 2178 | ||||||||||||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8372 | 8539 | ||||||||||||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | 61 | ||||||||||||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 28 | ||||||||||||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | 110 | ||||||||||||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | 112 | ||||||||||||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3559 | 3630 | ||||||||||||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 18682 | 30361 | 14000 | 2640 | ||||||||||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35784 | 36496 | ||||||||||||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | ||||||||||||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 640 | 656 | 651 | 642 | 654 | ||||||||||||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7770 | 7925 | ||||||||||||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | ||||||||||||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2386 | 2434 | ||||||||||||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 94148 | 107186 | ||||||||||||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10535 | 10755 | ||||||||||||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1872 | 1909 | ||||||||||||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22272 | 22715 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 24 | ||||||||||||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1521 | 1551 | ||||||||||||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 195 | 200 | 198 | 196 | 199 | ||||||||||||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 051 | 002 | -092 | -012 | |||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 036 | -011 | -101 | -031 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 162 | 123 | 032 | 073 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 136 | 104 | 027 | 061 | |||||||||||||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -166 | -202 |
Method | Amine emissions (kg aminetonne CO2 | Aerosol particle concentration range where adequate (particlescm3) | ||||||||
Baghouse | 0009 | 0 to 1E+7 | 0 | 10000000 | ||||||
Dry bed operation (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+6 | 0 | 1000000 | ||||||
Absorber operating conditions (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+7 | 0 | 10000000 | ||||||
Pre-treatment solutions (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+9 | 0 | 1000000000 |
Abbott Power Plant (42 reheat burner w dryer) | Abbott Power Plant (0 reheat burner wo dryer) | Wilsonville (after baghouse) (WashU) | Wilsonville (before baghouse) (SR) | UT Austin (NCCC) (before baghouse) | TCM (no BH no BF) | Wilsonville (after baghouse) (SR) | Wilsonville Parametric Tests (Linde) | Wilsonville Long-term Tests (Linde) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anal Ins | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | Particle number (cm3) | Particle diameter (nm) | kg amineMT CO2 | 04080107622 | 00095091096 | |||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 682819795644892 | 982 | 427900576923077 | 157 | 14468166666667 | 982 | 1000000 | 10 | 4000000 | 2400 | 100000 | 35 | 650000 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 735415966499163 | 102 | 532616923076924 | 163 | 160013 | 102 | 200000 | 20 | 3000000 | 2800 | 1150000 | 60 | 600000 | 20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 667026341708543 | 106 | 642390384615385 | 168 | 14813666666667 | 106 | 200000 | 40 | 2000000 | 2800 | 10000000 | 100 | 530000 | 40 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 566092556113903 | 109 | 764663461538462 | 175 | 91535 | 109 | 1000000 | 70 | 1000000 | 3000 | 10000000 | 160 | 400000 | 70 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 60451071356784 | 113 | 993782692307693 | 181 | 21280833333333 | 113 | 6300000 | 110 | 900000 | 3200 | 1400000 | 280 | 350000 | 120 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 640447634840872 | 118 | 103840961538462 | 188 | 277361 | 118 | 8000000 | 200 | 800000 | 3200 | 120000 | 480 | 50000 | 200 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 63931935678392 | 122 | 119893653846154 | 195 | 30501933333333 | 122 | 5000000 | 400 | 600000 | 3800 | 1400 | 640 | 20000 | 400 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 67781860636516 | 126 | 155467692307692 | 202 | 35493966666667 | 126 | 800000 | 700 | 500000 | 3800 | 1000 | 960 | 10000 | 600 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 678467648241207 | 131 | 173807500 | 209 | 25912033333333 | 131 | 1 | 800 | 400000 | 3800 | 1000 | 1920 | 5000 | 800 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SMPS | 736663748743719 | 136 | 198103846153846 | 217 | 20493533333333 | 136 | 1 | 1000 | 318900 | 3800 | 900 | 2560 | 100 | 1000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
APS | 791600921273033 | 141 | 245189807692308 | 225 | 34751733333333 | 141 | 300000 | 3800 | 750 | 5120 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APS | 776599182579565 | 146 | 27240826923077 | 233 | 43427866666667 | 146 | 200000 | 3800 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APS | 748095604690118 | 151 | 301905384615385 | 241 | 592247 | 151 | 100000 | 4000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APS | 852265149078728 | 157 | 348734615384616 | 25 | 614018 | 157 | 90000 | 4100 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APS | 99985068676717 | 163 | 375607115384616 | 259 | 87004466666667 | 163 | 80000 | 4200 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11043162479062 | 168 | 442790384615385 | 269 | 137845333333333 | 168 | 70000 | 4200 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
119948670016751 | 175 | 523365384615385 | 279 | 183715 | 175 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
112247051926298 | 181 | 445000384615385 | 289 | 241348 | 181 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
126325376884422 | 188 | 591696153846154 | 30 | 299061666666667 | 188 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
130470221105528 | 195 | 660759615384616 | 311 | 380613666666667 | 195 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
140578994974874 | 202 | 706025000000001 | 322 | 419054666666667 | 202 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
158666502512563 | 209 | 794851923076924 | 334 | 64940 | 209 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15709983919598 | 217 | 860896153846155 | 346 | 883372 | 217 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
146305745393635 | 225 | 847675000000001 | 359 | 130709333333333 | 225 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
175050465661642 | 233 | 943019230769232 | 372 | 182267 | 233 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20586516917923 | 241 | 949319230769232 | 385 | 263912666666667 | 241 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21836616080402 | 25 | 96023076923077 | 40 | 355521333333333 | 25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
221599480737019 | 259 | 956119230769232 | 414 | 484109 | 259 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
231432663316583 | 269 | 1025750000 | 429 | 647791 | 269 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
228343541038526 | 279 | 964151923076924 | 445 | 830633 | 279 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
238293788944724 | 289 | 982432692307693 | 461 | 1054740 | 289 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24027170519263 | 30 | 103288461538462 | 478 | 125545333333333 | 30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
254431427135679 | 311 | 981471153846155 | 514 | 1435950 | 311 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
281640274706868 | 322 | 100416538461539 | 533 | 161942333333333 | 322 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
279502308207705 | 334 | 995501923076924 | 552 | 169811666666667 | 334 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
273149989949749 | 346 | 969944230769232 | 573 | 182475666666667 | 346 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
301086837520938 | 359 | 89473076923077 | 594 | 187437333333333 | 359 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
337571587939699 | 372 | 791292307692308 | 615 | 1885320 | 372 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
335709822445561 | 385 | 719676923076924 | 638 | 184891666666667 | 385 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
303290958123953 | 40 | 67950576923077 | 661 | 177122333333333 | 40 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
296100891122278 | 414 | 554032692307693 | 685 | 167757333333333 | 414 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
305137175879397 | 429 | 441263461538462 | 71 | 1563790 | 429 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
298671450586265 | 445 | 39593576923077 | 737 | 143831333333333 | 445 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
267825041876047 | 461 | 294517500 | 764 | 1276340 | 461 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
268898750418761 | 478 | 235586538461539 | 791 | 111617666666667 | 478 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
246584087102178 | 496 | 219594615384616 | 82 | 956378666666667 | 496 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22753597319933 | 514 | 183537307692308 | 851 | 786719333333333 | 514 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20805557118928 | 533 | 132950384615385 | 882 | 654658 | 533 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
193145899497488 | 552 | 991526923076924 | 914 | 524162333333333 | 552 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
180397058626466 | 573 | 723884615384616 | 947 | 398477 | 573 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
159287497487437 | 594 | 49395000 | 982 | 294095333333333 | 594 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
140093966499163 | 615 | 329623653846154 | 1018 | 216415 | 615 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
125712003350084 | 638 | 232231346153846 | 1055 | 155941333333333 | 638 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11582181239531 | 661 | 170568076923077 | 1094 | 109822 | 661 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
933554824120604 | 685 | 114283076923077 | 1134 | 811729333333333 | 685 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
766995862646567 | 71 | 851232692307693 | 1176 | 533704666666667 | 71 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
625145611390285 | 737 | 558684615384616 | 1219 | 398905 | 737 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
531419574539364 | 764 | 425857115384616 | 1263 | 272716 | 764 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
401304512562814 | 791 | 320039230769231 | 131 | 224988666666667 | 791 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
302290415410386 | 82 | 224643461538462 | 1358 | 175139333333333 | 82 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
234256559463987 | 851 | 204812115384616 | 1407 | 137377666666667 | 851 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
174277956448911 | 882 | 133968461538462 | 1459 | 1185743 | 882 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
119620948073702 | 914 | 120355384615385 | 1512 | 901657 | 914 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
860247541038527 | 947 | 1114950 | 1568 | 95869666666667 | 947 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
588795608040202 | 982 | 892715384615385 | 1625 | 866524 | 982 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
453500100502513 | 1018 | 75693076923077 | 1685 | 79995933333333 | 1018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
306104184254607 | 1055 | 734100000000001 | 1747 | 855652 | 1055 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
214392951423786 | 1094 | 732648076923078 | 1811 | 82140833333333 | 1094 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
171584234505863 | 1134 | 530092307692308 | 1877 | 81683533333333 | 1134 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
129452606365159 | 1176 | 609534615384616 | 1946 | 71270166666667 | 1176 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
109800234170854 | 1219 | 491257692307693 | 2017 | 67286033333333 | 1219 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
875061487437187 | 1263 | 391936346153846 | 2091 | 75311933333333 | 1263 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
755701192629817 | 131 | 427556153846154 | 2167 | 71270066666667 | 131 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76907041876047 | 1358 | 528136538461539 | 2247 | 670295 | 1358 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
816854716917924 | 1407 | 538875 | 2329 | 612828 | 1407 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
682292696817421 | 1459 | 484882692307693 | 2414 | 60685066666667 | 1459 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
484327912897823 | 1512 | 523173076923077 | 2503 | 64353 | 1512 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
601245688442212 | 1568 | 532400 | 2595 | 575052 | 1568 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
608947306532664 | 1625 | 391983653846154 | 269 | 53995533333333 | 1625 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57423530318258 | 1685 | 39818576923077 | 2788 | 56581733333333 | 1685 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
665198110552765 | 1747 | 390621538461539 | 289 | 50526966666667 | 1747 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
641284469011726 | 1811 | 282454038461539 | 2996 | 52087233333333 | 1811 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
551386834170855 | 1877 | 301689807692308 | 3106 | 390656 | 1877 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
515487715242882 | 1946 | 392116538461539 | 322 | 40069366666667 | 1946 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
557056576214406 | 2017 | 262214807692308 | 3338 | 42029366666667 | 2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
585014763819096 | 2091 | 300040192307693 | 346 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
563217748743719 | 2167 | 327144807692308 | 3587 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
516019996649917 | 2247 | 291944038461539 | 3718 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
635039155778895 | 2329 | 410772307692308 | 3854 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
678386860971525 | 2414 | 438539038461539 | 3995 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
540607373534339 | 2503 | 810536808 | 542 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
534717524288108 | 2595 | 882899298 | 583 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
624962696817421 | 269 | 884130018 | 626 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
507626351758795 | 2788 | 848442984 | 673 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
482487487437186 | 289 | 79158372 | 723 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
462233661641542 | 2996 | 628394094 | 777 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
614290241206031 | 3106 | 484154992 | 835 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
549685423785595 | 322 | 3250266138 | 898 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
485615936348409 | 3338 | 1930962502 | 965 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
446652388609716 | 346 | 97717245 | 1037 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
733651755443887 | 3587 | 451665266 | 1114 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73515500837521 | 3718 | 1710666186 | 1197 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
491714613065327 | 3854 | 750723816 | 1286 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
453128479061977 | 3995 | 3692090772 | 1382 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22625785 | 542 | 08614861802 | 1486 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23149945 | 583 | 11076250522 | 1596 | 89545 | 542 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2547951466667 | 626 | 1 | 1715 | 10021 | 583 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26411294 | 673 | 1 | 1843 | 11057 | 626 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2478060433333 | 723 | 1 | 1981 | 12158 | 673 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2428556433333 | 777 | 1 | 2129 | 12433 | 723 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1953912566667 | 835 | 1 | 2288 | 113975 | 777 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1421029306667 | 898 | 01230695642 | 2458 | 9234 | 835 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
797872833333 | 965 | 1 | 2642 | 70035 | 898 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
430967506667 | 1037 | 1 | 2839 | 49195 | 965 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21839545 | 1114 | 1 | 3051 | 3452 | 1037 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84446483333 | 1197 | 01230695642 | 3278 | 23495 | 1114 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
320313357 | 1286 | 1 | 3523 | 1597 | 1197 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34943302333 | 1382 | 1 | 3786 | 1089 | 1286 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17471639033 | 1486 | 1 | 4068 | 781 | 1382 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
116477634 | 1596 | 1 | 4371 | 5965 | 1486 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
08735821033 | 1715 | 1 | 4698 | 4325 | 1596 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
05823884733 | 1843 | 1 | 5048 | 3995 | 1715 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
05823884733 | 1981 | 1 | 5425 | 3185 | 1843 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02911942367 | 2129 | 1 | 5829 | 2325 | 1981 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 2288 | 1 | 6264 | 2185 | 2129 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02911942367 | 2458 | 1 | 6732 | 194 | 2288 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02911942367 | 2642 | 1 | 7234 | 1705 | 2458 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
08735821033 | 2839 | 1 | 7774 | 1395 | 2642 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02911942367 | 3051 | 1 | 8354 | 124 | 2839 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
08735821033 | 3278 | 1 | 8977 | 97 | 3051 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
05823884733 | 3523 | 1 | 9647 | 92 | 3278 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
08735818 | 3786 | 1 | 10370 | 71 | 3523 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23295514667 | 4068 | 1 | 11140 | 56 | 3786 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
05823884733 | 4371 | 1 | 11970 | 51 | 4068 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
05823884733 | 4698 | 1 | 12860 | 35 | 4371 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 5048 | 1 | 13820 | 31 | 4698 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 5425 | 1 | 14860 | 21 | 5048 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 5829 | 1 | 15960 | 16 | 5425 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 6264 | 1 | 17150 | 1 | 5829 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 6732 | 1 | 18430 | 055 | 6264 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 7234 | 1 | 19810 | 05 | 6732 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 7774 | 055 | 7234 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 8354 | 02 | 7774 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 8977 | 005 | 8354 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 9647 | 0 | 8977 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 10370 | 01 | 9647 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 11140 | 005 | 10370 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 11970 | 005 | 11140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 12860 | 01 | 11970 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 13820 | 0 | 12860 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 14860 | 0 | 13820 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 15960 | 0 | 14860 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 17150 | 0 | 15960 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 18430 | 0 | 17150 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 19810 | 0 | 18430 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0 | 19810 |
Literature data
Methods
Methods
TEA
Targets
Test Matrix
Sheet3
Figure 11
12
High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
Mechanism of actionWater circulates in loop at high velocity and contacts aerosol particles using a spray nozzle comprised of very small holes Contacting spray causes condensation and growth of particles that are then captured in loop and removed from vapor phase
PerformanceHigh velocity spray-based pretreatment reduced amine losses ~15-18 times during testing at 045 MWe PCC pilot in Niederaussum that began in 2009
Typical inlet flue gas conditions at Abbott Power Plant ~190 degF~1 bar~92 mol CO2 (dry) ~100-200 ppmv SO2
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate new nozzle amp perforated tray designs and the impact of several operating conditions (flows temperatures etc) on performance
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Item | Unit | Value | Results for 2 boilers at Abbott | ||||||
Temperature | deg F | 200 | |||||||
Pressure (gauge) | psig | 075 | |||||||
Gas composition | |||||||||
Moisture | vol | 192 | |||||||
CO2 | vol (dry) | 92 | |||||||
O2 | vol (dry) | 735 | |||||||
SO2 | ppmv (wet) | 177 | |||||||
NOx | ppmv (wet) | 211 |
Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | ||||||
wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | ||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | |||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4416576 | |||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1692236 | |||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 224508 | |||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 642000 | |||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6420 | |||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 913 | |||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 550 | 550 | 551 | |||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3310 | |||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | |||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | |||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | |||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | |||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 492 | 489 | 480 | |||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1057614 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4202441 | |||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | |||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | |||||
Variable Cost | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | |||||
Fixed Cost | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | |||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | |||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | |||||
Total Plant Cost | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | |||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | |||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | |||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | |||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $37822131 | |||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1807497942 | |||||
Consumables Cost | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3672920691 | |||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $548690427 | |||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $58985 | |||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 408451435817063 | |||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Land (x1000) | $877 | $892 | $889 | $878 | |||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $283666 | |||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51060 | |||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2326540582 | |||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52242 | |||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $24962 | |||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112056 | |||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $400456 | |||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148566 | |||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $535646 | |||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98298 | |||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $44989 | |||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178026 | |||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62202 | |||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19012 | |||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93505 | |||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31627 | |||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18048 | |||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71471 | |||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1257162 | |||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $633945 | |||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13686 | $13330 | $13279 | $11848 | |||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14646 | $14316 | $14256 | $12807 | |||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3048 | |||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $2023 | $1474 | $1474 | $1461 | |||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1372 | |||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7062 | $7159 | $7136 | $5967 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $7069 | $6450 | $6440 | $4804 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $6413 | $5851 | $5842 | $4358 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $7514 | $6952 | $6943 | $5458 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46254722 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $985 | $977 | $959 | |||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 492 | 488 | 479 | |||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3366 | |||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1069 | |||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 799 | 794 | 779 | |||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1668 | |||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2127 | |||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8340 | |||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | |||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | |||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | |||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3546 | |||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 16090 | |||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35645 | |||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | |||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | |||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 656 | 651 | 639 | |||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7740 | |||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | |||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | |||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2377 | |||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 91289 | |||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10485 | |||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1865 | |||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22185 | |||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | |||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | |||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1515 | |||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 200 | 198 | 195 | |||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 025 | -017 | -1031 | |||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 008 | -031 | -1105 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 088 | 073 | -2487 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 074 | 061 | -2090 | |||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -029 |
8 weeks of testing for each system 1 day testing per week at each condition 2nd part of 5th day includes data analysis and recap May vary cooling temperature depending on test results Flue gas flow and recirculation flow may vary depending on initial test results | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ACM 1 High-velocity water spray injection (1 or more different nozzle designs and 1 or more perforated tray designs will be tested depending on early results) | ACM 2 Novel ESP (voltage and current ranges chosen may vary depending on early test results) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flue gas flow (scfm) | Recirculation flow (gpm) | LG ratio | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | Cooling onoff | Water spray temperature (deg F) | Flue gas flow (scfm) | ESP Voltage (kV) | ESP Current (mA) | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Week 1nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 2nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 1No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 2No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 3nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 4nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 3No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filterWeek 4No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 750 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 5nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 6nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 5No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filterWeek 6No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 500 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 7nozzle 1 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 8nozzle 2 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 7ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 8ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off |
Concentration (cm3) | ||||||||||
Particle Size (nm) | Before | After | Removal eff () | Average removal eff () | ||||||
71 | 441263461538462 | 533704666666667 | 999879050791 | 997335936184 | ||||||
737 | 39593576923077 | 398905 | 999899250073 | |||||||
764 | 294517500 | 272716000 | 999907402446 | |||||||
791 | 235586538461539 | 224988666666667 | 999904498505 | |||||||
82 | 219594615384616 | 175139333333333 | 99992024425 | |||||||
851 | 183537307692308 | 137377666666667 | 999925150004 | |||||||
882 | 132950384615385 | 1185743 | 99991081312 | |||||||
914 | 991526923076924 | 90165700 | 999909063791 | |||||||
947 | 723884615384616 | 95869666666667 | 999867562227 | |||||||
982 | 49395000 | 866524 | 999824572528 | |||||||
1018 | 329623653846154 | 79995933333333 | 999757311308 | |||||||
1055 | 232231346153846 | 855652 | 999631551892 | |||||||
1094 | 170568076923077 | 82140833 | 999518427863 | |||||||
1134 | 114283076923077 | 81683533333333 | 999285252589 | |||||||
1176 | 851232692307693 | 71270166666667 | 999162741665 | |||||||
1219 | 558684615384616 | 67286033333333 | 998795634756 | |||||||
1263 | 425857115384616 | 75311933333333 | 998231521076 | |||||||
131 | 320039230769231 | 71270066666667 | 997773083428 | |||||||
1358 | 224643461538462 | 670295 | 997016182909 | |||||||
1407 | 204812115384616 | 612828 | 997007852788 | |||||||
1459 | 133968461538462 | 60685066666667 | 99547019754 | |||||||
1512 | 120355384615385 | 64353 | 994653085094 | |||||||
1568 | 1114950 | 575052 | 994842351675 | |||||||
1625 | 892715384615385 | 53995533333333 | 993951539957 | |||||||
1685 | 75693076923077 | 56581733333333 | 99252484697 | |||||||
1747 | 734100000000001 | 50526966666667 | 993117154793 | |||||||
1811 | 732648076923078 | 52087233333333 | 992890552098 | |||||||
1877 | 530092307692308 | 390656 | 992630415603 | |||||||
1946 | 609534615384616 | 40069366666667 | 993426236073 | |||||||
2017 | 491257692307693 | 42029366666667 | 991444537699 | |||||||
2091 | 391936346153846 | |||||||||
2167 | 427556153846154 | |||||||||
2247 | 528136538461539 | |||||||||
2329 | 538875 | |||||||||
2414 | 484882692307693 | |||||||||
2503 | 523173076923077 | |||||||||
2595 | 532400 | |||||||||
269 | 391983653846154 | |||||||||
2788 | 39818576923077 | |||||||||
289 | 390621538461539 | |||||||||
2996 | 282454038461539 | |||||||||
3106 | 301689807692308 | |||||||||
322 | 392116538461539 | |||||||||
3338 | 262214807692308 | |||||||||
346 | 300040192307693 | |||||||||
3587 | 327144807692308 | |||||||||
3718 | 291944038461539 | |||||||||
3854 | 410772307692308 | |||||||||
3995 | 438539038461539 | |||||||||
542 | 810536808 | 89545 | -104761672958 | |||||||
583 | 882899298 | 10021 | -135010529819 | |||||||
626 | 884130018 | 11057 | -25060791681 | |||||||
673 | 848442984 | 12158 | -432977846394 | |||||||
723 | 79158372 | 12433 | -570648774838 |
Base case | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | Case 5 | |||||||||||||||
DOE Case B12B Reference w baghouse | wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | wo baghouse (breakeven) | |||||||||||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | ||||||||||||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4432245 | 4516307 | 45154043379888 | |||||||||||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1698847 | 1732627 | ||||||||||||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 225385 | 229867 | 11478458479996 | |||||||||||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 644359 | 656869 | ||||||||||||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6444 | 6569 | 96690 | 9669 | 3 | |||||||||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 941 | 1072 | 9969 | |||||||||||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 551 | 550 | 550 | 550 | 550 | ||||||||||||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3323 | 3386 | ||||||||||||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | 248 | 4405686 | |||||||||||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | 450395408921933 | 982680892193308 | 445482004460967 | |||||||||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 440778425101536 | 440864946116186 | ||||||||||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | 31725 | ||||||||||||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 489 | 482 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1061745 | 1082857 | 4415000 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4218856 | 4302745 | 443224546416968 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | ||||||||||||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Cost | $60366961 | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | $60429346 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Cost | $63094548 | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | $62753124 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | $12931450746 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | $2364453241 | $2364444218 | |||||||||||||
Total Plant Cost | $1939142000 | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | $1922071279 | ||||||||||||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | ||||||||||||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | ||||||||||||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $38782850 | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $38061080 | $38441426 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1814558223 | $18145582 | ||||||||||||||
Consumables Cost | $36775427 | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3687267513 | $36775427 | ||||||||||||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $550833671 | $5508337 | ||||||||||||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $59957 | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $59257 | $59691 | ||||||||||||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | $41125 | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 410280350765301 | $4159189 | ||||||||||||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Land (x1000) | $900 | $877 | $892 | $889 | $883 | $892 | ||||||||||||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $290871 | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $285458 | $288311 | ||||||||||||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $52357 | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51382 | $51896 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2341063213 | $236445324106 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52378 | $53073 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $25027 | $25359 | ||||||||||||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112348 | $113838 | ||||||||||||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $401502 | $406825 | ||||||||||||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $197475 | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148954 | $150929 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $544054 | $545052 | 935327377984728 | |||||||||||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98555 | $99862 | ||||||||||||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $45107 | $45705 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178491 | $180858 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62364 | $63191 | ||||||||||||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19062 | $19314 | ||||||||||||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93749 | $94993 | ||||||||||||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31710 | $32130 | ||||||||||||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18095 | $18335 | ||||||||||||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71657 | $72608 | ||||||||||||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1307004 | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1260445 | $1277157 | ||||||||||||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $642609 | $644914 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13320 | $13686 | $13368 | $13305 | $13185 | $13279 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14280 | $14646 | $14353 | $14282 | $14149 | $14262 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3090 | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3095 | $3139 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $1470 | $2023 | $1511 | $1500 | $1478 | $1474 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1540 | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1523 | $1529 | ||||||||||||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7220 | $7062 | $7160 | $7137 | $7089 | $7136 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $5262 | $7069 | $6497 | $6472 | $6414 | $6440 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $5800 | $6413 | $5894 | $5872 | $5818 | $5842 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $6901 | $7514 | $6995 | $6972 | $6919 | $6943 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46435398 | $47358727 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $960 | $985 | $977 | $963 | $984 | ||||||||||||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 488 | 481 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3379 | 3446 | ||||||||||||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1073 | 1094 | ||||||||||||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 780 | 799 | 794 | 782 | 798 | ||||||||||||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1674 | 1708 | ||||||||||||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2136 | 2178 | ||||||||||||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8372 | 8539 | ||||||||||||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | 61 | ||||||||||||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 28 | ||||||||||||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | 110 | ||||||||||||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | 112 | ||||||||||||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3559 | 3630 | ||||||||||||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 18682 | 30361 | 14000 | 2640 | ||||||||||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35784 | 36496 | ||||||||||||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | ||||||||||||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 640 | 656 | 651 | 642 | 654 | ||||||||||||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7770 | 7925 | ||||||||||||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | ||||||||||||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2386 | 2434 | ||||||||||||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 94148 | 107186 | ||||||||||||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10535 | 10755 | ||||||||||||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1872 | 1909 | ||||||||||||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22272 | 22715 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 24 | ||||||||||||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1521 | 1551 | ||||||||||||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 195 | 200 | 198 | 196 | 199 | ||||||||||||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 051 | 002 | -092 | -012 | |||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 036 | -011 | -101 | -031 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 162 | 123 | 032 | 073 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 136 | 104 | 027 | 061 | |||||||||||||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -166 | -202 |
Method | Amine emissions (kg aminetonne CO2 | Aerosol particle concentration range where adequate (particlescm3) | ||||||||
Baghouse | 0009 | 0 to 1E+7 | 0 | 10000000 | ||||||
Dry bed operation (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+6 | 0 | 1000000 | ||||||
Absorber operating conditions (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+7 | 0 | 10000000 | ||||||
Pre-treatment solutions (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+9 | 0 | 1000000000 |
Methods
Methods
TEA
Targets
Test Matrix
Sheet3
Figure 11
12
High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
Mechanism of actionWater circulates in loop at high velocity and contacts aerosol particles using a spray nozzle comprised of very small holes Contacting spray causes condensation and growth of particles that are then captured in loop and removed from vapor phase
PerformanceHigh velocity spray-based pretreatment reduced amine losses ~15-18 times during testing at 045 MWe PCC pilot in Niederaussum that began in 2009
Typical inlet flue gas conditions at Abbott Power Plant ~190 degF~1 bar~92 mol CO2 (dry) ~100-200 ppmv SO2
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate new nozzle amp perforated tray designs and the impact of several operating conditions (flows temperatures etc) on performance
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Item | Unit | Value | Results for 2 boilers at Abbott | ||||||
Temperature | deg F | 200 | |||||||
Pressure (gauge) | psig | 075 | |||||||
Gas composition | |||||||||
Moisture | vol | 192 | |||||||
CO2 | vol (dry) | 92 | |||||||
O2 | vol (dry) | 735 | |||||||
SO2 | ppmv (wet) | 177 | |||||||
NOx | ppmv (wet) | 211 |
Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | ||||||
wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | ||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | |||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4416576 | |||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1692236 | |||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 224508 | |||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 642000 | |||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6420 | |||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 913 | |||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 550 | 550 | 551 | |||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3310 | |||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | |||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | |||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | |||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | |||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 492 | 489 | 480 | |||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1057614 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4202441 | |||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | |||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | |||||
Variable Cost | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | |||||
Fixed Cost | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | |||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | |||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | |||||
Total Plant Cost | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | |||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | |||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | |||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | |||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $37822131 | |||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1807497942 | |||||
Consumables Cost | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3672920691 | |||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $548690427 | |||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $58985 | |||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 408451435817063 | |||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Land (x1000) | $877 | $892 | $889 | $878 | |||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $283666 | |||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51060 | |||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2326540582 | |||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52242 | |||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $24962 | |||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112056 | |||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $400456 | |||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148566 | |||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $535646 | |||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98298 | |||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $44989 | |||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178026 | |||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62202 | |||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19012 | |||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93505 | |||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31627 | |||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18048 | |||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71471 | |||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1257162 | |||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $633945 | |||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13686 | $13330 | $13279 | $11848 | |||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14646 | $14316 | $14256 | $12807 | |||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3048 | |||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $2023 | $1474 | $1474 | $1461 | |||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1372 | |||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7062 | $7159 | $7136 | $5967 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $7069 | $6450 | $6440 | $4804 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $6413 | $5851 | $5842 | $4358 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $7514 | $6952 | $6943 | $5458 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46254722 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $985 | $977 | $959 | |||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 492 | 488 | 479 | |||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3366 | |||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1069 | |||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 799 | 794 | 779 | |||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1668 | |||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2127 | |||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8340 | |||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | |||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | |||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | |||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3546 | |||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 16090 | |||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35645 | |||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | |||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | |||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 656 | 651 | 639 | |||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7740 | |||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | |||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | |||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2377 | |||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 91289 | |||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10485 | |||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1865 | |||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22185 | |||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | |||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | |||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1515 | |||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 200 | 198 | 195 | |||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 025 | -017 | -1031 | |||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 008 | -031 | -1105 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 088 | 073 | -2487 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 074 | 061 | -2090 | |||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -029 |
8 weeks of testing for each system 1 day testing per week at each condition 2nd part of 5th day includes data analysis and recap May vary cooling temperature depending on test results Flue gas flow and recirculation flow may vary depending on initial test results | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ACM 1 High-velocity water spray injection (1 or more different nozzle designs and 1 or more perforated tray designs will be tested depending on early results) | ACM 2 Novel ESP (voltage and current ranges chosen may vary depending on early test results) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flue gas flow (scfm) | Recirculation flow (gpm) | LG ratio | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | Cooling onoff | Water spray temperature (deg F) | Flue gas flow (scfm) | ESP Voltage (kV) | ESP Current (mA) | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Week 1nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 2nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 1No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 2No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 3nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 4nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 3No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filterWeek 4No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 750 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 5nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 6nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 5No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filterWeek 6No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 500 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 7nozzle 1 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 8nozzle 2 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 7ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 8ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off |
Concentration (cm3) | ||||||||||
Particle Size (nm) | Before | After | Removal eff () | Average removal eff () | ||||||
71 | 441263461538462 | 533704666666667 | 999879050791 | 997335936184 | ||||||
737 | 39593576923077 | 398905 | 999899250073 | |||||||
764 | 294517500 | 272716000 | 999907402446 | |||||||
791 | 235586538461539 | 224988666666667 | 999904498505 | |||||||
82 | 219594615384616 | 175139333333333 | 99992024425 | |||||||
851 | 183537307692308 | 137377666666667 | 999925150004 | |||||||
882 | 132950384615385 | 1185743 | 99991081312 | |||||||
914 | 991526923076924 | 90165700 | 999909063791 | |||||||
947 | 723884615384616 | 95869666666667 | 999867562227 | |||||||
982 | 49395000 | 866524 | 999824572528 | |||||||
1018 | 329623653846154 | 79995933333333 | 999757311308 | |||||||
1055 | 232231346153846 | 855652 | 999631551892 | |||||||
1094 | 170568076923077 | 82140833 | 999518427863 | |||||||
1134 | 114283076923077 | 81683533333333 | 999285252589 | |||||||
1176 | 851232692307693 | 71270166666667 | 999162741665 | |||||||
1219 | 558684615384616 | 67286033333333 | 998795634756 | |||||||
1263 | 425857115384616 | 75311933333333 | 998231521076 | |||||||
131 | 320039230769231 | 71270066666667 | 997773083428 | |||||||
1358 | 224643461538462 | 670295 | 997016182909 | |||||||
1407 | 204812115384616 | 612828 | 997007852788 | |||||||
1459 | 133968461538462 | 60685066666667 | 99547019754 | |||||||
1512 | 120355384615385 | 64353 | 994653085094 | |||||||
1568 | 1114950 | 575052 | 994842351675 | |||||||
1625 | 892715384615385 | 53995533333333 | 993951539957 | |||||||
1685 | 75693076923077 | 56581733333333 | 99252484697 | |||||||
1747 | 734100000000001 | 50526966666667 | 993117154793 | |||||||
1811 | 732648076923078 | 52087233333333 | 992890552098 | |||||||
1877 | 530092307692308 | 390656 | 992630415603 | |||||||
1946 | 609534615384616 | 40069366666667 | 993426236073 | |||||||
2017 | 491257692307693 | 42029366666667 | 991444537699 | |||||||
2091 | 391936346153846 | |||||||||
2167 | 427556153846154 | |||||||||
2247 | 528136538461539 | |||||||||
2329 | 538875 | |||||||||
2414 | 484882692307693 | |||||||||
2503 | 523173076923077 | |||||||||
2595 | 532400 | |||||||||
269 | 391983653846154 | |||||||||
2788 | 39818576923077 | |||||||||
289 | 390621538461539 | |||||||||
2996 | 282454038461539 | |||||||||
3106 | 301689807692308 | |||||||||
322 | 392116538461539 | |||||||||
3338 | 262214807692308 | |||||||||
346 | 300040192307693 | |||||||||
3587 | 327144807692308 | |||||||||
3718 | 291944038461539 | |||||||||
3854 | 410772307692308 | |||||||||
3995 | 438539038461539 | |||||||||
542 | 810536808 | 89545 | -104761672958 | |||||||
583 | 882899298 | 10021 | -135010529819 | |||||||
626 | 884130018 | 11057 | -25060791681 | |||||||
673 | 848442984 | 12158 | -432977846394 | |||||||
723 | 79158372 | 12433 | -570648774838 |
Base case | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | Case 5 | |||||||||||||||
DOE Case B12B Reference w baghouse | wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | wo baghouse (breakeven) | |||||||||||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | ||||||||||||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4432245 | 4516307 | 45154043379888 | |||||||||||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1698847 | 1732627 | ||||||||||||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 225385 | 229867 | 11478458479996 | |||||||||||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 644359 | 656869 | ||||||||||||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6444 | 6569 | 96690 | 9669 | 3 | |||||||||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 941 | 1072 | 9969 | |||||||||||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 551 | 550 | 550 | 550 | 550 | ||||||||||||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3323 | 3386 | ||||||||||||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | 248 | 4405686 | |||||||||||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | 450395408921933 | 982680892193308 | 445482004460967 | |||||||||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 440778425101536 | 440864946116186 | ||||||||||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | 31725 | ||||||||||||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 489 | 482 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1061745 | 1082857 | 4415000 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4218856 | 4302745 | 443224546416968 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | ||||||||||||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Cost | $60366961 | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | $60429346 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Cost | $63094548 | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | $62753124 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | $12931450746 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | $2364453241 | $2364444218 | |||||||||||||
Total Plant Cost | $1939142000 | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | $1922071279 | ||||||||||||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | ||||||||||||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | ||||||||||||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $38782850 | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $38061080 | $38441426 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1814558223 | $18145582 | ||||||||||||||
Consumables Cost | $36775427 | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3687267513 | $36775427 | ||||||||||||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $550833671 | $5508337 | ||||||||||||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $59957 | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $59257 | $59691 | ||||||||||||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | $41125 | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 410280350765301 | $4159189 | ||||||||||||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Land (x1000) | $900 | $877 | $892 | $889 | $883 | $892 | ||||||||||||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $290871 | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $285458 | $288311 | ||||||||||||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $52357 | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51382 | $51896 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2341063213 | $236445324106 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52378 | $53073 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $25027 | $25359 | ||||||||||||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112348 | $113838 | ||||||||||||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $401502 | $406825 | ||||||||||||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $197475 | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148954 | $150929 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $544054 | $545052 | 935327377984728 | |||||||||||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98555 | $99862 | ||||||||||||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $45107 | $45705 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178491 | $180858 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62364 | $63191 | ||||||||||||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19062 | $19314 | ||||||||||||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93749 | $94993 | ||||||||||||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31710 | $32130 | ||||||||||||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18095 | $18335 | ||||||||||||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71657 | $72608 | ||||||||||||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1307004 | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1260445 | $1277157 | ||||||||||||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $642609 | $644914 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13320 | $13686 | $13368 | $13305 | $13185 | $13279 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14280 | $14646 | $14353 | $14282 | $14149 | $14262 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3090 | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3095 | $3139 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $1470 | $2023 | $1511 | $1500 | $1478 | $1474 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1540 | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1523 | $1529 | ||||||||||||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7220 | $7062 | $7160 | $7137 | $7089 | $7136 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $5262 | $7069 | $6497 | $6472 | $6414 | $6440 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $5800 | $6413 | $5894 | $5872 | $5818 | $5842 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $6901 | $7514 | $6995 | $6972 | $6919 | $6943 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46435398 | $47358727 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $960 | $985 | $977 | $963 | $984 | ||||||||||||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 488 | 481 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3379 | 3446 | ||||||||||||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1073 | 1094 | ||||||||||||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 780 | 799 | 794 | 782 | 798 | ||||||||||||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1674 | 1708 | ||||||||||||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2136 | 2178 | ||||||||||||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8372 | 8539 | ||||||||||||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | 61 | ||||||||||||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 28 | ||||||||||||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | 110 | ||||||||||||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | 112 | ||||||||||||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3559 | 3630 | ||||||||||||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 18682 | 30361 | 14000 | 2640 | ||||||||||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35784 | 36496 | ||||||||||||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | ||||||||||||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 640 | 656 | 651 | 642 | 654 | ||||||||||||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7770 | 7925 | ||||||||||||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | ||||||||||||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2386 | 2434 | ||||||||||||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 94148 | 107186 | ||||||||||||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10535 | 10755 | ||||||||||||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1872 | 1909 | ||||||||||||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22272 | 22715 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 24 | ||||||||||||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1521 | 1551 | ||||||||||||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 195 | 200 | 198 | 196 | 199 | ||||||||||||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 051 | 002 | -092 | -012 | |||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 036 | -011 | -101 | -031 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 162 | 123 | 032 | 073 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 136 | 104 | 027 | 061 | |||||||||||||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -166 | -202 |
Method | Amine emissions (kg aminetonne CO2 | Aerosol particle concentration range where adequate (particlescm3) | ||||||||
Baghouse | 0009 | 0 to 1E+7 | 0 | 10000000 | ||||||
Dry bed operation (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+6 | 0 | 1000000 | ||||||
Absorber operating conditions (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+7 | 0 | 10000000 | ||||||
Pre-treatment solutions (no BH) | lt03 | 0 to 1E+9 | 0 | 1000000000 |
Methods
TEA
Targets
Test Matrix
Sheet3
Figure 11
12
High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
Mechanism of actionWater circulates in loop at high velocity and contacts aerosol particles using a spray nozzle comprised of very small holes Contacting spray causes condensation and growth of particles that are then captured in loop and removed from vapor phase
PerformanceHigh velocity spray-based pretreatment reduced amine losses ~15-18 times during testing at 045 MWe PCC pilot in Niederaussum that began in 2009
Typical inlet flue gas conditions at Abbott Power Plant ~190 degF~1 bar~92 mol CO2 (dry) ~100-200 ppmv SO2
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate new nozzle amp perforated tray designs and the impact of several operating conditions (flows temperatures etc) on performance
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Item | Unit | Value | Results for 2 boilers at Abbott | ||||||
Temperature | deg F | 200 | |||||||
Pressure (gauge) | psig | 075 | |||||||
Gas composition | |||||||||
Moisture | vol | 192 | |||||||
CO2 | vol (dry) | 92 | |||||||
O2 | vol (dry) | 735 | |||||||
SO2 | ppmv (wet) | 177 | |||||||
NOx | ppmv (wet) | 211 |
Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | ||||||
wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | ||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | |||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4416576 | |||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1692236 | |||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 224508 | |||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 642000 | |||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6420 | |||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 913 | |||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 550 | 550 | 551 | |||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3310 | |||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | |||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | |||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | |||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | |||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 492 | 489 | 480 | |||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1057614 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4202441 | |||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | |||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | |||||
Variable Cost | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | |||||
Fixed Cost | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | |||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | |||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | |||||
Total Plant Cost | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | |||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | |||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | |||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | |||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $37822131 | |||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1807497942 | |||||
Consumables Cost | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3672920691 | |||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $548690427 | |||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $58985 | |||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 408451435817063 | |||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Land (x1000) | $877 | $892 | $889 | $878 | |||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $283666 | |||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51060 | |||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2326540582 | |||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52242 | |||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $24962 | |||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112056 | |||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $400456 | |||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148566 | |||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $535646 | |||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98298 | |||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $44989 | |||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178026 | |||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62202 | |||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19012 | |||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93505 | |||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31627 | |||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18048 | |||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71471 | |||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1257162 | |||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $633945 | |||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13686 | $13330 | $13279 | $11848 | |||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14646 | $14316 | $14256 | $12807 | |||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3048 | |||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $2023 | $1474 | $1474 | $1461 | |||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1372 | |||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7062 | $7159 | $7136 | $5967 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $7069 | $6450 | $6440 | $4804 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $6413 | $5851 | $5842 | $4358 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $7514 | $6952 | $6943 | $5458 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46254722 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $985 | $977 | $959 | |||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 492 | 488 | 479 | |||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3366 | |||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1069 | |||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 799 | 794 | 779 | |||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1668 | |||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2127 | |||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8340 | |||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | |||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | |||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | |||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3546 | |||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 16090 | |||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35645 | |||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | |||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | |||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 656 | 651 | 639 | |||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7740 | |||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | |||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | |||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2377 | |||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 91289 | |||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10485 | |||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1865 | |||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22185 | |||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | |||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | |||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1515 | |||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 200 | 198 | 195 | |||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 025 | -017 | -1031 | |||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 008 | -031 | -1105 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 088 | 073 | -2487 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 074 | 061 | -2090 | |||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -029 |
8 weeks of testing for each system 1 day testing per week at each condition 2nd part of 5th day includes data analysis and recap May vary cooling temperature depending on test results Flue gas flow and recirculation flow may vary depending on initial test results | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ACM 1 High-velocity water spray injection (1 or more different nozzle designs and 1 or more perforated tray designs will be tested depending on early results) | ACM 2 Novel ESP (voltage and current ranges chosen may vary depending on early test results) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flue gas flow (scfm) | Recirculation flow (gpm) | LG ratio | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | Cooling onoff | Water spray temperature (deg F) | Flue gas flow (scfm) | ESP Voltage (kV) | ESP Current (mA) | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Week 1nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 2nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 1No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 2No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 3nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 4nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 3No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filterWeek 4No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 750 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 5nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 6nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 5No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filterWeek 6No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 500 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 7nozzle 1 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 8nozzle 2 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 7ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 8ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off |
Concentration (cm3) | ||||||||||
Particle Size (nm) | Before | After | Removal eff () | Average removal eff () | ||||||
71 | 441263461538462 | 533704666666667 | 999879050791 | 997335936184 | ||||||
737 | 39593576923077 | 398905 | 999899250073 | |||||||
764 | 294517500 | 272716000 | 999907402446 | |||||||
791 | 235586538461539 | 224988666666667 | 999904498505 | |||||||
82 | 219594615384616 | 175139333333333 | 99992024425 | |||||||
851 | 183537307692308 | 137377666666667 | 999925150004 | |||||||
882 | 132950384615385 | 1185743 | 99991081312 | |||||||
914 | 991526923076924 | 90165700 | 999909063791 | |||||||
947 | 723884615384616 | 95869666666667 | 999867562227 | |||||||
982 | 49395000 | 866524 | 999824572528 | |||||||
1018 | 329623653846154 | 79995933333333 | 999757311308 | |||||||
1055 | 232231346153846 | 855652 | 999631551892 | |||||||
1094 | 170568076923077 | 82140833 | 999518427863 | |||||||
1134 | 114283076923077 | 81683533333333 | 999285252589 | |||||||
1176 | 851232692307693 | 71270166666667 | 999162741665 | |||||||
1219 | 558684615384616 | 67286033333333 | 998795634756 | |||||||
1263 | 425857115384616 | 75311933333333 | 998231521076 | |||||||
131 | 320039230769231 | 71270066666667 | 997773083428 | |||||||
1358 | 224643461538462 | 670295 | 997016182909 | |||||||
1407 | 204812115384616 | 612828 | 997007852788 | |||||||
1459 | 133968461538462 | 60685066666667 | 99547019754 | |||||||
1512 | 120355384615385 | 64353 | 994653085094 | |||||||
1568 | 1114950 | 575052 | 994842351675 | |||||||
1625 | 892715384615385 | 53995533333333 | 993951539957 | |||||||
1685 | 75693076923077 | 56581733333333 | 99252484697 | |||||||
1747 | 734100000000001 | 50526966666667 | 993117154793 | |||||||
1811 | 732648076923078 | 52087233333333 | 992890552098 | |||||||
1877 | 530092307692308 | 390656 | 992630415603 | |||||||
1946 | 609534615384616 | 40069366666667 | 993426236073 | |||||||
2017 | 491257692307693 | 42029366666667 | 991444537699 | |||||||
2091 | 391936346153846 | |||||||||
2167 | 427556153846154 | |||||||||
2247 | 528136538461539 | |||||||||
2329 | 538875 | |||||||||
2414 | 484882692307693 | |||||||||
2503 | 523173076923077 | |||||||||
2595 | 532400 | |||||||||
269 | 391983653846154 | |||||||||
2788 | 39818576923077 | |||||||||
289 | 390621538461539 | |||||||||
2996 | 282454038461539 | |||||||||
3106 | 301689807692308 | |||||||||
322 | 392116538461539 | |||||||||
3338 | 262214807692308 | |||||||||
346 | 300040192307693 | |||||||||
3587 | 327144807692308 | |||||||||
3718 | 291944038461539 | |||||||||
3854 | 410772307692308 | |||||||||
3995 | 438539038461539 | |||||||||
542 | 810536808 | 89545 | -104761672958 | |||||||
583 | 882899298 | 10021 | -135010529819 | |||||||
626 | 884130018 | 11057 | -25060791681 | |||||||
673 | 848442984 | 12158 | -432977846394 | |||||||
723 | 79158372 | 12433 | -570648774838 |
Base case | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | Case 5 | |||||||||||||||
DOE Case B12B Reference w baghouse | wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | wo baghouse (breakeven) | |||||||||||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | ||||||||||||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4432245 | 4516307 | 45154043379888 | |||||||||||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1698847 | 1732627 | ||||||||||||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 225385 | 229867 | 11478458479996 | |||||||||||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 644359 | 656869 | ||||||||||||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6444 | 6569 | 96690 | 9669 | 3 | |||||||||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 941 | 1072 | 9969 | |||||||||||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 551 | 550 | 550 | 550 | 550 | ||||||||||||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3323 | 3386 | ||||||||||||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | 248 | 4405686 | |||||||||||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | 450395408921933 | 982680892193308 | 445482004460967 | |||||||||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 440778425101536 | 440864946116186 | ||||||||||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | 31725 | ||||||||||||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 489 | 482 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1061745 | 1082857 | 4415000 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4218856 | 4302745 | 443224546416968 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | ||||||||||||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Cost | $60366961 | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | $60429346 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Cost | $63094548 | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | $62753124 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | $12931450746 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | $2364453241 | $2364444218 | |||||||||||||
Total Plant Cost | $1939142000 | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | $1922071279 | ||||||||||||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | ||||||||||||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | ||||||||||||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $38782850 | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $38061080 | $38441426 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1814558223 | $18145582 | ||||||||||||||
Consumables Cost | $36775427 | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3687267513 | $36775427 | ||||||||||||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $550833671 | $5508337 | ||||||||||||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $59957 | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $59257 | $59691 | ||||||||||||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | $41125 | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 410280350765301 | $4159189 | ||||||||||||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Land (x1000) | $900 | $877 | $892 | $889 | $883 | $892 | ||||||||||||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $290871 | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $285458 | $288311 | ||||||||||||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $52357 | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51382 | $51896 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2341063213 | $236445324106 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52378 | $53073 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $25027 | $25359 | ||||||||||||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112348 | $113838 | ||||||||||||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $401502 | $406825 | ||||||||||||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $197475 | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148954 | $150929 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $544054 | $545052 | 935327377984728 | |||||||||||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98555 | $99862 | ||||||||||||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $45107 | $45705 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178491 | $180858 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62364 | $63191 | ||||||||||||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19062 | $19314 | ||||||||||||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93749 | $94993 | ||||||||||||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31710 | $32130 | ||||||||||||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18095 | $18335 | ||||||||||||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71657 | $72608 | ||||||||||||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1307004 | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1260445 | $1277157 | ||||||||||||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $642609 | $644914 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13320 | $13686 | $13368 | $13305 | $13185 | $13279 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14280 | $14646 | $14353 | $14282 | $14149 | $14262 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3090 | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3095 | $3139 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $1470 | $2023 | $1511 | $1500 | $1478 | $1474 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1540 | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1523 | $1529 | ||||||||||||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7220 | $7062 | $7160 | $7137 | $7089 | $7136 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $5262 | $7069 | $6497 | $6472 | $6414 | $6440 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $5800 | $6413 | $5894 | $5872 | $5818 | $5842 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $6901 | $7514 | $6995 | $6972 | $6919 | $6943 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46435398 | $47358727 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $960 | $985 | $977 | $963 | $984 | ||||||||||||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 488 | 481 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3379 | 3446 | ||||||||||||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1073 | 1094 | ||||||||||||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 780 | 799 | 794 | 782 | 798 | ||||||||||||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1674 | 1708 | ||||||||||||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2136 | 2178 | ||||||||||||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8372 | 8539 | ||||||||||||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | 61 | ||||||||||||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 28 | ||||||||||||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | 110 | ||||||||||||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | 112 | ||||||||||||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3559 | 3630 | ||||||||||||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 18682 | 30361 | 14000 | 2640 | ||||||||||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35784 | 36496 | ||||||||||||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | ||||||||||||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 640 | 656 | 651 | 642 | 654 | ||||||||||||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7770 | 7925 | ||||||||||||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | ||||||||||||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2386 | 2434 | ||||||||||||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 94148 | 107186 | ||||||||||||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10535 | 10755 | ||||||||||||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1872 | 1909 | ||||||||||||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22272 | 22715 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 24 | ||||||||||||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1521 | 1551 | ||||||||||||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 195 | 200 | 198 | 196 | 199 | ||||||||||||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 051 | 002 | -092 | -012 | |||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 036 | -011 | -101 | -031 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 162 | 123 | 032 | 073 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 136 | 104 | 027 | 061 | |||||||||||||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -166 | -202 |
TEA
Targets
Test Matrix
Sheet3
Figure 11
12
High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
Mechanism of actionWater circulates in loop at high velocity and contacts aerosol particles using a spray nozzle comprised of very small holes Contacting spray causes condensation and growth of particles that are then captured in loop and removed from vapor phase
PerformanceHigh velocity spray-based pretreatment reduced amine losses ~15-18 times during testing at 045 MWe PCC pilot in Niederaussum that began in 2009
Typical inlet flue gas conditions at Abbott Power Plant ~190 degF~1 bar~92 mol CO2 (dry) ~100-200 ppmv SO2
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate new nozzle amp perforated tray designs and the impact of several operating conditions (flows temperatures etc) on performance
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Item | Unit | Value | Results for 2 boilers at Abbott | ||||||
Temperature | deg F | 200 | |||||||
Pressure (gauge) | psig | 075 | |||||||
Gas composition | |||||||||
Moisture | vol | 192 | |||||||
CO2 | vol (dry) | 92 | |||||||
O2 | vol (dry) | 735 | |||||||
SO2 | ppmv (wet) | 177 | |||||||
NOx | ppmv (wet) | 211 |
Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | ||||||
wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | ||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | |||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4416576 | |||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1692236 | |||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 224508 | |||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 642000 | |||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6420 | |||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 913 | |||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 550 | 550 | 551 | |||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3310 | |||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | |||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | |||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | |||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | |||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 492 | 489 | 480 | |||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1057614 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4202441 | |||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | |||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | |||||
Variable Cost | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | |||||
Fixed Cost | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | |||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | |||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | |||||
Total Plant Cost | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | |||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | |||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | |||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | |||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $37822131 | |||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1807497942 | |||||
Consumables Cost | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3672920691 | |||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $548690427 | |||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $58985 | |||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 408451435817063 | |||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Land (x1000) | $877 | $892 | $889 | $878 | |||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $283666 | |||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51060 | |||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2326540582 | |||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52242 | |||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $24962 | |||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112056 | |||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $400456 | |||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148566 | |||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $535646 | |||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98298 | |||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $44989 | |||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178026 | |||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62202 | |||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19012 | |||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93505 | |||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31627 | |||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18048 | |||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71471 | |||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1257162 | |||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $633945 | |||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13686 | $13330 | $13279 | $11848 | |||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14646 | $14316 | $14256 | $12807 | |||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3048 | |||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $2023 | $1474 | $1474 | $1461 | |||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1372 | |||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7062 | $7159 | $7136 | $5967 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $7069 | $6450 | $6440 | $4804 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $6413 | $5851 | $5842 | $4358 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $7514 | $6952 | $6943 | $5458 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46254722 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $985 | $977 | $959 | |||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 492 | 488 | 479 | |||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3366 | |||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1069 | |||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 799 | 794 | 779 | |||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1668 | |||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2127 | |||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8340 | |||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | |||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | |||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | |||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3546 | |||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 16090 | |||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35645 | |||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | |||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | |||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 656 | 651 | 639 | |||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7740 | |||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | |||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | |||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2377 | |||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 91289 | |||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10485 | |||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1865 | |||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22185 | |||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | |||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | |||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1515 | |||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 200 | 198 | 195 | |||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 025 | -017 | -1031 | |||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 008 | -031 | -1105 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 088 | 073 | -2487 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 074 | 061 | -2090 | |||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -029 |
8 weeks of testing for each system 1 day testing per week at each condition 2nd part of 5th day includes data analysis and recap May vary cooling temperature depending on test results Flue gas flow and recirculation flow may vary depending on initial test results | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ACM 1 High-velocity water spray injection (1 or more different nozzle designs and 1 or more perforated tray designs will be tested depending on early results) | ACM 2 Novel ESP (voltage and current ranges chosen may vary depending on early test results) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flue gas flow (scfm) | Recirculation flow (gpm) | LG ratio | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | Cooling onoff | Water spray temperature (deg F) | Flue gas flow (scfm) | ESP Voltage (kV) | ESP Current (mA) | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Week 1nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 2nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 1No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 2No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 3nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 4nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 3No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filterWeek 4No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 750 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 5nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 6nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 5No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filterWeek 6No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 500 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 7nozzle 1 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 8nozzle 2 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 7ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 8ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off |
Concentration (cm3) | ||||||||||
Particle Size (nm) | Before | After | Removal eff () | Average removal eff () | ||||||
71 | 441263461538462 | 533704666666667 | 999879050791 | 997335936184 | ||||||
737 | 39593576923077 | 398905 | 999899250073 | |||||||
764 | 294517500 | 272716000 | 999907402446 | |||||||
791 | 235586538461539 | 224988666666667 | 999904498505 | |||||||
82 | 219594615384616 | 175139333333333 | 99992024425 | |||||||
851 | 183537307692308 | 137377666666667 | 999925150004 | |||||||
882 | 132950384615385 | 1185743 | 99991081312 | |||||||
914 | 991526923076924 | 90165700 | 999909063791 | |||||||
947 | 723884615384616 | 95869666666667 | 999867562227 | |||||||
982 | 49395000 | 866524 | 999824572528 | |||||||
1018 | 329623653846154 | 79995933333333 | 999757311308 | |||||||
1055 | 232231346153846 | 855652 | 999631551892 | |||||||
1094 | 170568076923077 | 82140833 | 999518427863 | |||||||
1134 | 114283076923077 | 81683533333333 | 999285252589 | |||||||
1176 | 851232692307693 | 71270166666667 | 999162741665 | |||||||
1219 | 558684615384616 | 67286033333333 | 998795634756 | |||||||
1263 | 425857115384616 | 75311933333333 | 998231521076 | |||||||
131 | 320039230769231 | 71270066666667 | 997773083428 | |||||||
1358 | 224643461538462 | 670295 | 997016182909 | |||||||
1407 | 204812115384616 | 612828 | 997007852788 | |||||||
1459 | 133968461538462 | 60685066666667 | 99547019754 | |||||||
1512 | 120355384615385 | 64353 | 994653085094 | |||||||
1568 | 1114950 | 575052 | 994842351675 | |||||||
1625 | 892715384615385 | 53995533333333 | 993951539957 | |||||||
1685 | 75693076923077 | 56581733333333 | 99252484697 | |||||||
1747 | 734100000000001 | 50526966666667 | 993117154793 | |||||||
1811 | 732648076923078 | 52087233333333 | 992890552098 | |||||||
1877 | 530092307692308 | 390656 | 992630415603 | |||||||
1946 | 609534615384616 | 40069366666667 | 993426236073 | |||||||
2017 | 491257692307693 | 42029366666667 | 991444537699 | |||||||
2091 | 391936346153846 | |||||||||
2167 | 427556153846154 | |||||||||
2247 | 528136538461539 | |||||||||
2329 | 538875 | |||||||||
2414 | 484882692307693 | |||||||||
2503 | 523173076923077 | |||||||||
2595 | 532400 | |||||||||
269 | 391983653846154 | |||||||||
2788 | 39818576923077 | |||||||||
289 | 390621538461539 | |||||||||
2996 | 282454038461539 | |||||||||
3106 | 301689807692308 | |||||||||
322 | 392116538461539 | |||||||||
3338 | 262214807692308 | |||||||||
346 | 300040192307693 | |||||||||
3587 | 327144807692308 | |||||||||
3718 | 291944038461539 | |||||||||
3854 | 410772307692308 | |||||||||
3995 | 438539038461539 | |||||||||
542 | 810536808 | 89545 | -104761672958 | |||||||
583 | 882899298 | 10021 | -135010529819 | |||||||
626 | 884130018 | 11057 | -25060791681 | |||||||
673 | 848442984 | 12158 | -432977846394 | |||||||
723 | 79158372 | 12433 | -570648774838 |
Base case | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | Case 5 | |||||||||||||||
DOE Case B12B Reference w baghouse | wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | wo baghouse (breakeven) | |||||||||||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | ||||||||||||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4432245 | 4516307 | 45154043379888 | |||||||||||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1698847 | 1732627 | ||||||||||||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 225385 | 229867 | 11478458479996 | |||||||||||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 644359 | 656869 | ||||||||||||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6444 | 6569 | 96690 | 9669 | 3 | |||||||||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 941 | 1072 | 9969 | |||||||||||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 551 | 550 | 550 | 550 | 550 | ||||||||||||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3323 | 3386 | ||||||||||||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | 248 | 4405686 | |||||||||||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | 450395408921933 | 982680892193308 | 445482004460967 | |||||||||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 440778425101536 | 440864946116186 | ||||||||||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | 31725 | ||||||||||||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 489 | 482 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1061745 | 1082857 | 4415000 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4218856 | 4302745 | 443224546416968 | |||||||||||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | ||||||||||||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Cost | $60366961 | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | $60429346 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Cost | $63094548 | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | $62753124 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | $12931450746 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | $2364453241 | $2364444218 | |||||||||||||
Total Plant Cost | $1939142000 | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | $1922071279 | ||||||||||||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | ||||||||||||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | ||||||||||||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $38782850 | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $38061080 | $38441426 | ||||||||||||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1814558223 | $18145582 | ||||||||||||||
Consumables Cost | $36775427 | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3687267513 | $36775427 | ||||||||||||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $550833671 | $5508337 | ||||||||||||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $59957 | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $59257 | $59691 | ||||||||||||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | $41125 | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 410280350765301 | $4159189 | ||||||||||||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Land (x1000) | $900 | $877 | $892 | $889 | $883 | $892 | ||||||||||||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $290871 | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $285458 | $288311 | ||||||||||||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $52357 | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51382 | $51896 | ||||||||||||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2384351816 | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2341063213 | $236445324106 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52378 | $53073 | ||||||||||||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $25027 | $25359 | ||||||||||||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112348 | $113838 | ||||||||||||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $401502 | $406825 | ||||||||||||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $197475 | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148954 | $150929 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $544054 | $545052 | 935327377984728 | |||||||||||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98555 | $99862 | ||||||||||||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $45107 | $45705 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178491 | $180858 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62364 | $63191 | ||||||||||||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19062 | $19314 | ||||||||||||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93749 | $94993 | ||||||||||||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31710 | $32130 | ||||||||||||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18095 | $18335 | ||||||||||||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71657 | $72608 | ||||||||||||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1307004 | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1260445 | $1277157 | ||||||||||||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $642609 | $644914 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13320 | $13686 | $13368 | $13305 | $13185 | $13279 | ||||||||||||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14280 | $14646 | $14353 | $14282 | $14149 | $14262 | ||||||||||||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3090 | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3095 | $3139 | ||||||||||||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $1470 | $2023 | $1511 | $1500 | $1478 | $1474 | ||||||||||||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1540 | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1523 | $1529 | ||||||||||||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7220 | $7062 | $7160 | $7137 | $7089 | $7136 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $5262 | $7069 | $6497 | $6472 | $6414 | $6440 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $5800 | $6413 | $5894 | $5872 | $5818 | $5842 | ||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $6901 | $7514 | $6995 | $6972 | $6919 | $6943 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46435398 | $47358727 | ||||||||||||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $960 | $985 | $977 | $963 | $984 | ||||||||||||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 480 | 492 | 488 | 481 | 491 | ||||||||||||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3379 | 3446 | ||||||||||||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1073 | 1094 | ||||||||||||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 780 | 799 | 794 | 782 | 798 | ||||||||||||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1674 | 1708 | ||||||||||||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2136 | 2178 | ||||||||||||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8372 | 8539 | ||||||||||||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | 61 | ||||||||||||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 28 | ||||||||||||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | 110 | ||||||||||||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | 112 | ||||||||||||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3559 | 3630 | ||||||||||||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 18682 | 30361 | 14000 | 2640 | ||||||||||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35784 | 36496 | ||||||||||||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | ||||||||||||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | ||||||||||||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 640 | 656 | 651 | 642 | 654 | ||||||||||||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7770 | 7925 | ||||||||||||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | ||||||||||||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | ||||||||||||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2386 | 2434 | ||||||||||||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 94148 | 107186 | ||||||||||||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10535 | 10755 | ||||||||||||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1872 | 1909 | ||||||||||||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22272 | 22715 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | ||||||||||||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 24 | ||||||||||||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1521 | 1551 | ||||||||||||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 195 | 200 | 198 | 196 | 199 | ||||||||||||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 051 | 002 | -092 | -012 | |||||||||||||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 036 | -011 | -101 | -031 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 162 | 123 | 032 | 073 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 136 | 104 | 027 | 061 | |||||||||||||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -166 | -202 |
Targets
Test Matrix
Sheet3
Figure 11
12
High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
Mechanism of actionWater circulates in loop at high velocity and contacts aerosol particles using a spray nozzle comprised of very small holes Contacting spray causes condensation and growth of particles that are then captured in loop and removed from vapor phase
PerformanceHigh velocity spray-based pretreatment reduced amine losses ~15-18 times during testing at 045 MWe PCC pilot in Niederaussum that began in 2009
Typical inlet flue gas conditions at Abbott Power Plant ~190 degF~1 bar~92 mol CO2 (dry) ~100-200 ppmv SO2
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate new nozzle amp perforated tray designs and the impact of several operating conditions (flows temperatures etc) on performance
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Item | Unit | Value | Results for 2 boilers at Abbott | ||||||
Temperature | deg F | 200 | |||||||
Pressure (gauge) | psig | 075 | |||||||
Gas composition | |||||||||
Moisture | vol | 192 | |||||||
CO2 | vol (dry) | 92 | |||||||
O2 | vol (dry) | 735 | |||||||
SO2 | ppmv (wet) | 177 | |||||||
NOx | ppmv (wet) | 211 |
Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | ||||||
wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | ||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | |||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4416576 | |||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1692236 | |||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 224508 | |||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 642000 | |||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6420 | |||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 913 | |||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 550 | 550 | 551 | |||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3310 | |||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | |||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | |||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | |||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | |||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 492 | 489 | 480 | |||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1057614 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4202441 | |||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | |||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | |||||
Variable Cost | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | |||||
Fixed Cost | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | |||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | |||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | |||||
Total Plant Cost | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | |||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | |||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | |||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | |||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $37822131 | |||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1807497942 | |||||
Consumables Cost | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3672920691 | |||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $548690427 | |||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $58985 | |||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 408451435817063 | |||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Land (x1000) | $877 | $892 | $889 | $878 | |||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $283666 | |||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51060 | |||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2326540582 | |||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52242 | |||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $24962 | |||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112056 | |||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $400456 | |||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148566 | |||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $535646 | |||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98298 | |||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $44989 | |||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178026 | |||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62202 | |||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19012 | |||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93505 | |||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31627 | |||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18048 | |||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71471 | |||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1257162 | |||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $633945 | |||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13686 | $13330 | $13279 | $11848 | |||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14646 | $14316 | $14256 | $12807 | |||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3048 | |||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $2023 | $1474 | $1474 | $1461 | |||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1372 | |||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7062 | $7159 | $7136 | $5967 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $7069 | $6450 | $6440 | $4804 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $6413 | $5851 | $5842 | $4358 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $7514 | $6952 | $6943 | $5458 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46254722 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $985 | $977 | $959 | |||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 492 | 488 | 479 | |||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3366 | |||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1069 | |||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 799 | 794 | 779 | |||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1668 | |||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2127 | |||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8340 | |||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | |||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | |||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | |||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3546 | |||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 16090 | |||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35645 | |||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | |||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | |||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 656 | 651 | 639 | |||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7740 | |||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | |||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | |||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2377 | |||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 91289 | |||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10485 | |||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1865 | |||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22185 | |||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | |||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | |||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1515 | |||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 200 | 198 | 195 | |||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 025 | -017 | -1031 | |||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 008 | -031 | -1105 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 088 | 073 | -2487 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 074 | 061 | -2090 | |||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -029 |
8 weeks of testing for each system 1 day testing per week at each condition 2nd part of 5th day includes data analysis and recap May vary cooling temperature depending on test results Flue gas flow and recirculation flow may vary depending on initial test results | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ACM 1 High-velocity water spray injection (1 or more different nozzle designs and 1 or more perforated tray designs will be tested depending on early results) | ACM 2 Novel ESP (voltage and current ranges chosen may vary depending on early test results) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flue gas flow (scfm) | Recirculation flow (gpm) | LG ratio | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | Cooling onoff | Water spray temperature (deg F) | Flue gas flow (scfm) | ESP Voltage (kV) | ESP Current (mA) | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Week 1nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 2nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 1No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 2No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 3nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 4nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 3No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filterWeek 4No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 750 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 5nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 6nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 5No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filterWeek 6No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 500 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 7nozzle 1 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 8nozzle 2 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 7ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 8ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off |
Concentration (cm3) | ||||||||||
Particle Size (nm) | Before | After | Removal eff () | Average removal eff () | ||||||
71 | 441263461538462 | 533704666666667 | 999879050791 | 997335936184 | ||||||
737 | 39593576923077 | 398905 | 999899250073 | |||||||
764 | 294517500 | 272716000 | 999907402446 | |||||||
791 | 235586538461539 | 224988666666667 | 999904498505 | |||||||
82 | 219594615384616 | 175139333333333 | 99992024425 | |||||||
851 | 183537307692308 | 137377666666667 | 999925150004 | |||||||
882 | 132950384615385 | 1185743 | 99991081312 | |||||||
914 | 991526923076924 | 90165700 | 999909063791 | |||||||
947 | 723884615384616 | 95869666666667 | 999867562227 | |||||||
982 | 49395000 | 866524 | 999824572528 | |||||||
1018 | 329623653846154 | 79995933333333 | 999757311308 | |||||||
1055 | 232231346153846 | 855652 | 999631551892 | |||||||
1094 | 170568076923077 | 82140833 | 999518427863 | |||||||
1134 | 114283076923077 | 81683533333333 | 999285252589 | |||||||
1176 | 851232692307693 | 71270166666667 | 999162741665 | |||||||
1219 | 558684615384616 | 67286033333333 | 998795634756 | |||||||
1263 | 425857115384616 | 75311933333333 | 998231521076 | |||||||
131 | 320039230769231 | 71270066666667 | 997773083428 | |||||||
1358 | 224643461538462 | 670295 | 997016182909 | |||||||
1407 | 204812115384616 | 612828 | 997007852788 | |||||||
1459 | 133968461538462 | 60685066666667 | 99547019754 | |||||||
1512 | 120355384615385 | 64353 | 994653085094 | |||||||
1568 | 1114950 | 575052 | 994842351675 | |||||||
1625 | 892715384615385 | 53995533333333 | 993951539957 | |||||||
1685 | 75693076923077 | 56581733333333 | 99252484697 | |||||||
1747 | 734100000000001 | 50526966666667 | 993117154793 | |||||||
1811 | 732648076923078 | 52087233333333 | 992890552098 | |||||||
1877 | 530092307692308 | 390656 | 992630415603 | |||||||
1946 | 609534615384616 | 40069366666667 | 993426236073 | |||||||
2017 | 491257692307693 | 42029366666667 | 991444537699 | |||||||
2091 | 391936346153846 | |||||||||
2167 | 427556153846154 | |||||||||
2247 | 528136538461539 | |||||||||
2329 | 538875 | |||||||||
2414 | 484882692307693 | |||||||||
2503 | 523173076923077 | |||||||||
2595 | 532400 | |||||||||
269 | 391983653846154 | |||||||||
2788 | 39818576923077 | |||||||||
289 | 390621538461539 | |||||||||
2996 | 282454038461539 | |||||||||
3106 | 301689807692308 | |||||||||
322 | 392116538461539 | |||||||||
3338 | 262214807692308 | |||||||||
346 | 300040192307693 | |||||||||
3587 | 327144807692308 | |||||||||
3718 | 291944038461539 | |||||||||
3854 | 410772307692308 | |||||||||
3995 | 438539038461539 | |||||||||
542 | 810536808 | 89545 | -104761672958 | |||||||
583 | 882899298 | 10021 | -135010529819 | |||||||
626 | 884130018 | 11057 | -25060791681 | |||||||
673 | 848442984 | 12158 | -432977846394 | |||||||
723 | 79158372 | 12433 | -570648774838 |
Test Matrix
Sheet3
Figure 11
12
High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
Mechanism of actionWater circulates in loop at high velocity and contacts aerosol particles using a spray nozzle comprised of very small holes Contacting spray causes condensation and growth of particles that are then captured in loop and removed from vapor phase
PerformanceHigh velocity spray-based pretreatment reduced amine losses ~15-18 times during testing at 045 MWe PCC pilot in Niederaussum that began in 2009
Typical inlet flue gas conditions at Abbott Power Plant ~190 degF~1 bar~92 mol CO2 (dry) ~100-200 ppmv SO2
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate new nozzle amp perforated tray designs and the impact of several operating conditions (flows temperatures etc) on performance
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Item | Unit | Value | Results for 2 boilers at Abbott | ||||||
Temperature | deg F | 200 | |||||||
Pressure (gauge) | psig | 075 | |||||||
Gas composition | |||||||||
Moisture | vol | 192 | |||||||
CO2 | vol (dry) | 92 | |||||||
O2 | vol (dry) | 735 | |||||||
SO2 | ppmv (wet) | 177 | |||||||
NOx | ppmv (wet) | 211 |
Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | ||||||
wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | ||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | |||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4416576 | |||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1692236 | |||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 224508 | |||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 642000 | |||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6420 | |||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 913 | |||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 550 | 550 | 551 | |||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3310 | |||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | |||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | |||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | |||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | |||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 492 | 489 | 480 | |||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1057614 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4202441 | |||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | |||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | |||||
Variable Cost | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | |||||
Fixed Cost | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | |||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | |||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | |||||
Total Plant Cost | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | |||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | |||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | |||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | |||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $37822131 | |||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1807497942 | |||||
Consumables Cost | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3672920691 | |||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $548690427 | |||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $58985 | |||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 408451435817063 | |||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Land (x1000) | $877 | $892 | $889 | $878 | |||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $283666 | |||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51060 | |||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2326540582 | |||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52242 | |||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $24962 | |||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112056 | |||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $400456 | |||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148566 | |||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $535646 | |||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98298 | |||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $44989 | |||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178026 | |||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62202 | |||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19012 | |||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93505 | |||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31627 | |||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18048 | |||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71471 | |||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1257162 | |||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $633945 | |||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13686 | $13330 | $13279 | $11848 | |||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14646 | $14316 | $14256 | $12807 | |||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3048 | |||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $2023 | $1474 | $1474 | $1461 | |||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1372 | |||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7062 | $7159 | $7136 | $5967 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $7069 | $6450 | $6440 | $4804 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $6413 | $5851 | $5842 | $4358 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $7514 | $6952 | $6943 | $5458 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46254722 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $985 | $977 | $959 | |||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 492 | 488 | 479 | |||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3366 | |||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1069 | |||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 799 | 794 | 779 | |||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1668 | |||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2127 | |||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8340 | |||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | |||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | |||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | |||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3546 | |||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 16090 | |||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35645 | |||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | |||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | |||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 656 | 651 | 639 | |||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7740 | |||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | |||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | |||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2377 | |||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 91289 | |||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10485 | |||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1865 | |||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22185 | |||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | |||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | |||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1515 | |||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 200 | 198 | 195 | |||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 025 | -017 | -1031 | |||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 008 | -031 | -1105 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 088 | 073 | -2487 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 074 | 061 | -2090 | |||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -029 |
8 weeks of testing for each system 1 day testing per week at each condition 2nd part of 5th day includes data analysis and recap May vary cooling temperature depending on test results Flue gas flow and recirculation flow may vary depending on initial test results | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ACM 1 High-velocity water spray injection (1 or more different nozzle designs and 1 or more perforated tray designs will be tested depending on early results) | ACM 2 Novel ESP (voltage and current ranges chosen may vary depending on early test results) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | Test Week | Test Day Each Week | Test Parameters | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flue gas flow (scfm) | Recirculation flow (gpm) | LG ratio | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | Cooling onoff | Water spray temperature (deg F) | Flue gas flow (scfm) | ESP Voltage (kV) | ESP Current (mA) | Flue gas impurities filter (SOx NOx etc) onoff (optional) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Week 1nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 2nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 1No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 2No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 3nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 4nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min gas flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 3No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filterWeek 4No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 75 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 750 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 750 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 500 | 300 | 641 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 750 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 100 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 500 | 300 | 641 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 750 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 100 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 750 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 5nozzle 1 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 6nozzle 2 perforated tray 1Effect of LG ratio at min and 50 max circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 5No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filterWeek 6No ESP dryerEffect of ESP voltage at 50 flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 500 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 500 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 500 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 200 | 214 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 500 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 500 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
Week 7nozzle 1 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filterWeek 8nozzle 2 perforated tray 2Effect of LG ratio at max and min circulation flow w and wo cooling and filter | 1 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | Week 7ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filterWeek 8ESP dryer usedEffect of ESP voltage at max flue gas flow w filter (different voltage and current range) | 1 | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off | |||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | off | Determined by process | 1 | 1000 | 8 | 13 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 9 | 11 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | off | Determined by process | 2 | 1000 | 10 | 10 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 11 | 9 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | off | on | 95 | 3 | 1000 | 12 | 8 | off | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 100 | 107 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 13 | 8 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1000 | 300 | 321 | on | on | 95 | 4 | 1000 | 15 | 7 | on | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 100 | 107 | off | off | Determined by process | 5 (repeat 1st) | 1000 | 7 | 14 | off |
Sheet3
Figure 11
12
High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
Mechanism of actionWater circulates in loop at high velocity and contacts aerosol particles using a spray nozzle comprised of very small holes Contacting spray causes condensation and growth of particles that are then captured in loop and removed from vapor phase
PerformanceHigh velocity spray-based pretreatment reduced amine losses ~15-18 times during testing at 045 MWe PCC pilot in Niederaussum that began in 2009
Typical inlet flue gas conditions at Abbott Power Plant ~190 degF~1 bar~92 mol CO2 (dry) ~100-200 ppmv SO2
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate new nozzle amp perforated tray designs and the impact of several operating conditions (flows temperatures etc) on performance
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Item | Unit | Value | Results for 2 boilers at Abbott | ||||||
Temperature | deg F | 200 | |||||||
Pressure (gauge) | psig | 075 | |||||||
Gas composition | |||||||||
Moisture | vol | 192 | |||||||
CO2 | vol (dry) | 92 | |||||||
O2 | vol (dry) | 735 | |||||||
SO2 | ppmv (wet) | 177 | |||||||
NOx | ppmv (wet) | 211 |
Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | ||||||
wo baghouse and high solvent makeup (4x) | Varying absorber conditions and same solvent makeup | wo baghouse using water spray pretreatment system | wo baghouse using ESP pretreatment system | ||||||
Cost Basis Year | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | 2011$ | |||||
PC Boiler Steam Flow (lbhr) | 4416576 | 4530755 | 4497804 | 4416576 | |||||
Thermal input (kWt) (HHV) | 1694366 | 1736605 | 1723975 | 1692236 | |||||
Coal flowrate (kghr) | 224791 | 230395 | 228719 | 224508 | |||||
Total steam turbine power (kWe) | 642000 | 643332 | 654224 | 642000 | |||||
Gross Power (MWe) | 6420 | 6433 | 6542 | 6420 | |||||
Auxiliary Power (MWe) | 913 | 934 | 1038 | 913 | |||||
Net Power (MWe) | 551 | 550 | 550 | 551 | |||||
PCC Reboiler Duty (MW) | 3311 | 4106 | 3372 | 3310 | |||||
Specific Duty (MJkg CO2) | 248 | 300 | 248 | 248 | |||||
Fuel Type | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | Illinois No 6 Coal | |||||
Fuel Unit Cost ($ton) | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | 6854 | |||||
Power Plant Efficiency () (HHV) | 32500 | 31668 | 31930 | 32387 | |||||
Boiler Efficiency () (HHV) | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | 89100 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MThr) | 480 | 492 | 489 | 480 | |||||
CO2 Produced (lbhr) | 1058945 | 1085344 | 1077450 | 1057614 | |||||
CO2 Produced (MTyear) | 4207729 | 4312625 | 4281259 | 4202441 | |||||
CO2 Captured () | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | |||||
Capacity Factor (Fraction) | 085 | 085 | 085 | 085 | |||||
Variable Cost | $82839499 | $61871865 | $61421865 | $60526594 | |||||
Fixed Cost | $62118858 | $62746820 | $62624815 | $62372778 | |||||
Fuel Cost | $126458921 | $12961144817 | $12866877277 | $12679332619 | |||||
Total Overnight Cost | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $2356810371 | $2341063213 | |||||
Total Plant Cost | $1890358000 | $1921756120 | $1915655869 | $1903054023 | |||||
Annual Operating Labor Cost | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | $7384208 | |||||
Maintenance Labor Cost | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | $12065150 | |||||
Administrative amp Labor Support | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | $4862340 | |||||
Property Taxes and Insurance | $37807160 | $38435122 | $38313117 | $37822131 | |||||
Maintenance Material Cost | $18097725 | $1854888787 | $1841398019 | $1807497942 | |||||
Consumables Cost | $59247965 | $3769221114 | $3741807239 | $3672920691 | |||||
Waste Disposal Cost | $5493809 | $563076559 | $558981254 | $548690427 | |||||
By-Products Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Preproduction Costs (x1000) | $60854 | $59820 | $59635 | $58985 | |||||
Inventory Capital (x1000) | 452270951087832 | 418250410605904 | $4155922 | 408451435817063 | |||||
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals (x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Land (x1000) | $877 | $892 | $889 | $878 | |||||
Other Owners Costs (x1000) | $283554 | $288263 | $287348 | $283666 | |||||
Financing Costs (x1000) | $51040 | $51887 | $51723 | $51060 | |||||
Total Overnight Costs (TOC) | $2331909536 | $2364444218 | $235681037146 | $2326540582 | |||||
Coal and sorbent handling ($x1000) | $52286 | $53154 | $52896 | $52242 | |||||
Coal and sorbent prep amp feed ($x1000) | $24983 | $25398 | $25274 | $24962 | |||||
Feedwater amp misc BOP systems ($x1000) | $112150 | $114013 | $113457 | $112056 | |||||
PC boiler ($x1000) | $400793 | $407450 | $405465 | $400456 | |||||
Flue gas cleanup ($x1000) | $148691 | $151161 | $150424 | $148566 | |||||
CO2 removal ($x1000) | $533757 | $542622 | $543241 | $535646 | |||||
CO2 compression amp drying ($x1000) | $98381 | $100015 | $99528 | $98298 | |||||
Heat and power integration ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
Combustion turbineaccessories ($x1000) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
HRSG ducting amp stack ($x1000) | $45027 | $45775 | $45552 | $44989 | |||||
Steam turbine generaor ($x1000) | $178176 | $181135 | $180253 | $178026 | |||||
Cooling water system ($x1000) | $62254 | $63288 | $62980 | $62202 | |||||
Ashspent sorbent handling system ($x1000) | $19028 | $19344 | $19250 | $19012 | |||||
Accessory electric plant ($x1000) | $93584 | $95138 | $94675 | $93505 | |||||
Instrumentation amp control ($x1000) | $31654 | $32180 | $32023 | $31627 | |||||
Improvements to site ($x1000) | $18063 | $18363 | $18274 | $18048 | |||||
Buildings amp structures ($x1000) | $71531 | $72719 | $72365 | $71471 | |||||
TPC without PCC ($x1000) | $1258220 | $1279119 | $1272887 | $1257162 | |||||
PCC cost ($x1000) | $632138 | $642638 | $642769 | $633945 | |||||
COE ($MWh wo TampS) | $13686 | $13330 | $13279 | $11848 | |||||
COE ($MWh w TampS) | $14646 | $14316 | $14256 | $12807 | |||||
Fuel Costs ($MWh) | $3084 | $3165 | $3139 | $3048 | |||||
Variable Costs ($MWh) | $2023 | $1474 | $1474 | $1461 | |||||
Fixed Costs ($MWh) | $1517 | $1532 | $1529 | $1372 | |||||
Capital Costs ($MWh) | $7062 | $7159 | $7136 | $5967 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($ton wo TampS) | $7069 | $6450 | $6440 | $4804 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT wo TampS) | $6413 | $5851 | $5842 | $4358 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Captured ($MT w TampS) | $7514 | $6952 | $6943 | $5458 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MT) | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | $1101 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($) | $46312929 | $47467476 | $47122241 | $46254722 | |||||
CO2 TSM Cost ($MWh) | $960 | $985 | $977 | $959 | |||||
Coal handling amp conveying (kWe) | 480 | 492 | 488 | 479 | |||||
Pulverizers | 3370 | 3454 | 3429 | 3366 | |||||
Sorbent handling amp reagent preparation (kWe) | 1070 | 1097 | 1089 | 1069 | |||||
Ash handling (kWe) | 780 | 799 | 794 | 779 | |||||
Primary air fans (kWe) | 1670 | 1712 | 1699 | 1668 | |||||
Forced draft fans (kWe) | 2130 | 2183 | 2167 | 2127 | |||||
Induced draft fans (kWe) | 8350 | 8558 | 8496 | 8340 | |||||
SCR (kWe) | 60 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |||||
Activated carbon injection (kWe) | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | |||||
Dry sorbent injection (kWe) | 108 | 111 | 110 | 108 | |||||
Baghouse (kWe) | 110 | 113 | 112 | 110 | |||||
Wet FGD (kWe) | 3550 | 3638 | 3612 | 3546 | |||||
PCC plant auxiliaries (kWe) | 16000 | 16399 | 27280 | 16090 | |||||
CO2 compression (kWe) | 35690 | 36580 | 36314 | 35645 | |||||
Miscellaneous balance of plant (kWe) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | |||||
Steam turbine auxiliaries (kWe) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | |||||
Condensate pumps (kWe) | 640 | 656 | 651 | 639 | |||||
Circulating water pumps (kWe) | 7750 | 7943 | 7885 | 7740 | |||||
Ground water pumps (kWe) | 710 | 710 | 710 | 710 | |||||
Cooling tower fans (kWe) | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | 4010 | |||||
Transformer losses (kWe) | 2380 | 2439 | 2422 | 2377 | |||||
Total auxiliaries (kWe) | 91285 | 93383 | 103756 | 91289 | |||||
Net plant heat rate (BTUkWh) | 10498 | 10775 | 10686 | 10485 | |||||
Condenser cooling duty (GJhr) | 1867 | 1914 | 1900 | 1865 | |||||
Limestone sorbent flowrate (kghr) | 22213 | 22767 | 22601 | 22185 | |||||
Raw water withdrawal (m3min) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | |||||
Raw water consumption (m3min) | 23 | 24 | 24 | 23 | |||||
NOx (MTyear) | 1517 | 1555 | 1544 | 1515 | |||||
Particulates (MTyear) | 195 | 200 | 198 | 195 | |||||
Hg (kgyear) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||
SO2 (MTyear) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
COE Reduction (w TampS) | 256 | 025 | -017 | -1031 | |||||
COE Reduction (wo TampS) | 275 | 008 | -031 | -1105 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (wo TampS) | 1057 | 088 | 073 | -2487 | |||||
Cost of CO2 Reduction (w TampS) | 888 | 074 | 061 | -2090 | |||||
PCC Plant Cost Reduction | 000 | -166 | -168 | -029 |
Figure 11
12
High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
Mechanism of actionWater circulates in loop at high velocity and contacts aerosol particles using a spray nozzle comprised of very small holes Contacting spray causes condensation and growth of particles that are then captured in loop and removed from vapor phase
PerformanceHigh velocity spray-based pretreatment reduced amine losses ~15-18 times during testing at 045 MWe PCC pilot in Niederaussum that began in 2009
Typical inlet flue gas conditions at Abbott Power Plant ~190 degF~1 bar~92 mol CO2 (dry) ~100-200 ppmv SO2
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate new nozzle amp perforated tray designs and the impact of several operating conditions (flows temperatures etc) on performance
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Item | Unit | Value | Results for 2 boilers at Abbott | ||||||
Temperature | deg F | 200 | |||||||
Pressure (gauge) | psig | 075 | |||||||
Gas composition | |||||||||
Moisture | vol | 192 | |||||||
CO2 | vol (dry) | 92 | |||||||
O2 | vol (dry) | 735 | |||||||
SO2 | ppmv (wet) | 177 | |||||||
NOx | ppmv (wet) | 211 |
12
High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
Mechanism of actionWater circulates in loop at high velocity and contacts aerosol particles using a spray nozzle comprised of very small holes Contacting spray causes condensation and growth of particles that are then captured in loop and removed from vapor phase
PerformanceHigh velocity spray-based pretreatment reduced amine losses ~15-18 times during testing at 045 MWe PCC pilot in Niederaussum that began in 2009
Typical inlet flue gas conditions at Abbott Power Plant ~190 degF~1 bar~92 mol CO2 (dry) ~100-200 ppmv SO2
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate new nozzle amp perforated tray designs and the impact of several operating conditions (flows temperatures etc) on performance
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
13
Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
Mechanism of actionESP applies high voltage between plate and wire that ionizes flue gas aerosols Ionized particles are diverted towards collecting plates for removal WUSTLrsquos system will incorporate a patented photo-ionizer technology that enhances particle capture efficiency
PerformanceBased on flue gas testing at the Linde-BASF 15 MWe pilot at NCCC in 2016 WUSTLrsquos ESP is expected to provide 98-99 removal efficiency for 1000 scfm gas flow and a specific collection area (SCA) of 95 m2(m3s) which can be increased to remove more particles in the size range of 10-500 nm
TestsPlanned tests will evaluate voltage amp current effects and the impact of the photo-ionizer on ESP performance The effect of reduced SOx from the InnoSepra sorbent filter and the filterrsquos own aerosol removal performance will also be evaluated
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
14
InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
Mechanism of actionCost-effective sorbent-filter based removal of residual SO3 SO2 NO2 HCl and HF from PCC flue gas after the FGD and potential for aerosol particle reduction
TestsPlanned tests will further evaluate the SOx and NOx
reduction amp aerosol particle removal capabilities of the InnoSepra sorbent material
PerformanceSorbent material validation tests show bull gt99 SO2 and SO3 removal for both impregnated and
non-impregnated sorbentsbull Very high capacities (20-30 wt) for feed SO2 amp SO3
concentrations of 5-15 ppmvbull Low material production costs (lt$020-075lb)bull Best results achieved with impregnated materials
30 wt SO2 capacity for feeds containing 12-30 ppmv SO2
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Making our world more productive
Host Site Setup Innovation Targets amp Success Criteria
TechnicalApproach
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
16
Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
Abbott plant schematic and tie-in points to
pilot skid
Abbott chosen as optimal host site for testing since aerosol concentrations were measured to be among the highest found in scientific literature
Abbott plant aerial view
12rsquox20rsquo Pilot Skid
Abbott Power Plant
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
17
Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
Abbott stack
Abbott electrostatic precipitators
building
Abbott tractor house
Exhaust flue gas duct from
boiler after reheat burner
12rsquoW X 20rsquoL Aerosol pretreatment
pilot skid
Abbott external pollution control
building
Abbott external caustic tank
Abbott brine tank
Movable Analytical Container34rsquoL X12rsquoW
To Abbottrsquos onsite water
pretreatment system
Abbott building wall
8rdquo flue gas piping2rdquo cooling water pipingfrac12rdquo potable water piping480V power supply2rdquo process condensate pipingfrac12rdquo Instrument air line
Legend
(1) High velocity spray-based system(2) ESP system(3) InnoSepra filter system
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
18
Pilot test innovation targets
Parameter Rationale Expected target
Particle removal efficiency for 500-1000 scfm flue gas slipstream ()
Flue gas aerosol particles in size range 70-200 nm lead to amine losses in the treated gas of amine-based PCC plants
gt98
Cost competitiveness (COE = cost of electricity)
Reduced capital and operating costs are required for commercial application of enabling technologies for PCC
COE lt $13320MWh and cost of CO2 captured lt $58tonne when compared to DOE-NETL reference case B12B
Energy efficiency Low electricity consumption reduces parasitic load for enabling technologies
Energy consumption lt 14 MWe (threshold above which energy consumption greatly impacts COE and cost of CO2 captured)
Environmental sustainability when integrated with PCC technology for supercritical coal-fired power plants without a baghouse
Minimal environmental impact is required to meet process safety amp regulatory requirements for customers
Process condensate adequately removed amp treated as needed ESP solids removed and treated as needed
Particle removal efficiency = (Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) - Particle concentration after aerosol pretreatment (cm3) )(Particle concentration before aerosol pretreatment (cm3) ) 100 when integrated with PCC technology for a 550 MWe supercritical coal-fired power plant without a baghouse
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
19
Decision points and success criteria
Decision Point Date Success Criteria
Equipment procurement and fabrication of both aerosol pretreatment systems and components for installation
2282019 bull Successful completion of designs HAZOPsafety reviews and engineering documents that have been accepted by host site and reviewed by NETL
bull Update of costs based on vendor quotes and cost proposal within budget
bull Preliminary parametric test matrix in accordance with FOA guidelines and agreement with NETL
Installation of aerosol pretreatment systems on site
08302019 bull Host site is prepared and ready to receive aerosol pretreatment systems for installation
Handover to testing team 11292019 bull Successful completion of commissioning activities
bull Close-out of action items related to construction and installation from HAZOPS and safety reviews
Start of testing phase 12022019 bull Finalization of a test matrix for the parametric testing campaign with minimal changes from preliminary test plan and agreement with NETL
bull Coal flue gas availability from host site Project closeout 11302020 bull Successful demonstration of test objectives
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
20
Technical risks and mitigation strategies
Description of Risk Probability Impact Risk Management Mitigation and Response Strategies
Technical Risks
Material Compatibility Low Medium
bull Flue gas composition and analysis will be used as part of the design basis Material compatibility with corrosive contaminants in the flue gas can be addressed by host site and Linde Engineering experience with flue gas handling
Waste Handling Low Medium
bull Batch analysis of flue gas condensate and other liquid waste streams for regulatory compliance before disposal
bull Treated flue gas will be sent back to the Abbott power plant stack for monitoring before exhaust
bull Solid waste (flue gas particles) is expected to be low
Flue gas aerosol variability Medium Mediumbull The aerosol control methods being tested are expected to
work over wide ranges of aerosol particle concentrations and size distributions
Plugging process equipment Low Medium
bull The aerosol particle concentration in the Abbott flue gas has been measured The design and operation of all equipment components for each aerosol control module will be sufficient to prevent plugging based on these measurements and Linde Engineering experience with similar systems
Flue gas condition variability affecting aerosol measurements Low Medium
bull Online flue gas analysis (temperature composition pressure humidity etc) during testing team experience handling various flue gas qualities
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Making our world more productive
Budget Period 1 amp Budget Period 2
Progress and Current Project Status
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
22
ID Task Number Description
Planned Completion
Date
Actual Completion
DateVerification Method
a 1 Updated Project Management Plan 06292018 06292018 Project Management Plan file
b 1 Kickoff Meeting 07312018 07272018 Presentation file
c 2Review and modeling effort of aerosol-
driven amine loss mechanisms complete
11302018 10312018 Report to DOE
d 3 Design Engineering and Cost Analysis Complete 11302018 01312019 Report to DOE
(Review Meeting)e 3 Complete preliminary test plan 11302018 01312019 Test Plan Document
f 1Completion of statement of host site
acceptance of HAZOP and safety reviews
10312018 12202018 Host Site Statement Document
g 1 Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement 11302018 01162019 Host Site Agreement
Document
h 4 Fabrication and procurement complete 08302019 08262019 Report to DOE
i 5 Site Installation and Commissioning completeBoth ACMs ready for testing 11292019 On Track Presentation file
Milestone status through August 26th 2019
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
23
Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
― Task 2 Review of aerosol-driven amine loss mechanisms for PCC plants Review and modeling work completed report
submitted amp presentation made to DOE-NETL Pilot plant operating conditions informed from
modeling study
― Task 3 Pilot plant design and engineering Design basis completed with Abbott Power Plant (UIUC) Basic design amp engineering for spray-based system
completed by Linde Basic design amp engineering for ESP system completed by
WUSTL Sorbent filter system designed by InnoSepra Detailed engineering completed
1) ACS spray-based system amp sorbent filter vessel 2) WUSTL ESP system
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) completed with project team in Oct 2018 and host site in Dec 2018
Host site agreement executed in Jan 2019 Pilot plant cost estimation completed and budget
updated
Full 3D model pilot skid
ESP system
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
24
Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
― Task 4 Pilot equipment procurement and fabrication All inside battery limit (ISBL) pilot equipment amp raw
materials procured Spray system ESP system and sorbent filter vessel
fabrication complete Spray tower system factoryacceptance test will be completed by 83019
Local contractors selected for outside battery limit(OSBL) piping fabrication OSBL piping installation tobegin after module installation in September 2019
Contract executed with local construction firm to installflue gas supply amp return ports in Abbott plant duct portfabrication work in progress
Aerosol measurement equipment and gas compositionanalysis system procured
Vendor packages prepared for shipment amp installationat Abbott host site
Control logic and safety matrix developed based onHAZOP review and action items
Control system signals from ESP InnoSepra filter andgas analyzer rack incorporated into final design
― Task 5 Pilot plant installation planned to begin on 932019 ESP systemSorbent filter
Pilot skid w spray system
Water circulation pump
Blower
Water loop pipingHeat exchanger
Controls box
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
25
Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
Perforated plate change-out flange Aerosol measurement
ports for ESP and filter
Column demisterProcess water heat exchanger
Automated flow-switching valve
Aerosol measurement port for spray tower
Controls box
Perforated plate
Spray nozzle insert
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
26
Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
Gas sample probes designed and fabricated by UIUC SO2 dilution system procured and calibrated by UIUC based on host site conditions
Other completed itemsbull Unneeded equipment removed from analytical trailerbull SO2 analyzer calibrated and ready for testingbull Calibration gas cylinders and related equipment delivered to
host sitebull Analytical trailer transport plan coordinated with shipping
vendors
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
27
Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
Aerosol particle profile for inlet and outlet of each process component will be measured
Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) characterizes particles in the 1-450 nm size range
Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)-characterizes particles in the 05-20 microm size range
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
28
Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
Start Finish
Installation phase 9319 112919
Pour equipment pad pad curing set analytical trailer 9319 91119
OSBL electrical work (run 200 A feeder from tractor house run power to trailer amp skid)
9319 92319
OSBL mechanical piping (install process water potable water flue gas piping)
9319 93019
ISBL installation (set fabricated equipment install interconnecting piping leak check piping install instrumentation heat tracing and insulation)
91119 111119
Commissioning phase 101719 112919
Spray tower sorbent filter and ESP IO checkout 101719 112919
Operations amp safety training 112519 112919
On track to complete BP2 on schedule (112919)
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
29
Plans for future development
Project team plans to use constructed aerosol pretreatment equipment in future government-funded CO2 capture demonstration projects
Processes can easily be scaled up 10-100 times for demonstration andor commercial application based on existing designs
Team will continue to identify technology component improvements (eg better performing spray nozzle designs amp optimized operating conditions ESP photo-ionizer design optimization etc)
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-
Making our world more productive
Thank you for your attention
Making our world more productive
- Flue Gas Aerosol Pretreatment Technologies to Minimize Post-Combustion CO2 Capture (PCC) Solvent Losses DOE funding award DE-FE0031592
- Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
- Slide Number 3
- Project Objectives
- Project Team
- Project Timeline amp Milestones
- Project Budget DOE Funding and Cost Share
- Slide Number 8
- Aerosol particle interaction with amine solvent inside PCC absorbers leads to solvent losses in treated gas
- Benefits of aerosol particle reduction upstream of PCC plant (pretreatment)
- Methods to reduce aerosol-driven solvent losses Flue gas aerosol pretreatment provides optimum solution1
- High velocity water spray-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by RWE amp tested in Niederaussem Germany at lignite-fired coal power plant
- Advanced ESP-based aerosol pretreatment technologyDeveloped by Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL) and tested at NCCC in Wilsonville AL on 65 slpm flue gas sample
- InnoSepra sorbent filter technology for NOx and SOx removalDeveloped by InnoSepra LLC and tested in Middlesex NJ lab and at NCCC
- Slide Number 15
- Pilot host site Abbott Power Plant at UIUC in Champaign IL
- Pilot skid layout at Abbott Host Site
- Pilot test innovation targets
- Decision points and success criteria
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
- Slide Number 21
- Milestone status through August 26th 2019
- Successful completion of design engineering and cost estimate in Budget Period 1 (Jun 2018 ndash Feb 2019)
- Successful completion of procurement amp fabrication in Budget Period 2 (Mar 2019 ndash Nov 2019)
- Fabricated aerosol pretreatment skid ndash High velocity spray system
- Flue gas composition analysis system - UIUC
- Aerosol measurement equipment - WUSTL
- Detailed installation and commissioning plan developed
- Plans for future development
- Thank you for your attention
- Backup
- Overview of Linde PLCLeading global industrial gases and engineering company
- Linde has extensive experience in CO2 capture amp handling
- Resource amp Project Management Risks and Mitigation Strategies
- Rationale reducing aerosol-driven amine losses from solvent-based PCC technology enables its broader commercial deployment
- Aerosol particle formation during coal combustion
-