Fossil Energy and Carbon Capture: A Systems PerspectiveDavid C. Miller, Ph.D.U.S. DOE/NETLCAPD ESI Seminar SeriesOctober 19, 2010Pittsburgh, PA

Outline• Overview of NETL• Definitions, Overview of Power Production• Motivation CO Costs Water Use• Motivation – CO2, Costs, Water Use• Post-combustion carbon capture technology• Process Synthesis, Design & OptimizationProcess Synthesis, Design & Optimization

– Overview– Results

• Conclusions

2

National Energy Technology Laboratory• Full-service DOE federal

laboratory• Dedicated to energy RD&D,

Pittsburgh, PAAlbany,OR

gydomestic energy resources

• Fundamental science through technology demonstration Morgantown,

WVgy• Unique industry–academia–

government collaborations

WV

Fairbanks, AKSugar Land,

TX

3

West VirginiaPennsylvaniaOregon

20051943 – U.S. Rep. Jennings Randolph flies

A Century of Energy Innovation

2000National

Petroleum Technology Office in OK

2005Albany Research

Center joins NETL

from Morgantown, WV, to Washington, DC, on coal-derived fuel

1946

1996PA & WV sites

form new Federal Energy

Technology Center 2001

NETL opens Arctic

joins NETL 2009OK office moves to

Sugar Land, TX1946

Synthesis gas research begins in Morgantown,

WV

gyEnergy Office in Fairbanks, AK

1999FETC becomes National Energy

Technology

1918Petroleum research

Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability

1943

1977All four sites join new U.S.

Department of Energy

Technology Laboratory (NETL)

research begins in

Bartlesville, OK Systems & Policy Analysis

Climate & Energ

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

1910Coal research

begins in

1943Materials research begins in

Albany, OR

Energy

Alternative Fuels

Collaborative R&D Management

Climate & Energy

4

gPittsburgh, PA

Enhanced Resource Recovery & Operational Safety

Materials Science & Advanced Metallurgy

ORD Statistics

• Employees:– 205 Federal– 220 Contractor

• University Collaboration:• University Collaboration:– Regional University Alliance (CMU, Pitt, PSU, VT, WVU)

• 91 Faculty Associates• 139 Graduate Students and Post-Docs

Science, vol. 325, 957-958 (2009).

– ORISE: • 63 Students and Post-Doctoral Students

• Papers140 papers in 2009– 140 papers in 2009

• Up from 20 in 2000• Publications in high impact journals

– 1900 citations to NETL papers R t A d• Recent Awards

– Nine R&D 100 Awards since 2007, including four in 2009– Five National FLC Excellence in Technology Transfer Awards; two in 2009– 70 Patent Applications in Process, 66 Total Issued Patents

17 A ti CRADA

Science, vol. 322, 1664 (2008).

5

– 17 Active CRADAs– 11 Patent Licenses

Reducing the Carbon Footprint in Fossil Energy Production Chemical

Looping

• Increased Efficiencies – Advanced Steam Cycles

Advanced Gasification

p gReactor Simulation:Bed void fraction)

– Advanced Gasification– Next Generation Combustion Turbines– Fuel Cells

• Fuel Flexibility• Fuel Flexibility• Carbon Capture

– >90% CO2 capture– Minimize increase in COE

6

Outline• Overview of NETL• Definitions, Overview of Power Production• Motivation CO Costs Water Use• Motivation – CO2, Costs, Water Use• Post-combustion carbon capture technology• Process Synthesis, Design & OptimizationProcess Synthesis, Design & Optimization

– Overview– Results

• Conclusions

7

Definitions – Single CycleP l i d C l (PC) Pl t• Pulverized Coal (PC) Plant– Burns coal to generate steam to run turbines

(Rankine Cycle)( y )– Classifications

• Subcritical (~2500 psia, 36-40% efficient)• Supercritical (~3500+ psia 40-45% efficient)Supercritical ( 3500+ psia, 40 45% efficient)• Ultrasupercritical (~4400 psia, 48% efficiency)

– Post-combustion captureA i (MEA)• Aqueous amine (MEA)

• Gas Turbine – single Brayton cycle– Inexpensive capital costp p– Higher operating cost– Used for peaking power

8

Definitions – Combined CycleIGCC I t t d G ifi ti C bi d C l• IGCC-Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle– Gasifies coal (CO, H2, CO2)

• Electricity from Combined Cycley y– burning syngas in gas turbine (Brayton cycle)– steam generated from cooling syngas, turbine exhaust

(Rankine cycle)– Pre-combustion capture

• Shift reactor (syngas to hydrogen & CO2)• Physical solvent to remove CO2Physical solvent to remove CO2

– Selexol, Rectisol• NGCC – Natural Gas Combined Cycle

L it l t– Lower capital cost– Lower inherent CO2 emissions– Requires post-combustion carbon capture

9

q p p

Rankine Cycle

10

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle

Brayton Cycle

11

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brayton_cycle

Post-combustion capture (PC)

~70 mol% N2~13 mol% CO2

~1.5 mol% CO2

12

Oxycombustion (PC)

13

Pre-combustion capture (IGCC)

14

Outline• Overview of NETL• Definitions, Overview of Power Production• Motivation CO Costs Water Use• Motivation – CO2, Costs, Water Use• Post-combustion carbon capture technology• Process Synthesis, Design & OptimizationProcess Synthesis, Design & Optimization

– Overview– Results

• Conclusions

15

U.S. CO2 Emissions from Coal Plants

2500

324.5 GW

2000

O2 pe

r yea

r

312 9 GW

Increased IGCC-based power generation

1500

ic T

ons

CO 312.9 GW

Previous study indicated that in

500

1000

illio

n M

etri Previous study indicated that in

2030 80% of emissions will be from plants existing in 2010

02010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Mi

16

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Early Release, Dec. 2009

IGCC vs. PC with and without CCSNet Plant EfficiencyNet Plant Efficiency

60

39.536.8

39.1

40

50

Bas

is)

32.1

24.927.2

30

40

y, %

(HH

V

10

20

Effic

ienc

y

0Avg IGCC Avg IGCC

CCSPC-Sub PC-Sub CCS PC-Super PC-Super

CCS

17

“Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants Study, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity,” National Energy Technology Laboratory, www.netl.doe.gov, Aug. 2007.

IGCC vs. PC with and without CCS Cost of Electricity

140140140140140

LCOE by Cost ComponentCO2 TS&M

Cost of Electricity

1 1 4.71 1 8.6

106.3

100

120

140

h

1 1 4.71 1 8.6

106.3

100

120

140

h

1 1 4.71 1 8.6

106.3

100

120

140

h

1 1 4.71 1 8.6

106.31 1 4.7

1 1 8.6

106.3

100

120

140

h

1 1 4.71 1 8.6

106.3

100

120

140

h

Plant O&M

Plant Fuel Costs

Plant Capital Cost114.7

106.3

118.6

63.9 63.2

77.9

60

80

100

OE,

mill

s/kW

h

63.9 63.2

77.9

60

80

100

OE,

mill

s/kW

h

63.9 63.2

77.9

60

80

100

OE,

mill

s/kW

h

63.9 63.2

77.9

63.9 63.2

77.9

60

80

100

OE,

mill

s/kW

h

63.9 63.2

77.9

60

80

100

OE,

mill

s/kW

h

63.9 63.2

77.9

20

40

LCO

20

40

LCO

20

40

LCO

20

40

LCO

20

40

LCO

0Avg IGCC Avg IGCC

CCSsub-PC sub-PC

CCSsuper-PC super-PC

CCS

18

January 2007 Dollars, Coal cost $1.80/106Btu, Gas cost $6.75/106Btu CCS = Carbon capture and storage TS&M = transport, storage, and monitoring

“Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants Study, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity,” National Energy Technology Laboratory, www.netl.doe.gov, May 2007.

Power Plant Water Withdrawal Requirementswith and without CO2 capture

22.1

25

with and without CO2 capturegpm/MW net

gpm/MW net

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Pulverized Coal

19.020

gpm

/MW

net

11.19.79.5 9.2 9.9

10

15

ithdr

awal

, g

6.8 6.5 6.3

5Wat

er W

i

0

GE CoP Shell Subcritical Supercritical

WITHOUT CO2 WITH CO2

19

WITHOUT CO2 WITH CO2 Source: Water Requirements for Existing and Emerging Thermoelectric Plant Technologies; NETL, August 2008

DOE/NETL Goals: CO2 CaptureMinimum CO2 Captured

90%

Maximum Increase in COE

30% for PC

10% for IGCC

DOE/NETL Goals: Freshwater MinimizationSh t t l ( d f i l d t ti b 2015)

10% for IGCC

• Short-term goals (ready for commercial demonstration by 2015)– Reduce freshwater withdrawal and consumption by > 50% for

thermoelectric power plants equipped with wet recirculating cooling technologytechnology

– Levelized cost savings > 25% compared to state-of-the-art dry cooling

• Long-term goals (ready for commercial demonstration by 2020)R d f h i hd l d i b 70% f– Reduce freshwater withdrawal and consumption by > 70% for thermoelectric power plants equipped with wet recirculating cooling technology

– Levelized cost savings > 50% compared to state-of-the-art dry cooling

20

e e ed cost sa gs 50% co pa ed to state o t e a t d y coo g

Outline• Overview of NETL• Definitions, Overview of Power Production• Motivation CO Costs Water Use• Motivation – CO2, Costs, Water Use• Post-combustion carbon capture technology• Process Synthesis, Design & OptimizationProcess Synthesis, Design & Optimization

– Overview– Results

• Conclusions

21

Subcritical PC Plant

22

Aqueous Amine Scrubbing

23

Solid SorbentsMoving BedSteady-state1 Dimensional PDE model

Fluidized BedSteady-state, three phase model (bubble,

wake and emulsion) with interphasemass transfermass transfer

FlueFluegas

vol% solidGreen 50

mass% CO2Red 10

24

Green 50Blue 0

Red 10Green 5

Membrane Systems

25

Oxy-fuel CombustionFuel Stream

• Oxygen + flue gas recycle = easy CO2 capture.

• Innovative oxygen production

Oxidizer StreamFuel Stream

Coal, H2O & Ox

• Innovative oxygen production technologies and integration with whole process needed.

• Validated simulation tools:

Bluff Body

• Validated simulation tools: – Enabling rapid & multiple

retrofit and greenfield.R i t bli hi– Requires establishing simulation appropriate to new combustion environment.

26

Chalmer’s Furnace(Khare et. al, 2008)

Chemical LoopingN2 + O2

CO + H O

2 2

(vitiated air)

vol% gas(40 100)CO2 + H2O

Seal Parametric Study of geometry and flow rate

M i i C l Utili ti

(40-100)

Ash

RecycleU Fl id B d Z

– Maximize Coal Utilization– Minimize Char/Ash

entering air reactor

CO2 + H2OFuel

Air

Seal

Lower Moving Bed Zone

Upper Fluid Bed Zone• char & MeO mix and circulate• U(gas) > Umf (MeO) > Umf(char)

Air

Carbon + metal oxide = CO2 + metal

Lower Moving Bed Zone• char & MeO separate• Umf (MeO) > U(gas) > Umf (char)

27

2

Metal + air (oxygen) = metal oxide

Compression

• 5 casing (10 stage) compression• Intercoolers 265°F to variable T• Water returned to process• Final pressure 2200 psia

28

Outline• Overview of NETL• Definitions, Overview of Power Production• Motivation CO Costs Water Use• Motivation – CO2, Costs, Water Use• Post-combustion carbon capture technology• Process Synthesis, Design & OptimizationProcess Synthesis, Design & Optimization

– Overview– Results

• Conclusions

29

Challenges• Large scale problem• Large-scale problem

– 2 billion tons CO2 from coal by 2020 in US– Flue gas: 5 million lb/hr for 550MW PC plant

• No existing economical solution• No framework for developing & evaluating optimized designs

Diffi lt i i ti d l / i l ti• Difficulty re-using existing models/simulations• Inconsistent assumptions & evaluation methods

• Approach– Process synthesis, design & optimization

• Process integrationN li i t ti it / b t• Nonlinear interactions across units/subsystems

• Simulation-based optimization– Multi-criteria decision-making tools

• Include water resource considerations

30

• Include water resource considerations

31

Simulation INTERface (SINTER)

• Set simulation variables• Supports structural changes

– Feed stage– Number of stages– (not supported internally)

• Retrieves results• Perform post-processing

– Cost estimationObj ti f ti l l ti– Objective function calculations

32

33

Capital Cost vs. Water Use8,500

8,000

,

7 000

7,500

Wh n

et)

6,500

7,000

Wat

er U

se (l

b/M

W

00

6,000

W

5,000

5,500

900,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 1,400,000 1,500,000

34

Capital Cost ($/MWnet)

Capital Cost vs. NUHR17,500

17,000

,

16,000

16,500

Btu

/kW

h net

)

15,000

15,500

Uni

t Hea

t Rat

e (B

14,500

,

Net

U

13,500

14,000

900,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 1,400,000 1,500,000

35

Capital Cost ($/MWnet)

NUHR vs. Water Use8,500

8,000

,

7 000

7,500

6,500

7,000

Use

(lb/

MW

h net

)

5 500

6,000Wat

er

5,000

5,500

13,500 14,000 14,500 15,000 15,500 16,000 16,500 17,000 17,500

36

NUHR (Btu/kWhnet)

Best Net Unit Heat Rate

Best Capital Cost

Best Water Use

NUHR (Btu/kWh) 14,145 14,392 14,157

Capital Cost ($/kWnet) 1,186 988 1,188

( )Overall Net Power Output (MW) 354.7 348.6 354.4

Total Capital Cost (Capture & Compression only)

$421 MM $345 MM $421 MM

Solvent Flow rate (gpm) 7,070 7,470 6,970

Lean Solvent Loading (mol CO /mol amine)

0.214 0.218 0.212(mol CO2/mol amine)Rich Solvent Loading (mol CO2/mol amine)

0.454 0.444 0.454

No. Absorber Stages 20 10 20

No. Stripper Stages 14 12 14

Cooling Water Evaporation

37

Cooling Water Evaporation (lb/MWhnet)

5,280 5,507 5,247

Conclusions• Demonstrated importance of optimizing systems

– Large potential improvement over initial design• Essential for comparing potential CC technology• Essential for comparing potential CC technology

– Many non-intuitive interactions– Understand competing objectivesUnderstand competing objectives

• Significant optimization/integration opportunities remain– Solid sorbents– Advanced solvents– Oxycombustion– IGCC– Compression

38

men

t Pilot ScaleDemonstration ProjectsCommercial Deployment

eplo

ym

Risk Analysis&

for D

e Decision Making

uire

d f

Req

uTa

sks

Basic Data

39

T

Uncertainty Quantification - Optimization - Integration

Carbon Capture Simulation Initiative

• Energy, structureCh f fi ld• Charge, force field

• Interaction mechanisms

•Thermo dynamic Properties •Transport Properties

Search for better ILsModify IL functionalityDiscover new IL

A new ionic liquid that exhibits high CO2 permeability and CO2/H2selectivity was identified with this method.

Identify promising concepts and designs Develop optimal designs Quantify technical risk in scale up

Accelerate learning during development & deployment

40

Acknowledgements: Research Team

• Optimization and computational infrastructure– ModeFrontier integration & multi-criteria, simulation-based optimization - NETL (Miller/Eslick)– Derivative-free surrogate model development – CMU (Sahinidis/Cozad/Chang)– Simultaneous Superstructure-based Optimization – CMU (Grossmann/Yang)Simultaneous Superstructure based Optimization CMU (Grossmann/Yang)– Synthesis of Integrated IGCC Systems – CMU (Grossmann/Biegler/Kamath)

• Module development– Base plant modules

• Predictive Plant Models (PC/IGCC) – NETL (Miller/Eslick)• Development of Predictive Turbine Models – NETL (Liese)• Oxycombustion Plant Model – NETL Albany (Summers/Oryshchyn/Harendra)

– Carbon capture modules• Equilibrium & rate-based amine capture – NETL (Miller/Eslick)• Solid sorbent capture systems – NETL (Miller/Lee)p y ( )• Membrane-based separation systems – NETL (Miller/Morinelly)• Compression system – NETL (Miller/Eslick)• Synthesis of Optimal PSA Cycles for CO2 Capture from Flue Gas – CMU (Biegler/Agarwal)• Synthesis of Optimal PSA Cycles for Hydrogen/CO2 Separation – CMU (Biegler/Vetukuri)• Cryogenic separation and hydrate-based separation – NETL (van Osdol)Cryogenic separation and hydrate based separation NETL (van Osdol)

– Water-specific activities• Treated Municipal Wastewater for Power Plant Cooling – CMU (Dzombak/Hsieh)• Modeling Nontraditional Sources of Power Plant Water

– IIT (Abbasian/Arastoopour/Walker/Safari/Strumendo)• Water from Oxycombustion – NETL Albany (Summers/Oryshchyn/Harendra)

41

• Water from Oxycombustion – NETL Albany (Summers/Oryshchyn/Harendra)